tha that was appropriated has gotten into the economy. we are on track to create the jobs. we have said that. cbo has said that. we are going to discuss a little bit about what the recovery act has meant to increase economic growth and job growth and two other things. one, i think the number was 0.2% of -- if you look of the number of projects and number of complaints, it is 0.2%. i do not think that amount of funding has ever been spent with less complaint than what you are seeing. i think there is a practical impact as well in what you're seeing the republicans proposed in their pledge. it guarantees rolling back what

is left to be spent in the recovery act. it will stop important projects dead in their tracks like clean energy projects. it will stop tax relief for 110 million americans. for people that talk about not wanting to raise taxes, that is exactly what the pledge will do. it makes some tough cuts in programs like education that we know are so incredibly vital for preparing the students of today for the jobs of tomorrow. >> do you think it has been a success, and if so, why does the american public not seem to grasp that? >> the stimulus has been a success. it has created jobs. it has created economic growth. it has turned our economy from

one, as you heard the president discussed today, close to slipping into the brink of another great depression, to one that is moving in the right direction. i think there is no doubt that people are right to be continually frustrated by the fact that their economic progress is not fast enough. we will continue to do what we can to strengthen the recovery. >> when did rahm emanuel tell the president? >> i believe he told him officially on wednesday. this is -- his next steps and his decision are obviously something he and the president had talked about since the mayor surprised everybody, including the president and rahm in not running for reelection. >> to outsiders, this may appear insular.

>> i do not know the day mayor daley said he was not running for reelection. it is an awful short time to bring somebody in midstream to do that job. pete will take over some functions that he has had overlapping functions ability for some time. when you go to the oval office, if you turn in one direction, you end up in rahm's, if you turn the other direction, you end up in pete's. i think that pete is well-suited for it. >> there was a report today on human experiments on guatemalans in the 1940's.

secretaries clinton and sebelius have apologized. what is the president's reaction to that? >> obviously this is shocking, tragic and reprehensible. there was a briefing call done out of the department of state. it is tragic and the united states by all means apologizes to all of those that are impacted by this. the president is scheduled to call the leader of guatemala later today and personally expressed that apology. >> it happened in the 1940's, but does it hurt america now? to have a story like this come out? >> obviously, it is a tragedy that has impacted many, but i think we have dealt with it in a way that -- we were brought

this information and acted on this information. i think the apology is one that is well deserved. >> can you say any more about the meeting with the president's economic recovery advisory board? >> i do not have that with me. i will shoot it out to you as soon as i get it. i think it's on my desk. i believe that we will be talking a little bit about community colleges and the challenge of creating a skilled workforce. >> regarding the fund-raiser, is the president going to say anything about the green party candidate who is getting a large percentage of the vote in -- 6% to 8% of the voite in illinois? >> i do not know that off the

top of my head. >> the president met yesterday with democratic leaders. it does he think there is any point in calling republican leaders here for a similar meeting? >> the president was talking with democratic leaders to talk about the next few weeks as we head into an important election, but also what still remains on the calendar. i mention some of that yesterday. i do not have any meetings on the planning schedule with republicans between now and then, but i do not doubt that there may well be meetings before we head into the session mid-november. >> it sounds like there is a lot going on between the white house and republican leaders. >> how so? >> the words president obama used in his fund-raising speeches and political speeches denouncing republicans as

obstructionists, holding back recovery, holding issues hostage. >> those are all things that the republicans have bragged about. i hope the president does not give it a bad name by mentioning what they have done. mitch mcconnell bragged about saying no. john boehner helped a lobbyist offer a pledge that would roll back recovery and raise people's taxes. the president is in many ways reiterating exactly what republicans have set themselves on the stump. they want to stop everything from happening. they want to roll back things like wall street reform. they want to roll back protections that we have seen

put into place as far as health care reform. i do not know that the president does not have the same message the republicans have, and that is, they're bragging about slowing everything down and we are mentioning that that is what they are doing. >> what about drinking slurries? -- slurpees? >> i am going to find the slurpy cancer. i know that is one that is close to your heart -- the slurpy answer. i know that is one that is close to your heart. i tried my best to get them off of tater tots. now i have to address slurpees. it might brighten the president's afternoon. >> pete has been charged with closing guantanamo. why has that not been accomplished? weill he con -- will he continue to focus on it? >> that was a project he was given.

i think it is safe to say there was not as strong up process around seeing that come to fruition as they're needed to be, and that is generally the type of thing he fixes the best. gluck, -- look, we always knew this was going to be hard. we have met resistance even among republicans that, before the president decided we would close it, actually supported closing it. i am not sure pete will have this directly in his portfolio given that now he has a little bit of every portfolio, but he was brought in to create and ensure that we had a good process around that, and i think it has worked much better since. >> do you have a regret about not being able to finish that task? >> the door is not closed on finishing that task. if you asked counter-terrorism

experts and our commanders in the field, they will tell you that that is -- guantanamo bay prison is a recruiting call that echoes around the world for extremism. it is used in recruiting new individuals to that effort, and the president remains committed to ensuring that they will soon not be able to do that. >> counter-terrorism officials say they believe [inaudible] -- osama bin laden was involved in this latest plot -- terrorism and european cities. >> that is not something i'm going to discuss publicly. >> another secretary geithner gave a speech to treasury

employees and how history would view tarp. how was that affecting the market? >> if you take a look at aig, converting to common shares of stock, as of yesterday, that would be a $20 billion profit. i'm not walking way out on a limb to say that was not the conventional wisdom. most people in their accounting of the troubled assets relief program, was that that money was gone. the briefing the president received reiterated that financial institutions, the

investment made by t.a.r.p. in the financial institutions is likely to yield a process. we are at roughly one-tenth of the cost today that we were at last august. this is not an accident. if you take some of the steps that were taken at aig or some of the steps that were taken at places like gm or chrysler, this created a bit of a star but this -- stir but this was not money to meet the balance sheet for balanced sake. sake. money's this required some very tough cultural changes in the company, management changes, and it changed the way these companies were operated because they were not operating in a way the provided insurance to anybody -- assurance to anybody that they would be here for

long. instead of handing out money and perpetuating a series of bad practices, we made investments to ensure that the jobs of millions of those who work not only in ottawa facilities, but -- auto facilities, but an auto parts manufacturing, to save those jobs, but to ensure that we were not just handing out a check and in three months they would need to come out for another. we instituted management changes that these companies back making -- are now back making a profit again. they're much healthier than when the president assumed office 20 months ago. >> why is that not scoring political points? -- t.a.r.p. such a political point? >> i will be honest with you. i do not know the people know a lot of what i just said. we will help tell it. i hope everyone will too,

because it is not the conventional wisdom. a i t alone was -- aig alone was, again, the conventional wisdom was put $180 billion in that column because we will never get it back. we know it will take time to sell the common stock. this is not something that is all going to get sold tomorrow. it is a pretty big chunk of money, but i think we're likely to end up with a profit. i saw a release before i came out here on shares of citigroup. they netted a profit. that is because we have taken steps to ensure important management changes but also to ensure an economy where companies like that can function and make a profit. >> as a successive aig suggests -- that aig and citigroup are doing well, does that suggest

that they would have done well and did not need to -- does the success of aig suggest that they would have done well without the bailout? >> if you look at gm and chrysler, if we had not bail them out, you would have had to go see a new gm or chrysler car in the smithsonian. aig is a very successful insurance company that somebody decided to put a 100 -- put a hedge fund on top of. it turned out to be a bad decision. i think, left to their own devices, these companies would not have seen a turnaround. i think there were some important management decisions that we impacted, and because of that, we see companies moving in the right direction. we see taxpayers that will recoup their money and then some. i think that is important to know. >> could you talk about how you see the white house changing in terms of strategy, culture or

atmosphere? >> there is no doubt that there is a personality difference between pete and rahm. that is the understatement of the day. that being said, pete has been very involved in this organization and this president -- with this president since late 2004. i remember having dinner with pete and then senator-elect obama. the president said, there are two names on my list for a chief of staff. you are the only name on one list and there are a bunch of names on the other less. -- list. pete has been important to this office for more than six years. he has been involved in almost everything that has happened here -- the strategic, the tactical. i think in many ways you will

see important continuity over the next several months, which is important to the functioning of how this president works. >> in thinking abut the shape of -- about the shape of the white house and personnel decisions, will the outcome of the election determine what kind of people you want to bring into the white house, including a new chief of staff? >> it certainly could. honestly, that is hard to define -- divine three, four, five weeks away. as we discussed yesterday, there is always natural turnover in and in ministration. -- administration. we are seeing that natural turnover. regardless of the outcome of the election, pete is in charge of what has to be put in place.

i have no doubt that the decisions of that reorganization will take into account what ultimately happens in the election, even as we now begin to identify a cast of people that can fill dr. summers' job or other places in the white house. >> many democrats are saying that the white house needs a new face to deal with what is likely to be a transcendent republican president -- presence, if not a republican majority on the hill. pete does not provide that phase. -- new face to the continuity. >> i do not know where you're hearing that. i do not know if you can break down what you are hearing from democrats and republicans. is that mainly on capitol hill? pete is a fairly well known quantity up there.

i think a lot of people on the democratic and republican side have dealt with pete when he was chief of staff for senator- n daschle. pete was a senate staffer for part of 2007. it is not that long ago that he was up there. we have several weeks to go before an election, and obviously, without knowing the results it is hard to divine what the message will be. >> will those decisions be made after the election? >> i do not anticipate that they will be made prior to the election. >> do you have a time? -- a set time for the interim? does the president have a time

frame in mind? >> i do not, but i do not think anything happens there for the next several months. >> are you having a meeting with -- did pete have a meeting with congressional leaders later in the day? >> i can check. >> regarding the middle class tax extension, has the president made it clear that you once that -- that he wants that even if he has to give on something else? >> i was not there for the briefing. the president reiterated his position on ensuring that middle-class tax cuts not expired. -- expire. he does not want the cost of that happening to be $700 billion in tax cuts for people who do not need it. >> is there any chance that congress will not act to extend the tax cuts before the election?

>> that is a question for republicans on capitol hill. i think that this president's position is very well-known. we'll have time to deal with that in mid-november, when the senate and house come back. there are a number of issues that we have to deal with. we have children's nutrition. we have, obviously, the tax stuff. there is a very important s.t.a.r.t. treaty that pastor the committee with important bipartisan support and we expect that it will be passed by the full senate.

>> word is that, in a lame duck session, the president will not have the same dynamic. you will have the same members of congress but it -- >> tell me what that feels like and i will be able to answer it. >> [unintelligible] is that india's a seat on the united nations security council? what you think the united states and president obama expect as far as india in the war in afghanistan and the region? >> look, obviously, that is a series of broad questions. the security council stuff -- and i anticipate that the world economy and our bilateral

business relationships with india will be an important part of that trip. from a security standpoint, obviously afghanistan and pakistan and how that is all interrelated in that area of asia, particularly with india, will be a big focus of what the president discusses with the prime minister. >> we have not seen any videotapes from osama bin laden in the last couple of years, only audiotapes. [unintelligible] the floods came in. the people of pakistan [unintelligible] >> i doubt they will be converted -- comforted in getting the aid is necessary from someone who is not showing their face to the world. i think there will be comforted

by the bilateral relationship they have with this country that has no problem standing up here or anywhere in the world. we are pledging our commitment and assistance to helping people in a tragic time. >> is rahm emanuel going to continue to be involved in any decisions with the president and will he remain his -- retain his security clearance? >> i do not know the answer to the second question. in terms of the first question, i think the president will always listen to the inside full -- insightful and candid opinions that rahm emanuel has shared with the president and the staff for 20 months. he is going on to a fairly busy endeavor, so my guess is that

his focus will be on that, as it should be. i do not want to take anything away from what the president said in terms of the friendship that he shares with rahm and what he has meant to this staff and to getting things done. i will check on the security clearance. i honestly have no idea how that works. >> does he have a staff tracking system? -- you mentioned that he will take over the office. does he also take over the staff tracking system? >> it usually involves yelling. [laughter] where is so and so? i do not know if that was a fancy intercom that he had installed. [laughter] >> did he take the chip out?

>> i had to wear an ankle bracelet on my wrist that would denote my location. [laughter] it is a group of us that start every day in that office. regardless of who that person is, we will be there monday morning at 7:30 as we have every day for the past 20 months. >> is today his last day or is it sunday? >> i believe today is his last day. i think there will be a little celebration for him later today up in the residence. the fish was a funny idea. it was austan's idea. it stunk, butit was a funny way for people from chicago to say goodbye. >> where is it now? >> is the special. -- it is the special. [laughter] the menu -- i will give jon

favreau credit for this joke. it was supposed to be east meets west fish tacos, and they have already updated the board to say east meets midwest fish tacos. i have not eaten yet and it will not be the fish tacos. >> you have said that this departure is part of the natural rhythm of history in the white house. is there any casual talk about other departures? >> i have had a conversation -- i have certainly not had that conversation with the president. i do not know if others have. again, it is hard for me to deliver that answer, not knowing honestly what other people have talked to the president about. i will say this.

obviously, it is a day of extraordinary staff changes. any time a chief of staff comes and goes, but our to do list that we have today will be largely the same as what we have on monday. in many ways, i do not see a lot of operational changes. we have the same series of challenges before us. >> others administrations would say, now is the time, if you are ready to leave, make that known. is it that time here? >> i think each individual themselves is going to have to make those decisions based on their individual circumstances. >> organizationally, is this that time? >> i think naturally it is. i have not seen or heard a broader call for making a decision.

i do not think you need an e- mail to understand that there is a natural cycle to this. two years is in many ways a breaking point in that cycle. >> following up on my question to you yesterday. i asked about the protests. civil rights leaders have been talking to staffers at the white house about the weekend. your address to the issue of the economy, but you never addressed the protest itself. could you talk to me about the protest? >> i do not know that anything will probably change my answer from yesterday. we have gone through the most tumultuous economic time for

virtually everybody in this country. historic depths of job loss, of economic retraction. it is important to note that we are heading now in a different direction. we are making progress. . making a misimpression that adding together at the job losses from the last three recessions -- if none of them would be easy to get out of, how would something that is three times as bad be easy to get out of? we had three crises happen simultaneously.

housing, job losses and the financial crisis. it was a perfect storm of economic disaster. >> but the perfect storm is being led by people who are friendly with this administration, not community leaders who will be marching in this demonstration. they're marching about education, justice and jobs. what does he say about that? your allies are marching about something you're not dealing with. >> i will take our record on any of the topics that you just mentioned over the past 20 months and compare them to the 20 months before that until they're comfortable with that comparison. -- and feel very comfortable

with that comparison. we lost more than 8.5 million jobs. that was not going to get fixed overnight. it is not going to get fixed over a lot of nights. it is going to take a long time. if it was a simple problem, it would have been solved before we got here. it was not. when we got here, things were going drastically in the wrong direction. the president made some important steps, some courageous steps to turn that around. it is going to take some time. i will say this about our education. it has been the focus of a lot of activity and you have seen the president talk about it. i will put our record on education reform up against any president at any time. what secretary duncan and president obama have been able to do in getting states to make decisions to strengthen their standards is a once-in-a- lifetime reform. it is important, because it matters to the types of families that it raised some of the types of economy we have, the type of income they have.

it is important reform. i have been given a note that says rahm emanuel will not maintain his security clearance as of his departure today. >> and no more certification -- and no more secret service either? >> not that i am aware of. we can google that too. [laughter] >> i will take one more question. >> the president has spoken about enthusiasm gap. is he worried about that? >> i think anybody who read the polls can see that republicans are more excited about the upcoming election then democrats. if you look at the nbc poll this week, it showed a lessening in that enthusiasm gap.

>> what is the message to people who might be inclined to sit it out? >> get involved. it is too important not to. everything they care about is at stake. the direction of our economy is at stake. the direction of our foreign policy is the state. -- is at stake. people have an important investment in the outcome of this election. >> the president gave a speech to the un speaking about the middle east. can you say what he has been doing personally to keep those talks going, whether there was a memo to benjamin not -- benjamin netanyahu and? is he willing to lay out to the israelis what kind of incentives

they can expect to see? >> our special envoy has been in the region over the past several days. he met with both parties. we were disappointed at the news of the expiration of the moratorium last sunday. the did not dampen our resolve -- that did not dampen our resolve to continue to move this process along. the parties that came here several weeks ago came here and demonstrated a genuine seriousness in getting something done. that remains our mission. the president had a meeting right before i came down here. he was meeting with secretary of state clinton to get an update from the region. she in our special envoy george mitchell are our point people and negotiations.

