for someone whose husband had been in an auto accident and was in a coma. she said that during those years, the only thing that kept her going was that job. as i travelled this state, i'd learned that a job is much more than a paycheck. it is about hope and dignity and purpose in someone's life. i am proud of the work we've done at cooper tire, proud of the work you've done at sunlight, at first solar, at a good year, bridgestone, firestone, alcoa, and many more. now, am i satisfied? of course not. until we change these policies on the federal level, there is no governor or lieutenant governor, democrat or republican, who will be able to do, even mitch daniels, a friend of congressman portman, has said there are some things beyond the control of governors that can

only be fixed in that broken place called washington, d.c. >> thank you, mr. fisher. this darn clock. it does not stop when he wanted to. that is our debate. thank all of you at home for watching. a special thanks to all of our panelists tonight. . .

>> our debate coverage continues tomorrow. pat quinn and faces a bill brady. later, candidates for the second congressional district of new hampshire. after that, in connecticut governors debate. dan meloy is running against republican. >> the first debate between senate cabinet. richard blumenthal and linda

mcmahon. they rate this a toss up. this is hosted by the hartford courant. the moderator is from the fox news channel. >> live, and from the theater, fox coonnecticut since the debate. here is our moderator. >> good evening. this is a special report. welcome to the connecticut senate debate. it is between richard blumenthal and linda ed mcmahon. we bring you this debate. cover a wide range of topics it is from the economy to foreign policy.

to an art to esteemed panelists. joining me are -- joining me are two esteemed panelists. these have not been shared with their cleared by either campaign. the audience has promised to remain quiet. we will keep with that. no tears or outburst of any time. the person referred to mr. blumenthal. this one comes from ellington b.

how has your public elected office experience without any business experience prepared you to be a senator? >> we have been putting them first. i have a plan that contradicts what we have been seen. it put people back to work first and make sure small businesses have the loans and capital they need. and better trade policies to help them. i will fight for them in washington, making use of that. second, more manufacturing that is absolutely necessary by

americans is a policy that i will fight for in washington using my experience as a public official. third, ending the tax breaks for corporations that sen jobs overseas. that is very important that someone stand up for connecticut. my opponent has a different approach. she would take it back to the policies that led this to these problems including the bailout. she supported it. i opposed it. the middle income tax cut which i believe is necessary i would give people a middle income tax that now without holding it hostage to a tax cut for the wealthy. >> thank you. you help build a business with your husband and family.

he went on to be ceo of that business bu some. how has your business experience prepared you to be a senator? >> thank you burda thank you for the questioner. out about the like to welcome our audience. thank you for joining us this election is about clear choices and philosophies. you have my opponent to has been in government all his life. i am about growing the economy. he is about raising taxes. i want our money to stay in the hands of our families. when mr. blumenthal is talking about a middle-class tax cuts, that is not true. what i do not want to see is us to raise taxes on anyone. if we raise taxes on small

businesses, we are absolutely going to clip their growth and it will impact the middle class. in a time of recession, raise taxes on anyone. we have to make sure that small businesses that create 70% of the jobs in the country will have the ability to grow and to create jobs, because if we handcuff them and suppress our economy, we will not get our economy back on track. the government is not know how to create jobs. that is what i will bring to washington. >> you have 30 seconds to respond. >> small businesses create jobs. a 70% of all new jobs are created by small business. my plan with eight small businesses by targeting those tax credits to small businesses and tax cuts for new hires.

a series of measures without holding hostage a middle income tax cut. i would vote immediately for middle-class tax cut. >> we keep saying that in middle-class tax cut. i do not think we should raise it on anyone. what will happen on his plan that $2.5 billion would be the state of connecticut to go to washington. i am for keeping it here. i do not want to send it to washington. but keep in the hands of the businesses that do create jobs. we are in a recession. let's make sure that small- business is have the opportunity to grow and that they can create those jobs. >> connecticut voters have senior attack each other on the airwaves.

many, many times. we wanted to ask questions related to those ads. >> thank you. on friday, the blue and fall campaign released its latest ad. let's take a look. >> linda ed mcmahon is everywhere. will she be there with you? she took millions of dollars in the state to create jobs and fire 10% workers. she took home $46 million. now she is talking about lower the minimum wage. >> i am facing -- some what is wrong with that. >> that is absolutely false and incorrect. i would consider reducing the minimum wage is a lie. you know that is a lie. i never said that. that is just wrong.

i actually the same thought relative to raising the minimum wage. and never said this in an interview. as to the fact that they have tax incentives, i encourage the state of connecticut to continue to offer tax incentives to small businesses said they came from. weaker about 52 jobs in the digital media division. i am pleased with that. over 20 years, debbie debbie e. wwe -- wwe as for about 20 jobs a year. we need people love walked in those shoes. i have been bankrupt. i have come back from bankruptcy.

i have an opportunity to grow and to experience what us in the state are experiencing. mr. blumenthal has been on the payroll all his life. >> just today, they started running a new ad about you. let's see what it said. >> would you lie about serving in the war? mr. blumenthal did. again and again. >> when we returned, we thought nothing of this gratitude. >> he covered one lie with another. >> do you regret not explaining why he made those statements? >> let me say again, laurie,

there is nothing new in this ad. there is nothing new about this. everybody knows as i said before, i am proud of my military service. on a few occasions come out of hundreds, when i commented on it, i described it in accurately. i regret it. i take full responsibility. it was not intentional. that is no excuse for the i would say that i am sorry. articulate to our veterans and especially to the veterans of vietnam. i will continue to fight for veterans. i champion their cause. i take accountability for my mistakes. my opponent has not done so. she took $2 million meant to create jobs and delay of 10% of her work force. she took home $46 million.

that is fact. when she was asked by reporters about the minimum wage and whether to cut it, she said she would have to look at it. i would never say such a thing. my answer would have been absolutely not. >> when i was talking about taking a look and considering, it is relative to an increase in the minimum wage. i will not stand for this mischaracterization of that. if you understood about how business works, you know tax incentives are not $10 million. you get credit for reducing tax liability.

