o start attacking me about deficits, but propose that we double the deficit. we have to stop giving tax cuts to companies who ship jobs overseas. that is not helping us here. that is not helping us rebuild the economy. we have to deal with long-term deficits by going after the waste and rebuilding the economy. it is a walk-and-shoot-down philosophy. the economy has been clobbered. >> what would you cut? >> i have given up your marks. i give them up. we could cut $15 billion if everybody gave up earmarks. until i said i was against them, she came out against them. what is paid-for-play? >> that is the flow of money that goes to members from lobbyists for earmarks and then

comes back from the contractors to members for campaign contributions. while earmarked are 1% of the federal budget, pay-for-play affects both parties and is a critical impediment and represents the worst of the special interests that are locking up washington. it is critical that we get a handle on that in order to have government be affected. but i am also proposed that we pull the line on discretionary spending. i said, take the bailout money and put it back in the budget. what we really need to do is -- i think every congressman, senator, and the president should have a salary cut of 10%. we should have a one-year hiring freeze on non-essential jobs. that is what being a fiscal conservative is.

>> i want to ask a follow-up to miss a yacht. -- miss ayotte. congressman, you said that it is not fiscally responsible to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. >> he voted for 9000 near march last year. now he is proposing -- 9000 earmarks last year. now he is proposing a new idea. increasing the debt from $8 trillion to a $13 trillion, i think he owes the taxpayers of new hampshire a refund. first of all, these tax increases that he wants to

oppose, let's just be clear. these are tax increases on our small businesses, on half the business income in this country. if he wants to be a fiscal conservative, then he should be looking to cut spending rather than increase taxes on our businesses. he voted for an $800 billion stimulus package. we have lost two 0.5 million jobs nationally since that stimulus package was passed. if he wants to increase taxes on people here in new hampshire. $300 million, what do you think that will do for jobs? it will hurt job creation here in new hampshire. >> this discussion is showing me how difficult this tax issue is. >> we should have been making these decisions in washington. >> i supported numerous proposals to cut taxes for small

business. i said, let's give small business the ability to invest in capital equipment and write it off in the same year. let's give small businesses a bonus on their research and development credit when the manufacturing jobs here. let's make it easier to invest in small business. i propose making sure that we give tax breaks to those who have been unemployed. i have been for tax cuts all the way up and down the line. let's be clear on this. the numbers are in. it is very clear. extending the bush tax cuts the way she has suggested we do -- she talks about $300 million -- would create trillions of dollars in debt that our children would have to pay. that is not fiscally ris conservative. >> i see one to jump been. >> let's be clear. $300 million tax increase on

people here in new hampshire is what we're talking about. but also for the congressional democrats have supported this extension of the tax cuts which are basically, if we do not extend them, tax increases -- $300 million tax increase here in a pension -- here in new hampshire. he feels that he has to vote with nancy pelosi. this is a bipartisan approach to making sure that we have a positive climate for business. >> i can see that we will hear a lot about this in the campaign ahead. i will put my foot down here. you have a chance to talk about it again. >> the next question is about energy. new hampshire businesses say they are in a competitive disadvantage because they pay among the highest energy costs in the country. congressman, what can you do if

you are in the u.s. senate to bring those costs down? >> our energy future is perhaps the top issue that we have to address. it is very unfortunate that facing the problems of climate change and global warming and that ms. ayotte denies climate change from man-made activity, that makes it difficult to move n energy future. it is important that we allow more parity for what, which is being resourced here. >> the tax credits helped bring the energy down? >> tax credits help businesses. it helps people. it helps middle-class people and working class people to buy wood resources. it helps to restore forestry and

logging in new hampshire. it helped in the north country. we have two power plants in new hampshire. we need to make sure that we have a smart great and not a dumb grid -- a smart grid and not a dumb grid. right now, the republicans in the senate have prevented a coherent clean energy policy from moving forward. i will tell you one quick story. >> it will have to be very quick. >> we are doing -- we did a town hall and i met and man with a company who makes components for wind turbines. they could not give a coherent policy. he ended up selling his company to the finns. they moved the company's overseas. it had 1500 jobs. with a coherent federal policy,

like we have invested in new hampshire for renewable energy, those jobs should have been, could have been, and should be in new hampshire. that is the kind of thing we need to do to get jobs going. >> miss marriot, how do you as a u.s. senator get those -- miss ayotte, how do you, as a u.s. senator, get those energy bills down? >> that will be a national energy tax that will increase all of our energy costs in new hampshire and gasoline prices rising and make it more expensive for us to heat our homes and for businesses, make us less competitive with other countries around the world. we need a comprehensive energy policy and leadership from washington on this issue. that means looking at all of our energy sources, expanded use of nuclear power. we can protect our averment expanding nuclear power, expanding the use of nuclear energy, using our own resources

in irresponsible way, which we can do, to reduce our energy costs. we continue to buy oil from other countries that do not like this. we make our country less competitive on our energy costs. it will take more nuclear power, more renewable power, more using our own natural resources, and also conservation, a combination of all of this. it also takes leadership from washington. >> we will have a chance later to follow-up on these energy issues, which we know is important to new hampshire businesses. phil bond, you have your final question. vaughn, you have your final question. >> by working together, they can

create jobs, if private sector working with nonprofits. what lesson can you take to washington from that example that would help create jobs in communities across the country? >> that is first to congressman hodes. >> i was chairman of the board for the capital center for the arts. in the time of deep recession in 1990, citizens decided that maybe we could revitalize a dilapidated mondo house -- vaudeville house. in the end, we learned a valuable lesson. the people who had the answers was a public-private partnership. these were private citizens. it helped revitalize downtown concord. it brought an economic engine that employs people and brings people into town. in new hampshire, we understand public-private partnerships.

there are folks here in the audience, members from the other party, who work on that project with the community. in new hampshire, we know that the people have the answers. change happens from the bottom up. that is a critical lesson that washington really needs to learn. >> miss ayotte. >> in new hampshire, these partnerships that occur at a local level are critical. the best thing we can do is not by continuing to think that growing our government in washington and dictates mandated from washington will allow the solutions that come from people here in new hampshire. i want to create a positive climate for people here in new hampshire. a positive tax climate for small businesses so they can create jobs and create partnerships and come up with new ideas that allow our entrepreneurs to thrive. when you think about what has

happened in washington since congressman house has gone into office, the government continues to grow and gets more involved in our lives. taxes have increased. our deficit has increased. it has not created a positive climate for people here in new hampshire to come up with the best ideas and thrive great new companies and new projects that serve our community and put people to work. >> earmarks seems to be a perfect whipping person. congressman, you participated in your remarks last year. the businesses that thrived based on earmarks -- if it is said that nothing is wrong with them and as long as it is transparent.

is it important for some universities to have earmarks come back to new hampshire? >> it is important to do the right thing, be independent, and not necessarily the politically popular thing. some people criticize me for not bringing home park, for not bringing home the bacon. i did ask for air marks and we have some valid public projects. when i ask for them, i maintained a policy that i would not ask contributions from anyone that i would get done earmarked. when i saw how broken the system was, when i saw that everyone in the country was tightening their belts, i said it was time to stop the earmarks. i was sent down to fix what is

broken. that is why intend to do. . >> what do you tell businesses that require earmarking? like universities? >> he has voted for 9000 earmarks in 2009 alone. with respect to the businesses here in new hampshire, what we need is a balanced budget, a positive tax climate, so that our businesses can have a positive tax climate and regulatory climate where they can put people to work. earmarks have been used to buy and sell those. besides so much with the health care bill and the buying and selling of of those with other people in washington. that type of corruption has to end. with respect for businesses, we should reform our process.