-- she and special envoy george mitchell are our point people in the negotiations. we understand that there will be hurdles along the way to a comprehensive and important piece. -- peace. we will work to get over each of those hurdles as they come, and keep the talks going with the sense of purpose is that you -- purposefulness that you have witnessed here and will witness in subsequent talks. -- thank you, guys. have a good weekend. >> senate armed services committee chairman carl levin defended the use of a drone strikes in afghanistan. this is about an hour. t one was.

thanks to the council for inviting me to speak to you all today. and again, thanks to tom for moderating here. the council plays an invaluable role in providing a forum for discussing some of the most difficult and important issues that our nation faces. and i hope i can contribute to that mission in some small way today. i'd like to talk this morning about the united states strategy in afghanistan. how it's working and what i believe is a key to its success. there were two main elements to the strategy that the president announced at west point in december. first, he called for a surge of 30,000 u.s. troops, the last of which are just now arriving in afghanistan. to seize the initiative and to build the capacity of the afghan security forces. the strategy is to clear, hold,

build and transfer, with transfer to strengthened afghan security forces being the essential addition to the familiar clear hold and build. second, the president announced that after 18 months, beginning in july of 2011, we will begin to reduce u.s. forces in afghanistan and accelerate a transfer of responsibilities to the afghan government. so how is it going? the picture is very mixed. there's been significant progress in securing previously taliban-held areas and in killing or capturing insurgent leaders. but the overall security situation is still troubling and efforts to clear some areas have met greater resistance than expected.

training of afghan security forces is ahead of schedule. afghan troops are more often planning and leading operations especially in the south where the fighting is most intense but there is mixed evidence about those troops' effectiveness. while private contractors are a necessary part of operations in afghanistan, our contracting practices have often detracted from our mission by empowering warlords and power brokers. the arm services committee will soon release a report addressing just that issue. despite sporadic attempts to root out corruption, it remains deeply embedded in the afghan government and police. in pakistan, which is is linked to afghanistan, officials have taken some steps to rein in extremist groups that threaten stability in pakistan.

but they have so far failed to take the steps to address major threats to afghanistan from within pakistan. small groups of low level taliban fighters are laying down their weapons and commanders say prospects for their reintegration into civil society are real. but the "new york times" reports that the reintegration program overall has stalled you. -- has stalled. i could spend all of my time on any one of those topics but i want to focus on the second fundamental element of president obama's afghan strategy, the july, 2011, date for the beginning of u.s. troop reductions. the publication of bob woodward's latest book has brought attention to the pressure president obama faced in establishing that strategy. and the president continues under pressure from inside and outside the military to build

flexibility into that july 2011 date. i want to tell you why i believe that sticking to that date is the key to success and why president obama should not and i believe will not modify the july 2011 date. the time the administration was conducting its afghanistan strategy review last fall, i did not support a surge of u.s. combat troops into afghanistan. my concern was and remains today a that a large foreign combat troop presence could play into the hands of the taliban whose propaganda proclaims that the united states and its allies are seeking to dominate afghanistan. i also believe large additional deployments would make it less likely that the afghanistan people, government and security forces would urgently prepare to secure their nation's future. excuse me.

so i called for additional trainers and other enablers to build the capacity of afghan security forces so they could become the principal source of security in afghanistan. once the president announced his decision, i focused my efforts on what i believe is essential to success in afghanistan. building the afghan army's capability and getting afghan troops to take the lead in operations. that belief is based on my conviction that it will be up to the afghan forces and people to succeed in this conflict if they want a better future than the grim prospect the taliban offer. that is why i have pushed so hard for training and equipping the afghan security forces. and why i have personally pressed president karzai and defense minister warzak on

numerous occasions to put more afghan troops in the area where the fighting is the highest. when marines launched a mission in helmand province there were five marines on the ground for every one afghan soldier. that ratio is now 1 to 1. and we finally are seeing afghan forces leading some operations in other districts around and near kandahar. having afghans lead these operations is the taliban's worst nightmare because it gives the lie to the taliban propaganda that portrays western troops as hostile okay pyres. afghans themselves will be more effective than our troops winning the trust of the afghan people. it's been said by some who oppose the july, 2011, date that the taliban have an expression. that the west has the watches but we have the time.

that is the taliban are more patient and will simply wait us out until july, 2011. well, i do hope they hide and wait. because at the end of their wait, they will face a much larger, much stronger afghan force. time is not on the side on the taliban unless the afghan leadership squanders the time between now and july 2011. critics much u.s. strategy say that setting a date to reduce our troops shows a lack of resolve on our country, the purpose of that date is to strengthen afghan resolve to take the steps necessary for success. and our commitment endures. the president has adopted a

realistic, long-term strategy of presence in afghanistan and in other parts of the region. but that doesn't require an unsustainable, open-ended commitment to an arbitrary number of u.s. troops. the yardstick against which progress should be measured in the months ahead, whether relating to security governance or economic development is the extent to which afghans take the lead and accept responsibility for their security and their country's future. standing by that july, 2011, date is the key to that progress, a crucial incentive for the afghans to approach their task with urgency. if the date wobbles, so does the sense of urgency. and as secretary gates said just this week, quote, all of our efforts must build the trust and self-reliance the afghans will

need to govern and protect themselves over the long term. and then he notably added, and this he said very clearly for the first time, in my memory, quote, encouraging that self-reliance is why beginning a responsible drawdown next summer is so important. and i'm convinced after talking to president obama and to high administration officials that the president will not waffle in his decision to begin reducing our force levels by july, 2011. i know there's going to be lots of pressure to do so. the publication of bob woodward's book made clear that the decision to establish that date was subject to great debate within the administration. the book has fueled that already was a contest in the media. a search for daylight between

the president and the pentagon. setting up does one dare to think even rooting for the conflict between the two. let's face it, such a conflict would make for great copy. top pentagon officials have appeared for the arm senate committee i've asked them directly whether they support and agree with the president's policy including the july, 2011, date. secretary gates, admiral mullen, general mcchrystal and general mattis and general petraeus all do. there's been some fraying at the edges. some efforts to reduce the certainty of the president's order. general petraeus has referred to july 2011 as a date when reductions are scheduled to begin. or that lack certainty. he said that his agreement with the date was, quote, based on

projections on conditions in july, 2011. he suggested that those projections might be faulty. general petraeus' comments last month raising the possibility that he may recommend against any reductions next july got front page lead story coverage in the "new york times." general conway, the outgoing marine commandant said, quote, it will be a few years before the marines can hand over any territory to the afghans. and woodward quotes general petraeus as telling lieutenant general doug lute at the white house, quote, all we have to do is begin to show progress and that will be sufficient to add time to the clock. and we will get what we need. now, it's true that some of the these statements are in part attempts to reassure leaders in

the region that the united states will not abandon afghanistan starting next july. and it's perfectly natural and understandable. for military commanders to seek maximum flexibility in carrying out orders and to voice their well-known reluctance to have firm deadlines. but these comments also insert ambiguity into what was designed by the president as an unambiguous signal to the afghans that they must move urgently. and i have tried everywhere i could to build resistance to the pressure to turn a date certain into a goal or something based on conditions rather than what it is, the commander in chief's decision and order. i think open-ended commitments

encourage drift and permit inaction, firm timelines demand attention and forced action. we can look back several decades to the war in vietnam for an example of how open-ended military commitments reduce incentives to host governments to take necessary and often difficult steps for their nation's future. thankfully, we avoided that trap in iraq. while some in washington argued that we should maintain an open-ended commitment to high troop levels, the bush administration established a wiser course, fixed deadlines, first for the withdrawal of international forces from iraq cities and later for the withdrawal of all u.s. forces, established a timeline that has guided iraq's government and our own, forcing the iraqis and you say to build iraq's own security forces and government to the

point where they can secure their own nation. some of the events in afghanistan itself already illustrate the value of firm timelines. lieutenant general bill caldwell, who heads our efforts to train afghan security forces, has told me more than once that the president's announcement of the july 2011 date was a major factor in improved afghan recruiting success. the date he has said focused afghan leaders on the need to speed the growth of the afghan army. president karzai needs prodding, believe me. he prefers to see himself as the head of a united people and not as the commander in chief of a military that at must at times use force against some of those same people. general mcchrystal had to press

president karzai to take ownership of a campaign in helmand seeking unsuccessfully for far too long his approval of the start of those operations. president karzai's approval. it also took too long for president karzai to meet with elders in preparation for the campaign in and around kandahar city. and when president karzai speaks out publicly about coalition military operations, it is more often to criticize civilian casualties than in support of our operations and his own army's operations. that is a more powerful reason to stick to the july 2011 date for accelerating the transaction to afghanistan security responsibility. namely, that transition is what the afghan people want. as president obama has said, make no mistake.

this transition will begin because open-ended war serves neither our interest nor the afghan peoples. the afghan people want their own security forces and not international troops to protect them. i saw this more a year ago, excuse me. i saw this here more than a year ago when i visited a gathering of pastun elders in a provincial town -- sorry. in a provincial town in province. when i asked how long they wanted international troops to stay in afghanistan, they said we should remain as long as it took to epi. -- to help train their own army and then leave. plans adopted at the national

peace conference in jurga and in kabul, beyond the wishes of the afghan people we should stick to the july 2011 date because of the political message that it sends to the karzai government. the afghan people are growing increasingly disillusioned with a central government that they perceive is controlled by corrupt and predatory power brokers and warlords. this disillusionment threatens to damage afghanistan's national institution, the army. because if the afghan people begin to perceive the army as protecting a corrupt and ineffective national government, that respect that the afghan people have for their army will

wane. sticking to the july 2011 date keeps the pressure on the karzai government to earn support for a national consensus against the return of taliban domination by curbing demonstration of effectiveness of the afghan government. i also do not that think we can ignore public sentiment here at home. increasingly, the american people across party lines question the cost and precious lives and in dollars of maintaining a large presence in afghanistan. a gallup poll in august showed that a large majority favored setting a timeline for reductions in u.s. troop levels. failure to adhere to the timeline that we have set can only undermine public support for the afghan mission.

while this factor helps build the case for firmness on the deadline, i do not believe that president obama's firmness is motivated by politics. he believes as i believe that setting a july 2011 date and sticking to it is our best chance of success in afghanistan. rather, signaling to president karzai that he can postpone the some uncertain time of the difficult steps he must take to secure his nation's future. perhaps the afghans will not succeed. despite some promising recent signs to build security forces large and effective in us to secure their own country. perhaps afghanistan will not resolve the ethnic and

geographic divisions and grievances that threaten to fracture a much battered nation. perhaps president karzai and his government, despite all of our prodding will not build the kind of government that can gain the confidence of the afghan people. none of those are easy tasks but it would be far riskier to signal to president karzai that he has an unlimited amount of time. let me close with a reminder. this discussion is not an academic exercise. i received a letter not long ago from a michigan marine who now leads a platoon in one of the most dangerous areas of afghanistan. the struggles of the bravery and sacrifice of the men that he leads. his letter was a powerful

reminder of how much we owe him and the other brave men and women serving in afghanistan. and one of the things that we owe them is the best decisions that we can humanly make. here in washington, we too often measure our decisions by poll ratings or by positive or negative media coverage. on the battlefield, decisions are measured by whether missions are accomplished and whether lives are saved or lost. the stakes are too high. for us to give anything less than our most thoughtful deliberation in crafting the policies that we ask those who serve to carry out. you are part of that process, that deliberative process. and i'm grateful for your invitation to join you in it. thanks so much. and i'd be happy to try to answer some of your questions. [applause]

>> thank you very much for some very thought-provoking comments. before i open the floor for questions i would like to invoke the authoritarian power of the chair to ask a couple of things that have been on my mind and those of colleagues. senator, you warned about the danger of ambiguity surrounding the july 2011 withdrawal date set by the president. but isn't some of that ambiguity -- well, conscious or planned by the administration to speak to different audiences? the day after the west point speech in which the president laid that out, there were senior officials at the white house, at state, at dod saying we're not going to rush for the exits. it's going to be conditions-based. these are officially sanctioned comments so what's going on? >> i think there is ambiguity. and one of its conscious or

subconscious purposes is to transmit the message of commitment to afghanistan and to the region. at the same time, there's a message of determination on to transfer responsibility for security and governance to the afghan government. that is an inherent ambiguity. that's a mixed message almost built in. and so the answer is, yes. as a matter of fact, you mentioned the day after the speech at west point there was already a statement about not rushing for the exits. a number of people, including general petraeus, including the president himself, has said that the pace of the reductions is going to be conditions-based. the fact that it's going to begin is not conditions-based. that's set.

for the reasons that i gave. the pace of reductions is said to be conditions-based. at the same time, those leaders have said it's going to be gradual. well, if it's conditions-based, then you don't decide how -- whether it's gradual or rapid in advance. there's ambiguity right in that very statement. and everybody has contributed, i think, to that ambiguity. the leaders have contributed including the president who has both said the pace is conditions-based at the same time he said it's not going to be rapid. it's not going to be quick. so the answer to your question is, yes. and there are different audiences that leaders need to speak to and do speak to. hopefully trying to make both points simultaneously and i think they're both legitimate points by the way, but there is some inconsistency and ambiguity. >> as you're watching the

potential redeployments next july is there a number or a size that will satisfy you as sufficient? what is the metric that senator levin will say, yes, the president has made good on his promise to begin withdrawing? >> what, the number -- what the mantra is, is something that i happen to think is the right one, which is keep that date. don't create an ambiguity for some of the reasons that i gave. but stick to the point that the speed of reductions and the location of reductions by the way is going to be based on conditions at the time. those are totally consistent positions. and that is the position that i take. in other words, when someone the other day said the taliban is going to be -- if they want to hide and wait, that's fine with whoever the speaker was. i think it was the marine

commandant but whoever said it because they're going to really be disheartened, the taliban, when they wake up in august of 2011 and see, hey, we're still here in large numbers. that will really dishearten the taliban. ... we will wake up on august 11th and hopefully see a strong afghan army that is fully equipped and able to protect the afghan people. we cannot determine now either the pace of those reductions or the location. i do not have a metric.

>> you mentioned recent disclosures of what we have already learned, that there were deep divisions. we knew what counterinsurgency requires, a lot of troops, a lot of money, a lot of patience. do you think that what has emerged after this vicious internal fight is going to be successful, or is it so hobbled that it cannot win? >> even if you do not accept every conversation exactly, there was a lively private and also public debate, and there should be. the troops and deserve our best, our best equipment, our best training, our total support.

they're getting that at least. at least the intent is to give them that. there is no division among the american people, regardless of the division on the policy, there is no division on giving our troops total support. we saw the walter reed event and public reaction to how those veterans were being treated. but the troops also deserve a lively debate and discussion as to what the right policy is. when they see congress debate or when they read a book showing a lively debate, i hope their reaction is that these are people who want us to succeed, regardless of what the outcome of the policy is. whether success lies in this direction or in the direction that by allied, people want us layed, eed -- that i out lie

people want us to succeed. i think our obligation is to give our troops the best. july date for the redeployment, the administration has promised a review of the strategy. as we talk to senior officials involved they have taken the same, they expect maybe to jiggle the antenna but not to change the channel on the strategy. so they are accepting and moving forward. i guess just ask again, is the strategy sound in its fundamentals, given the rather compromised and somewhat hobbled debate that formed it, are you satisfied that we don't need to reconsider the point strategy? >> i think the strategy is sound but i also think it is useful to challenge that strategy, and those that believe it's either not working or those who believe it wasn't sound to begin with, should have that opportunity. to make a very strong challenge.