>> i know more about business than mrs. mcmahon. this is what conn one, someone who will keep promises and but people of the profits, but the people of connecticut of the profits. >> the biggest issue of the year is the struggling economy. we like to ask you both about that. as he had said, you talked about the middle class tax cut. watson has decided to postpone any votes on tax cut until after

the election. was that decision wrong? >> i believe the congress should have voted right away before going home. i would have preferred to have that boat sooner rather than -- 2%. we need better trade policies so we can export more. the tax cuts should be held hostages. i believe they should go to these small businesses. they need them.

we should be supporting small businesses by targeting them with the benefits that we think they deserve so that they can create the jobs that we so vitally needed in our state and country. we need to preserve the minimum wage. we also should make a promise to preserve social security and make sure we keep our promises to preserve medicare. my opponent says it is not appropriate for the campaign trail. i think it is for defec >>. with 10% unemployment, more workers are being forced into minimum-wage jobs. you said the of them is characterized about minimum wage. can you tell us what is your position on the minimum wage? what role does that play in

getting the economy back on track? >> i would never advocate lowering or reducing the minimum wage. that is not what i said. we need to look at whether we need to increase the minimum wage. congress will said this all the time. i am not sure how long the legislation is. i think we need to always look at it. i never said we would reduce it. mr. blumenthal keeps talking about the tax incentives. if he did create jobs, 52 jobs -- that is something i'm proud of. we made the company's stronger. you know what? next year, because of the restructuring that was done

relative to wwe -- alice are hard. they are hard to do. sometimes you have to make tough decisions in order for your company to move forward. it a result of that today that wwe is about at the same place a was in 2009. because of tax incentives, it will add about 100 to 140 employees next year. cracks the record will show that when my opponent was asked "would [she] cut the minimum wage" she said would have to look at it. the record shows that is the case. i am glad to hear that i wwe is hiring now that we are in good times now this is left the company. in tough times, a 10% of her

work force went without jobs. she is buying merchandise overseas. >> you did reference before about my taking money home. i will not let you count my money. i will talk about the fact your family owns the empire state building. [laughter] we look in every instance to create jobs here. i am proud of the digital media growth. it has been on the drawing board for a couple of years. >> of the question of the stimulus package. mr. -- mrs. mcmahon, you talk about your opposition. you said it is too expensive and special interests driven. he said the country need a balanced budget.

if it passed, it would require either huge spending caps for massive tax increases or both. can you name to specific programs to cut outside of attacking the waste and fraud in various agencies? >> i think the stimulus did not work. the money never got in the hands of the private sector. government jobs through like this. the stimulus was supposed to keep unemployment for growing for8%. it is now 9.5% nationally in about that high in connecticut. i want to be clear that stimulus money does not work. what we need to do is to take

the balance and pay down our debt. we are spending a billion dollars a day to pay debt service. that is one where we could really decrease ou. why would we have more stimulus today? let's take that money, pay down the debt, reduce the debt into away at the deficit. i think that we should roll back our non-defense discretionary spending to 2008 levels. i think we should have government hiring and wage increases. we take the balance the stimulus and pay down our debt. >> in august, you said it

was wrongly structured th. vice president biden called it a success. he said the recovery act is working. you say you would have voted against it. what does the president understand now? >> with all due respect to the vice president, i would have opposed the bailout as well. it is too much for wall street, not enough for main street. my opponent supports the bailout.

other infrastructure projects are necessary to put money in pocket fo. is not enough restrictions on those features. we need to cut spending i think we need to bring in our national debt. i would end the taxpayer money that goes to companies because there is a prohibition against they are rewarded for going overseas. some of them do not even grow

crops for t. tens of billions of dollars we can save. we must do it. >> i was asking for two specific programs you with that. i think i heard one. do you have to programs to cut and what taxes to increase? >> i wanted to address what he talked about relative to the bailout. there was a time that congress voted on the bailout. i would have done in a holding my nose. i believe when the secretary of treasuries as we are on the verge of collapse that we need to address that. i think that mr. blumenthal has made a great case for the fact that government cannot spend our money. >> is the stimulus not big enough or not fast enough?

>> the stimulus is not fast enough. most importantly, it is not accountable enough. when the government to be accountable. the people of canada come first. i have stood up to some formidable foes appeared -- the people of the nine estates come first. i have stood up for some formidable foes. this is an on-line question. >> politics are becoming less civil. are you willing to work with the other party? can you give me an example of where you agree with the other side and a willing to cross party lines to promote?

>> i see great merit in the opposition of many republicans to the bailout. i would have sided with republicans and democrats. a lot of what i have done is to leave national coalitions, republicans and democrats coming together. connecticut is a small state competitive i would reach out to republicans as well as democrats. there is too much gridlock. washington is not listening. the los qualities of leadership,

which my opponent has never shown because she is never had that experience to this great and historic challenge to fight for connecticut people and make sure that the next nine states senator stands a strong against the special interest. >> would they be the special interests better funding your campaign? i do believe that we need to reach across party lines. we absolutely have to do that. we are in a gridlock. we must reach across party lines to get something done. as a ceo of the company, you have to negotiate many deals. you have to know how to drive consensus. you also have to hold the line when necessary. the vessels i did -- the best

ones i did wear when they walked away from the table. if a deal is too good for either side, you are either going to wind up back at the negotiation table are you will be in court. i think what we have seen in congress will have bipartisan effort we wound up with a bad product. there are good ideas on both sides of the aisle. let's move our state forward. >> i think my opponent knows something about washington. she hired lobbyists.

they would impose penalties on the company. she knows i will stand strong against special interests. i will stay strong for the people of connecticut. >> ww did hire relations firms in sought to build the program. we talked to them about how you get our people more involved. >> the next question is the

candidates question. in this section, the candidates will ask each other a question. then they will have time to respond in rebut. >> as you know, i am a very strong proponent of a program called biuy-america. believe manufacturing jobs should be here. why have you and wwe got your products made abroad in china, pakistan, and other countries. >> wwe, like many other companies, has outsourced because we do not have the kind of policies in place here that are conducive to manufacture new i agree with you. i think we can do that your.

let's make conducive to make things here in america. we can put people back to work. we have labor costs and high energy costs because of these are contributing to driving prices dis. i believe that we need to have a market where we can export our products. we are manufacturing here. we are exporting from our country. it dries our economy and keeps our prices downwardown.

we license them. we pay taxes and all the money that comes back to m wwe. >> -- -- wwe. >> cutting through what you heard, the bottom line was. fifth come more profit, by sending them overseas by having the products made there. >> we need to assess the candidates by halladahow they me these decisions. >> i've traded over 600 jobs in connecticut.