>> thank you for watching and listening. thank you to our candidates. thank you so much. >> the candidate forum on business and the economy has been sponsored by lincoln financial group and produced in partnership with the new hampshire industry association, new hampshire public greater, and new hampshire public television. >> we are showing you some of the campaign debates from around the country tonight. next, a debate in the colorado governor's race. after that, the debate in the california governor's race. then a debate in the arizona senate race. >> this weekend and through december, listen to landmark supreme court cases on c-span radio. >> i believe that the record indicates that, in no time during the interrogation and prior to his confession, was he advised either of his rights to remain silent or his right to

counsel or of his right to consult with counsel. >> brand of the arizona, this saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span radio. -- miranda vs. arizona, this saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span radio. >> next week, the supreme court begins its new term. you can learn more about the nation's highest court with c- span 2 this book. candid conversations -- with c- span is new book. can said conversations revealing unique insight about the court. >> now the three candidates running for colorado governor, john hickenlooper, john maes, -- this is about one hour

and 15 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, good morning. my name is don ward. i am proud to be here this morning to be the moderator for the candidates' forum for the colorado mayor -- for the denver mayor. i want to introduce mr. hickenlooper. [applause] in the center, dan maes. [applause] [cheers and applause] and to my left, tom tancredo. [applause] this is a perfect illustration of my point.

the organizers of this form have reminded me to remind you to keep the applause and cheers to a minimum. so we got that out of our systems. we will begin with opening statements from each candidate. positions were drawn prior to now. >> thank you all for having me here. thank you action 22. we have been all over this state. double the 74 james bond was a license to kill. 007 for james bond was a license to kill. everywhere we go, we hear the same thing. there is a level of fear and uncertainty in the economy.

i a understand that fear. i came out here as a geologist in 1981. when i was laid off in 1986, i cannot find a job. in the and, with two friends, we started the 1 cooper brewing co. in 1988. everybody said it could not succeed. that is when we opened up coopersmith in fort collins two years later. two years after that, but after two and a half years of trying to raise money, we opened another one down here. each of those we were told that they could not work. they said it would not work in denver, nor in fort collins, nor in this area. we were the only city in the country to get a compromise. people told me that i could not possibly win if i ran for mayor because i had no experience.

i only had the experience of a small business person. they said that was impossible, but we showed we could do that two-one. we can bring small business back into the state government. they said, if you will run a positive campaign, you'll never win. we have been running a positive campaign from the beginning and we will win this case. thank you. [applause] >> good morning, i am dan maes. i would love to be your next governor. i have some passionate folks here with me. thank you very much, all my red shirts out there. one person on this stage absolutely deserves boos for the malicious campaign his running. i am going to ask you not to do that out of respect to everybody else in [laughter] the] room.not do it -- in the [laughter] i have heard a clear message

from craig, from cortes, not places i have shown up once of of a poorly, but over and over and over again, 10 times and 12 yards in pueblo, all over colorado -- the economy is number one. you want a strong economy. you want a strong jobs. you want a strong tax base. you want your energy back. you want oil at the ground, coal out of the ground, uranium out of the ground. i will work hard to do that. with 25 years of business-to- business experience, which is different from the mayor's experience, i believe i am the most qualified to be your next governor. it requires an executive management and now, more than ever in the history of our state, a business development skill set. we must drive business and our state. i am a conservative before anything else. we are supposed to do what

conservatives do and that is cut taxes, smaller government, strong energy, cut taxes. that creates jobs in our state. no one is more qualified to do it than i am. thank you very much. [applause] >> it is indeed a pleasure to be with you today. it is a beautiful day. i sort of wish i could have ridden my motorcycle down here. [laughter] it did not work out, but maybe a little bit later when we get repaired. it will still be beautiful time in colorado to do that. beanbag, as an old saying goes. it is a tough road a lot of times because you are forced -- whether you want to deal with the issues are not, whether you want to deal with reality or not -- you are forced by your opponent. it is the old idea about the

kitchen and the heat. both my opponents have said quite correctly that the issues seem somewhat similar everywhere we go. there is a distinct concern about the economy of the state and there are various ways in which we have discussed handling those things. i really do hope that throughout the hour or so that we have together we will be able to get into the specifics on how either one of this or any of us would deal with these issues. frankly, if you do not talk about specifics, it is just a lot of rhetoric. we are all good conservatives or even mayor hickenlooper is moving more and more to the right. it is great news, of course, for all of us. the reality is, beyond words, we need to know what any of us will do in any of the specific situations we will confront as

governor of the state of colorado. i certainly look forward to that opportunity. [applause] >> thank you, gentlemen. i have been handed questions from the audience. i will ask them in the order i receive them. we will reverse the order for the first answers. everyone will get 90 seconds to respond. there will be a 30-second opportunity for rebuttal. we will reverse the order for the first question. we will start with congressman tancredo. as we go, i will try to have a different person answer first each time. if i forget, please remind me. i am sure you will. first, how will you create jobs for carter? >> we create jobs by one way? it is pie -- it is by private enterprise, not the government. what does that mean?

that means you make a much better and different environment for private business in colorado than presently exists. we have driven businesses out of the state. the mayor has driven businesses out of denver, including frontier airlines. he wants a green economy. green economy is a nice phrase, but it does not mean anything in terms of either providing the energy we need for providing jobs. there are no jobs in the green economy. there are plenty of jobs in taking oil and gas out of the ground. we can do it. we can do it without leaving a footprint that is harming the land. it will always be a trade-off. you cannot possibly have all one thing or the other. you cannot have a pristine environment and a lot of jobs for people in this state. there will be a bit of a trade- off. we have to be careful of how we do it. but it can be done. but you have to have a different

attitude about business. it has to be different than the governor of the state, different than the mayor of denver. they have had an anti-business attitude. in this case, they did not like the airlines and they did not like oil and gas. that has to change. [applause] >> like a career politician, you had a lot of railing about what does not work, but you did not hear any answers. when you have not created jobs, you do not know the answers on how to create jobs. here is how we create jobs in the state of colorado. we modify the energy regulations to send a clear signal to the energy industry that we want them back. my secretary of business development will have business develop experience and he or she will proactively reaching out to williams and, and shell and bring those jobs back to the state. and if i have to make a personal call, i will.

we reduce regulations on small business. when someone wants to open a restaurant and they have to put into hundred $50,000 acceleration lane in front of that restaurant before they can build it and they stop those jobs from being created, that stops jobs. we have to lessen regulation. less taxes, less regulation. that is how we do it. [applause] >> i will try to be a little more specific than my fellow compadres appear. i actually have created jobs. i have created thousands of jobs. i dealt with the impediment of why you cannot create jobs. one of the reasons is red tape. we have worked hard to cut the red tape. you will always need some level of regulation and some level of inspection. you need to get the needless excessive paperwork and the excessive regulation out so that

people can expand and hire people. we need access to capital. we can get private enterprise women. .e have talked to various ceo's we have talked about putting together a capital fund that could be matched by the state. we run this investment fund to make sure it makes a profit. we have to sell this state. when we opened wind cooper downtown, nobody knew where it was. we had to sell that area. a few months ago, we were the -- one of the topstitch for aerospace, but we do not sell ourselves -- one of the top states for aerospace, but we do not sell ourselves. how do you pull these attributes and convince someone that this is where you have to be? we do not go out and bring

companies here. but we will. [laughter] >> now is the opportunity for rebuttal, beginning again with tom tancredo. a reminder on the applause, we're trying to get to as many questions as rican. >> just hearing the mayor say that we are the best environment for business in the united states or the world perhaps, it is ludicrous. we are not. businesses have left denver because of the mayor's attitude. it is not just his attitude, but the tax policies that he operates. this is not a good place for business when, in 2007, there was a poll taken of every single executive, chief executive throughout the land about well and gas. we were number one. by 2009, we were last. .> dan hodemaes

>> you have two successful salesman who are capable of driving this economy and that is what we need in the governor's office. not more railing about what you do not like. it is time for positive solutions in the state. >> we have the ground this contention that the ceo of frontier said that the jobs moved out not because of tax policy. we removed all of those obstacles from denver. we went to a free hinder -- hangar in milwaukee. colorado is ranked 11th -- in the top 20%. cnbc coal dust the third- -- called us the third-best state

for business in the entire country. [applause] >> time. the next question, what is your position on eminence 60, 61, and 101? >> it is a clear message from the people of colorado that they are sick and tired of democrats and by passing our state constitution and the taxpayers' bill of rights. there are rules. we are estate and rules and laws. the law says, if you're going to raise taxes, you go for a vote . bill ritter mugs you by putting two supreme court justices and two liberal supreme court justices on either end. just change the name from taps to feed -- tax to fee and have your way. these initiatives are showing a clear message that people are

sick and tired of what the democrats have done. that being said, with the $1 billion shortfall coming at us, i am concerned about what these three can do in one fell swoop in addition to that $1 billion shortfall. i support 60, the reversal of the property tax freeze, because it was unconstitutional. other than that, i oppose the others. >> i understand where he is coming from. we have seen the frustration in the in your that people feel, -- and the anger that people feel, but these are not the right solutions. these would pull money out of the state economy dramatically. 40% of our school districts are on a four-day week. what does that say about our state? we do not have the luxury to go back and analyze the wheres and whats of this.