i believe that's healthy. i don't think people and policy positions take it personally. they shouldn't. these are critically important policy decisions. i hope that those who feel the policy either isn't working or wasn't sound to begin with will have that opportunity. we shouldn't prejudge what the outcome of december is, even though i happen to believe it is the right strategy. and there's some evidence that progress, but it's essential of the importance of keeping that day to help it work. i think we are to welcome people who want to challenge that conclusion. >> i have one question before i opened up to the floor. you mention in your comments that the lessons of iraq, applying a deadline, was very helpful. and i don't want iraq to be the forgotten war, even today. there are 50,000 american troops there, and the loss of those. secretary gates recalled the final scene of the movie charlie wilson's war, about afghanistan

where, after spending billions of dollars to support anti-soviet forces, we had victory. the soviets left. so did america. no more money, nor my intention. the result was 9/11. do you see the same risk in iraq in future years? congress is already cutting a billion and a half dollars from the state department's request to operate in iraq at exactly the time the mission is going from a military to a civilian leader. what are the risks and dangers? >> i think it's a mistake to reduce the support for the diplomatic, economic, soft power, sometimes called -- i happen to support reducing the amount of money going to the iraq by the way. i think they can afford it. and we should not be putting the requests of $2 billion this year, which is actually more than last year, for the iraq army. but you believe we should not

reduce the amount of support on the other areas, the nonmilitary areas that are so important long term to our success. and i think to iraq's success. >> thank you very much. i invite members of the audience. audience. please wait for the microphone. identify yourself and your organization. and please keep the question short sweden get to as many as possible. yes, ma'am. >> thank you so much for your remarks. my name is christine. i'm with georgetown university. i the question really looking beyond the date described are pulling out, and that is, as you know the afghan national security force is are not sustainable, certainly long-term horizon for afghanistan to ever being able to pay those forces is a long ways away. so given our budgeting process, what guarantee do we have that we built this large bnsf that we be around to pick up those bills that afghanistan can't have. and related to that, it seems

that we do need some sort of strategic vehicle with afghanistan. because our interests, al qaeda, are not going to diminished even as we returned from this coin commission in our interest in afghanistan. so how do we, thinking about our relationship with afghanistan moving forward after the july 2011 date? >> the second half of your question is that we should be negotiating over this period of time, a long-term strategic relationship with afghanistan. we are going to be there and should be there for a long time. with military capability by the way. focusing on special forces and a few other parts of it, and this is not a rush to the exits. it's got to be a clear statement to afghanistan about the responsibility, but the alternative to that isn't a rush to the exits. it's the continuing of the relationship and all of its components. in terms of the cost of

maintaining the afghan army, the cost of maintaining that army is such a tiny part of the cost of maintaining 100,000 troops in afghanistan, that i think the relative, i won't call it a bargain, that's the wrong word, the relative value, supporting the afghan army, troops are paid to a $3000 a year. may be one, whatever fraction it cost us to maintain our own troops is very good value. and i think it will be seen by congress as good value over a long period of time. i'm not too concerned actually about that. when we look at how long we stayed in various parts of the world, including korea, and much greater cost with our own troops. i think the value of the support for the afghan security forces will be seen as something which

is clearly worth the support. >> one more here in the front. >> good morning, mr. chairman. i'm u.s. army retired. i want to thank you for your long tradition of support for our men and women in uniform. troops overseas deployed, and also for your leadership on the senate armed services committee. my question, although different thing. thank you for your remarks related, given the long history of bipartisanship on the senator armed services committee and in bottom and importance of the authorization bill that's been still imaging in the senate right now, as you all know. what are your thoughts and what you see as prospects of being able to get a bill that is obviously very important to support for our troops this year through the congress? >> i was disappointed that there

was an unwillingness on the part of the republicans to proceed with the bill. and i don't want to say anything which will make it more difficult for us to return to it in our lame-duck session. other than to say i was obviously disappointed by it. so i don't want to engage in any rhetoric which will make that cost more difficult. but i think the prospects are good. it's going to take obviously bipartisan cooperation, which is a tradition on our committee. i think every chairman has worked hard to maintain that tradition, and i surely am. so in answer to directly answer your question, i think with a reasonable chance. i've talked to send or read that we can come back to the bill. and as you know, because of your background, one of the challenges is not just working

out differences in the senate on the floor, but in working out differences with the house and simply a challenge of physically putting together what the house did and what the senate hopefully will do in a lame-duck, takes a lot of work and time, i don't know having thousands of pages. but you've got to go over paragraph by paragraph. and i'd like to find some way that we could get that process going in advance. it's not easy to do obvious he. we haven't acted on the bill. but even if we succeed in the senate, which i hope we will housing the bill, in november. you still have that process of conference which is not just a bunch of people getting together working out differences. it's a huge staff project physically, getting thousands of

paragraphs that aren't in contest worked out. that's as much of a challenge, frankly, that time problem is getting the bill done. of course, and i wanted to say i made a reference to a report. i think it's going to be coming out on the contracting issue, and that is a bipartisan report. it's important that it be, and it is. so a deadline for troop withdrawal is want to focus the mind of the afghan government, on the budget, and congress. >> i knew it was coming. perfectly fair. >> wait for the mic phone, please. >> frank oliver from cq. how you doing? you have been a strong proponent from this timeline. have been some difficulties for usaid to keep with the pace of the coin operation. we saw that in can car with the plan, the military decide to go ahead with a serb proposal.

is the timeline -- and by the way, security has been a real problem. contract hashes are very high right now. so the question is is this time when having a very negative impact on usaid's ability to do what they need to do in the short timeframe, given the security circumstances? >> the problem with security, that's the fundamental issue. the question is how do you achieve security. so it's going to come right back to the question, how do you best achieve security. our busy, our troops have a role, but they are also targets. they also give the taliban their propaganda. so if getting the afghan forces, particularly the army, increased in size and capability is the best way to achieve security, then that kind of answers your question. there's an immediate need for security while this process is

happening. and by the way, the afghan army is going to begin, is going to begin to secure our convoys. just the way they are securing afghan convoys, particularly our fuel trucks. so if we build up the afghan army and help that process move more quickly, and it's moving at great speed, kind of delay on the officers side of the army, but nonetheless, the more we can speed up process up, the way i analyze it, the faster we're going to get the security. and the faster we get the security, the faster we will be able to get to the soft power, the aig and the other kind of economic development nations which are so important. >> nancy schaefer from the center of strategic and international studies. senator, my experience deadlines

in south asia after 30 years of the foreign service, mostly in the area come is quite different. i don't think that either the pakistanis or the afghans react well to deadlines. but we're stuck with that were because they have truly interpreted it the way you said. but my question arises from that, and it's about pakistan. do you believe that pakistan's expectations that we are on the way out and going to be more decidedly on the way out, next july, effectively constrains us to accept pakistan's concept of what afghanistan ought to look like after we're gone? we've worked for half a century with close relationships through pakistan that are based in part on the verge of judges and their priority, clearly, is to minimize or eliminate indian influence in afghanistan and are

concerned about al qaeda's presence is, at best, a secondary issue, i believe, for pakistan. >> i think there is a reaction in pakistan to that date, which is inaccurate. because i think there was some feeling that that reflects the decision to head for the exits. it doesn't. there's been a big ever since that speech in pakistan to show the afghans -- excuse me, the pakistan leaders that it does not reflect the abandonment of the region, or a rush to the exits, since it doesn't. but that reaction is something which is need to be dealt with, and has been. with only some success. obviously. recently i met with the afghan,

with the pakistan foreign minister, and i think there's a recognition in pakistan, at least among the leadership, that, in fact, there's a strategic relationship which we are trying to build up in the region. there's a staying power in the region. we are not heading for the exits. that's a gradual awareness. the sooner they accept it, the better off we will all be. the bigger problem, i think in pakistan, is the public reaction to the drone attacks, whether they are accurate or inaccurate. and that is creating, i think, a much greater problem for us than overcoming the false reaction, the setting of the day to begin reduction of u.s. troops in afghanistan. but the answer to question is yes, it is a challenge to overcome that inaccurate

reaction to the setting of that date you. >> jiminy. >> have you been, jim? >> good to see you again. >> building on the comment about pakistan, i'd first like, i spend a lot of time in afghanistan in the peace corps. i couldn't agree more than what you said. the drone policies are causing a huge blowback against us. just where did we authorize this? these killings of individuals, and in some else's country which is not part of our regular military mission. i think the cia has got to be brought into the policy debate here about this sort of thing. it's causing a huge reaction against us. and if we become as i'm sure you do, the hearts and minds of the region are the most important thing. you can't solve things militarily in the long run. it's a case of measurable, we kill mr. x.

company unmeasurable we will get 14 of the people we weren't even trying to hit. and in that culture you killed my uncle, have to try to kill you. so it's a huge cause. i'm not sure we are measuring, we can't measure the unmeasurable. we know it's real. we are looking at the measure we have, mr. x. thank you. >> the drone attacks, they are and obviously at military targets, targets of people who are out to kill us next door. i believe are legitimate. attack your enemy, and if they are out, wherever they're hiding come if they're out to kill you, you can go after them unless there is a very, very strong opposition to it on the part of a country where those targets are present it like we went to afghanistan we didn't ask

permission of afghanistan to go after al qaeda. they were there. now we are in afghanistan. we are fighting, would you agree with what we're doing or not. we are there. people who are attacking us are coming across the border, many instances, not exclusively, from pakistan. it is legitimate to talk of the people are targeting you. now, the reaction inside pakistan is, first of all, there's a significant improvement in the accuracy. the minister, the foreign minister of pakistan acknowledged this yesterday to me. there are mistakes. there is a huge improvement in the accuracy and the reduction of mistakes. finally, we pay a price. i have to agree with you. there's a price, so you've got to weigh your price. i've got to today, i've been critical of the pakistan

government for publicly going after us when we are accurately hitting somebody, whether it's the economies or whether whoever it is. we are accurate, there is still public criticism, or was until a few months ago. and i have real problems with the pakistan government publicly attacking as when we accurately hit a target when it is clear that they don't object privately, they don't object. they object when we make mistakes. they do. we have pakistani to us by mistakes, apparently the other day, and as a strong blowback which is understandable. but it's when a mistake is not made, when the target is hit accurately, that i've got

problems with the public attack, which then creates that huge animosity against us. when it is, number one, done with at least the acquiescence of the pakistan government. and number two, when they are failing to go after those targets. now, they've gone after some terrorist targets inside pakistan, but the ones they've gone after are the ones that threaten the pakistan government. they haven't gone after the haqqani that haven't gone after the others. those folks are attacking across the border. they've got a responsibility go after them. and having carried out that responsibility. >> yes, on the aisle here. >> good morning, sir. i am one of the council for international affairs fellow. you said you find a strategy

basically sound. my question is, is it only appropriate for afghanistan? when you look at the expansion of the truth and the deadline, and it's not in help and build come is to help space to operate from if you look at place like yemen and somalia come without also in those locations, and if not, why not? >> i doubt the same strategy is going to be applicable in any other location. i would not try automatically say yes, and i would take an awful lot of thinking before i can tell you what the right strategy is. but it's not at least necessarily the same strategy. and i don't think any strategy is complicated as this is come is designed for one particular situation, kind of on a cookie-cutter basis. there are lessons to be learned, by the way, including the

lessons of the importance of the accuracy of your target. but when you're using drones. but i don't think in terms of sin in large numbers of troops that i would say yeah, that's the right way to do it. so i would be very cautious before applying the same strategy, that i would surely want to look at the lessons that could be learned in terms of pieces of that strategy, or pieces not to be used in other places, including yemen and somalia which it is a different from afghanistan and very different from each other. >> senator, you are limited -- >> please identify yourself. >> i am from abroad. after all your trips to the region, you have some criticize the pakistanis are not going after the afghan taliban, and, of course, this is something

that the indians argue is also sort of a backup plan in case the u.s. leaves. there is that strategy there. could you also speak to the fact that people like senator menendez and others going off the gao reports have said that a lot of the military aid that goes to pakistan is being diverted in terms of for a potential conflict with india? how are you balancing these two in terms of the fact that despite the fact that you all have been very concerned that the pakistanis haven't gone after the afghan taliban, and also the diversions of the massive military aid weather is credible evidence has been diverted for a potential conflict with india be? let me take those reports, and if we raise with the pakistanis, and we tried to prevent any diversion of that support. and that's what we do. >> we have time for one last question. and i want to remind everyone, this session has been on the

record. yes, ma'am. , in the center here. >> good morning, mr. chairman. thank you for being here this morning. as a follow on to thomas on a question about the inadequacy of soft power, one of the suggestions that floating about is that the administration, in order to bridge soft and hard power, and to take, connect the dots between the two, one of the proposals out is that the administradministration submitted unified national national security budget, one that combines the accounts. and i was just wondering if you could comment on the pros and cons of such a budget? and also, how come if such a budget would put forward, how would congress in its current structure deal with it? [laughter] >> that's a doozy. a short answer. the pros vastly outweigh the cons and it won't happen.

[laughter] >> and with that, i thank all of you for your attention today. i thank the council for hosting this event. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible c-s[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] gun >> this is c-span, public affairs programming courtesy of america's cable companies. next, we will show you some of the campaign debates from around the country. we begin with the california governor's race and then a debate in the arizona senate race. after that, we will hear from the candidates running for

senate in new hampshire and in a debate in the call rodham governor's race. >> now, the first debate between california candidates for governor jerry brown and meg whitman. they are running to replace arnold schwarzenegger who is term limited. the debate took place on tuesday at the university of california davis. this debate was held before news reports surfaced that whitman had employed an illegal immigrant as a housekeeper for nine years before firing her. the debate is courtesy of kcra tv, pimento. >> online, and on the campaign trail, from the same stage at the same time, for the first time.

tonight, brown, whitman, face to face. >> live, from the university of california davis, this is a kcra commitment 2010 special. it is co-sponsored by the sacramento bee, capital public radio, uc-davis and case cra three where the news comes first. now, from jackson hole, here is gulfstan dart. [applause] >> the evening to our television, radio audience. good evening to all of you here at uc-davis. we welcome you to the first debate between these two candidates this year. we would like to thank everyone for being here and we would like to welcome the democratic and republican nominees for

governor. jerry brown and equipment. -- and may get whitman -- meg whitman. [applause] our questions are coming from our panel of three journalists, kevin riggs, >> and marian russ of capital public radio. [applause] and as they take their seats, we should let you know that both campaigns have agreed to keep answers to less than 90 seconds. there was the flip of a coin to decide who will get the first question. meg whitman, you won the coin toss.

>> ms. whitman, california has set a record this year for the no end in sight. what do you say to those who say that california is ungovernable? and if it is not, how would you end the gridlock? >> first of all, i want to say thank you to all the sponsors of this debate. i am delighted to be here tonight. i want to talk to you about how we will get this state put back together. there is no question that i think we have one of the most dysfunctional state governments in the country. the budget is over 100 days late. here is my plan to put the budget act together. first, we have to get californians back to work. if we do not bring down our 12.4% unemployment rate, there is no way out of this fiscal mess. we have the third highest michigan and nevada. did anyone ever think we would have the third highest unemployment rate in the country? i want to enact targeted tax

cuts off to get interest is -- to get industries going -- going, light manufacturing. we need to eliminate the factory tax. i want to streamline a red tape so it is not so hard to do business in california. and finally, have an economic development team that will give -- will get california competitive with other states. then, of course, we have to attack the cost side of the government. we have a government we can no longer afford. i want to streamline the size of government. i want to use technology, like we do in silicon valley to do more with less, to bring that innovation and expertise from silicon valley to sacramento. >> finally we have to attack welfare. we have become a welfare state. we will have to reform welfare and we will have to reform public employee pension benefits as well. that is the outline. i am sure we will have more to talk about throughout the debate tonight. >> is there something specific

you would do to reach a budget deal with lawmakers at the capitol in a timely manner? >> first, we must start earlier on the budget for the governor puts out his budget in january, then nothing much happens until the may revise. we need to start working on it earlier. i think there are structural reforms we must do. we need to go to a two-year budgeting cycle. this business of having our act -- our back against the wall, not having the ability to think long term than three to six months of, those -- six month out, those are to reforms i would make right away. >> mr. brown? >> the budget is late, never been as late before. i do know something about budgets, i must say, and the budget is the heart of any kind of democratic society. how much do you spend? what do you put in it? how does it reflect your values? the budget is one of the key characteristics of how screwed up things are in sacramento. first of all, you have to liveas

far as spending money, we had a boom and wall street and dot com. then it collapses. you have to reset, up 13%, 18%. and authorize a 80% in the -- and 18% reduction in the governor's salary and the legislator's salary and my own. you start the week after the election. that is what i will do. i do not care if it takes 500 hours, i know that many of these legislators have no idea what is going on in the budget. they sit in the bleachers, while the top four top legislators and the governor work behind closed doors. we a transparent, exhaustive -- we need a transparent, exhaustive process. i would say i would cut 15% to 20% of the governor's office. i would say to the legislature, it is your turn next. i know they can. then we start with the agencies and go from there.

i have done eight undeterred -- i have done eight budgets. most of them were on time. one was late by a week or two -- i have done eight budgets. most were on time. i have the willpower, the independence, and i know a lot of things like the energy commission being duplicated with other commissions. we can cut. do not believe that when people say that they have cut to the bone. >> do you have a rebuttal? >> there is no question we have a challenge on our hands, and mr. brown talks about bringing people together. my view is it that he will bring people together and it will be a meeting of the special interests and the unions to collect their iou's from the camp in a funded. -- from the campaign they funded. his entire campaign has been funded by the employee unions. all the people. we are going to have to renegotiate public employee pension benefits. we will have to reform welfare. those are the two things i will focus on first.

>> and jerry brown, your last comment on this? >> i would like to respond to a television commercial that i have seen so much of ad nauseam. the targeting tax cuts is targeted to billionaires' like ms. whitman. it is a $5 billion tax break that will go to the richest people in california. 82% goes to those making over $500 million. i want to invest in and protect our schools. i do not want to help the billionaires' and millionaires, because they have been doing pretty well. >> our next question comes from kevin riggs. >> governor schwarzenegger has issued a reprieve for albert brown who is scheduled to be committed. do you think the process for death penalty appeals is too lengthy and too involved? what should be done about it?

>> by the way, it got longer during each governor's term after i left. up to the supreme court for the initial review. i want to say in this respect, issue. i expressed my own preference. i would rather have a society where we did not have to use the debt as a punishment. -- death as a punishment. that preference was overruled by the legislature and by the people in an initiative, a ballot measure that passed. so we have not. we have to make it work. as attorney general, i defended hundreds and hundreds of death penalty convictions. as you say, this things goes on and on for ever. you have to appoint the lawyers, a. the investigators. unfortunately, it does take money to make the process work in accordance with our supreme court requirements and in accordance with the vigilance of the ninth circuit court of

appeals that is looking over our backs. having been attorney general and governor, i pledge to the people of this date i will faithfully carry out our law on executions with great fidelity to the rule>> is there a way to speed up habeas corpus appeals? >> given the control by the federal judiciary and the sensitivity that many judges have, i would say the only way to speed it up, and ron george said this very clearly -- you have to appoint the personnel. under the constitution, these men that are condemned to have the right to first class representation. get them all lawyer that knows -- get the male lawyer that knows -- get them a lawyer that knows how to conduct a trial. get the transcripts.