we need more of this in washington for the. how many jobs that you created? >> you have talked about the small businesses. how do you create a job? >> a job is created in a variety of ways of buying a variety of people, but principally by people and businesses in response to demand for products and services. in connecticut, we can and we should create more creative policy. that is the kind of approach i want to bring to washington. i have stood up for jobs. i superb job when gm bid to shed

down the automobile dealership. -- i stood up for jobs when gm wanted to shut down the automobile dealership. i know about how the government can help preserve jobs. it will promote creation of jobs. it will make sure we made the policies to keep jobs here rather than buying products that are manufactured overseas. >> government does not create jobs. it is very simple. and on to newark takes a risk. he or she believes that it

creates a good or service that is sold for more than a cost to make it. >> i am not going to be an entrepreneur as a senator. [applause] >> i will do my best to assist entrepreneurs in exactly the way i just described. it is the kind of answer that the government needs to give. >> the next is a question on foreign-policy. >> the fighting in afghanistan has been raising for years under multiple presidents. how will you assist president

obama's strategy in afghanistan? do you believe it is working? >> do not insist wartime about the minimum wage. it is a lie. you are wrong. we should have a clear goal and based clear strategy. we have seen different strategies. if the pigeon and petraeus in charge. he is had great success. i hope you'll be able to have that success in afghanistan. my fear is that we have conflicting messages in

strategies. once israel starts withdrawing in 2011. if the military strategy says the we are increasing our troops and that we have a surge. it is confusing to me. one thing i like would be to have a detailed reading. i will make sure the strategy is clear. when you bring them home, we have to take care of our veterans. >> i believe the message here to the timetables we have said. i think we should avoid an open- ended commitment in afghanistan. we must continue the war on

terror. we need to take that war to wherever the terrorists to make safe havens. we must begin removing our combat troops july next year. i believe that the war on terrorism requires inoffensive and aggressive means. there are means that make it more nimble and aggressive. i believe the american people deserve that timetable. >> i certainly agree that we need to fight terrorism and to identify where it is and to hopefully always fight it not on our shores but somewhere else.

we have to have a firm hand. >> one area where we need to increase it is in some of the arms programs were conn has played a leading role. i would reinstitute the f-22 factor. i would protect the building program that is so vital to our national security. we should continue with that program. it is the right thing for our economy and national security. >> the next question is about health care. you said you would have voted against the health care bill. you said it was a bad product and you want to repeal -- which portions would you have in place? >> i do think it was a bad

policy. we need to have a bipartisan debate. 70% of the country agrees the we need health care reform. what this bill does not do is to bring down the cost of health care to make sure there is broader coverage. what i'm saying is the opposite. premiums are going up. taxes and small businesses are going up. it is a squeeze on families and small businesses. in this bill we are cutting medicare by half a trillion dollars. when the bill was first passed, mr. blumenthal praised the bill. now he says when need a fresh start. i do not think that starting out with premiums and cutting costs to our [unintelligible]

we need to repeal it. we need to start over again. we need to provide insurance. i think we will continue to see doctors not take medicare patients. that is what is happening today. we really do need to look at that. >> you have supported the health care reform law. it is only a first step. it is a good beginning but not the end. what do you see as the end, sir? >> this bill recognizes the fundamental facts. no town in america should be healthcare because they are sick. no worker should be dropped after they get sick. no american families to go bankrupt paying for health care.

this bill is a good start. thousands of people have come into my office. i fight for them. the health insurance companies have denied coverage because they say they have a pre- existing condition or the treatment is experimental. we need to do better. medical care costs are spiralling. i would in a provision in the bill. we need to eliminate waste and fraud. i go after it. we have combined to pursue health care, of fraud, and waste. we recover millions of dollars for the state of connecticut.

we need stronger measures to rein in premiums. i have fought previous increases. >> we could have then tort reform. it does not put on the table. i believe that was a genetically -- significantly bring down costs. i think tort reform and allowing small businesses to group together helps produce a vaccine mentioned the insurance companies. has this had a detrimental

effect on this date? but ther>> her company is under investigation right now from classifying the employees in denying health care insurance again. the bill cannot cut medicare. it in no way cut the benefit. >> connecticut and the nation have been riveted by the sad state. the jury began deliberations in the stephen hays case. he faces the death penalty if convicted. how you feel about the death

penalty? you supported? >> i support the death penalty. there are crimes that are so horrible and heinous -- in my view, i believe that he deserves the death penalty. i support it because it is a deterrent to certain kinds of crimes, like law enforcement officers or firefighters i believe it is a strongly merited situation. quite to support the death penalty? >> i do. i asaph agree with mr. blumenthal burda -- i absolutely

agree that mr. blumenthal. the semi healthcare contractors do not help -- he said health care contractors do not have health care. they do from the i find it unusual that in the 20 something years that wwe has been in connecticut, we are never been investigated or find relative to independent contractors. the only time we have been investigated is until after this campaign got going. i wonder why that is. i would just like to make sure for those that are listing, the men and women of wwe perform and

that still ooap opera -- their health and well-being is so important. there are physicals every year, concussion testing, and a drug policy that is in place to prevent illegal drug use and to make sure that they are well cared for. >> as you know, my jurisdiction is simple. the allegations. wwe seem to be criminal in nature. it is no coincidence that my investigation coincide. allegations about contractors are investigated by the department of labour. bob i have no knowledge about

that investigation that is being conducted by the state. >> i have no comment. [laughter] >> many in your party have demonized the tea party, calling them extremists. how would you describe the tea party? let'>> i welcome anyone that was to be involved in the political process. they commit the passion to be involved. one of the great parts has been that we have enlisted the services of so many volunteers.

my opponent has spent more than $25 million. i welcome the kind of energy that is brought to this process by volunteers. i have said again and again that my campaign may be outspent the will not be out worked. the people of connecticut want an election. >> how you describe the two party? do you welcome their support? >> first of all, i am funding my campaign with money i earned over these past few years. i have earned every nickel of this money. if i choose to invest in a campaign because i firmly believe that we need change and smaller government, i am willing to spend that money in this campaign. i am not expecting private

interests. i want to have an independent voice. i said i would find a campaign with my own money. the people of connecticut cannot be bought. i have been out every single day since my campaign. i have talked and listen to the people of connecticut. they shared have a want to make sure their senator is connected. i am very pleased with the work i put into this campaign. excuse me? >> humvee feel about the two- party? >> i've also met with the tea party. i have found that their commitment to reduce spending in the deficit, making sure the government is reduced, i found the week are in the same steps.