if you took all three of these, we would pull out over $2 billion from the economy. it would be staggering. every single chamber of commerce, every single business group -- 60, 61, and 101, are not just taxes on government today are debilitating taxes on our -- on our government. they all are debilitating taxes. these would not be good for colorado. we cannot afford this. we have to work toward smaller government. we have to work toward having a more responsive and effective government, but this is not the way to get there. >the nightmare scenarios that ae oftentimes associated with these -- >> the nightmare scenarios that are oftentimes associated with these three things are often exaggerated.

in this situation and case, what we're talking about here is not a complete end of civilization as we know it as a result of the passage of these kinds of acts. what we do -- these, as is often the case when liberals look at these measures, what they say is you're going to actually reduce the amount of revenue that we can take from the people. that is a cut. a $2 billion cut. most of these things do not go into effect for -- they go into effect over a 10-year period of time. these are all cuts in the rate of growth. these things will impede the state's ability to grow its budget as fast as it wants to. you know what? how many people out there are operating under exactly the same circumstances? nobody -- i cannot think of a family that has all of the

ability to actually say, next year does not matter. i will just spend all lower as costs go up. government has to recognize that many people out there cannot keep putting money in. reducing the rate of growth is not the same as cutting the budget. >> time. mr. maes. >> congressman, that is the fourth generation of the different answer you gave last week about those answers to the initiatives. what will the fifth generation be. i cannot count that high. that you cannot count at all -- >> you cannot count at all. [laughter] >> i call that being the statesmen, but you call that being a fraud or a liar. what are you today? of fraud, a liar, or a statesman? >> with a minute.

somebody is not saying nasty things about your opponent. i cannot believe you would take that kind of attack. the congressman, who was spent his entire life in politics, is quick to point out that when the liberals say something of that, this is opposed by every business group in the state, not just liberals. this is too drastic for the economic condition we are in right now. that is what businesses, conservative leaders are saying. almost every significant leader in the states opposes these three -- all three. >> the businesses that oppose this, for the most part, our businesses that are in business with the state and they are worried about whether or not that particular gravy boat is going to be empty. >> gentlemen, thank you very much. we would like to keep things under control. mayor hickenlooper, what will

you do to show leadership to address the conflicting resolutions? >> when you look at the structural challenges facing this state right now, in terms of how do we fund those services that people need, the highest priorities, versus when you do not have enough revenue, where will you look to get them? the challenge is to say -- and we have been all over the state -- there is no appetite to raise taxes. if you step back, you have to look at one of two things or both. look at continuing to cut -- these are difficult cuts. 49 out of 50 states in lower -- in higher-education funding. it is hard to cut back further. you have made serious cuts, but you're going to have to cut more. the other solution is drive business. help people hire more money and generate more income tax. otherwise, you will not have the revenue you need.

the bottom line is that we can figure this out. we can hold ourselves to the highest ethical standards. we can be pro-business and pro quality of life at the same time. we can be pro-oil and gas and yet maintain the highest protections for our land and water. make sure that we do not put that in jeopardy. that is where those revenues need to come from. >> congressman? >> there is an absolute challenge that we face in dealing like -- dealing with things like amendment 23. there are a host of others that come about as the result of decisions that are made during a point in time where people are responding emotionally. later on, they do it again, but with the conflicting constitutional amendment. that is something we are going to have to go to the people with. it will require leadership. that is undeniably true. we have to figure this out. if you want us to reduce taxes

or to expend -- expand services, we cannot have the imposition of things like, let's say, amendment 23, that demands we spend a certain amount of money above and beyond everything else for schools. there are other services demanded by other amendments. there are conflicts that cannot go on. you have to go to the people and tell them that something has to go. something has to change. you have to have more ability for the governor and the legislature to make these kinds of decisions. think about amendment 23. although the 1% demanded above everything else has gone off, the inflation rates have not. we have to fund that, no matter what. what if inflation actually gets hyper? it will eat up every single dime in the budget. >> i do not see the real complexity here. the liberals tend to say there

is a lot of conflict and we need to get rid of these amendments. the rich states, the poor states, there is information about the future economic state of states. colorado has a strong economic future. taber must stay in place. one is our low property taxes. one is our balanced budget amendment. i do not see any conflict there. it makes a strong and healthy. amendment 23 needs to be reexamined. they have been a hog at trough for 10 years. graduation rates are not going up. dropout rates are not going down. scores are not going up. we cannot continue to throw good money after bad at k through 12 without more accountability. 23 is the first on my radar, not because i don't treasure public schools. i have a 15-year-old 2 was a public high school sophomore. i have a 7-year-old -- i think he is still seven. [laughter]

he is in second grade. i want great public schools. throwing money at it will not solve the problem. 23 is causing an imbalance. if we had enough revenue in our state and our coffers were full with the right kind of executive leadership, we would not be debating this at all. we only debate when we have bad leadership and not enough taxes in the bank. i will solve that problem. [applause] >> we have the evidence that the art -- these are three very busy men. the time for rebuttal with mayor hickenlooper. >> almost everything is grossly underfunded. we're millions of dollars short in transportation for the state. over 40% of our schools are on a four-day week. you can look at health care. we might have to reduce people's access to medicaid. look at higher ed, we are near

the bottom of the list. there is so little money. these amendments do not play that large a role. >> i would also like to address -- >> congressman? >> the mayor has stated on more than one occasion -- this is a quote from the "denver press," every part of government is underfunded. you really believe that? let me ask you this. how many families in this state are grossly underfunded and which ones should be the priority? i think the answer is self- evident. >> people have mentioned d'albert as a big conflict. i do not find it as a conflict. it is disturbing to people because of how the commercial rates and residential rates to oppose each other. i am hearing from business that

the commercial property rates must come down. another example of too high taxes. but i do not see that as a big issue. >> gentlemen, thank you. the issue of experience has come up a lot. the next question addresses that. again, beginning with the congressman, how does your professional experience qualified you to be the next governor of our state? >> 1981 -- nominated by ronald reagan to run the regional office of the u.s. department of education. i had served three terms in the colorado legislature. the last of those terminals on the joint budget committee, which is the budgeting arm for the state of colorado. it was challenging, undeniably, but we actually did some things that i am very proud of. we help get rid of the sales tax on food and utilities. when i was appointed to the regional office of the department of education, we went from 222 people, some of them

working there, but all of them employed there. [laughter] we diminished that. i cannot take personal responsibility for all of it, but i had a staff of my own of 22 people when i came in and we went down to two. that was over from -- over four years. if we had gone to zero, nobody would have known the difference. no single child has ever been educated by the u.s. department of addiction. the point i'm trying to make is that it is enormously challenging to try to reduce the size of government. for office, your organization. it is easier to expand and very difficult to pull in. i did that in the face of the teachers' union and the education union and in the face of the civil service system. it was a challenge. believe me. >> mr. maes. >> for 18 or 19 months, i have seen candidates come and go pure

the governor's office is an executive and management office. at this point in time -- this unique point in the time -- we need business development experience more than anything else, someone who says that our state is open for business. we cannot just put a sign up. i have watched people openable website and think customers will come flocking to them. a year later, they are out of business. you have to proactively develop business. you ought to proactively readout to professional industry and bring them to the state. i felt start businesses, turned around -- i have helped start businesses, turned around small businesses, and even during a difficult economic time, have kept selling at good rates. small business does not seem to be credible enough to be in the governor's office. on the contrary, i think it is the perfect time for somebody

with 25 years of business development, business management, want to bury ship -- aren't in your -- entrepeneurship, is a good reason to be here. it is about sitting in pikes peak and the beautiful mountains and a beautiful state we live in. we have to send the right message. we are open for business. >> mayor hickenlooper? >> i did not plan it this way, but my preparation was broad. i spent 10 years studying and becoming a professional geologist. i came out here and will exploration allows me to understand the oil and gas business and the concerns on land and water. i spent 15 years in a small business in restaurants, a business that is all about customer service. you learn that there is no

margin having enemies. no matter how reasonable the customer, you will do whatever it takes to make sure this feel appreciated -- they feel appreciated. we got the general contractor to help us get the subs together. the last $150,000, they invested. it was a great success and they all made money. it was about getting them all together. for the last seven years, i have been the mayor of the largest city in the state of colorado. we ran on transparency and accountability and making government smaller and more effective. in the last seven years, there are 7% fewer employers with the city than there were. this was before the recession. we were finding better ways -- as baby boomers retire, we did not have to do miss it -- massive layoffs. we cut chronic homeless this by 60%. we have done everything with

smaller government. it is one thing to talk about this and another thing to have done it. [applause] >> gentlemen, thank you very much. time for your bottle -- rebuttals. >> the reductions that we made were not theoretical. it was an enormously challenging enterprise. as i said, we were bringing it down in size. we were not the easiest business to run. it is not easy to keep going when you are under these kinds of stressful situations. it is true that my service on the joint budget committee was also not -- >> time. >> there is unique skill set required to go into a failing operation and turn it around. i have done it in multiple vendors, industries, and states. business does not expand by itself. it takes a lot of hard work, a

lot of blood sweat and tears, a lot of proactive activity, phone calls, mailers, walking, driving. it is a lot of work. no business grows on its own. i know the mayor will attest to that. he has done it like i have done it. >> deals in the challenge here is to look at all of our resonates -- the ultimate challenge here is to look at all of our resumes. it is not a question of being alone ranger and solving all of the problems, but of getting the right people together to make the state government smaller and more effective and to expand our business community and generate more jobs and revenue for the state in the process. >> there is no doubting in our part of this state the importance of the military. it is crucial. there has been a lot of debate about that site. the next question is about that.