>> i will be tough on crime governor, no question about it. i am in support of the death penalty. i am for three strikes. i will appoint very conservative judges to that bench that will not legislate from the bench but will enter the constitution. and i think this is a very big contrast between me and jerry brown, because the jury has a -- jerry has say long, for your record of being quite liberal on crime. it started with the appointment of rose byrd, the supreme court justice that try to overturn the -- that try to overturn the -- tried to overturn the death penalty 64 times. she was recalled from office and she said, the only good out, is so i will be tough on crime. i will enforce the constitution on all dimensions. everything we can to accelerate the appeals process. the criminal justice lead had a request into jerry brown about how to participate in a federal

program that would accelerate the appeals it so that you could ultimately implement the death penalty. he has not gotten back to them on that. i think that is one way we could accelerate this. and it is important, because if we do not do this, we will be on the brink of a building and other death row facility. -- and other death row facility. -- in other death row facility. -- i do not think anyone wants to do that. we have some infrastructure needs in this state. >> mr. brown, she tried to draw a contrast saying your liberal on crime. is he wrong? >> as far as appointing judges, dwight eisenhower appointed one of the most liberal judges in history. i will carry out the law regarding executions. as far as my support of law enforcement, the california police chiefs association has almost unanimously endorsed my candidacy for governor. these are about 50 different

police organizations, including a police officers in oakland where i live in the former police chief is sitting next to my wife and the front row. we were tough on crime when we oakland. >> the record in oakland is not very good. when jerry brown left, oakland was rated the fourth most dangerous city in america and homicide had nearly doubled. so, the truth is, he has been a liberal on crime for 40 years. in the last week, he had a change of heart on the death penalty, saying, i am not morally opposed to it. but for 40 years, he has been morally opposed. i think the record speaks for itself. >> we have our next question. >> ms. whitman, i would like to go back to job creation. the state's unemployment rate remains over 12 percent, but both parties of instituted policies that encourage businesses to use overseas

labor. can you give us some specifics about how you would create jobs and how many jobs you think you can create with those policies? >> absolutely. this is one of my biggest priorities is creating jobs. if we do not. californians -- do not put californians back to work -- we have got to make the state more business friendly. we have to put a sign that says open for business. i want to eliminate the factory tax. it penalizes factories and manufacturing. if we lose manufacturing, we will lose the soul of our state. we have lost 600,000 jobs. before it deliver a single service or a single product, you have to pay the state an $800 fee. i want to eliminate that.

i want to make sure that we streamline regulation. i have travelled to almost all 58 counties and every small business tells me they are being strangled by red tape. let's be smart about how we do this. let's create an online application so that we can facilitate these small businesses and getting going. -- small business is getting going. -- businesses getting going. last, we are going to have to have an economic development team that competes for jobs. the fact is we are being out competed by texas, colorado, utah, arizona. those governors are showing of real interest. i was with the governor of texas who said that he came on hunting trips to california. he said, yes, i come hunting for jobs and better business. >> the factory tax could hurt local governments who are already struggling with a loss in property tax. how you justify that? >> my view is that if we can eliminate the factory tax that

will mean more jobs, more companies in california, so we will have a higher tax revenues. the truth is we are not competitive to neighboring states. 40 years ago, maybe we did not have so much competition, but we do now. for me to examine every tax and regulation and say, are we competitive to neighboring states? because without jobs, there is no way out of this and we have to do a better job of keeping companies in california and making sure we get the expansion opportunities as well. no company should put a call center in phoenix. they should put it in fresno or in stockton. >> mr. brown, how would you create jobs for california? >> quite differently than ms. whitman. she is the values that if you give it to wall street and you follow the george bush playbook things will be well. but we have seen the results of

that and they are not very pretty. there is nothing worse than unemployment. losing a job hurts the family, it is a demoralizing and there are too many people in that situation. at the same time, those in poverty have increased. there is now 5.5 million californians below the poverty line. 2 million are children. i have a specific plan. is not to give a $5 billion tax break to myself, much less to the billionaires' and millionaires. my plan is to invest in clean energy, the green tech of the future. i do not want to go back to the 19th century. i want to stand firm on our climate and new energy jobs bill. i want to suspended -- i do not want to suspend it like meg whitman. we can become a leader in wind, solar, and geothermal inefficiency. -- in the efficiency. when i was governor, california was the world leader in renewable energy. we can do that again. when i was mayor, i cut red

tape. that is how we got 10,000 people to move into oakland into an area that was unimaginable as a place for middle-class neighbors to take up residence. so i know how to cut the red tape. i have a plan. so my web page is about investing in california, not giving tax breaks to the most privileged of the people of our state. but that is a small portion of the state's economy. economy? >> when i talk about green jobs, i do not just been is solar panels in the desert. women in the roofing companies that i have seen in southern and northern california. you can put people to work by retrofitting the efficient buildings in california by the hundreds of thousands. as a matter of fact, from the energy policies that were created when i was governor, over 1 million jobs were created over a 30 year period. yes, it takes time. but let's invest in the jobs of

the future. again. >> jerry brown, thank you for that. we will give the last word on this topic to meg whitman. >> i am sure we will have a chance to talk about ab 32, but the truth is that 3% of the jobs come from getting jobs 397% come from the rest of the economy. i want to focus on the employees. and texas has the very best business climate in the country. it is not a perfect state, but they have ombudsmen in charge of every industry who helped you get through the red tape. they are recording industries because they have a very low corporate taxes. they have a very low personal income taxes and most importantly, they break through do business as opposed to challenging to do business. >> for those of you in our radio audience who may just be joining us right now, you are listening to the first ever live

debate whitman, live from uc- davis. our questions continue from our panelists. >> mr. brown, given your years of public service, you receive a pension of 78,000 per year if you were to retire next year. given that you are talking about cutting costs and the pension system, why should voters expect you to rein in the system that has been a source of your own financial support? >> let's get something really clear. if everybody in state service worked as long as i have, the pension system would be overfunded by 50%. if they want to stay around until 72. if you elect a governor, i will not collect until i am 76. if i get a second term, it will be 80. so i am the best pension by california has ever seen -- pension buy california has ever seen.

when i left the governor's office, i said, we have ayet to think about creating a -- you have to think about creating a two-tier pension system to lower the cost of state government. that was back in 1982. the next three governors ignored. i have a pension plan. it is on my web page -- jerrybrown.org. we have to negotiate with the different employee groups. we need to raise contributions and ages. we need to stop this thing where they take a one year in spite of up and use that as a measurement for their lifelong a pension. when i was governor, you used the last three years and averaged it. somewhere down the road after i left, they got rid of three years and made it one. we have a lot of abuses at all -- at the local level. i brought civil fraud action against eight officials in bell california. i am going to get that money back heard of it is a waste of

public funds. >> how can you be confident that you can follow through on your own promises to cut pensions and to the negotiating work? >> the first thing is you cannot be beholden to the public sector employees. if your campaign is funded by those public employee unions, it will be difficult to negotiate. and we have got to stand up and be counted. today, the public employee 60 percent -- 60 million. -- $60 billion to $100 billion. we need to take the retirement age up. today, all rank and file civil service can retire at 55 years

old with much of their salary and health care benefits till the day they die. i want to take that age from 55 to 65. i want to increase the vesting periods. i wanted make sure that those employers and to be to their -- contribute to their retirement funds. and you people have to come in under a different deal. they will have to come in under a 401 k just like everyone in the private sector today. the next governor of california passed half a spine steel. she needs to stick with it, -- has to have a spine of steel. she needs to stick with it, because there'll be tremendous respect by the unions, because they do not want to change. but we have to change. because today, we spend over $3.9 billion out of the general fund of $85 billion supporting these public pension benefits and it is not sustainable. >> how specifically would you work with unions? >> the governor has three levers to get this done.

the chp has negotiated in orange county to take the retirement age from 6 50 to 55 -- from 50 to 55. we may have to go to the ballot with an initiative to the people of california to take back their government. we have a bloated bureaucracy with more people that we have ever had working for them. we will have to use all of those things we have at our disposal to get this done. it is absolutely essential. >> jerry brown, we will give you the last work request this is a -- the last word on this. >> this is a little bit like the kettle calling a pot black. she has raised $25 million. an enormous number at $25,000, some of them at $50,000. i would bet you the majority would get an immediate tax break from her key economic plan which is to eliminate totally

the california capital gains tax. as i said, that $5 billion comes right out of the general fund and half of the general fund goes to schools. it is from schools, from kids, from teachers who i think need to be protected from cuts from the most -- to the most powerful and biggest campaign contributors to meg whitman. i am the only governor that ever vetoed the pay raises for all public employees. i did it once, i did it twice. >> we have a lot of topics to kevin riggs is next. >> ms. whitman you've apologized for your failure to vote for much of your adult life. you said there is no excuse for that. has your family to the dissipate -- failure to participate in california's complex and rigid process left significant gaps for you and your public policy? >> first of all, i am not proud of my voting record.

tonight, i apologize to everyone in california. no one is more embarrassed by it and be paired if i could change history, i would. but it -- what i can do is tell voters about how i believe we can turn this state around. this state is in an enormous mess. and i am a big believer -- einstein said, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for different results. we have to challenge the status quo and sacramento. -- in sacramento. and i want to answer one of the charges that governor brown just said. i have put my own money into this campaign. i have raised a lot of money. that is because many people believe in my vision for and to california. but that -- but what that is the is the independence to go to sacramento not be called in to special interests. if you elect me the next governor of california, i will not know anything to anyone and i will do what is right for the

people of california, because there will not be anyone to collect iou's from you. -- from me. >> the last time it your governor, you ran for president twice. what assurances can you offer voters that this time around, should be elected, you would focus on this job? >> age. [laughter] if i was younger, you know i would be running again. i would say at 74, i am ready. one more thing. i now have a wife. i come home at night. i do not try to close down the bars of sacramento like i used to do as governor of california. sacramento. i will get it done. so, don't worry about that.

i am in for the duration here. this business about insanity -- repeating what we have. i very much like arnold was beholden to no one. he put his own money into the campaign. he was the guy that would run the state like a business. it did not work out that way. it does take know-how and public service has meant a great deal from my earliest years. my father was elected district attorney of san francisco. service. i think it is honorable, and i have lived in this state of my life. i love it and i have voted here all my life. god willing, i will spend the rest of my life and die in this state. i love it and i will make it work. i will get it back on track. >> jerry brown has no experience changing sacramento for the positive. if you look at his record, he

took a $6 billion surplus and turned it into a $1 billion budget deficit. unemployment doubled to what was a record 11%. as mayor of oakland, he was not successful at turning around the school system. he campaigned as the education mayor. he made a promise that he would turn their school system or route. what happened was, three years later, the school system was in debt and the state had to come in and take it over. so jerry brown has experience raising taxes, increasing spending, and not delivering on his promises. i think you have to look at the experience and say, what do we need? we need a governor who knows how to get california back to work. >> i only have 30 seconds. to refute all of the statements half. california created 1.1 million jobs during the eight years i was governor. that surplus did not drop down from the tooth fairy.

surplus obscene. i had people reviling me. no one is tougher with a block than i am. -- with a buck than i am. >> the next question comes from a student at uc-davis. as governor, would you roll back all of the funding cuts to the community college system? why or why not? >> would i roll all of them back? >> that is the question. >> not my first year, but with the $19 billion deficit, we have to get real. i do not want to see them go up. the university is something i love. i went to the university of california. so did my mother. the tuition was $22 a semester when she went. when i went 30 years later, it was $120. i care about this university. it is the key to our future, not only our technological future

but our intellectual and civic future. . . . . >> our intellectual future. i will do everything i can to protect the university. to do that, we have to be tough on the budget, and within our means and building up the surplus and not driving a hole in the general fund of $5 billion giving a tax break to the wealthy because the university derives its support from the federal fund. this support is $2.5 billion. i tried to hold down the fees the best i can, but we will all have to sacrifice. those at the top of our economy should tuck in their belts. i would love to roll back the university becoming a lot more of efficient than is or the state finding billions of dollars it does not have. >> what is your take on the funding cuts? >> it breaks my heart. every day i talked to children who have had to take a semester off. i ran into a young man who

could not go back to berkeley because fees had gone up 32%. higher education is one of the gems of our education system. them. we cannot lose our innovation edge. i want to streamline the size of government. we have to get back to an employee count of five years ago.

the state has more bureaucrats than an active duty personnel in the navy. program and welfare program. 12% of the population and 32% of the welfare cases. frankly, it is a budget issue but also a strength of community issue. welfare cannot become a way of life. i have very specific plans to reform welfare. we have to run the government

more efficiently. we have the most dysfunctional state government and i come from a part where we have the most innovative companies. we need to take that management and say how do we run the more efficient? >> would you use the money to hold the line on future tuition hikes? >> i would ask the chancellors. if we can get you back $1 billion would you want to invest that in research? what is the best way to make your campuses great? i would ask them what they thought. >> let's go to the next question. >> fact checking organizations concluded many of your ads are misleading. alcan voters' trust you to communicate them honestly when you are willing to distort the truth to win? >> i don't agree with the

premise of your question. bill clinton at talking about jerry brown's record as governor. i stand by that ad. he said cnn said governor brown had taken a $6 billion surplus to a $1 billion deficit. absolutely correct. the only error was that taxes were not hire eight out of eight years -- not higher. taxes were higher for jerry brown's administration than they were under ronald reagan. jerry brown does not like the ad because it calls out his record. we cannot continue to do things the way we have done them. i want to reform the pension system. by the way, many of the unions who are deeply entrenched don't

want any changes to the things i know parents desperately want. if we don't reform our education system, our pension system, there will not be a way out. these ads are an accurate portrayal. >> you have run an ad predicting -- depicting your opponents nose growing like pinocchio. >> pinocchio is awaiting by to extend that nose. remember it was 1974 when i ran for governor. there was a deficit. we came back very quickly and we had a $500 million surplus.

i turned that into $5 billion. a lot of that is economic growth, but also [unintelligible] i said no to business and unions. if you add up the tax breaks ms. whitman is advocating, it is $17 billion. one more thing on this school business, i advocated that we have charter schools. i did not say we could fix the unified school district. it is a separate jurisdiction. what i said was we should create charter schools. i had three when i was elected mayor. charter schools would show

innovation and put competitive pressure on the rest of the school district. that is how it worked. i wanted to have the guy who drove us into bankruptcy -- i wanted him fired. that happens to be a record. i created two charter schools of>> meg whitman, you look like you want to respond. what do you think about mr. brown's response? >> governor brown opposed proposition 13. he said it was a fraud and recommended its not be passed. boaters had had it with -- bowers -- escalating property taxes. governor brown was sitting on a -- of voters had had it with escalating property taxes. governor brown was sitting on a

huge surplus which she refused to give back. they ended up with a $1 billion budget deficit. career politicians refuse to accept accountability. come under brown campaigned on being the education there. now he says the mayor could not do ed. -- mayor could not do it. the parents and kids were counting on governor brown to make this changes. if i am governor you can hold me the most important changes we have to make. politicians have got to be accountable. >> thank you. >> yes, opposed proposition 13. well. are seeing some of the problems. here is the real important point. in the november elections, howard jarvis voted for me. i wrote proposition 13 but he made it work.

i had a surplus and i bailed out the local governments so i could say our teachers and police. that is why i am running for governor. >> are partners in los angeles sent us this question. they want to know if you see any positive impacts for immigration. do you support a path to legalization for those here illegally? >> yes, i do. i do support a path of legalization as part of a reform bill. this is where we differ. verifiable electronic system, make people compensate for any have a few million people in the shadows.

there has to be some process. mccain said the same thing in the kennedy and a lot of thoughtful people said we have to find a way. we cannot round them up and deport them, we have to found a -- fine day -- find a path to citizenship. i have worked with the immigration service called secure communities. every person arrested, fingerprints' are taken and to my office. if they are found to be here to deportation. let's start with those who break the law. let's get them deported while we wait for the comprehensive immigration form. >> our workplace inspections

part of the solution? >> they are part of the solution. that is something the federal government can do. we do have 2 million people here. in the meantime, any one of these undocumented people commits a crime, they will be subject to deportation. >> do you see any positive impacts on immigration? >> i would not support a path to legalization. we have to get our arms around a pressing problem. here is our plan for solving the middle of emigration. we have to secure the borders. i spent a day on the border and we have not given the border patrol agents the resources they need. second, we do have to hold employers accountable for only documented workers.