i have enjoyed the meetings i have had with them. >> listening is a very important part of this process. i has been 20 years losing two people connected to a -- of connecticut joked that if there is a grudge door, they will be there. i think the two-party -- tea party reflects that frustration. it is about washington not listening. i want to go to washington and make sure washington does better for the people of connecticut'. >> i have found the tea party to be informative. they are passionate. they do bring a good volunteer basis. i welcome their support. i think the we find common

ground. it is smaller government, reduce taxes, reducing the deficit. >> we had time for a quick lightning round. this is one word answers. one word to describe senator chris dodd. >> not running. [laughter] >> that is two. will take it. >> retired. >> red sox are yankees? >> the yankees. >> yankees. >> thin crust or thick crust? >> and chris. >> bidding crispy every time. -- thin and crispy every time. >> the coin toss was determined at the beginning. >> thank you to our audience

this evening into the audience that is watching at home. we appreciate you joining us. i am running for senate because i believe our economy is in shambles. people are out of work. our families are hurting. nest eggs have been devastated. there are not in the people in washington that know how to create jobs. i want to make sure the american dream will continue to be there for my children and for generations to come. mr. blumenthal has been a good amount of time talking about fighting for the people of connecticut and making sure that he has experience in government. he does. he is a lifelong politician. he has spent his adult life on the government payroll. i am a mother. i'm a grandmother. i am a wife. i'm a businesswoman. a businesswoman who is created

jobs. a businesswoman who is typical of a career and family. neither of those jobs is easy. i want to go to washington because i thing we need more people in washington who can understand the plight of the workers that have created jobs. i have known good times and prosperity. i have been bankrupt and i have come back. it is important for the american dream that we fix this issue. this election will have a clear choice. someone who wants to go government. i want to grow the economy. someone who wants to raise your taxes. i want to keep money in the hands of the people of connecticut so they can spend it as they see fit to begin -- see fit.

teachers are fighting to the innovative. i want them to know that i will be their champion. seniors of be fully protected for their benefit. >> mr. blumenthal? >> thank you to fox for being here and for listening to us. the elections are about choices. this election offers a clear start. linda mcmahon said she is different. she is different from me. i spent my life trying to help people. i worked with patty to save for automobile dealership when gm wanted to shut it down. billy clark is here tonight. i stood with him and other workers facing their jobs when pratt wanted to illegally and their contract. laura is here as well.

her insurance company would not cover the the formula on essential to her child's life. i am proud of my record in public service. i am proud that i have helped people build their futures. my opponent has built her fortune. she has put finance and have the people. even now, she refuses to recognize that steroids can cause long-term health consequences. she is on the side of the bailout. i oppose the tax break that rewards businesses for sending jobs overseas. i think more of these small businesses deserve breaks. i think middle income families struggling to make ends meet deserved tax breaks now. we should not wait for the not2%

to return -- for the wealthiest 2% to receive their tax breaks. i am on your side in washington. i will cut spending when it is wasteful. >> thank you very much. that and tonight debates. we would like to thank the folks here at the bushnell theater and the hartford current. there is a gubernatorial debate tomorrow night on the same time and channel. we begin tonight with the keyword from the ceo, president, and publishing publisher of thed courant." >> we believe in an open and honorable and democratic process. we believe in every citizen's right to know -- tomorrow we

will broadcast the gubernatorial debate from 7:00 to 8:00 p.m. lastly, we encourage you to get out and vote nov. it second. from all of us, have agreed evening. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] . .

>> because every business leader in this room knows that the single most important measure of success is how well our workers can compete. all of our education institutions have a critical role to play here. one of our most undervalued assets as a nation is our network of community colleges.

it does not to serve as a good gateway to jobs for millions of middle-class americans, this is where businesses can draw. community colleges have been forced to cash in moments. even in the best of times, there is far less funding. not only is that not right, i think it is not smart. not at a time when so many americans are still were looking for work, not at a time when so many nations were trying to out of the us tomorrow. we need to do more, not less. it is an economic imperative. i said that by the year 2020, i want to see more college degree

certificates in america. to reach this goal, we are making unprecedented investments in our community colleges. i have asked dr. baden for more than 17 years to help promote community colleges of the country and lead the first summit on community colleges. i have asked this economic of plasterboard to come up with new ways for businesses and community colleges and other job training providers to work together. the results of their effort is an initiative called skill for -- for america's future. i believe some other folks around this table and put them up enormous amounts of time on this initiative.

the idea is simple. we want to make it easier to connect students looking for jobs for businesses looking to hire. we need to match curriculum needs in the courtroom. cisco has been working with community colleges. all over the country, we know that the most successful community colleges are those the partner with the private sector. skills for america's future will build on this. it will help us share knowledge. the goal is to insure that every state in the country has at least one small partnership. companies have announced their

support for this initiative as well as business leaders like my friend. i hope other business leaders will follow suit. i am also setting up a task force on this effort. this is one of those ideas that just makes sense. investing in the skills and education of our workers and connecting them with potential employers is something we should all be able to agree upon, whether we're republicans or democrats, business leaders or labor leaders. but it can only happen if we maintain our commitment to education. and so let me just make one last point before we start a broader discussion. i realize that we're facing an untenable fiscal situation. there was a $1.3 trillion deficit staring at me when i took office, and although the economic crisis and the steps we took to stop the freefall temporarily added to our fiscal challenges, it's clear that

we're going to have to get serious about the deficit. and that's why i've proposed a three-year freeze on non- security discretionary spending. that's why i've launched a bipartisan deficit reduction commission, which will be reporting in a few months. what i won't do is cut back on investments like education that are directly related to our long-term economic performance. now is not the time to sacrifice our competitive edge in the global economy. and that's why i disagree so strongly with the proposal from some on the other side of the aisle to cut education by 20% in next year's budget. it's a cut that would eliminate 200,000 children from head start programs, would reduce financial aid for 8 million college students. it would leave community colleges without the resources they need to meet the goals that we've talked about today. and that just doesn't make sense to me. so i'm happy to have a debate

about this issue in the coming months, but one thing i know is that this country will be stronger if all of our children get a world-class education. that means, by the way, not just money -- it also means reform. duncan glad to see arne sitting here today, who's done as much to promote significant reform across the board than just about any education secretary in recent memory. our businesses will be more successful if they can find skilled, trained workers here in america. our future will be more secure if anybody who's willing to work hard is able to achieve their dream of getting a college education. and those are priorities that we all share. those are investments that benefit the entire nation. and that's what we need to focus on right now -- what will grow our economy, fuel our businesses, rebuild our middle class, and keep the american dream alive for the 21st century. so i look forward to working with all of you toward that common goal, and now let's get down to the business of this meeting. i think they're going to remove this big thing here and i'll going to be able to sit down and we'll have a good conversation. so, all right, is somebody going to break this down?