what is your opinion of that canyon? >> i have said the same thing yesterday. i want a strong military presence in our state. i will fight for a military base structure and troops here as strongly as anybody else would. we will not -- i will not stand by and watch private property rights get trampled and strong armed for any industry in the state. can we not do both? the problem with career politicians is that it is a zero sum game. if the military winds, the ranchers have to lose. or vice versa. i do not see it that way. we can have a strong military presence in this state. a would be glad to go to washington and fight that battle for any of our counties. we need great industry and all

industries in this state. i will stand firm on private property rates all across our state. if our rancher -- a rancher wants to sell his or her property, we should not be intervening in that free-market process of the transfer of property. >> mayor hickenlooper? >> i think dan and i agree closely on this. we have to be pro-military and should be pro-military. if you look at some states like alabama where every county and every man visible leader is pro- military -- colorado -- colorado should be pro-military. i am not sure the military made a convincing case that the land was absolutely necessary. we obviously all agree that no one is going to use eminent domain. more importantly, and you have to make sure that if you are going to take land out of the framework of our rural economy out there, it is like taking a stone out of a stone wall.

you weaken the rest of the wall -- the fabric, the texture of the economy out there. even if there was one, large willing buyer, you really weaken the entire rest of the farmers and ranchers out there. there might be a transaction where you sit down with the military to find a way that we can get the land they feel they need, but strengthen, not weakened, that community. unless the entire community out there -- farmers and ranchers -- are supportive, we should back away from that kind of decision. >> tom tancredo? >> i agree. [laughter] >> ok. 30 seconds apiece. >> sometimes you just do not need 30 seconds. >> pass. >> ok. >> i agree. [laughter] >> i would like to talk about

another thing. >> appllaud in -0- -- applaud in your spare time. [applause] >> the issue of mandates versus revenue has come up. mr. mayor, can you give specifics on how you to improve education? >> the challenge right now, obviously, although some people would argue that we're excess funded, the evidence is clear we are not. it does not mean we can stand back and not improve the system. let's be clear, what a joke. what performance system would any business ever have where you go out and test your success -- a measure your achievement, and then get the results four months later? how could you possibly help the teacher figure out which students need help and focus on

where they do the most good within achievement system like that? how can we build better partnerships between the private business community and our public schools? in denver, we have been able to get a couple of wealthy oil and gas guys to make significant contributions. it $50 million in one matching gift -- it goes to a scholarship foundation that guarantees that every single kid, if they work hard enough, will be able to go to college. that is part of the problem. there were some distractions. how do we make them believe they have a future. the dropout rate has dropped dramatically at denver public schools. the matriculation the college has gone up dramatically. everything is finally -- enrollment has gone up. a lot of it has to do with those partnerships -- getting the business community to help provide scholarships to make sure we are working together. >> the city of colorado springs

-- the school district got a major grant. there's a lot of hoopla surrounding. there are teachers who deserve it. that is great. it is a lot of money paid for performance. it came out on the same day that our report came out saying that pay for performance does not improve student achievement. at the same time the grant was allowed. this tells you there is no significant connection, after a certain point, between the amount of money you push into the system and the outcome you can expect to get. even with the creation of the u.s. to permit of education in department of education in the 1960's, there is almost an in first reaction. it is school choice that actually changes in the

phenomena. you have to end the government monopoly school system. charter schools are great. private schools that offer an opportunity, especially to kids who are locked in the system of the inner city that they cannot afford and get out of -- and that they cannot get out of and that it cannot afford, why not offer them a way out? give them about your. allow them to go to a much better school. why is that so anathema? >> let me continue from there. home schooling must continue to be supported. it should not be regulated more than it is. it should be encouraged to expand as much as it wants to. charter schools, the same. i agree that it is about choice. freemarket competition in education, just like in every other area should raise the bar because of the competition. a public school should feel the pressure and the competition of

saying, if i do not deliver the right product, if i do not watch over this child's heart and soul, these children are going to be home schooled or private schools. they should fear that result if they do not get the job done right. senate bill 191 was the right thing. it holds teachers accountable. it was of -- it was not a perfect solution. it should not have been a towering even to the federal government to drawdown more money on the race to the top. if the motive was to create a better solution within our state because of competition, that is the right motives. the dump through hoops for washington -- to jump through hoops for washington and sell our kids out -- it was the wrong motives. [applause] >> 30 seconds, mr. mayor pierre >. >> it is challenging to say the pay for performance does not work since it has only been in existence for a couple of years.

i would like to look deeper. i'm not sure we have, in the business world, every single time we have put incentives -- financial incentives to try to achieve goals, it has worked. maybe this is true. maybe it is not. i want to look closer. they have not been in existence for very long. it is hard to say whether they have succeeded or failed. >> in 1992, i put out jurors on the ballot in colorado. it failed. -- i put vouchers on the ballot in colorado. it failed. during a debate, they ask, what is wrong with the vouchers and why? they say, because it will destroy public schools. you ask them why? that is the end of the argument. >> finally, i might have to question the mayor on one thing. i have not seen any records of

the dropout rate in denver schools going down. i would love to see some numbers on that. >> easily done. >> all right. the numbers here have been explosive. the numbers of businesses cropping up, the number of applications are soaring. what is your position on legalizing marijuana and not using profits from the taxing of that marijuana for the state's coffers? >> legalized, regulate, tax. over the length of time that we've been involved with the war on drgus, the -- drugs, the war has been elusive at best. frankly, it has been a failure. if anybody can show me a better way to do this -- if they think we can prevent people from getting involved in drugs by continuing to do what we do rather than regulating it. -there is a reason you do not

see people trying to push booze to kids at schools. there is a reverse incentives. the risk-reward ratio is cockeyed. you get in big trouble for selling it to a kid. on the other hand, you can sell it without that kind of fear to an adult. the incentive is all that way. -- again, if that is not right, give me a way to deal with it. do not say that we should continue to do what we are doing. it is a failure. we have to deal with reality. regulated. taxes. -- regulated. tax it. it could be relevant in so many ways. [applause] the billions of dollars that we spend on the war on drugs, if we

legalize marijuana, we will have it transferred and spent in social services, health care and every other negative results if we legalize this. if we can legalize it and tax it, how about prostituting our teenage daughters and tacking a -- taxing it. how about we take marijuana -- heroine and we legalize it and we tax the. -- tax it. i can tell you that if we legalize marijuana, that war will go away and the cocaine dealers will be on the border and the cocaine dealers will have their cartels' their. -- cartels right there. if we legalize marijuana, we might as well legalize it all to get rid of the war on drugs. [applause]

>> i will just warn you that that kind of sarcasm will cost you an attack ad. >> he is saying that he wants to prosecute our children. -- prostitute our children. i do not disagree too much. every smart person that i know says that marijuana is detrimental to kids, especially as they are growing up. it puts them in harm's way. it makes them vulnerable to all kinds of bad influences. every police officer and everyone i know says that legalizing marijuana is a bad idea. i can understand the attraction for revenue, but it is a bad idea. the voters of colored water and said it was a bad idea.

-- of colorado said it was a bad idea. i know someone who takes a tincture of t h c -- thc. i think it has a legitimate use in medical application, but we do need to tax it and use that money to make sure the medical application is not abused. >> 30 sections again beginning with mr. tancredo. >> some smart people believe that the best way to handle this is to legalize the. some policemen, many policeman and other law enforcement personnel say that it is a lot better to deal with somebody if they are pulling them over or going into an abuse situation, someone who is under the influence of marijuana than

alcohol. the arguments were made like this against liquor. [applause] we have to hang up the liquor argument. we are talking about marijuana. i opposed medical marijuana, but now that we are on it, it is constitutional, like gaining. we have to manage it correctly. they fooled us once per they are not going to fool us again. they said to pass it because it is for medical purposes. this is legalization. they are coming in and they will keep pushing it up and pushing it up. we have to stop it. >> mr. mayor? >> i am ok. [applause] >> these questions have all been submitted by audience members. mr. maes, this is about gun- control.

this is written for others. with you, mr. maes. >> there is only one reason to carry guns and that is the constitution. the second amendment. [applause] i can see the other side. i can see the argument about managing guns in inner cities. i can see that there is an argument. i can see that there is fear in inner cities about it. but it does not justify taking the way our second amendment. i have been hunting since i was 12. i should not tell you how many guns i have one of the bed. -- under the bed. two of my fund raisers have been at the whistling klein's gun club.