third, we have to eliminate sanctuary cities. the worst case is san francisco. i want to couple that for agriculture is in need of a guest worker program so they can pick the crops. we have to prove to americans that we can solve this immigration problem. let's get about doing that. i have said i was not for prop 187. i said i did not think the arizona law was right for california. i had a better plan to get our arms around illegal immigration. it will take a governor who can be counted on. >> how would you pay for workplace inspections? >> they cost of illegal immigration is significant. if we can hold employers accountable that would be a

budget positive. we will have to work with federal law enforcement to enforce this. we have to stop the magnet. most illegal immigrants come here for the jobs, so we have to go to the source. it is very important to enforce the law. >> just a note to our viewers, you are watching is special live broadcast of the first debate between jerry brown and meg whitman. our debate continues right now. >> this next question is about campaign finance. you have spent more on your campaign than any candidate in u.s. history. please address the criticism that you are trying to buy the office of governor. tell us if any thing you learned would have discussed -- >> i have invested a lot of money in this campaign because i am up against significant

forces. the unions have spent over $300 million on politics. i am up against vested interests. i don't think you can buy elections. what you can do is get your message out and tell californians would your view is. -what your view is going forward. i want to get jobs going again in california. i have three important priorities, jobs, government officials say, and getting schools back in order.

that is what i have done, invested my own money so i have the independence. that allows me to go to sacramento, change how things are done. if you want someone who will not really change what is wrong with the sacramento then i am not your candidate. we have to redo have the budget -- how the budget is down and think about how to spend money differently. we have to have a business- friendly state. >> what about the campaign finance laws? >> it would not be the first thing i would tackle. i am a big believer thatin a crisis you can only focus on a small number of things. my focus in the first couple of years will be getting californians back to work, making sure we hold on to manufacturing and the

agricultural industry thrives. >> the corresponding question, you have longstanding ties to labor organizations, many of whom have spent millions supporting your campaign. how will you be able to remain independent on questions of state worker pay? >> when it comes to pay i don't think there is anyone who has taken a more no-nonsense approach. i was legendary for my frugality. i was the only governor who vetoed the excessive pay raises of all the state employees. i was the first governor to call for the two-tiered system. unions have their problems but what about business? they were lobbying washington and got the regulations cut

back. if -- we lost over $1 trillion because of the mortgage bankers and countrywide. i have been suing those people. we have to be vigilant. i have to say something about our teachers and those who clean bedpans in hospitals, they are the people who have embarked upon a public service. i do appreciate the work that they do. when there is excess, i will stop it. we tried this business of the private sector person coming in

with a spine of steel. you have something on campaign reform? >> i have a very good thing. [laughter] the chamber of commerce has a secret slush fund they use for meg whitman to attack me. i would like her to tell the chamber please disclose all the donors to the ads you are running on television. i would like to see 24-hour disclosure, whether it is strictly formal or one of those questionable nonprofits. >> a chance to respond to that quickly. >> the fact that jerry brown is trying to distance himself from labor unions is amazing, because they have been joined at the hip for 40 years.

my view is putting jerry brown in charge of negotiating around pensions and how many people we have in the state government is like putting count dracula in charge of the blood bank. nothing will get done. we have to make very serious changes. over the last five years the number of state employees has ballooned. businesses have been cutting back. we have to run this government more officially. we need to use technology to anna figure out how to do more with less. estimates are that there is $5 billion worth of fraud in the medicare system. because we have not had the strength to go after that, i want to get a grand jury so that people are ripping off california they will go to jail.

it is not acceptable we let fraud in the system and not go after it. and then think about cutting calworks. >> i got to tell you something, when i ran for attorney general the california teachers association, firefighters all supported my opponent. i know how to stand up against people and work with people. meg whitman says she wants to change the pension system but when it come to police and fire, and represents 25% of the pension system, she carved out an exception. i think that is a reflection that when powerful forces come, she will cave. i have been in the kitchen. i know the heat. i can take the heat. i have the know-how and the wisdom. at my age, the independence to do it right. >> our last question will come

from amy from the sacramento bee. >> insuring all of california has enough water would be an issue. would you support requiring northern californians to use less water so there is enough to ship south? would you support a canal to go around the delta to deliver water? >> i support whatever will bring us more efficiency and conversation -- conservation. we thought we needed more energy than we thought. as far as the canal, in 1981 i brought the legislature together. unfortunately northern california did not like that and there was a referendum in my

proposal. -- and my proposal was voted down by the people. what that shows you is you have to negotiate and bring in all parties. here is my proposal, when you benefit directly from water you have to pay. the beneficiary has to pay. not the general taxpayer. if it will be for habitat protection, that is something the public ought to pay for. if we increase our water recycling and work with local communities on ground water management, if we make it easier for water transfers and build things that makes sense, then we can deal with water -- you have to inshore and safe drinking -- ensure safe drinking water. there are some kits with birth -- kids with birth defects and

are fighting problems about solutions. the tax. then support steve -- >> i need to jump in. >> i was a proponent of the piece of legislation that has been moved to 2012. i was a supporter of that bond. it was not perfect, there was pork in that, but i come from the real world. sometimes perfect is the enemy of progress. this had above and below ground storage, there was conservation measures and once that was done there would be more water for the delta and farmers. i think that was a great blue print. it was a bipartisan group of agencies that came to a point of view that was correct. that is my stand on water.

we have a crisis going on in the central valley. it is not right we have communities with 35% unemployment. sacramento just got water meters, so we have to do a better job of conserving water. the water bond was the right path. >> we have just enough time to give the final word to both candidates. it was it was meg whitman would give her final statement first. >> thank you for hosting the debate. the reason i am running for governor is i refuse to believe this date cannot be better than -- this state cannot be better than it is. i think we face some of our worst challenges in the last 30 years. my view is if we are going to change the direction of the state we will have to do it differently. i thought einstein had a great.

-- had it right. the definition of insanity is doing it over again and expecting a different result. i am anchored in focus. i want to do two things really well. i want to restore the faith that the people of california can have in their government. the legislature has a 9% approval rating. we are down to blood relatives. we have to prove that we can turn this state around. i will do that. i have the independence to do it and i am a big believer in the power of many. thepeople of california are the most compassionate and courageous. if we bind together we can make the golden state golden. buti am a big believer in the power of many. i would appreciate your vote on november 2. >> jerry brown.

>> i did think long and hard about whether i should run for governor again. this is not an easy job. it is not a job you can run government. it is entirely different. but i thought about it and i have been looking at government from every angle. my first job was as a community college trusty. then i became secretary of state and later i became mayor. yes,we had a crime. in the very neighborhood that i lived there were nine murders within five blocks. i did not have a guard. i did not have a driver. i walked the streets and i saw it. that is what gives me such a determination. i have the know-how, the experience and i have more insight and independence. that is one of the major differences.

secondly, my values are different. i would not give millionairess a big tax break. in a good year they might do as much as $11 billion. i think we have to protect our schools and all work together for those that are most powerful sacrificing first. those with the biggest belts, tuck them in first. i believe we should not suspend we should create those new green jobs. >> thank you both for being here tonight. thank you to our panelists for asking the questions. thank you all for being here for what we hope has been an informative our focusing on the issue is most critical to californians. thank you for being here.

good night. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> in a news conference on thursday, republican candidate mitt wittman says a woman she hired -- meg whitman says a

woman she hired gave what appeared to be legitimate documents before she became her housekeeper. here is more on the matter from today's washington journal. journal. but first, meg whitman, candidate for governor in california, held a press conference yesterday to address the allegations that she had hired an illegal immigrant as her housekeeper. here's what she had to say. >> just classic smear politics. this is what californians and americans hate about politics. here we are, 30 days out from an election, in a classic case of smear politics. and jerry brown, this is how he operates. this is how career politicians operate. this is what they do. and i heard this morning that the brown campaign had been flagged nothinging this story two weeks ago, so they knew exactly what was going on. i think there's very clear evidence that this is brown-motivated. host: joining us on the phone

this morning is john meyers, the sacramento bureau chief for kqed radio in san francisco. mr. meyers, is there any proof to this allegation that meg whitman was talking about, that this is coming from the jerry brown campaign? >> there's not a lot of proof. i mean, what she's referring to essentially is that a rumor that apparently the brown campaign says they were passing along that they had heard that ms. whitman had a "housekeeper problem," and even the reporter she conferenced there from a television station in the san francisco bay area said it had been described to him as a rumor. i think, really, you've got two things going on here. i mean, obviously the whitman campaign has tried very hard to focus on how this came about. a lot of other folks are asking exactly about the details and the issue itself and the fact that ms. whitman had an undocumented immigrant housekeeper for nine years. she had checked all of the ex- employee's documents, that she had a social security card, she had a state driver's license, and so ms. whitman and her

husband said we did everything we could. but again, immigration has been a very big issue in this governor's race, especially when ms. whitman was running for the primary back in the spring and talked very tough on illegal immigration and talked very tough on employers who hire them. so i think that's why the story continues to stick around, and it's not going anywhere yet. host: it seems like the center of the story is about this letter from the social security administration back in 2003, alerting whitman and her husband about this possibly undocumented worker that was her housekeeper. she says she never saw the letter, but then her campaign sort of changed their tune. what is 9 latest? did she see it or not? >> well, she says she still didn't. the question is whether her husband saw it. there is this letter that she referred to, which we have to be care to feel say it's from the social security administration simply saying there's a discrepancy in the employee's name records, and so it may not be an immigration status thing, it could be someone, for instance, who got

married and their name changed. so the letter very clearly says, you know, we don't want to read too much into this, you, the employer, need to check this out. but the letter had handwriting on it that could be, apparently is, at least according to the woman and her attorney, the handwriting of ms. whitman's husband that says please check on this to the employee, nikki, the ex-employee's name. ms. whitman says she never saw the letter, her husband says now it's possible, i can't remember. as you can imagine, that makes the story trickle out a little bit honger. host: and as you said, she ran to the right on this issue during the primary, and 20% of california's he electric rated is latino voters. so how do you think this is going to play out? has she had to change her tactics since the primary to win some hispanic voters? >> she definitely has tried to do the classic pivot back to the center even before this happened, trying to talk more about the issues that she's trying to focus the campaign on, education and things like that here in california. but this one's going to be a tough one. it's getting lots of attention

in the spanish-speaking press. it does reopen some old wounds. two things we should make clear here, first of all, her honorary state chairman is pete wilson, best known in california to latinos, it seems, as the main backer of proposition 187, which would crack down on illegal immigrant services from the state back in the 1990's. that didn't help her from the very beginning. and secondly, there is the second gubernatorial debate with jerry brown tomorrow in the central valley sponsored by univision in spanish, and you're sure to believe this is going to be front and center of the questions she's asked. host: and she said yesterday during the press conference that she would take a lie detector test on this. any update on that? >> well, apparently her campaign late last night is saying, well, she'll take a lie detector if jerry brown, the democrat, takes a lie detector to prove he wasn't behind it, and on and on we go. she was asked that question about the reporter about the polygraph, she dent offer it up herself. but we've got a media circus

going on right here, and this is the kind of thing that we wonder how these things come out late in campaigns. we still don't know how this happened, when it did, and why the ex-employee waited to step forward until roughly five weeks before the election. host: yeah, and what about the role that this ex-employee's lawyer is playing here? >> well, the ex-employee's lawyer, we haven't even mentioned him, we probably should, it's celebrity attorney gloria allred, who has as carefully orchestrated the media events over the last few days and seems to keep dribbling out documents she has to prove her point and keep the attention going. you know, the whitman campaign says she's allied with jerry brown. she did give $150 to jerry brown's attorney general campaign four years ago, and a little bit more money before that, and she is a long-time democrat. but there are at least some people who think that ms. allredden joys the publicity herself regardless of partisan politics. so when you get that mixed in the middle of this, this is one of those seemingly "only in california" stories, when it gets hyped up, even on

celebrity web s carefully orchestrated the media events over the last few days and >> next, a debate for the arizona senate seat. after that, the race for the new hampshire senate. following that, a debate between candidates running for governor of colorado and then a chance to see the california governor's debate again. tomorrow, a discussion of the role of young voters and the 2010 elections. we talk abut the increasing trend of radicalized westerners traveling to overseas training camps and returning home to plan

and wage terror attacks. we discuss the benefits of a child nutrition bill that has been stalled in the house. >> washington had one of the more difficult mothers of all time. she was very crusty, domineering, a very self- centered woman who -- you would think that the mother of the father of our country would have all sorts of quotes about taking pride or pleasure. we really do not have any. >> the first large-scale a single volume biography of our nation's first president will be discussed. now, arizona senator john mccain in the only senate debate he plans to participate in during the general election.

he swears off against democratic candidate rodney glassman as well as two third-party candidates, david nolan and jerry joslyn. good evening. welcome to this special debate. joining us tonight are the candidates for one of arizona's two u.s. senate seats, the one currently being held by republican john mccain. john mccain has served four terms in the senate as well as two terms in the house. he is a graduate of the naval academy and was a vietnam pow. he is the author of several

books. next is david nolan, our libertarian candidate. he is a founding member of the libertarian party. his career focused on advertising, marketing and publishing. he holds a degree in political silence from -- political science from mit. next is jerry joslyn. he is the former publisher of the "new york times." he is the first senate candidate endorsed by the green party. the democratic nominee is mr. rodney glassman. he is the former vice mayor of tucson. he is at jag officer, a small business owner and a community activist. he has a ph.d. in there and research sciences.

-- in air and resources sciences. tonight is a formal debate. none of the candidates have been given the questions in advance. we will direct the questions at each candidate, who will be given 90 seconds to answer. other candidates will be given time to respond, and the original candidate will be given a chance to make a final response. let's begin with mr. nolan. you have warned americans that securing our board is -- our borders must not lead to an erosion of civil liberties. how the balance securing our borders with protecting civil liberties? >> that is an excellent question. i believe civil liberties should always be protected. i think oftentimes in trouble, this country has a tendency to overreact to the crisis of the day. much of the problem on our

nnational borders and stems from the fact that we have made it too difficult for well- intentioned, good people to get into this country. we need to make it easier for people to come here, raise a family and start of business if they have good intentions. if we allow in the 95% or more who are honest, good people to come here with minimum paperwork and minimum hassle, you can then presume that the people trying to get across the border illicitly are the bad people. if you can get rid of those who are not terrorists, not laden with disease, not in with bad people, you can assume that the winds still trying to get across

the border illegally are here for the purposes. remember, walls are also used to keep people in. >> strangely enough, i agree with you to this extent. we need highballs and wide gates. we need good trade and exchanges -- high walls and white gates. we need good trade and exchange -- wide gates. we need good trade and exchanges between our countries. but we do have a problem. our secretary of state just last week compared to the insurgency in nicaragua of the 1980's. the methodology being used in mexico -- we need to get our

borders secure. then we can get on to addressing the other issues associated with immigration. >> to keep securing the border and balancing civil liberties is to have a senator who is focused on security -- on securing our borders, not just talking about it. in arizona, we did not have the same investment in the border patrol agents, customs agents and the infrastructure necessary as other states. it takes over an hour to walk across the border. it can take a day to day and a half to bring to a truck a produce across. it is about action and it is about moving our state forward and doing our fair share.

>> we will never control the border as long as -- control immigration as long as 40% of the people here illegally are flying over in planes. isas, e coming over on v and then letting them expire. focusing on the fence does not make sense. the fence is the least effective way to stop immigration. what i would do is adopt a comprehensive program to turn a cost strainer into a revenue source. i would tax people who are here illegally, cabin number of people who are here and raise 1.2 -- cap the number of people who are here, and raise $1.2 billion, about 700 million of which would go to arizona.