and i'll use this time to come around and say hello to everybody. today, the president's met and voted to approve recommending the president with a new program for america's future. this is a program or we are collaborative between the private sector and the community colleges to produce new skills turning that high skilled a

position to ultimate job acquisition. harbury excited about the program. the president accepted our recommendation and we will be proceeding with a nonprofit. we will work on several efforts. one is certification of partnerships between the private sector, labour and community colleges. we will also be providing a national voice to this effort will be scaling programs to go national. we hope this will have an effective partnership in every state in america. we have five companies that have signed on with us to begin the

program. they have committed to additional programs that do not exist today. we are pleased with their participation. and, i will turn it over to you. we will focus our energies across the board. we know that we have a number of challenges ahead of us. we know that with reform, we

have the opportunity to do this. we believe that we can do a lot about russia fitting our homes. it will take new skills. we will learn about best practices to make sure that workers who are working hard on the job have the opportunity to learn skills that they need. we have time for a couple of questions. >> the president got off script there. >> they have not taken a position on taxation. i think that the president encouraged us.

this is an assessment. we weighed the pros and cons. we do not take direction as to which way to go. >> i am not talking about a special position. do you have a sense of where the people stand? is that an area? we have taken on a number of issues to the we have not done that with taxes. i do not think that is where we are on that. we have not -- >> you did put up the report.

we looked at all the various alternatives. we did not take a position at all. >> sometimes been a specific recommendations. >> when would you do that? we would make recommendations about homes. we made recommendations about skills. there are a number of issues. they have taken the position and we are deciding whether to look at the tax issue >> thank you, everyone. >> on tomorrow's what clinton

journal, debbie schulz. then a discussion on the federal deficit with matt welch. later, a look at congress and the banking industry. bill of the national journal is our guest. later today, a look at the white house community college summit. we'll also hear from education

secretary on the daunting. our live coverage of 12:15 p.m. eastern. >> earlier, the justice department announced a lawsuit. mastercard and visa came to a settlement with the government. during this briefing, we also hear from eric holder about the recent terrorist threat in europe. good afternoon, and thank you all for being here. today, the department of justice, along with seven state attorneys general, filed a civil antitrust lawsuit in the eastern district of new york challenging rules that visa, mastercard and american express have put in place that prevent merchants from providing discounts to consumers. these three companies run the largest three credit card

networks in the united states. every time a consumer uses one of their credit cards to buy something from a merchant, that merchant pays a fee a fee that is passed on to consumers through higher prices. in 2009 alone, the three credit card companies and their affiliate banks collected more than $35 billion in these fees. visa, mastercard and american express don't just impose fees, however they also prevent merchants from offering consumers any cost saving options such as discounts or rewards for using less expensive forms of payment. the companies put merchants and consumers in a no-win situation: accept our card, pay our fees, and don't even think about trying to get a discount. these restrictive rules prevent price competition among credit

card networks, which means merchants face increased business costs and consumers pay higher prices. with today's lawsuit we are sending a clear message: we will not tolerate anticompetitive practices. we want to put more money in consumers' pockets, and by eliminating credit card companies' anticompetitive rules, we will accomplish that. now, even as we file today's lawsuit, i'm pleased to announce that we have reached a proposed settlement with visa and mastercard that resolves our antitrust concerns with their use of these rules. if the settlement with visa and mastercard is approved, companies and retailers will be able to provide their customers with more options and cost saving incentives. and more consumers will be able to receive discounts and, ultimately, enjoy the benefits of lower prices. for example: if you use a preferred, lower-cost credit card, an airline could

offer you more miles or a merchant could provide you with a rebate. merchants will also be able to inform consumers which cards will lower business costs the most, allowing these savings to be passed on to consumers. today's settlement will enable some visa and mastercard customers to receive the benefits of competition right away. but while it is an important step forward, as long as one credit card company continues to impose anticompetitive rules, there is more work to do. we need to ensure that every consumer has access to more choices and lower prices. and that simply will not happen unless, and until, american express's restrictive rules are changed. because of american express's

current rules, some consumers will continue to pay higher prices. that is unacceptable, so we will continue to pursue litigation against american express until we ensure a fair market for every consumer. american express maintains the industry's most restrictive merchant rules. american express also has the highest fees of any credit card company. they refuse to give merchants the ability to offer rewards to consumers who use a less expensive card, or even to provide information to consumers about the costs of using american express's cards. most importantly, american express's rules prohibit any of the millions of merchants that accept american express from taking advantage of the discounts and rebates visa and mastercard now can allow as a result of our settlement. because american express has refused to change its rules, consumers are being held hostage from receiving the expanded choices and lower prices they deserve under our settlement visa and mastercard. we cannot allow this to stand,

and we will not. through our settlement with visa and mastercard, our ongoing case against american express, and our other enforcement efforts, the department will continue working to ensure increased competition, greater savings for merchants, and lower prices for consumers. i am proud of the outstanding work that christine and the antitrust division staff have done to address our antitrust concerns, as well as for the cooperation of state attorneys general. as this process continues, you'll have and deserve my full and continuing support. but you will. and now, i'd like to turn things over to our system attorney- general, christine >> of thank

you for your steadfast leadership. i would like to echo your thanks to ohio attorney general for taking the lead on the path of the seven states' attorneys general on this case. in addition to ohio, the states joining us today are connecticut, iowa, maryland, michigan, and texas. their efforts have helped to bring about this important step that allows merchants to offer their customers more options, including discounts, rebates and other benefits. i just want to take a moment to explain why the litigation taken against american express is so important. to put it in perspective, but there is a substantial amount of the permission at stake here. trillions of dollars of transactions go through these every year. the attorney general says that the companies collect more than

$35 billion annually in merchant fees. every time a consumer uses a piece of, mastercard or american express, the merchant pays a fee. when merchants agree to a set piece, mastercard or american express, the commit to abide by the network rules. merchants face penalties, including termination if they violate these rules. among the three card networks, american express rules are more restrictive. american express prohibits a merchant from engaging in any practice that promotes less expensive cards over american express and american express prohibits the merchant from offering a discount to a consumer that chooses to use another card instead of american express. in other words, even if one card is much cheaper than another,

these rules prevent merchants from sharing with consumers the savings when a less expensive card is used. these restraints insulate the card companies from competition, increased costs, increase prices, or the competitive process -- harm the competitive process. we want all consumers to benefit from more choices and lower prices. we want all merchants to offer their consumers products that the least expensive as possible. we are partly there. this matter cannot be fully resolved until american express' tie competitive rules are struck down. there is no reason for these provisions. it stifles competition and that means that consumers and

merchants pay the cost. we will strive to reach a resolution as quickly as possible. my staff has their eye on the goal. some of the staff working on this matter is here with us today. the team is led by carl shapiro. i want all of you to know how much the attorney general and i appreciate all of your efforts on behalf of businesses and consumers across america. if the it got -- let the attorney general said, we have just begun. we look forward to your questions. >> i wanted to ask you about the litigation. merchants are asking to have surcharges.

are you going to have anything on that? we're looking at the steering rules. we are satisfied that the sun and mastercard have addressed those issues. american express continues to want to maintain those rules. these are the rules that we believe our at the heart of this. there is ongoing private litigation. we have addressed the practice. >> i just wanted to be clear. the consumers are not going to see any immediate change until this litigation is resolved? >> that is one of the ironies.

customers should be able to see immediate results. across the 7 million merchants, the american express rules will stay in place. >> should we infer that there are no prospects whatsoever of a settlement with american express? >> we remain open whenever a reporter wants to address the concerns, we are more than happy to sit down with them to address those concerns. there is a settlement that is filed with mastercard and visa.