-- whistling pines gun club. the walls rattle when you shoot a smith and wesson. the mayor needs to get some straight answers about this because this is where we start discovering that john is a moderate businessman, but the facts will come out. you have a different agenda in the sitter doesn't the city of denver that is very liberal. that may work for denver, but it does not work for the rest of colorado. color what is a big state. -- colorado's is a big state. -- call one o c -- colorado is a big state. and wet my uncle's farm had 100 bottles and cans on a

split rail fence. we have all been trained in gun safety and we know what to do. if i was standing there, i would have a 22 target pistol and there were probably 12 of los. i accidently shot a bullet that missed my little toe and my second vote by about a 60th of an inch and put a little hole in the end of my sister and i looked around to see if any of my own polls have seen. they had not, so the data so i just kept shooting. -- so i just kept shooting. i am in favor of the second amendment. what we are trying to look at is how to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals.

i think that there has got to be -- we have to make sure that we keep the handguns out of the hands of people with mental problems and criminals. [applause] i do not know anybody who is trying to give hand guns to criminals or the mentally ill. that is not the issue. the reality is that nobody wants people in canyon city spending for guns in the mail. -- sending for guns and the mail. excuse me if i do not go shooting with you. [laughter] >> i would not blame you. gift last's birthday june -- she may not have enjoyed it as much as i hope she would.

i bought her a 45 caliber pistol. i do not know if she was really excited about it, but i thought it was a great gift. i am for the second amendment. >> mayor, we have to have some straight answers about gun policy in denver. it is nice to hear hunting stories and shooting stories. i did the same when i was a kid. we need to know where you stand on gun and ownership in denver. >> i am happy to say that we support gun ownership in the city of denver for people that go out and get a license. also for people who do not have criminal records and are not mentally impaired. we are not trying to keep guns out of everybody's hands. we are trying to keep them out of the hands of people who

commit crimes. >> i believe that day and referred to gun owners of america as gun cooks. would they not be able to get a gun under mayor hickenlooper slaplan? >> we will begin with you may hickenlooper. what is your plan for higher education? >> this is something that some of us would say we have lots of money and there is plenty of funding. we continue to see our support for higher education go down. the bottom line is that we still have great public institutions. if you look at the democratic studies, there is no connection to our future jobs and future

economy than our investment in higher education. that is why i picked joe garcia. [applause] i picked him to be my lieutenant governor. this is an investment that goes years down the road. the key to higher education is access and affordability. we have to make sure that every kid has access to go to college. they have to have a fair shot at the american dream. if your to continue to raise tuition, you're going to have to add scholarships' to make sure that those kids are not the night. another key retirement -- requirements is affordability. we do not want them to have a $50,000 debt. we do not need to put them under that burden with there trying to start a career.

we need to give our kids access and affordability. >> access has been around since i have been in the legislature. they started wanting a for your institution and in that one of a university. those days are over. we cannot put those facilities in every single community throughout the state and we do not have to. there is another way to deliver education. it does not have to be in a brick building with people coming together, driving their and being in front of students ever assembled a for a certain number of hours. that is an industrial model. it can be done. if you want access, you can get it every single place in this

state with a computer. you can deliver education for distance learning. that is like showing across to a vampire when you say that to a teachers' union. they believe that there will be fewer teachers involved, and there might be, but you can develop the technology to develop a teaching model. if we export better, we could figure out how to best deliver education that way. it is an approach we should look at carefully. it will be cheaper, much cheaper. >> the reason that higher education has been nickel-and- dimed is because we have had a democratic governor that has taken tax base residents -- tax base revenue out of our states. we must create jobs in our state that creates a tax base in

this state which creates revenue for all departments including higher education. because of amendment 23, a kindergarten through 12th grade has had funding taken away and that is why i have got to come back to amendment 23 and re- examining the future of amendment 23. we must drive a strong state economy. we could create more jobs and have a stronger tax base and higher education should not be picked on any more. we must have communication with the areas around higher education about the real education and technical needs in that area. we do not need to be punching out a bachelor's of science degrees in a coal mining community. >> 30 more seconds for you,

meant hickenlooper? >> -- may hickenlooper. -- mayor hickenlooper? >> we could have redundant high- speed internet for every community college. to say that we could take less colleges, i would like to know which higher education institute of any sort you were planning to close because they are the heart of their communities. >> i did not say that we had to close them. if you want to actually do something about a more efficient system, what you do is consolidate. that does not necessarily mean to close them. we did it at metropolitan state. we consolidated programs and is still there. it is now a lot easier for someone to go to the community

college of denver and get a degree-take a class and have it transferred. >> -- take a class and have it transferred. >> i will pass. >> the next question is an important issue across our nation and in our state. it has to do with -- should the governor of colorado opened our state to illegal immigrants and it goes on from there. [laughter] >> we began this time with the congressman. >> i do not know what to think about this one. friends of american immigration reform released a report about two months ago and it broke down the costs that we incur as

citizens of the state for the support of infrastructure that we have to supply for people that are here illegally that is infrastructure for children and health and prison systems and social service benefits. it was a fascinating report. i encourage all of you to take a look at it. the deficit that we face next year is a deficit of $200 million. we are one of 16 different states where the cost of supporting that infrastructure is greater than the deficit we face. it is $1.4 billion. when we talk about people employing the services of people that are working very cheaply, that is true, you can get cheap labor. it is cheap to the employer, but it is not cheap to the rest of us. we pay an enormous amount of money to provide the

services to people who were paying very low and taxes. if you want to convince it to one item in illegal immigration, is the cost to the state. >> here we go again. you are telling stories about it, but what is the solution? are we going to do anything about it. we need to implement a verify error at every employer's location for it if they cannot get to the java application process and they cannot get a job, most likely, they will not keep coming here. in force to laws that we already have all buooks. house bill 1062 said what arizona's law says already.

we have the right to detain them and not just report them, but call is and send them -- call ice send them back home-and send them back home. -- and send them back home. we must say thank you, but no thank you. we cannot help you without legal id. these are three things that we can be doing right now. we should have the courage to stand up and start solving this ourselves. last but not least, i supported the arizona law and i would sign it if it came across my desk. >> mayor hickenlooper? >> our supreme court has always stated and it is pretty apparent that you do not want to have 50 different laws dealing with

immigration. this country has dealt with this long enough. we're not going to agree on everything, but most of us would agree on the basic framework of what a solution looks like. we need to secure our borders. we need an identification system that works. we cannot be manipulated. we need a guest worker system. you can compromise over how many years, but the bottom line is that we need to talk to some of these farmers and ranchers and find out how hard it is for them to find workers during the harvest season. we need a guest worker program not just for agriculture, but for the aeronautical careers. we have done that for generation after generation. we do this throughout history

for successful companies that can use immigration properly. they are the ones that run. if you completely -- when need to make sure we hold our business is accountable. let's go to washington and get 50 governors together and get this solved. we agree on the basic premise. let's get it solved on a national level. >> that is a great idea. let's go to washington and get this solved. what a good idea. what the hell you think we have been doing for the last few years unsuccessfully? they do not pay attention to it. we have to take on that responsibility just like arizona did. that is the essence of federalism. the federal government walks away from its responsibilities and the state of colorado or arizona has to take it on because the security of its

citizens are at stake. i am absolutely pleased to hear dan commit to e-verify. >> i just wanted to say it was a good idea. >> guess who gave me the idea for e-verify in the first place. tom told me to implement e- verify after that is what i was standing on. >> by the way, i have traveled the state a lot and i understand southeastern colorado needs to have corporate, legal immigration. >> let me just repeat, because congress could not do it does not mean that it cannot be done.