>> the solution, from a libertarian perspective, is to decriminalize drugs so that people who want drugs are not forced into the arms of illegals and the kids. if we made drugs decriminalize and readily available by prescription, that would cause the drug cartels to collapse and and most of the violence along the border. >> mr. glassman, some economists have warned that no matter what ourdo domestically, po foreign debt puts us at risk. what can we do to stop the flow of debt to china, and can we bring manufacturing jobs back to the united states? >> the reality is that the u.s. senator we have had an arizona has been a champion for exporting jobs.

he is been a champion for everything except getting arizonans back to work. the fact is, when boeing goes to build -- excuse me, when the navy goes to purchase planes, they could be built by boeing, airbus or france. we have been sending those jobs overseas for far too long. we need to create those jobs here at home. we need a second stimulus that is focused on infrastructure jobs to get arizona and is working again, building our bridges, protecting our infrastructure, and making sure our tax dollars stay home. i was visiting with a paint contractor. he it drives into town every time he makes the purchase because he wants his tax dollars to stay right here in his community. i wish we had united states

senator that had the same belief, that we need to keep our tax dollars at home. by stimulating our own economy, that is how we are going to reduce our debt in the long term. that is how we will create a strong economy, by investing in our own infrastructure. >> thank you. >> we have a big problem, a structural problem in this country, and it is basically a demand problem. my solution is a flat tax. i believe everyone should make -- should pay the same tax whether they make their money from inheritance, from stocks and capital gains, or like most americans, from getting up and going to work. we should have a standard flat

rate. that would include payroll tax. >> i am kind of amused that mr. glassman, like every democrat i have ever met, believes the answer is a stimulus. take money away from the people actually produce things and shuffled off to unions and others to exist at the largess of government. that is the opposite of what we need. to create jobs, we need to reduce spending by at least 50 % and reduce our national debt. otherwise, we will be destroyed. americans will wind up indentured servants to the chinese and must be radically cut back the size and cost the government. >> well, we need to stop spending because we owe the

chinese some $850 billion or more. we do need to have a currency adjustment. the chinese have adjusted their currency and manipulated their currency in a way that is unfair to the united states of america. one way of keeping those jobs in the united states of america is to cut the corporate income tax. corporate tax in america is 35%, the second-highest in the world. if you're a corporation and you have a choice to go around the world, obviously is going to be difficult to remain in the united states of america. we need free trade. we need to export american goods and products. i believe the american worker is the most productive, most professional, and best worker in the world. they can compete against anybody, but we have to level the playing field between the united states and china. >> i applauded john mccain for

being an advocate for lowering taxes for corporations, but the fact is we need to focus on arizona. we need to focus on lowering taxes for arizonans. because of the actions of our current senator, coming this december 31st, taxes on middle and lower class arizonans and americans are going to be increased. that is the kind of policy we do not need in washington. >> the next question is for senator mccain. you have talked about cutting the corporate tax. you have called the effort by democrats to abolish the bush tax cuts as class warfare. are you saying that extending the tax cuts will result in just starting the economy, and if so, what will the due to our deficit? >> i think there are a number of things we have to do to jump- start our economy, but let's start with the stimulus. the stimulus package has been a

failure. it has put another $1.1 trillion in debt on our children and grandchildren. the fact is, we need to stop spending. we need to have the stimulus package -- the money that is left in the stimulus package returned back to the taxpayers. keep taxes low. to raise taxes on anybody in america today in the tough economic times we are in is bullish. it will harm our ability to recover -- is foolish. it will harm our ability to recover. the obama policies have put us further in the ditch, whether it be the stimulus package, obama- care, which is going to lay another huge burden on families in america, or whether it be other spending proposals that this administration has. they have mortgaged our

children's futures. they have committed generational theft and it has got to stop. >> frankly, when it comes to the issue of taxes, i agree with john mccain. right now is not the time to be raising taxes on the working families of arizona. but in the past seven days, we've watched the u.s. senate fight to keep gays out of the military, a fight to keep kids from being able to go to school. my question to john mccain is, what is your plan for getting arizonans back to work? cutting taxes for corporations isn't the answer for the working families of arizona. it is time to turn the page. it is time for someone with ideas for arizona. >> here is the basic problem as i see it both for republicans and democrats. they speak in big generalities. neither of them have a new plan. we are in the worst financial situation since the great depression, and the reason for

that is that there are 135,000 registered plautus in washington for 535 -- registered lobbyists in washington for five under 35 members of congress. our congress people spend more time running for office than they do legislating. i do not take money from big business or big labour, and i never will. >> it is important to realize that the huge run-up in spending and deficits did not start with president obama. the budget was imbalanced -- the budget was in balance close to the end of the clinton administration. the run-up of deficits began with the bush presidency. this is a bipartisan problem that the democrats and republicans between them have hoisted on america.

spending money they do not have, kicking the can down the road, passing the burden on, as senator mccain said, to future generations. if we want a new solution, we have to think outside the box, outside of democrats and republicans. >> i am proud to have been endorsed by americans for tax payer reform. i was fighting against mike on party, against earmarked spending, against trillions of dollars of debt on future generations of americans. i am proud of my record on fiscal responsibility and i will stick to it. we will stop the spending. we will stop mortgaging our children's futures. one way to do it is to declare a payroll tax holiday. >> next question.

we will stay on the economy. what kind of jobs do you see being created, and are they the type of jobs that would sustain economic growth here in arizona? >> i am not targeting jobs with the flat tax. i am targeting the payroll tax. i believe in a one-year payroll tax holiday -- mr. mccain suggested a one-year payroll tax holiday. i guess we will borrow the money for it from china. i would eliminate the payroll tax altogether. but jobs are like anything else, when you lower the price, you sell more. that will create jobs and make it easier for employers to hire people rather than spend the money on other things. the other big issue is health

care. i want to get that off the backs of employers too. i have been a small businessman. i have seen that when you're just trying to get the business started, you not only have to pay for the employee, you have to pay for the health care and the payroll tax. half the jobs in america are created by entrepreneur is. we have to make it easier for them and unfortunately, it is getting harder. if we could eliminate the payroll tax, we could get more people hired at all levels. it will get the economy growing again, both by the money they will be spending because they have jobs, and also because of the new hiring and so forth. we have to get the economy growing again, and that will have assimilative affect permanently. >> mr. nolan. >> libertarians believe that you have a right to keep what you earn, every penny of it. it is wrong, therefore, for the government at any level to steal

your money through taxation. taxes on individual income should be eliminated as fast as possible and as completely as possible. this would be the greatest single stimulus that we could offer to the american people to grow our economy. we are way in debt. our national debt is almost 100% of howard gross national -- one under% of our -- 100% of our gdp. we need change. >> i want to go back again to the absolute urgency to extend the existing tax cuts. if we do not, we will see an increase in the estate tax of 55%. we will be taxing 50% of small business income.

we need to have a payroll tax holiday, and i would pay for it with the unused stimulus money so that small business people in arizona can hire, buy equipment, and build our economy. we also need to have provisions for people to stay in their houses. >> we are four days away from october 1st. and now we are hearing our senator talk about tax cuts that expired december 31st. we all know the timing is not correct, because this is something that should have been planned ahead. to answer your question, we need green jobs. we need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. we need to reduce the dependence of our senators have on the fossil fuel contributions. china is not waiting. germany is not waiting. we should not be waiting. we need to develop green jobs right here in arizona, because those are the kind of jobs but will lead us into the future.

we need someone who is looking towards the future as our senator. >> senator mccain mentioned the expiration of the people who are making over $250,000 per year, their tax cut. i read economists every week and they say that is trivial. it is not going to matter. we need big answers because we got ourselves into a big problem. republicans and democrats get gridlock during these little issues and never solve anything. >> david nolan, you have advocated ending the entitlement programs. does that include social security and medicare? if so, oak what do you tell those people? >> as someone who relies on

those programs myself, i certainly do not want to get rid of them overnight. people have been asked to pay for these programs for years. like any ponzi scheme, people who got an early did really well. people getting in now are going to have a hard time. there would not be a crisis in social security if we increased the retirement age. we need to give young people the opportunity to opt out and invest their money privately if they so choose. finally, we need to give people in those programs the opportunity to stay in but divert part of their social security payments into some voluntary retirement

plan. >> senator mccain. >> well, there are two major entitlement programs, social security and medicare. the democrats are dragging alpot the old "republicans want to get rid of social security" pinata, and it is not going to work. the thing about obama-care is we have this problem. they're going to eliminate, for 330,000 citizens of this great state of arizona, their ability to have the medicare program of their choice. we are going to repeal and replace obama care, and we are going to do it as one of our first agenda items beginning next january. >> frank, you have been on

your entire life. there is a certain irony -- frankly, there is a certain irony in someone who has been on government health care his entire life talking about how bad it is. my job is going to be making sure that we prioritize our investments and make sure that we, as a federal government, keep the promises we made to our citizens. >> social security and medicare are a special issue for the green party. we have been looking at them as they came up to an anniversary recently. the deficit commission was supposed to be bipartisan. but the republican head of the end the democratic head of that say the social security and medicare are not off the table. they're both going to take a look at it. the fact is, social security is

fully funded through 2035. medicare is going to go up, and my flat tax proposition would fully fund both. in washington, i will fight forever to save medicare and social security. that senator mccain -- he voted for medicare part b, the newest and most expensive portion of the medicare plan. the government should not be in the business of providing medical care to its citizens. to the stand that it chooses to involve itself, we need to make the choices as wide as possible. the simple reality is, once again, republicans and democrats jawbone a lot, but

always vote for the new program and the higher spending. >> there are some actions that could be taken at the border to secure the border, such as homeland security assigning more personnel. that could happen quickly. what is your plan to secure the border and to ensure that the violence from the drug cartels will not enter arizona? >> we need to make sure that we bring the appropriate resources to the border. that does not just mean buying billboards. it means hiring and training the appropriate numbers of border patrol agents and customs agents. but also means using unmanned aerial vehicles. that means jobs for arizonans. securing the border is not enough. we also have to have a way for people to come here legally, pay taxes and work. there is legislation already in

d.c. called the act of jobs bill. it was written by the united farm workers, the kind of bipartisan legislation that john mccain in his former life used to support. legislation we could use to separate those coming here with ill purposes from those coming here to work. we need to have a pathway for the millions of people already here, some of the dome are already in the process. i do not support amnesty. they should be required to go through a background check, pay back taxes, learn english and have a system they can go through at the end of the line, not getting in front of those trying to come through here illegally. it is going to be of to everyone to find solutions, not just serve as a battering ram accomplishing nothing but a self aggrandizement. >> i believe 99% of the people

coming here illegally are coming here for work. they're not coming here with ill intent as some have suggested. i would change immigration into a revenue source by registering, regulating and taxing the illegal workers that are here now. i would appraise their wages to $10 an hour so the american -- i would raise their wages to $10 an hour so the american workers can be more competitive with them. we would have money left over for the state of arizona that arizona can sorely use. >> i believe your original question was how we can keep silence from spreading across the border. most of the violence originates with drug cartels. they are able to maintain multibillion-dollar empire is some play because drugs have

been made illegal. this should end. the so-called war on drugs is actually a war on people who choose to use some drugs. the blow back around the world has been terrible. we were funding the taliban in our efforts to eliminate poppy in afghanistan, and they're the people killing our soldiers now. we must treat drugs as the medical and social problem, not keep treating it as a criminal problem. >> this is, as i said earlier, a national security issue. is also a human rights issue. they found over 2000 bodies in the desert outside tucson in the last 10 years. the bodies now are nearing an all-time high. the brutality and the human rights abuses are beyond her

rent is. we need to get our borders secure. -- are beyond horrendous. we need to get our borders secure. we have a plan that includes putting people in incarceration. it is a national security issue. 17% of those across our border have committed crimes previously in this country. that is not acceptable. >> we need federal immigration reform and that needs to be led by our next united states senator. arizonans know the definition of insanity. it is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. john mccain has been in d.c. for three decades. it is time to turn the page and send someone new to washington who is actually committed to getting the job done, moving federal immigration regulation forward.

>> we do have a national security problem on the border. so far, we have been trying to deal with this as a criminal matter. at this time, because of the violence and the inability to control the cartels, should we begin to look at this problem as a diplomatic problem and try to bring in an -- should we change our foreign policy toward mexico? >> we need to work as closely as we can with mexico. we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in trying to help the mexican government, police and law enforcement agencies to improve. the only thing you can rely on to some degree in mexico now is the mexican army because the police are so corrupted. this is a serious problem. we now have people crossing our borders who are not just from

mexico or this hemisphere, but from all over the world. i believe the with the 10. plan, surveillance, personnel and completion of the fence, we can secure our borders. we have made progress in san diego and other places. we made progress in human. we need to do the same thing in tucson. when you have over 1 million pounds of marijuana intercepted, talk to our law enforcement people on the border. they will tell you is a national security issue. we can, working with the mexican government, help them become more effective, but it is a very, very serious issue and one that deserves a provision of our assets and efforts, and a strategy to work with mexico but to also get our borders secure with high walls and open fences.

>> buzz words. high walls. open offenses. how about progress? i am understand that we need more resources for our public safety system, and that is why i am proud to have the endorsement of both the share of -- county andf fema county luma. we need to have someone who treats the homeland security people respectively. i have an image of a power senator being rude to janet napolitano just the other day. >> illegal immigration is about

jobs here. that is the last line of defense is the job site. all the talk of doing this and doing that, putting troops here and video cameras there. it happens at the job site. that is why people are coming here, for jobs. to be in the u.s. senate for 24 years with the giant border problem we have and then to come back here and say we are mad at the federal government because they have not done anything is absurd. we need to raise revenue by taxing them. we need to turn a negative into a positive, and we can do it with a rational immigration policy. i have an immigration policy others do not have. >> off i will say again, if you want to end the violence on the border, you must end the war on drugs. prohibition did not work in the 1920's when the distribution of alcohol was turned over to chaka

upon and other criminals. it is not working -- turnover to al capone and other criminals. it is not working now. people are being thrown in jail for smoking a marijuana cigarette. it is morally wrong, counterproductive and expensive. once again, the last thing we need is a $6 billion wall across the southern united states that is grossly expensive and will someday be used to keep americans inside if things continue to go bad. >> let me say again, we need to secure our borders and then we can move on to all of the other issues including jobs and a temporary legal worker program, and other issues. if we do not secure the borders, we will find ourselves with

another group of people who have come to this country illegally, and then we will have to deal with that all over again. other countries deal with this. it is our responsibility to all of our citizens to do so. >> you have stated that the va model could reduce the cost of health care while providing better service. given the recent scandals and complaints about the vienna, how can you convince the public that the government -- about the va, how can you convince the public that the government can do a good job? >> there are complaints about all kinds of health care. people who use the v a on a regular basis of nothing but good things to say about it. the technicians and the doctors at the va develop their own in- house software.

they use personal computers to record everything, record what people are taking. it is now the most efficient system here. we pay twice as much in the united states and other countries. we pay an average of 70 two hundred dollars per year per person for health care. other countries pay $3,500. savings could pay for medicare and for health care for all people. we cannot be competitive with other countries if we are spending twice as much on health care. the 17% of our economy, as soon dakota 20%. it is just another drag on our economy. i have been a businessman and an economist. i look at what you spend and what you get. we have a system whereby people who do not now have health care could be served with an expanded va, and others could

get a voucher to take care of their own health care. that would take the burden of both the employers and the states. >> once again i find it interesting that the greens and the democrats to believe that the solution to virtually every problem is a big, new government program. that is exactly what we do not need. we are having huge deficit. think about your experiences when you are in line at the dmv or the post office. is that the kind of health care you want? people come to this country from canada, great britain and all over the world because it takes six months, a year or longer to get what is readily available in weeks in the united states. nationalized health care is a bad thing. anytime government gets involved, whether it is education or the big dig in boston, you can count on two things, it will be more expensive than they said and it

will take longer. >> i am proud of our v.a. system. i am proud of my office has handled thousands of cases of veterans, whether it be the world war ii veteran who did not get his medals or the veteran of afghanistan who needs the kind of help that is necessary to come all the way back to our society. to give very serious issues remain. s.d., and the other is the number of suicides taking place among our officers and gis. we need to handle those things and we of a lot more work to do. >> senator mccain, i respect your service to at our country, but this is not about your service to the country in the

military. it is about your service to the citizens of arizona. it is about investing time and thought, but what about resources? what about resources for our va facilities right here in arizona? there are 10,000 residents of the nomination you have to drive between 5-10 hours -- of the navajo nation who have to drive between 5-10 hours to get to a clinic because they do not have one on the navajo nation. we can do better. >> if you go to mike website and click on "the best health care" watch the video, that will

explain my thoughts. a% of the people of canada support -- 80% of the people of canada supports their health care system. the majority of people in great britain do too. >> you have advocated reducing the size of the federal government by 50%. which programs would you cut and which would you keep? >> we need to have a plan in place immediately to reduce, essentially privatize, a volunteer tries our entitlement programs. something like 41% of our federal spending is on medicare, social security. we need to cut military spending. we need strong defense, but we do not need to be involved in an unconstitutional, undeclared wars. we got into iraq because we were

fed faulty data by a president who chose to believe that. we were funding the taliban before 9/11. we need to adopt a the jeffersonian policies of honest friendship with all. we can eventually defer and eliminate most of the entitlement programs. we can reduce interest payments. we are spending more and more because we are borrowing more and more. we can make cuts across the board. >> i agree that we can cut across the board, and we can cut the budget of congress to start with. i am proud of my service to our veterans. i receive the highest endorsement from every veteran support group in this nation.