>> could you address the state department issued -- were you involved in those? what is your understanding of this, and what it means for actions here in the united states in terms of changing security measures? you've seen a huge rise in these cases in the past year-and-a- half in the united states. >> let's unpacked that. i did participate in a call that was chaired by the chief of staff, where we discuss the issuance of this alert. this is an accumulation of evidence -- intelligence that has been gathered over the past few months and the decision was made to share to the extent that we could that information with the american people and to

issue that -- alert. it is a timely thing to do. it is not an admonition to people not to travel to europe, but only to use caution while there. when using mass transit, be cautious. in marketplaces, and use caution to avoid perhaps political demonstrations, things of that nature. keep your guard up, keep your eyes open, and use common sense. >> hall but here in the united states? there is so much activity that is believed to be possibly unfolding in europe. do you worry that longwall --

lone wolf operators -- operators or others or to merge that does not mean that we're letting our guard down with regard to the united states. we a scene of the past year -- we have seen over the past year attempts by al qaeda or its affiliates to attack the united states. we saw that in detroit. continuing one. >> on a related topic, are you saying that the [unintelligible] -- cost the increased threat level is aimed at the united states? >> i do not want to get into the specific intelligence that we have gathered. i would say that the thing that precipitated the alert was intelligence that was directed and concern europe. -- concerned europe>> talking about the black panther case, i don't think we have heard from

you on this case it. -- yet. what he think the allegations of -- what do you the allegations of the justice barman -- department? >> we have to look at the facts. do. the top career person in the sun will rise division made the case was resolved, an injunction against the one person who had a stick or something at the polling place, was sanctioned. -- : please was sanctioned. -- polling place was sanctioned. the inspector general is in the process of looking at this matter. abilities and capabilities. well. in a larger way, one of the things i draw from this is that people have to understand the way in which the civil rights division was run.

and how it was politicized and how hiring was done there, and some people want to go back to those old days and want to have a civil rights division that is not nearly as effective as it is now or as it has traditionally been. i am not going to allow that to happen. as long as i am attorney general, we will have an effective, aggressive civil rights division. the notion that we're tossing in -- enforcing any of the -- the civil rights law on the basis of race or gender is simply false. >> [unintelligible] >> there is no basis in fact for that charge. >> this is consumed an enormous -- this has consumed an enormous amount of the public's attention. is there a discreet plot? do you have all -- your arms

around what you think it could be? judy and i would not say that we have specific information about a particular place or time. but we have sufficient information that justifies the issuing of the alert. many of you might remember back in 1999 when we had the mullen and thread. -- millennium for at. in government. we had information that was not as specific as we wanted to be -- want it to tbe. said that you could are restand yet we thought it was>> last question. >> the follow on the question -- to fall on the question --

follow on the question about whether there is any threat domestically, what is the significance of this terror people to keep hearing about this and wondering whether there is some thread or some angle or potential problem that exists in the and that it states that was -- the u.s. that was not here before this particular non-specific threat? >> al qaeda and its affiliates want to do harm to american interests, both abroad and here in the homeland. we have seen that very recently as i indicated before, both in detroit, the attempt in times -- and the attempted times square square.pt in times squar the reason to believe that al

that. we are monitoring to the extent that we can all the things that we should know about. it is not a basis for us to issue anything other than what we have done, a threat focused on europe. remains up. our attention remains focused on the united states as well. and there is a basis for what we have seen over the recent past. >> of follow-up to that? -- just one follow-up on that. what is osama bin laden's link to this? this presents a threat stream? >> i do not want to get into specifics about the nature of intelligence that we have. let me say that there is certainly a foundation for what -- the alert that we have issued, in conjunction with our partners and allies, in gathering information from a variety of sources. we use human sources, we get -- we use other means, and it is accumulation of all of this that led us to where we are today.

>> the supreme court begins its new term and you can't learn more about the court with c- span's this book, the supreme court. reporters who cover the court and attorneys that are two cases there. you put -- providing unique .esources di >> we have more political coverage coming up on c-span. next, new hampshire first congressional district. candidates face of with oregon's

next governor. later, the state attorney general face one another. for more information on these races, visits c-span.org /politics. >> on tomorrow's washington journal, we are talking about the democrats' prospects in the november elections. in a discussion with matt welch of reason magazine. later, a look at congress and the banking industry. bill swindell will join us. later in the day, a white house summit on community colleges. prof. chow biden moderate the

event. we will also hear from our a daunting. live coverage at 1215 eastern. >> now, it is a debate between canada's. carol porter and frank guinta. this race is rated a top of -- a tossup. this is the candidate forum sponsored by lincoln financial group and produced in partnership with new hampshire public radio. >> hello, and welcome to the candidate forum on business and the economy. i am the host of the exchange. we are coming to you from studio d. this hour, we will hear from

canada's in the first congressional district as a discuss the issues of our time. we will ask them to say what they would do as members of congress rather than spend double time attacking each other. you have carol porter and our panelists are still long. during the first part of our forum, our panelists will ask questions then we will have a lot in round when the canada will provide brief responses. -- some of these questions came that goes to carol shea porter. >> welcome. last week the first round of regulations of the new federal health care a lot went into

effect. how you see these changes affecting new hampshire businesses in the way they provide health care for their employees were to march again this health care plan is going to be good not only for individuals, because we know it will allow them to get insurance and insurance companies will not be able to throw them off of policies. this is good for business is -- businesses also, especially for new>> thank you. the health care insurance reform will add 32 million insured and an additional cost of $88 billion over 12 years. -- 10 years. costs? -- this covers " to control costs? -- is congress corn to control

costs? -- going to control costs? bits of premiums jumping 37%. guinta. >> health care bill affecting new hampshire businesses? you did when we first guarded this debate, the unemployment rate was around 10%. two years later, six months into this passage, and we're still roughly a 10% unemployment. passage, and we're still roughly a 10% unemployment. the fact that congresswoman shea-porter says that this has suggested the -- helped the economy, we've not seen the evidence of that yet. we do not feel in new hampshire that this is going to do anything to help businesses grow. they feel there is -- this is much more onerous. they're frustrated with the 3%

additional feed that insurance carriers are now implementing for people to have implementation costs. and most owners i talked with about the 1099 provision, where any business under spending more than $600 to a vendor has to now 1099 that the vendor, that does not do anything to create jobs or help small business get out of the recession we have been in for the last two years. what it does is stifle the ability to try to expand their business. it forces them to make decisions about where else in their business plan are they going to cut to pay for the costs and regulations. >> they queue. these tax credits that congresswoman shea-porter mentioned, businesses are twice as likely to be uninsured as large businesses.