[laughter] >> we do not have to accept that. this country is still one by the people and we need to stand up. here is the bottom line. if this country agrees on the basic premise, why can't we get this done? >> of 12 that all the for the lively discussion. i want everyone to have their full time for the closing arguments. we will reverse the order for that. >> the mayor has said on more than one occasion that we need to deal with the issues facing the state.

brings more people together and have them in vision and purpose. pursue a vision -- have them in addition -- have them envision a purpose. they did not like mine. let me suggest that it is a little more concrete than that. we have to take a look at the state and i do not believe that all state agencies are underfunded. it boggles my mind that it could even be thought of that way. especially when we're in the situation that we are in economically. i would do this as a governor. i would go to the head of every single agency and tell them that your task is to come back to me in about two weeks and bring to me a 10% cut in every single one

of your agency's with the exception of public safety. if you don't do that, then we will make the cut for you. it do you think that is impossible? it is not. we have done it before. ronald reagan came to us and said to take a 10% cut. we did it in the next year we had to do it again. i know it is unbelievable that we can actually reduce the size and scope of government, but i swear to you that we can. i promise and swear to you that we will. [applause] >> thank you for hosting us here. i cannot believe that we spoke to southeastern colorado without the subject of water coming up. how does that happen? we have to get serious about our water.

we have to conserve and reuse water in denver. we have to embrace the concept of reuse and get the metropolitan area recognizing that water belongs to rural colorado as well as rural colorado is tired of putting ranchers in a position where they might as well sell their water rights to the metro area because my children do not want to take my ranch over and i think that we have got to protect agriculture as well as all of colorado. not a field of crops or a head of cattle will want for this state because of a green yard in denver on my watch. what this caller wanted to look like? how about 45% -- what is called what no -- colorado look like?

transportation, infrastructure, education and public safety for those of the priorities on my watch. if we stop spending money in other areas, we can have a great transportation infrastructure. our bridges do not have to fall down. if we spend it where it belongs, we can have a great state with low unemployment and have people around the country calling us for it that is how it works for me in business. somebody should be calling us and asking how we got our energy turned around so fast. we should be the shining example to the rest of the country for a strong economy. [applause] >> thank you to the congressman and to dan for a good debate. i think you for your time.

-- i think you for your time. thank you for your time. you have to figure out things. in my case, there were no geology job startebs. some of the jobs that were here five years ago will not come back the same as they were. my position as mayor helped me make that process happened. i created jobs in the small businesses and restaurant businesses and larger organizations for th. i know how to make government smaller relevant saying that we

will cut 10%. what is the collaborative approach? everyone is an enemy and everyone is evil. let's get everyone in the room. republicans and democrats, we are all working together. when i got elected, in the last six years, we have cut capital consumption of water by almost 20%. that is the largest drop of any utility in the country. if you look at that, is finding solutions. that is what colorado's needs. i would love your support. with your help, we can turn color into the great state that it deserves to be. colorado into the great

state that it deserves to be. >> stick around because the congressional candidates will be debating these gentlemen are very busy -- will be debating. as this gentleman a very busy. [applause] >> we're showing you some of the campaign of fans from around the .ountry tonight nex next, the california governor's race and in the arizona senate race. he has written more than a half-

dozen books including his latest, "physics of the impossible." join us with your calls, females and tweets, sunday at noon easternt noon bookedv. a ship uncovered at the world trade center site. discovering why the presidential elections of 1824 and 1828 were not only important but also scandalous. also, 48 hours of people and events telling the american story, all weekend, every weekend. american history tv on sees them3. -- on c-span3. >> now, the debate between jerry brown and meg whitman for the are running to replace arnold

schwarzenegger who is term limited. the debate took place tuesday. this debate was held before news reports surfaced that made women employed an illegal immigrant before firing her. casey are a tv sacramento. >> on the campaign trail, now, from the same stage at the same time for the first time. tonight, brown and 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. -- kcra3, where the news comes first. now, from jackson hole, here is [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, isso 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 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 tokevin 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. i will spend more time in 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

-- . . .

we cannot lose power innovation which is an uc and csu. i want to take a billion dollars and put it back in the uc system. we have to get back to where we were five years ago. the state has more bureaucrats than we have in the u.s. navy.

we have to reform our pension program and our welfare program. 12% of the population is so we have an 32% of the welfare cases. we have five times the cases of new york and only twice the population. welfare cannot become a way of life. i have some very specific plans to reform welfare, take some of that and put it back. we have the most dysfunctional state government and yet i come from a state -- part of the state where we have some of the most innovative companies in the world. >> what about the fee hikes? would he use that money to hold the line of future tuition

hikes? >> i would put it to the chancellor's and asked him how we can best use this money. would you want to reduce fees or invest in research and faculty? >> we will move on. let's go to the next question. >> fact checking organizations have concluded that many of furans are demeaning or even worse. how can voters' trust you to communicate with them honestly about the state problems when you're willing to distort the truth to win a campaign. >> i don't agree with the premise of your question. let's take the one at a talking about jerry brown's record as governor.

bill clinton said that cnn actually said that governor brown had taken a $6 billion surplus to a $1 billion deficit. he also said that taxes were higher. the only error was that facts -- taxes were only hire six out of 8 years. on average, they were higher on the the jury brown administration than they were under ronald reagan. -- jerry brown and administration than they were. ronald reagan. we cannot continue to do things the way we have historically done them i want to reform education. many of the unions that are deeply entrenched in sacramento. they don't want any changes to the things that i know.

i stand by the at. they are accurate portrayals of the records. >> you have run an ad for depicting your opponent's nose growing like pinocchio. >> that is at how of and at penn tell -- that is a hell of an ad. $6 billion, remember, this was 1974 and the state was in recession. it just so happened that we came back quickly and in about a year, we had a $500 billion surplus. the democrats, the legislators,

the unions, and the business. if you add up all of the tax cuts that she is advocating come down. i've advocated that the way we have charter schools. no mere in california can control the schools. we should create charter schools. when we left, we had 21. my idea was a charter schools that would put pressure on the rest of the school district.

>> governor brown oppose proposition 13. career politicians refuse to accept accountability. governor brown campaigned on being the education man. he said it was hard to make it happen. the parents and the kids were counting on him to make those changes.

>> yes, i opposed proposition 13. pete wilson did as well. i campaigned against it and we have announced this and this is going into gridlock. here is the really important point. in the hamas member elections, jarvis himself voted for me, he even did a campaign commercial and what he said was that brown opposed it or he made it work. i bailed out the local government so we can save our teachers and our police and our fire. that is why i am running for governor. >> our partners sent us this

question. they want to know what you see any positive impact from california on immigration and the support a path to legalization for those who are already here illegally? >> yes, i do as part of a federal comprehensive reform bill. secure the borders, get a real verifiable and identification system and make people compensate for any violations of the law. at the end of the day, we have a couple of million people in the shadows and we have to have some process as president bush, he said that. kennedy and a lot of people said we have got to find a way. we cannot round them up and deport them like they did in eastern europe. we have to find the path to

citizenship. the singer prince are taken and they are sent to the office. -- fingerprints are taken. we will work on illegal immigration. let's start with those who breaks the law. let's get them deported while we wait for the comprehensive immigration reform. the federal government is something that they can do. anytime an illegal is committing a crime, they will be subjected

to deportation. >> would you support a path to legalization? >> we have got to get our arms around a passing problem? here is my plan for solving our legal immigration problem. we have to secure the borders of the united states of america. we have not given those border patrol agents the resources that they need. they don't have motion detectors, infrared. we have to hold employers accountable for hiring only documented workers. we have to enforce that law. third, we have to eliminate single tory series -- cities. the worst case is san francisco. i would like to have a guest worker program for industries like agriculture.

that is where i stand. we have got to prove to americans than california's that we can solve this problem and let's get to doing that. on i have been very balanced and very fair. i have said that i was not for proposition 187. i did not say -- i said that the arizona law was not proper for california. >> how would you pay for work place inspection given our dire straits? >> the cost of illegal immigration is significant in our budget and so if we can hold employers accountable for hiring undocumented workers, that would be a budget positive. we will have to work with our federal law enforcement as well as local to enforce this.

illegal immigration is illegal and we have to stop this most immigrants come here for the job. we have to go to the source. a>> you are listening to and watching this special live broadcast. >> you have broken a national record spending more on your campaign than any self funded candidate in u.s. history. please address the criticism that you're trying to buy the office of governor and tell us anything that you ever learn that affect the campaign finance laws. >> i am against some significant

forces. the unions throughout california has spent over $300 million on politics in california. i am not against a pretty amount of entrenched interests. i think that you can buy elections, i think that californians are too smart. i want to get jobs going again in california. it is not okay that our schools are rated near the bottom of the barrel. i invested my own money so i have the independence. that independence allows me to go to sacramento, change how things are done. if you want someone who will just go along and not really fundamentally change what is

wrong with sacramento, then i'm not your candidate. we have to change how this is run. i've invested my own money and this gives me the independents. >> any changes to the campaign finance laws? >> this will not be the first thing that i would tackle. in a crisis, you can only go to a small amount of things. my focus will be getting california's back to work. making sure that we hold on to manufacturing. but making sure that the agricultural industry thrives as opposed to having tremendous challenges. >> the corresponding question is that you have longstanding ties to labor organizations in the state.