i support stopping the stimulus and returning the $100 billion that is still unspent. mr. glassman believes in having a second stimulus. we need to eliminate earmarked and pork barrel spending which means corruption in washington. >> the working families of arizona prioritize when times get tough. that is what we need to be doing in washington. we can eliminate the giant tax cuts and credits that are afforded to big oil companies. if we truly want to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, let's be strategic about our investments there as well. the projects that john mccain used to champion of the water

reclamation facility and other infrastructure projects that would get arizona is working and stimulate our economy. that is why we need a strategic investment and to cut the big oil subsidies. >> i think a great number of people here have mentioned the middle class. you do not need to be a fan of lou dobbs or auriana huffington to note that the middle class has been getting the shaft for the last couple of years. a couple of years ago, i saw my life savings going down the drain. i started studying the economy and came up with a plan that will put more money into the hands of the working class and

the middle class, get the economy stimulated so that we can grow our way out of our problem. >> i take issue with the idea that we can use the unspent stimulus money. there is no unspent stimulus money. it is all funny money that was lent to big banks so that they could repair their balance sheets. the idea that there are huge piles of unspent dollars sitting around a could be used -- we have to end these so-called stimulus programs, these bailouts for big banks and corporations. >> mr. glassman, how did your experience as vice mayor of tucson prepare you to be a united states senator, especially with all of the tough economic problems we have? >> i am excited about working for arizona and working for arizonans. my experience as a local elected officials gives me the exact

kind of experience every united states senator should have. i return phone calls. i return e-mails. i talked to my colleagues in respect away working toward solutions. when i ran for the city council, i was not just endorsed by the city -- but the sierra club, planned parenthood and the labor unions, i was also endorsed by the homebuilders. we passed legislation on rainwater harvesting on all new commercial development. water is a key issue for our state, and i do have a ph.d. in air and land resources sciences. i also have an ability to bring people together to work together, environmental people and business people. i can do that on the local level and i will do that in washington, d.c. i do not care of an idea comes from the tea party or the coffee klatch, a republican or a democratic.

i have a track record of working in a bipartisan fashion. it is about being responsive. it is about caring about my constituents and working for the future of our community. i want to make arizona a great place to live, to work and to raise a family. we have to do that by building a consensus and that is the track record have at a local level. >> my campaign is really all about productivity. i have been a small businessmen. i have started several businesses. i'd look at things differently from career politicians. i look at things based on what they cost and what we get out of them. it is called productivity. if there is anything the government needs right now is someone looking at the productivity of our military, of our health care system and of our tax system. everybody wants to talk about spending, but nobody really

talks that much about how we raise the money and where it comes from and how that affects the economy. that is why i got into it. i believe is about productivity and making america work more efficiently and better so we can grow again in the 21st century. >> i am sure mr. glassman is a nice person. i just met him. if you listen carefully, it is just a glittering generalities and buzz words. there are very little specifics. the hard fact is, rodney glassman is a democrat. the democratic party does push through some of the largest most expensive programs in the history of the united states. if he is in the senate, he will vote to keep those programs in place. john mccain is an honorable man, but he has not done much to contain spending either. if we send a republican or a democrat back to congress in january, we are going to see more of the same.

we need to break the mold and think outside the box. as a libertarian, i will do that. >> i will noted that during his very short tenure as vice mayor, mr. glassman voted to raise taxes on the people of tucson. over 30 mayors, including the mayor of tucson, have supported me and endorsed me, along with our firefighters, our police, our city councils and city supervisors. why? because i have been working for arizona. arizona is going through a really tough time. we have to give small businesses ways to hire and expand their businesses. we have to keep people in their homes. and by the way, mr. glassman i first's first vote as the united states -- mr. glassman i first

vote as the united states senator would be for harry reid .s spe >> senator mccain has the worst attendance record in the senate because he has been out promoting himself. i ask people to go to my website to learn more. >> one arizona senator left behind as his legacy the arizona project. another one gave the country the gi bill. what, senator mccain, do you feel is your legislative legacy, considering that arizona has returned it to the congress for 28 straight years? >> i would hope that in keeping

with those individuals and others, would be a reputation for honesty, integrity and straight talk, and perhaps a lasting contribution to keeping our nation saves. arizona is filled with people who are serving in our national guard and we are vital to our country's defense. i was right on to the surge. i am right on afghanistan. i will put my support behind the men and women who are serving as an area in which judge like to i have been involved in it many issues and much legislation. it keeps the beautiful pristine beauty of our great state for hundreds of years to come.

i hope honesty, integrity, persons who contributed to our nation's security and to the men and women who are serving in our dedication to keeping arizona the most beautiful nation on earth. >> thank you very much. >> we have had john mccain back in washington d.c. for three decades. we live in a state with one of the worst classroom teachers didn't ratios in the country. 50% of our homeowners are upside down on their mortgages. he was for immigration reform before he was against it. he was before or peeling a don't ask don't tell before he was against it. when it comes to conservation areas, i did dozens and dozens of calls because of john mccain idea for the grand canyon is a uranium mined. it's time to turn the page.

it is time for someone new. that is why i am asking for people's vote on november 2. >> what do i think of when i think of john mccain? naturally, i think of this service. i think of him as probably the most pro war senator that we have had in a long time. we have been involved in several wars and the middle east. all of them have idealistic names. we all know what the root cause of these wars is. it is our addiction to foreign oil. that is why i am not permit -- supporting a proposal by bill gates. we have to approach alternative energy as if it wasn't a matter of national security. because it is. >> senator mccain does have the distinguished legacy. look back and you will see the bills would names like -- let's

face it, and john mccain 8 is no consistent defender of our liberties. one of the reasons i got into this race is because right now, senator mccain is the lead sponsor of senate bill 3081. it is a bill that would authorize the arrest and indefinite detention of american without recourse. but this is one of the most dangerous, evil bills i have ever been proposed in congress. >> i would like for you to ask the local police and fire people -- fire people, who live for food closely to make sure we

keep our people safe, that we get as much as possible to our citizens, that is from a long and close relationship with their elected officials, are county supervisors. i am proud of my relationship with them. >> the last question of this debate will be for mr. johnson. in your campaign literature, you appear to be advocating a policy of winning the hearts and minds of the afghan people. how did you win the hearts and minds of the people in a country where radical islam is seemingly a sanctuary? >> radical islam is -- there are two books that people ought to be to understand i'm coming from. one is surely wilson's of war. the other one is the 3 cups of tea. that one is about building at schools in western pakistan and afghanistan.

the problem is not that our military is too big. it is that it does not fit the mission. when we first went to afghanistan, the mission seemed to be to bomb them back into the stone age. in order to win their hearts and minds, in order to work on the ground level, we need to spend a long time, but not spend as much money. it is a difficult thing to do and it is a difficult thing for the military to convert from a program where we are spending $100 billion this year in afghanistan. there are an estimated 50-100 al qaeda fighters. i do not believe it is going to work because the afghan army is so dysfunctional. we had been training and now for nine years. 90% of them are illiterate.

the desertion rate is through the roof. we need a new strategy in afghanistan. i do not believe -- we need a new strategy. >> i am reminded -- it went to the effect of 15 saudis to attack the united states would airplanes and killed thousands of americans. but you invade afghanistan. we should never have gone there. we should bring our troops home. a century ago, a man named randolph warrant said war is the help of the state. if you want a small, limited constitutional government, you cannot simultaneously waged wars around the world.

>> we cannot allow afghanistan to return to being a base court attacks on the united states and our allies. we cannot forget what happened. i recommend a book called "ghost wars." we have the finest military in the history of our country. retention and recruitment as at an all-time high. a general petraeus is well defined as the generals that america has ever produced. its i am so proud of the job at the arizona national guard is doing. i am proud of the work i did on their behalf. the biggest problem today is the president announcing that we're going to lead in the middle of 2011. you cannot tell the enemy that you are leaving and expect to succeed. >> we should not be telling our economy that we are leaving, but

we also cannot every time there is a problem, we cannot always rushed in. my number one problem -- my number one priority is arizona. it will be investing in arizona as a future and our nation's future. when i used the term of nation building, going to be talking about building our schools, our infrastructure and making arizona the priority. that is what we need from our united states senators. that is the priorities that are u.s. senator needs to have. that is our plan on taking to washington dc. >> i think we should learn -- i was against the war in iraq. the true cost of the war is $3 trillion. $10,000 for every man, woman, and child in the united states.

mr. mccain said it was time to pull the trigger. i do not feel comfortable with him still saying -- staying in washington. it is hard for me to believe that he has seen wars that he does not like. >> thank you. i entered this race to campaign on three primary issues. we must dramatically cut the size and cost and intrusiveness of the federal government, something that republicans and democrats talk about, but they never do it. i want to end the federal personal income tax. think of how much better off we would be if you get back to keep every penny in your paycheck. we need to open up a can of worms called the federal reserve system and find exactly what is going on. the more we got into the campaign, the more i became

concerned that sinnett built 3081. do not take my word for it. go to the internet. i am asking reporters and voters, everyone in arizona, just to read that bill thoroughly. it would turn the united states into the old east germany and it cannot be allowed to pass. i'll pull that he would co- sponsor such a dangerous piece of legislation. it is time to retire senator mccain. >> thank you very much. >> it is time to turn the page. we all know the definition of insanity. during the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. we have a choice and rodney glassman. my wife and i are having a baby girl at this november.

we are living, working, and raising a family right here in arizona. it is time to have a u.s. senator focused on jobs and education. we have lost over 300,000 jobs. we have decaying infrastructure. we need a u.s. senator who is focused on arizona. i have ideas. we need to be making the research and development tax credit permanent. we need to be focusing on green jobs for arizona. that is what we need right now. germany is not waiting. china is not waiting. we have spectacular research institutes. we need to have a u.s. senator that will support our veterans, and not just based on its service from 30 years ago, but who wants to be working for the future. that is what our campaign is about. this is a six-year term.

please continue to have town halls with us. it is disrespectful to but the voters and myself 42 did 60 minutes for a term that will be six years. >> thank you very much. your time is up. >> as mr. glassman just said, this collection is really a choice. you have a choice between my efforts to repeal obama-care. leading the fight against the stimulus package. or another stimulus package and supports this waste of dollars, supports obama-care, supports the practice of earmarks. he is clearly out of step with arizona and the majority of the people of our state.

i am proud of my record. i am proud of protecting our basic. i am proud of the fact that i've been involved in numerous environmental and legislation which protects the pristine beauty of arizona. i am proud of my service and support from every veteran organization across america and our state. i have hundreds of town hall meetings. i listened to the people. i know that they know that we can come out of this mess we are in by stopping spending, getting our fiscal house in order, by restoring america's greatness. arizonas best days are ahead of us. i thank you for allowing me to serve. i appreciate your support. >> i hope i made a connection tonight with republicans, democrats, and independence, who want real solutions to the worst

economy since the great depression. i knew the odds were long getting into this campaign. i believe that it would come down to this, and a campaign of big ideas obverses special- interest money. i have been encouraged just going out and meeting people. everybody wants to restore america's no class. i've been encouraged by what has been happening across the united states. we have seen several new candidates, people running for office for the first time, defeat career politicians. a police said that 50% of americans want to vote for a third party. -- a poll said that ticket% of americans want to vote for a third party. i want everybody to go to our web -- to my website and print out our window signs. put them on the back of your car. if you really want to send a

message to washington, you can do it by electing a member of the arizona green party to the u.s. senate. go to your computers. get that name recognition thing going. we could actually make it happen. i enjoyed this evening and meeting everybody. they give, arizona. >> thank you, gentlemen. this has been a very enlightening discussion. this will wrap up this television special. we want to thank all of the candidate for a discussion and thank you at home for being here. good night. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> we are showing some of the campaign debates from around the country. next, we will hear from the

candidates running for senate in new hampshire. then, colorado. to them, and another chance to see a debate between the candidates and the arizona senate race. saturday, live coverage of a rally at the lincoln memorial sponsored by a group called a one nation working together. it is a collection of more than 150 national, local, organizations. the focus of the gathering is jobs, justice, and education. speakers will include human rights and civil rights leaders, environmental and peace activist, state leaders, celebrities, sports figures. you can see it live beginning at noon on c-span. >> mr. cameron, all new offer is a miserable, pessimistic view of what britain can achieve and to hide behind the deficit.

we will not let him get away with it. annual is from labor's party conference, sending nine at 9:00. >> now, a debate between the new hampshire senate candidate. kelly ayotte and paul hodes. it took place wednesday, september 22, at the studios of new hampshire public radio. this is about an hour. >> this is the candidate for among business and the economy, sponsored by lincoln financial group. >> hello, everyone, and welcome to a candidate forum. i am the host of the exchange on new hampshire public radio.

we are coming to you from studio d. for the next hour, the two candidates for u.s. senate will engage in a discussion about some of the major economic issues facing us all today. we will press them to talk about what they would you as members of the u.s. senate and refrain from spending valuable time attacking each other. let me introduce our candidates. they are former attorney-general and republican kelly ayotte and democratic congressman paul hodes. we tossed a coin yesterday to see who would receive the first question. that goes to kelly ayotte. >> about 8300 jobs have been

treated were saved. there was another 313 million received from contracts and loans. t believe these jobs figures can -- are real and to be attributed to the stimulus? does it show that the expenditure was a worthwhile investment? >> john, the problem with the stimulus package is this -- is not the government that will create jobs in this country. it is our small businesses, it is the private sector. many of the so-called jobs that were carried out of the stimulus were essentially temporary jobs, government jobs, not private sector growth. i have -- i am a member of a small business family. the stimulus, when you look at where we are in this country, lost 2.5 million jobs since that stimulus package was passed. it was a big government funded program, but it did not allow the growth in the private

sector. the best thing we can do is cut taxes for businesses to create a positive climate for businesses rather than these jobs -- the cost of the government administering it was not an efficient use of our taxpayer dollars. >> do you believe that there is any responsibility of the government to spend more to create jobs in the private sector or is it more of a get out of the way, less government? there must be some role for the government. >> the role the government is to create a pro-growth policies that allow our businesses to thrive. and not -- to lower taxes on dark businesses. a regulatory climate where they can go out and expand their businesses. there is a role for government, but the small businesses will create jobs. the health care bill retains a

requirement that every business must file a 10-99 forum for goods purchased over $600. that is an example where the government makes regulations that make more difficult for small businesses. the role for the government is to create a positive climate so our businesses can create jobs. >> congressman, what do you think of these jobs figures? it comes out to nearly $74,000 per job. is that a worthwhile taxpayer investment? >> it was certainly necessary to stabilize an economy that was in absolute free fall. we were a house of cards economy on a foundation of sand. at the time, the recovery act was passed, we lost almost 4 million jobs. the economy was in free fall, so nobody wanted to make those investments, but it had to be done. some of the good things that have happened is the recovery

act gave middle-class families the biggest tax cuts in history. new hampshire polls copper ended million dollars in tax cuts that said the jaws and traded jobs for teachers, firefighters, and police. there is a teacher in manchester, she is teaching our kids banks and recovery act. there are thousands like her all across the country. there is a lot more work to be done. we have to deal with our deficit and cut wasteful spending. we have to make sure that we build the middle class on a firm foundation. we have to invest in our small businesses. we have to give them the tax felt that they need. my opponent will say that i have some policy disagreements. she believes that tax cuts for shipping jobs overseas will create jobs. i believe that we need to stop tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. we need to make sure that small

businesses have the tax help right here in new hampshire to create jobs. our small businesses are the backbone of our economy. >> what is your balance plan to -- balance point for investments? should there be another so- called stimulus? >> it is critical that we walk and chew gum at the same time, john. we have an immediate jobs crisis. in order to rebuild the middle class on a firm foundation, a first, we have got to stop wasteful pork spending. washington has a real disconnect about what is going on. i voted against the wall street bailout, for example. that is where the focus really needs to be. in cutting wasteful spending, we need to collect the tax breaks for companies to ship jobs

overseas because small businesses here in new hampshire need them. we need to make sure that the tax breaks for the wealthiest americans, are not perpetuated. we cannot afford that to our deficit. it would basically double the deficit. we have to cut wasteful spending. i propose cuts all the board. i proposed that we hold a line on discretionary spending and bring back the budget controls. take all of the wall street bailout money and put it back in to reduce the deficit. that is where we need to go first and then create the policies to grow our middle class. >> if i could just quickly follow up. you said that kelly ayotte favors tax cuts. what is that?