the health care reforms are supposed to help 15,000 small businesses in new hampshire. >> is worth trying to reform health care and reduce the costs for certain employers and employees. that is what many americans wanted when we began this debate. what we received is something very different. people feel it is unconstitutional, number one, to force someone to purchase something. it is a trillion dollar spending spree that we have not identified how will it -- how it will be paid for in the current deficit. and small businesses in new hampshire say that they need more access to capital, more of their own personal resources to put back in their resources, and they have claimed to me that this is not helping them either provide insurance for their employees or to reduce their own cost. which is at a press conference

with 15 business owners last week, all in the first district, saying that this need to be repealed. it is doing nothing to help small businesses in the venture. >> i wanted ask you about that 1099 provision. this is come up in the last week, that under the health care law, businesses have to report any expenses over $600. we've heard complaints about this. what does this have to do with health care? agreeable andtly we try to fix it and we have built but the republicans blocked it because there was another way to pay for this. this is one of the ways that it was paid for. that's $600 is unreasonable. we tried to change that to take away tax advantages and subsidies for companies overseas, sending jobs overseas. republicans would not have that

and so we did not get that bill through. i am upset about that also. the reality is that we did try to fix this. this bill is paid for. that is the biggest problem that we have here. and this is one of the ways that they intended to make sure that companies were compliant with paying taxes in a way that they could check. i think it is onerous, too heavy for small businesses. >> mr. guinta, a follow-up for you. the republicans offered their plan, repealing this set of policies. but this is only going to cover a couple of million. the democratic plan will cover 32 million. how you respond the republican measures so far have not met the mark? >> let's go back to the beginning of this conversation. congresswoman carol shea-porter has -- she feels that this is a constitutional bill and that it is good for the country.

i completely disagree. one of two things happened when she voted for the spill. either she did not know the 1090 that provision was included in the bill and voted for it or she knew it was in the bill, needed a way to pay for, and this taxing small business owners in this country. when you want to talk about republican plans, let's remember the republicans are in the majority -- minority in congress have been largely shut out of this conversation over the course of the last year and a half. through my town hall meetings and other policies, let's talk with three specific things they will help new hampshire. a lot of small businesses to pool, allow them to purchase anywhere in the country, and help doctors stop practicing defensively.

i would be this is non-partisan to get these things go in and then see how that affects this industry. i think that would be a good start but that is not where the democratic congress started. they look for sweeping, overall, which is not supported by the majority of people in new hampshire. >> this comes from -- this question goes to mr. guinta. >> the congress passed the president's stimulus package. you think it has work? >> i do not think it does work. i think it is a failed program. in new hampshire, we of loss many jobs. to suggest that we had gained in new hampshire, that is a red herring. secondly, you do not stimulate the economy by spending through borrowing. the when you stimulate the economy is cut taxes for the people who do create jobs, the

small business community here in new hampshire. and then you allow them to invest those dollars back into the run businesses, hopefully employ more people, who will then help the local economies as well as the national economy. we need to knowledge that this is not work -- this has not work. i am understand that the congresswoman was at an event and a knowledge yourself that the very bill she voted for is not working now. i'm glad she and knowledge that but i wish it came at the beginning of the process, not at the end, now that we're in further debt -- explain the job losses in the venture. >> we of losses that began 4722 jobs. it is on a website. >> their many business and community and individuals that have benefited from the stimulus. you see people paving roads and building bridges. manchester was allocated $54 million of stimulus money.

hasn't this economic injection into the city of man hampshire and new hampshire a good thing? >> route 101 has been " paid several times so it is probably one of the nicest paved roads in the country. but it did not needed. it did not create or preserve jobs. as mayor, i said that we're going to get through this recession not through looking for one time money from the federal government, but tightening our belts, cutting spending, recognizing that we need to do investment as well as people in the room homes. that is what local communities and state community should be doing. what is happening is that the stimulus and it comes to the stated new hampshire, they're telling their budget holes, and they are down shifting costs to the local communities. the upcoming fiscal year in new hampshire will be devastating because this is one time money that was used. it is not go right public policy position to have.

you need a better position to cut spending, tighten your belt, and in new hampshire we are used to that. if we had done that, we would be in better shape today. did they create jobs? >> in new hampshire, we would of lost 4000 722,000 jobs. my answer would be we have not created net jobs increases. >> congressman carol shea- porter, a cure one of the members who voted for the stimulus package, get unemployment remains above 9%. >> let me correct something that mr. guinta said. i never said that the stimulus did not work. what i says it did not create as many jobs as i hoped for and that's certainly true. but it certainly did work. i like to remind him that we are actually losing jobs at the rate of 765,000 in december 2008 after the republican policy of

borrow and spend was put into place. we had been losing jobs steadily. that was the reason for the stimulus. mr. guinta knows how one board net stimulus is because he complained in the newspaper about not getting the stimulus money fast enough. one person sent an e-mail saying that his grandstanding about the stimulus. it helped manchester ended helped. we know that there is housing being built and small businesses are being held. the reality is that we were losing so many jobs as a we cannot totally turn things around. the chief economist for mccain's presidential bid said that if we had not done the stimulus, we would of lost twice as many jobs as we did. we lost 8 million jobs because of the republican borrow and spend. they had two wars going on.

no matter how people feel about it, they should they put it on the books and paid for. they had medicare part d that they did not pay for, and they gave tax cuts to the top 1% and did not pay for that. it left our country in a terrible shape. and then there was the bailout for wall street. it's wrong to say that this is the fault of the stimulus package. it's a reaction to the republican a ministration and the -- the republican administration. >> the stimulus is scheduled to expire. then what will happen crush margins and we have seen a growth in private jobs. it is not as robust as we want. manufacturing has been up steadily. the stock market is doing better. but we still have high unemployment rate. family still cannot find jobs.