how will you be able to remain independent are the issues of state worker pay? >> when it comes to pay, it mix traders, union members, there -- i am the only governor that he to go to the excessive pay raises of all of the state employees. not once but twice. i was the first governor to call for the two-tier pension system. unions, yes, they have their problems. what about business over here? business with the folks who are lobbying in washin the federal regulations cut back, they had deprived the turning generals of their power to protect people from fraud and abuse and we lost 11 trillion dollars because of the abuse of the practices on wall street, the mortgage

lenders, countrywide. as attorney general, we have been suing those people. i if this is something about our teachers and the people who clean bedpans and possible -- in hospitals, our policemen and firemen. those people have the calling of public service. yes, they will be held to a high standard. i do cherish and appreciate the work that they do. when this is excessive, i will stop it. we tried the people coming in with the spine of steel and they get flummoxed by the shark- infested waters of sacramento. i will not. the chamber of commerce has a secret slush fund that they use

for meg whitman to attack me. i would like her to tear the chamber to please disclose all of the donors to the ads you are running and television. when this is labor or business, i would like to see 24 hour disclosure whether this is a strictly formal campaign committee or one of those questionable nonprofits that spending millions in northern california and throughout the country. >> the fact that jerry brown is trying to distance himself from the labor unions is amazing to me because the labor unions and jerry brown have been joined at the hip for 40 years. putting jerry brown in charge of negotiating for the labor unions around pensions and how many people we have in the state government is like putting count dracula in charge of the blood bank. the fact is that nothing will get done. we have got to make very serious

changes here. just over the past five years, the number of employees has ballooned by 33,000 people. no family has been expanded like that. we need to use technology to do more with less. estimates are that there is $5 billion worth of fraud imbedded in the medicare system. because we have not had the strength of character to go after that, i want to have a grand jury so that if people are ripping off the state of california, they will go to jail. it is not acceptable. we let fraud in the system and then we think about cutting power. >> when i ran for attorney general in the primaries, the california teachers

association, the firefighters, and the building trade all supported my opponent's. i know how to stand up against people. meg whitman wants to change the pension system. the police and fire represent 20% of businesses. she would like to define benefit plans. i've been in the kitchen, i know the heat. i can take it, i have the spine, the intelligence, and the wisdom and the independence to do what is right. >> our last question tonight will come from any chance from the "sacramento bee." >> mr. brown, insuring all of california has enough water, would you support -- would you

support that water would be shipped down to the south from the north? >> i support whatever will bring us more efficiency and more conservation. we are very efficient at technologies. in 1981, a brought the legislature together and i had a canal built that would have brought water to southern california. unfortunately, northern california did not like that and the referendum was voted down by the people. here is my proposal in the water. when you benefit directly from water, you have to pay.

the issuance have to pay if they get the water. if it will be for habitat detection were rebuilding the levees, that is something that the public should pay for. if we increased our water recycling and work on ground water management, if you making easier for water transfers, if we billed for conveyances that makes sense, then i think that we can deal with the water which you have to ensure that is safe. there are kids that have run into real problems. water conservation, the taxpayer the supports the general benefits. >> i need to give the same question to meg whitman. >> turning our backs on water is turning our backs on jobs.

i was a supporter of the bond. had an outline -- it had an outline for the canal, there were conservation measures in there. that is my stand on water. we have a humanitarian crisis going on in the central valley. it is not right that we have committees with 35% unemployment.

? >> we have enough time to give the final word to our candidates tonight. by a foot of the coin is that meg whitman would give her statement first. >> thank you for hosting the debate. the reasons i'm running for governor of california is that i refuse to believe that our beautiful state cannot be better than it is. make no mistake, i think that we have faced some of our worst challenges in the last 30 years. my opinion is that if we're going to change the direction of the state, we will have to do it very differently. the definition is insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for a different result. my approach is a focused. i wanted to three things really well 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 and paid staffers. we have to prove that we can turn this state around. i have the independence to do it and i am a big believer in the power of many. the people of california are the most compassionate, the most courageous of any in the country. if we find together, we can do this. we can make the golden state golden again. i would very much appreciate your vote and your support on november 2nd. >> to tell you the truth, i did think long and hard about whether i should run for governor again. this is not an easy job and i don't think that this is a job that if you run a business, you can run government. this is entirely frustrating.

i had been looking at government from every angle from my earliest childhood. my first job was as a community college trust the elected in los angeles. then i became secretary of state, governor, mayor. yes, we had crime. there were nine murders in the neighborhood that i lived at with my wife. i walked the streets and that is what gives me determination to make things better. i have the know how, the experience. at my -- at this point in my life, i have more insight and more experience. my values are different in some respects. i would not give millionaires and billionaires a big tax break. it might be as much as 11 billion. i think that we have to invest in our people and protect our

schools and we have to deal with the biggest problems first. i believe that we should not suspend our climate change energy bill. we should stay the course and create those new green jobs. >> jerry brown, meg whitman, thank you both for being here tonight. thank you to our panelists for asking the right types of questions. thank you all for being here. thank you for being here. good night. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> in a news conference on thursday, meg whitman said a woman provided what appeared to be a valid social security card and driver's license when she was hired in 2000. at issue was whether meg whitman knew about a letter which raised discrepancies about her housekeeper is documents, the possible tipoff that should be in the u.s. illegally. on the washington journal. but first, meg whitman, ndidate 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 whatalifornians 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 thsan 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 whitm campaign has tried vy 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,hi 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,pparently 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 sayshe never saw

the letter, her husband says w 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 ying 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 ked. 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 tector 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 howhis 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 i 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 between the candidate in the arizona senate race. then, conversations with haley

barbour and virginia senator jim webb. >> it washington had one of the most difficult mothers of all time. she was a very self-centered woman who you would think the mother of the father the country would have all kinds of pride in her son. >> sunday, the first of two programs and is soon to be published biography of george washington. this is the single volume biography of our first president. now, john mccain in the only senate debate he plans to participate in during the general election. senator mccain squared off against democratic candidate broadly class men as well as two third-party candidates. it took place sunday at the studios of ktvk in phoenix.

>> good evening, everyone. joining us is john mccain. he is the republican nominee. he has served four terms in the u.s. senate as well as two terms in the house, graduated from the naval academy and was a u.s. navy officer. next, david nolan to is a founding member of the libertarian party. he is the founder of the

"nolanchart," and he holds a degree from political -- in political science and in the mit. also joining us is jerry joslyn. he is an entrepreneur who served in the air national guard. he is the first senate candidate endorsed by the green party. and joining us is rodney glassman. he is the tucson vice mayor. he is a jag officer of the air force. he has a ph.d. in arid land resource scientistscience. none of the candidate had been given questions in advance.

the order was determined by drawing numbers. let's begin now with mr. david nolan. you have warned americans that securing borders was not be used as a part door to a national right deprogram. how do you ensure security and civil liberties? >> that is an excellent question. this country has a tendency to overreact to the crisis of the day. much of the problem on our national borders, i believe, stemson the fact that we have made it far too difficult for honest people to get into this country. we need to make it far easier for people who wish to come

here to work, raise their families and to make it more difficult for those with bad intentions. if we allow in the 95% who are good and honest people to come here with a minimum paperwork and minimal hassle, you could then presume that the people trying to get across the border are there for bad purposes. if they were here for good purposes and could prove that they were not terrorists, but not laden with chemical diseases, not criminals, we could assume the remaining small handful were here for bad purposes and it would be easier for the national guard to intercept them. i did not believe we need to build a large expanse of wall. big walls are also used to keep people in and out. if america ever turns factious, we don't want to be in a giant

prison. -- if america ever turns fascist. >> i agree with you to this extent, we need high wall and wide gates. we need to have good exchanges between our two countries. all of our countries on the north and south border. the fact is that there is a serious national security situation that has developed in mexico over the past three years. our secretary of state said that this was comparable to the insurgency that they had in columbia back in 1980's. we have to get our borders secured because of the drug cartels and terrorist activities and a methodology that is being used in mexico. we need to get our borders secured. we need to move on to the issues associated with illegal immigration. >> the key to this is defending