>> she has signed onto a tax break that says she will not change the tax code and she has espoused policies that say that the wealthiest taxpayers to continue to get tax breaks. the cost of those tax breaks for the top 2% is $700 billion. for companies that ship jobs overseas, current tax law would allow them to defer paying taxes on that in common. it allows them to gut the expenses of shipping jobs overseas. a company like exxon mobil does not pay any taxes or minimal taxes here in the united states for access to the greatest market in the free world. we have to shift back and make sure we are providing help for small businesses. >> do you favor tax cuts for businesses that ship jobs

overseas? >> what the congressman says is absolutely false. no tax increases on our businesses. on what the congressman, he wants to increase taxes on people here in new hampshire. including our small-business owners because that is to those tax increases are going to impact. the tax increases he wants to impose is 8 $300 million hit on new hampshire. those tax increases will impact half of the business and come in this country, including many other small-business owners. his policies are actually going to hurt our economy. we will lose jobs in new hampshire because he wants to increase taxes. i do not want to increase taxes on businesses. i want to decrease taxes. we of the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. many of our corporations locate

elsewhere. >> we will definitely get and more of that. >> absolutely false. i want to insure that we do not increase taxes on businesses. >> i need to hand it back to my colleague. >> the bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire at the end of the year. president obama would like to extend those tax cuts, except for individuals earning $200,000 a year or more and couples earning two entered $50,000 a year or more. -- $250,000 a year or more. >> given the problems of the deficit that we were left, the bush tax cuts drove us into deficits along with the vendor to regulate wall street adequately and allowing wall street to run wild, we cannot go

back to those policies. we simply cannot. we had a balanced budget in the year 2000, when the obama took office, a $1.30 trillion deficit. we have to deal with it in a responsible way. it is fiscally irresponsible to allow the tax breaks for the top 2%. the middle class has been clobbered. my opponent has favored policies that would extend all the bush tax cuts. she signed on to make them perfect. that would double the deficit. it would double the deficit. we cannot afford to do that. that is not fiscally conservative or fiscally responsible. we need to end the tax breaks for the top 2%. i disagree with some of the economic policies of the administration. i think we need to give a greater exemption on the

inheritance tax, for example. i favor a $5 million exemption would a lower tax break on and after that. it is inappropriate to extend some tax -- it is appropriate to extend some tax help. >> how would the extension create jobs? >> make sure that we are putting money in the pockets of people who will spend it. if you give tax breaks to the very wealthiest, one thing is clear, they held onto it. they did not spent -- send that money into the economy. when you give tax help to the middle class, you can see the impact. it comes into the economy. part of our problem right now in this very fragile recovery is that structural deficiencies too

much to get me in the middle class have been left without the buying power that we need to help propel the recovery. by making sure that we extend the middle class tax cuts, we give them the power to spend in our economy and help propel the recovery while we put in place the importance fundamental, the foundation of prosperity for the middle class. clean energy, health care, do you support the extension and job creation? imposed a sudden desire to reduce the deficit. it has gone from two hundred $48 billion to $1.50 trillion.

since he got into office, the national debt has increased from $8 trillion to 13 trillion -- $13 trillion. in 2009, he voted for 9000 earmarks. when we talk about reducing the deficit, his -- now he also wants to increase taxes on our job creators because those tax increases will impact top of the business income in this country, including here in new hampshire an. it was agreed that we should not raise taxes right now. that would be a $300 million hit here on new hampshire and would impact many of our small business owners, making it more difficult for them to have the capital to expand their businesses, to put people to

work here. it is the wrong philosophy to raise taxes during thithese difficult economic times. >> would you extend for all? >> i would. basically, if we do not keep taxes stables, we will see an increase in january and in capital gains interest increases and those increases in taxes, make no mistake, they hurt the small business owners in new hampshire. >> by the congressional budget office predicts that it is better to retire the tax exemption for the wealthy and send that money to states for aid. how do you respond to that? >> i think that the best approach is to keep more capital in the pockets of our

small business owners. expand their business and put more people to work. the three economists that met yesterday all agree here in new hampshire that the best move was to not increase taxes. keeping the money in the private sector with more efficient use of our dollars to make sure we can create more jobs is the way to go. we are a small business state. these tax increases will hit our small business owners. >> what is clear is that there is a clear difference between us. but let's be really clear about what we just heard. she says she wants to extend all the tax cuts that president bush put in office. everybody agrees that that will double our deficit. we cannot afford to double the deficit. it is really surprising that i am attacked for increasing the deficit with policies that she despises.

we need to stop the tax breaks for the rich and invest that money in helping the states and helping the small businesses. on that we agree. we need to help small businesses. we can do what we need to rebuild the middle class and help small businesses if we are doubling the deficit. that is absolutely clear. >> moving on to health care. >> a recent survey indicates that rising health care costs remain a top concern. you said you would repeal current health care law. why? >> the health care bill was a $1 trillion government takeover of the health care system. this is an area where congressman hodes and i definitely disagree. as a result of the health care bill, the center for medicaid services is talking about premium increases of that our businesses will be seeing because of the bill. it will also add to our deficit.

in addition to that, i talked about this earlier, the regulatory requirements in that bill, the new 1099 requirement which imposed -- which is imposed on our businesses. we have 55 medical device companies here in new hampshire, one of the highest per capita rates of these types of companies in the country. they create great jobs. i have been visiting them on the campaign trail. the new taxes in this health care bill will take roughly one- third of their research and development budget. that will further hurt employment and also increase premiums because this bill did not address the cost of health care. i am part of a small business family. i have been traveling around the state. so many small-business owners have expressed concerns about the cost of health care. i should be allowed -- we should be allowed private care. >> purchased pooling and

electronic records and so forth, these are good things. would you think about scrapping the entire law or amending it? >> again, it is a $1 trillion health care bill, the government taking over health care. it is not the right approach to mandate individuals and businesses, tax penalties. what we need to do is open up the insurance markets, allows small businesses to get better rates by grouping together, and have better tort reform. those measures will reduce cost. the congressional budget office has said that, if we pass tort reform measures, we could save close to $50 billion over 10 years to reduce health care costs. those measures are not being pushed for in this bill. it is the wrong approach. >> you supported the health care

reform with the public option. why is that necessary? >> what was important was to bring down health care costs in the long term. health care costs in the private sector and for government, which pays about 50% of all the costs across the country for now with medicare and medicaid and health care for veterans, we had to address the soaring cost of health care and abuses by insurance companies. she is repeating the partisan phrases about $1 trillion takeover. nothing could be absolutely for the from the truth. -- further from the truth. it uses private insurance companies and give people access to the same health insurance that members of congress in the senate have. that is what we ought to do. there's no reason why the american public should not have access to the same insurance that any member of congress or the senate has.

that is critical. as the reform comes in, the small businesses who have not been able to effectively pull together to get insurance will be able to pull together and, as a member of the senate, i will be in the same pool with the small businesses. we have also stopped health insurance company abuses, throwing people off when they get sick, preventing people with pre-existing conditions from getting insurance. in fact, tomorrow, at the white house, gail o'brien will be there with president obama. she is the first person in the country to be able to sign up for the catastrophic program. she has cancer. she has a pre-existing condition. she cannot get insurance right now. she is the first person to sign up for the program that will allow people with preexisting conditions to have access to health insurance right here in new hampshire. we have had to stop those

insurance company abuses. ms. ayotte wants to repeal the whole thing. it would not sick kids with pre- existing conditions of the possibility of having access to doctors. it would take money out of the pockets of our seniors who will finally get some help to help pay for their prescription drugs. it is the wrong approach. the idea of repealing this reform is just the wrong way to go. there are plenty of things to fix. but we will do that as we go along. >> to getting back to cost, this week, many insurance providers increase premiums. does this law allows insurance companies to profit more and put more burden on employers? >> one of the things that i thought could have been much stronger in the health care reform bill would have been preventing those premium increases by the health insurance companies, which is still being done on a state-by- state basis. they are outrageous.

an example of why health care reform is absolutely necessary. it has provisions to make sure that our health insurance companies are spending the right amount on health care and not too much on administrative costs. it introduces competition with of the pools for small business and the uninsured. there would have just kept going the way they do and it is time to put some controls on the health insurance company. miss ayotte would allow the health insurance companies to control our health care. i think it is important that patients control health care. we need to make sure we stand up to the insurance companies so they cannot throw us off when we get sick. they cannot refuse to cover us. her plan would allow for people to be denied the protections that right now new hampshire provides for women for mammograms and things like that.

it just does not make any sense. >> john, your question to mr. hodes. >> congressman, this is about labor unions. there are now about 2 million fewer members of labor unions in the u.s. than there were 15 years ago. in 2009, only 7% of the private- sector work force were union members. why do you think there has been such a precipitous drop in membership? if you believe that is a problem, why is it a problem? >> our great industrial nation where, and the second half of the last century, was built in the industry of world war ii and significant manufacturing base that created middle-class prosperity, power this economy, and made america something.

over time, our trade policies have allowed for jobs to be shipped overseas where labor rates were cheap. there were no environmental controls. tax policies have allowed outsourcing of our jobs and provided incentives for companies to ship jobs overseas. the middle class has been clobbered and you have seen a decline in union membership and organized labor. i think that the right of people to form unions and have a voice and a say in management is an important right, one that has helped create prosperity in this country. i think it is important that we make sure that there are provisions in place to help support fair bargaining and fair labor standards. miss ayotte, i think, espouse policies that would take us back to some other time when there were no fair labor standards for

people to form unions. >> fewer the co-sponsor for the employee for choice act. what is wrong with allowing the continuation for the secret ballots which are called the way for union boss intimidation? how does that help rebuild union strength in this country? >> what the heck does is eliminate the secret ballot. it ends the employer monopoly on how unions can be formed. right now, essentially, employers have a veto over the workers who may want to form a union. what this law would do is a level the playing field. it would give means to form a

union, one that is efficient and effective. it also stops abuses of all kinds, whether it is by labor unions or employers. it ends the monopoly of employers. it creates fairness. it does not and the secret ballot. it is an alternate approach. it is something that we cherish. it puts choice into the organizing scenario. i think that is a good thing. >> miss ayotte, is it ok that this is -- what is happening in terms of the labor unions, the weakening of organized labor? why do you think that has happened, number one? is it actually something that is good for the economy or not? >> in terms of the employee free choice act, which congressman hodes nautilus supports but is a sponsor of, let's be clear, it

removes what i think is a fundamental right of democracy, which is for people to go and confidentially decide to cast their vote, whether it is to be a member of a union or whether we are going to the ballot or -- the box and decide to we will select. bill is wrong in its approach because it essentially approaches mandatory arbitration between the employer and the employee of a god -- with a third-party deciding what the contract is going to be. we know congressman hodes is supported by big labor in his campaign and that is why he has to be a co-sponsor of the employee free choice act. but is a misnomer. it is not about choice. it is about taking away workers democratic rights. in terms of unions, people should be freely able to decide whether they want to join a union or not in this country. that bill really interferes with

that right. in addition, another example of how he has supported policies that hurt employers in new hampshire, we had a job corps project that was scheduled to come here to new hampshire. he supported a project labor requirement -- labor agreement requirement. new hampshire contractors that are relatively onion and geysers -- relatively and unionize would not able to bid on those contracts. that is an example of his pandering to big labor rather than focusing on big jobs. what is your view on unions? do you think it is something that has passed? should there be a rebuilding or reese strengthening of the unions, especially at this time when the middle class is having a difficult time? >> if workers in this country

want to join a union, they should have the right to do that. that has always been a basis upon whether workers want to organize. certainly, when unions were formed in this country, they serve an important purpose in terms of worker safety. i again, this is an issue of whether our workers want to join. but we need to make sure that we have policies in place. we cannot go so far as to keep people's confidential right to vote to join a union that panders the leaders of big labor. that does not help workers. >> thank you. fasten your seatbelts. we will turn out to the lightning round. the panelists will ask a series of questions and we you are asking both of you to provide equally quick and decisive responses. in other words, yes/no, dollar amount. this will give us a lot of information in a short time. when we say lightning, the minute.

>> with the recession dragging on, should employment -- should unemployment compensation be extended again? >> if it is good to be extended, do not think it should be. if it is extended at all, it to be paid for, unlike what has been passed. >> mr. hodes. >> i think people have been clobbered by policies that miss ayotte's party has supported. i think is critical to not leave them out in the cold. is is important to be fiscally responsible. >> what should the minimum wage be it? give a precise dollar figure. >> the minimum wage for now, which was increased not too long ago, i think is to remain where it is right now. we should allow the private sector to grow jobs at this point and to allow the private sector and small businesses to

go forward and create provost policies for small businesses. but i think it should remain where it is right now. >> it accusing the democratic congress to finally raised the minimum wage over republican opposition. it needs to be adjusted for cost-of-living and ultimately be a living wage, to lift people at a party and create opportunity and jobs. >> would you support legislation guaranteeing paid sick leave to employees? paid sick leave? >> i think that is certainly an issue that needs to be addressed by employers rather than mandated by the government. >> yes. >> that was lightning fast. [laughter] >> the u.s. census bureau reported that in 2009 women still earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man.

is additional legislation needed to eliminate wage discrimination in the workplace? >> one of the great things that has happened over time is the ability for government to make sure that justice is done. i am proud to have supported the proposals that have allowed women a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. i think it is important that we equalize those disparities, especially when there are so many women working. >> i think that we have laws in place right now that address those issues. certainly, women and men who are performing the same job should be treated fairly. but, if that happens in the private sector and there are laws in place that address those. >> should the social security retirement age be raised? if so, to what age? >> i think that we should stop robbing the social security fund. again, congressman hodes, when

he has been in office, he has been voting to increase deficits, robbing the social security fund. we need to maintain social security for those who are relying on it right now. i would not support raising the age for those who are relying on social security or are near social security and are in the system now. >> what about in the future? >> when we look to the future, for the young people in this country, to make sure the system is sustainable, we should look at all ideas, including raising the age, but holding everyone in the system harmless who is relying on it. if we do not address social security and entitlement reform in this country, they will not be here for the younger generation in this country. >> i think it is important that we preserve and strengthen social security. first, we cannot privatize it. it cannot be done. we have to be fiscally responsible to make sure we are not using social security as an

atm. mr. ayotte opposed the deficit reduction commission that senator conrad would have put in that would have proposed an up or down vote on how to do with deficit, including what to do with social security. i supported it. the age question and the workers whose bodies are broken, we cannot afford to raise the age of social security. >> thank you. >> the estate tax will raise to 55% all the states in value over $1 million. would you favor current repealed? >> i think that the death tax should not be reinstated. that hurts small businesses. it hurts family businesses. i do not support its. >> what we need to do is find

reasonable levels for the estate tax. i break from my party on that. i think should be $5 million for an individual and $10 million for families with a 35% tax rate on it after. it would make sure that 99% of people have sufficient exemption. repealing the estate tax would deepen our deficit. it is fiscally reckless and absolutely irresponsible. >> one more round of lightning questions. >> should the government continued to subsidize or further subsidize green jobs? >> i do not believe that the government should subsidize jobs. we should create a positive tax climate for all businesses. for research -- there are research tax credits that should be extended to allow the private

sector to create green jobs, but red, white, and blue jobs in this country. >> it is critical that we move from the fossil fuel economy to a green energy economy. we ought to be number one in the world in energy efficiency and renewable energy. i was able to get the first tax credit for people to buy wood stoves. it supplies forestry right here in new hampshire. i am for making sure that we have policies making place that moves us into a clean energy economy. >> to bring passenger rail to the state, it would cost new hampshire and minimum of two hundred $50 million. considering that, is it worth the money? >> yes. it is important to relieve the congestion on the highways, it is important for energy, for economic development into the state, and i am proud to have been able to work with the state department of transportation, the federal department of transportation, to help bring

rail from boston to the capitol corridor to expand economic opportunity in the state. >> i certainly think, for example, we should be finishing the prop decked -- the project on 93 and make sure that transportation funding from washington comes through and is used in a way the state thinks is appropriate. i think the state should be weighing in on these issues in terms of passenger rail. i do not know that it is worth the amount of money we are putting in. but i think that completing 93 and some of those projects may be greater priorities than that. >> we will change the pace 9 go to a different section. this is what we call it moderated discussion. i will ask questions of both of you and facilitate a discussion between you and in exchange of ideas on what you would do if elected to the senate.

what does it mean to you to be a fiscal conservative? to give examples that clarify what you mean. >> wheat wheat which a fiscal conservative means supporting who -- being a fiscal conservative means moving to a balanced budget in washington, just like we do at home. at home, the bills can exceed the revenue coming in. congressman hodes has increased the deficit 525% since he has been in congress. just last year alone, he voted for 9000 earmarks. i will cut back spending and i will ask every agency within the federal garment to propose a 20% cut. we will not cut across the board, but we will have congressional hearings and decide how to best to administer those agencies. we will have an honest discussion to put us on a more fiscally sustainable path.

there will be no beer march. we need to and that process -- note earmarks. -- no earmarks. we need to and that process. i said that we need to have a hiring freeze -- we need to end that process. i said that we need to have a hiring freeze. we cannot afford it with their children and our grandchildren. i am the mother of two children. i am very concerned that, if we do not address this debt that has gone from $8 trillion to $13 trillion since he has been in congress for four years, we need to address the debt so we do not burden our children and our children can have the same opportunities we have been this great country. that is what it means to be a fiscal conservative. >> i have heard you talk about getting rid of the spending.

you are aware that most of the budget are taken up by entire programs, social security, etc., the defense department, and the interest on the debt. if you want to go for the big money, are you suggesting to take 20% from entitlements and 20% from defense? >> i want to have an honest discussion. that includes talking to defense about giving us a 20% cut. we have men and women fighting for this in afghanistan. we may not be able to cut in the series. i am part of a military family so i will make sure that our country's protected. we need brock kouros -- we need to have that discussion. we cannot continue on a path that congressman hodes has brought us down. it is not sustainable. it will hurt our country.

in addition to that, we have to have a serious discussion about incumbent reform. >> the same basic question -- what does being a fiscal conservative mean to you, especially in light of some of the spending that she raised? >> if i was wholly responsible for the problems we got into, that would be really something. if you look at the borrow-and- spend approach that put us in the whole we are in, it is critical that we stop digging. first, we have to not continue to give tax breaks to the wealthiest among us. the wealth in this country has all gone to the top. that can hurt our deficit by $700 billion. ms. marriot has proposed extending all the president bush tax cuts. that is not fiscally conservative. that is reckless and it is