the border, not just talking about it. resources for ramped up on the border of arizona and texas. we did not have the same infrastructure necessary to protect our border yet at the same time allow for commerce. it takes most people an hour to work -- walk over the border. it can take a day or 8 day and half for a truck to come over. this is about action in getting our fair share to protect our border. >> we will never control the border as long as we can control immigration. as long as 40% are flying over

the border. they're coming over on diseases and they're just letting them expire and focusing on this doesn't make sense. as someone once said in 2007, the offense is the least effective way to stop immigration. what i would do is adopt a comprehensive program that would have a center be a revenue source. i would tax people who are here illegally and raise $1.2 billion a year, 500 billion would be spent on the program and we would have about 700 million >> you do get the last word. >> the point that was raised about the drug cartel, that is a real problem but the solution is to decriminalize drugs so that the people who want drugs are not forcing the criminal sin --

syndicates. if we can make these readily available through prescription, that because the drug cartels to completely collapse and that would end most of the violence on the mexican border. >> the next question is for mr. glassman. some economists have warned that our foreign debts could jeopardize any economic stimulus. what should the congress do to stop the flow of capital to china and should we try to lure manufacturing jobs back to the united states and how do we do that? >> it is time to turn the page. the u.s. center that we have had is a champion for extorting jobs. a champion for world trade and a champion for everything except getting arizona back to work. the number one way that we can make a stronger economy is by focusing on jobs for americans. the fact is that when boeing --

when the navy goes to purchase plans, they can be built by boeing. we can't build the parts right here. we have had a champion to sending those jobs overseas for far too long. we need a second stimulus and it needs to be focused on infrastructure jobs to give -- to get people working again and making sure that our tax dollars stay home. just the other day, i was visiting with a paint contractor. he drives into town every time he can make purchases for his business as he wants his tax dollars to stay right within the committee where his living. i wish that we had a u.s. senator that has the same belief that we need to keep our tax dollars at home by investing in ourselves and by stimulating our own economy. that is how we reduce our debt in the long term. we will create the revenue

necessary to invest in our infrastructure. this is like putting arizona first. >> thank you very much. >> we have a big problem. we have a structural problem in this country. my solution to balancing the budget and getting more jobs going in stimulating the economy is a flat tax. i believe that we should have a tax for everyone pays the same amount whether they make their money from inheritance or whether they make their money from capital gains or trading stocks or like the great majority of the middle class, they make their money by going to work. this flat tax would have a standard deduction for every citizen and everyone would pay 28%. that would eliminate the payroll tax. many americans pay more in the payroll tax than in other taxes.

>> every democrat that i've ever met thinks the answer is stimulus, take the money away from people that actually produce things. that is what -- the opposite of what we need. we need to reduce spending by at least 50% and eliminate the deficit and reduce our national debt. if we do not do this in the near future, this country will be bankrupt and will end up as indentured service to the chinese. >> we need to stop spending because we owe the chinese some $850 billion. we need to have a currency adjustment. the chinese have adjusted their currency and manipulated their

currency in a way that is unfair. one of the way of keeping those jobs is to cut the corporate income tax. corporate tax in america is 35%, the second-highest in the world. if you own the corporation and you have a choice to go anywhere in the world, it will be difficult to remain in the united states. we need free trade. we need to open barriers to american goods and products. i believe the american worker is the most productive and most professional and the best worker in the world that can compete against anyone but we have to level the playing field between the u.s. and china. >> i applaud john mccain as being an advocate for benefiting corporations. we need to get the people of arizona back to work. we need to talk about what we can do to lower taxes. because of the inaction of our

current congress and senators. taxes are lowered for middle- class arizonans and americans and they will be increased because there will be taxes expiring. that is the kind of inaction we don't need in washington d.c.. we need to focus on the future. >> the next question is for senator mccain. u.s. talked about cutting the corporate tax and he called the effort by democrats to abolish the bush tax cuts as class warfare. are you saying that extended the cuts will result in a jump starting the economy and if so, what does that do to our deficit. >> there are a number of things that we have to do to jump- start the economy. the stimulus package has been an utter failure which i understand that mr. glassman supports. this is another 1.1 trillion dollar debt on our children and grandchildren. they said that the unemployment rate would be 8%.

the fact is that we need to stop spending and have the stimulus package be returned back to the taxpayers and keep taxes low and to raise taxes on anyone in america today in the tough economic times we are in. this will harm our ability to recover our economy in arizona and in this nation. we can recover and we will recover but the obama policies have put us further in the ditch whether it is the stimulus package, or health care which will lay another huge burden on families in america or whether this is in the other spending proposals that this administration has. they have mortgaged our children's future and created -- and had generational staffed. >> when it comes to the issues of taxes, i agree with john mccain. right now is not the time to

increase taxes on the working families of arizona. we have watched their usair -- u.s. senator to fight against gays in the military. he has been fighting against keeping kids to go to school. what is your plan for getting arizona back to work? cutting taxes for large corporations is not the answer for the working families of arizona and that is what you would like to see. it is time to turn the page and time for someone with ideas for arizona. >> here is a basic problem, both republicans and democrats always speak in big generalities and they don't have a new plan even though we are in the worst financial situation since the great depression. the reason for that is that there are 35,000 registered lobbyists in washington. every member of congress spends half their money raising -- time

raising money for campaigns. politics has become about big money. this has not become about big ideas. i am a green party candidate and we never take money from corporate tax or big labor and i never will. >> i think it is important to realize the huge run-up in spending and deficits did not start when president obama was sworn into office. the budget was in balance or very close to balance at the end of the clinton administration. the big run-up in spending and deficits began in the bush presidency. this is a bipartisan problem. the democrats and republicans have hoisted the is on america, trying to kick the can down the road and pass the burden on to future generations. if we want to end the problems of runaway spending and end the deficit and reduce the debt, we

have to think outside of the box. i would suggest that the libertarian party is the appropriate party. >> i am proud to have been endorsed by the citizens against government waste, the national taxpayers union, the americans for tax pyriform and as i was fighting against my own party and against my own president and against earmarked pork barrel spending and against this out of control spending. this is a trillion dollar debt on future generations. i am proud of my fiscal responsibility. we will stop the spending and we will stop mortgaging our children's futures. one of the ways we will do this is to have a payroll tax holiday. >> thank you, your time is up. we will stay on the economy. you say to your flat tax proposal reduce unemployment by 20%-30%. what kind of jobs do you see

being created and are they the type of jobs that will sustain economic growth in california? >> i am targeting the payroll tax. the only difference is that he will have a one-year payroll tax holiday. it is some he will pay for this by borrowing money from china again. this will cost $40 billion per month or half a trillion dollars for his holiday. i would eliminate the payroll tax altogether. you lower the cost of jobs by 15%. when you lower the price of something, you sell more. that will create jobs by making it easier for employers to hire people rather than spend the money on other things. another big area is health care. i it in a small businessman and i have seen this when businesses are just getting started and you are trying to get this thing going. we not only have to pay for the

employee, you have to pay for the health care and the payroll tax. half of the jobs in america are by on to new or starting new businesses. unfortunately, it is getting harder and harder. if we can eliminate the payroll tax, we can get more people hired at all levels. this will not surly be any one level and it will get the economy going again both on the money that they will be spending because they have jobs now and also because of the new hiring and so forth. we have got to get to the economy growing again. >> think you very much. >> libertarians believe that you have a right to keep what you learn. every penny of it. it is wrong, therefore that the government should steal your money through taxation. taxes on individual income should be eliminated as fast and completely as possible. this would be the greatest single stimulus that we could

offer to the american people and to grow our economy. we are in debt and we are almost up to 100% of our gross national product in debt. we are in deep trouble and unless we turn things around, we will be in deeper trouble parent to republicans and democrats talk a good game but they never deliver. the budget keeps going up and up and up regardless of who is in the white house and who controls congress. >> i want to go back again to the absolute urgency to extend the existing tax cuts. if we don't, we will see an increase in the estate tax to 55%. we will be taxing 50% of small- business. we need a payroll tax holiday and we would pay for this so that small business people in arizona can hire, can purchase equipment, can grow our economy.

we also need to have provisions for people to stay in their homes. >> we are four days away from october 1st and now we are hearing are senator talking about tax cuts that expire. this is something that should have been planned ahead. we need a green jobs. we need to reduce the amount of people who are dependent on fossil fuel contributions. china is not waiting, germany is not waiting, we should not be waiting. we need to invest resources in the solar industry because those are the kind of jobs that will be strong and lead us into the future. that is what we need from our u.s. senator. someone looking to the future. >> senator mccain mentioned the expiration of e