i like to say the stimulus is pumping air into and economic matters that was pretty flat at the time. -- and economic mattress that was pretty flat at the time. we want small business and big business to continue the progress that we're seeing. it is slow and it is difficult. >> i can come -- jump in, at what point bank do programs like the stimulus and the tax credit, at what point they to the sec -- to the stimulus policies hurt because it gobbles up economic activity? >> i voted against t.a.r.p., the bush bailout, because i knew that it would be misused and it went to the big banks and it was a big problem. the bush plan for the auto industry i actually supported because we needed have

manufacturing in this country. and u.s. companies have turned around and protected the manufacturing base. and it's a security, we have to make things in this country. what we're seeing right now is recovery, but it is difficult, still difficult. i think where we are right now, we need to get those tax cuts to the middle class. but we do not need to give them to the 1% right now because of the state deficits that we're talking about. >> mr. guinta, i think you're also opposed to the part bailout. what about the general motors part of that? which you have favored that? >> when you talk to viewers right here in new hampshire that employ more than 3000 employees, they will say that it is an abject failure. it was administered extremely poorly. the dollars meant for the cash for clunkers program was not coming to the auto dealers in a

timely fashion. they had to put money out of front. what ended up happening is not americans being held, but foreign auto dealers were actually held. when you talk to all the dealers broadly across the state, they think it was a terrible idea. it did not work in an hampshire and it put off the inevitable. >> i turn back to my colleague. you have the next question and it is for congress from and carol shea-porter. >> according to the recent federal reserve report, if u.s. corporations held historical the high amounts of cash for the first to none of this year, yet hiring has been weak. but government policies can encourage businesses to loosen purse strings and began hiring again? >> i think this is a problem since corporations are holding on to the money instead of hiring. a lot of that money that banks received was to lend to businesses to help. they have been holding on to the money as well, of great concern.

what we have been doing now, which is passed into law, to put money into the hands of small businesses so that they will be a book -- small banks so that they can lend to small businesses. keep the money on main street and help small businesses. they are the backbone of our economy. they create most of the jobs in this country. if we can keep this through this small business and ministers in, it will be more possible access the capital. we also need tax cuts for the middle class's and the businesses. a part of the advantage here is that we recognized that if we put the money into the hands on man street instead of wall street, we will be creating jobs. >> is there a psychological component to this? to people not trust congress? >> a lot of these large corporations are not just u.s.- based anymore. they are multinational corporations and they respond to stockholders instead of

particular policies in the united states or elsewhere. some of that is that. with all the problems overseas, when there were troubles in the greek market, some holding back or they hadn't planned. they had planned to invest more. and some of it is psychological. the concern that there might be troubles in other areas of the world. all the major economists are saying that we have in the recovery phase. >> the same question. what can congress do about hiring the congresswoman is giving you the classic big government solutions. she feels that the fda and -- sba and other federal agencies are the solution. the stimulus has failed. it also included $23 billion for tax credits for foreign

companies in foreign nations -- american companies in foreign nations. you talk about taking borrowed money and trying to pump it into the united states economy and she is moving it overseas. i am not even sure she realized that provision was in there. the way that you inject money back into a business is to take less from them that you're taking in the first place. she was the picks winners and losers -- she wants to pick winners and losers. she is saying that some should not get a tax cut, and the middle class should. let me tell you what is when happened. when any business owner who despite the extension of the cuts that could be voted on this week before they go out of session, every single one of those business owners is. have to pay higher taxes next year, which means they will have to cut expenses. that will cut those early

employees that the congresswoman would like to say. the way to do it is not to pick winners and losers. give everyone the benefit of the tax cut. john f. kennedy did it in 1962 to save our economy. it worked. it absolutely work. why congresswoman shea-porter would be against this policy that president kennedy implemented, the republicans are now trying to implement, it is beyond me. perhaps he does not understand how business locally is working. >> what do we need to do? >> we need to cut the corporate tax rate. we need to cut payroll taxes. we need to let everyone who is stimulating the economy, which is business and small business here new venture, which is representative of 85% of our economy. we're going to have efficiency by not adding bureaucracy -- bureaucratic requirements like the 1099 provision, us and you

can use money to invest in new businesses, and then they will hire local jobs. i have visited company upon company and they are also in the same thing. new hampshire provision metal, they are all asking predictability and consistency. they're asking to keep more of the runway. as their representatives, we should be listening to them. and these policies have not been listening to those local requests and local demands. >> our next question. >> mr. guinta, turning to energy costs. many businesses say that higher energy costs is a major concern for them. what can you do in congress to lower costs? >> we need to have what people have been asking for four years, a long-term sustainable energy policy. we do not have it. i do not think that we should save one type of energy is bad or good. we need to continue fossil fuel

engagement. we need to have nuclear research. we also need to look to alternative fuels. we are not there yet, and that is part of the problem. in the last two years, but the federal government and what congresswoman carol shea-porter focused on is a health-care bill and the stimulus bill that did nothing to support the economy. other areas where we need to be injecting money back into the economy, they have not even addressed. and they're going on break at the end of the next week not addressing energy, not addressing the tax breaks. the one thing they want to do is pass capt. trade, a national energy tax, the from the minute you wake up to you when you get in your car, putting fuel into your vehicle, that is going to impose a tax increase on every single american. those in the policies that supported by people in new hampshire. these of the policies that we

need to be replacing in november. >> should the government subsidize businesses that create green jobs? >> the government should be -- first of all, that government needs to understand that it is not the entity that creates jobs. in the last two years, the federal government has hired 150,000 employees. the federal government. first of all, we should put a hiring freeze and a spending freeze in place to try to get the debt and deficit back in place. we should not be picking winners and losers. if we want to support a particular industry, we should provide tax cuts to every single industry. let the market determine and dictate which companies are going to be successful. companies that are green-based will succeed if they have the same basis as every other company and the venture has. >> congresswoman, what actions would you take a lower energy

costs? in the stimulus act that he has been knocking so hard actually gave tax breaks to small businesses and gave the largest tax break to the middle class in history. we've given state tax breaks to help small businesses. i just need to correct the record there. but we do for energy? the chinese have been investing in renewable energies. and we're arguing with ourselves about whether we can do this or not. we have to have energy in order to run our economy. they know that they needed. there trying to buy up natural resources and energy. we need to be doing that as well. i sit on the armed services committee and the department of defense comes in and has concerns about what would happen in renewable energy as well. t. boone pickens says that we

can do a number of things. we can use when, solar, geothermal -- we still have to use or right now but we should try to wean ourselves off of it. their countries that do not like us and do not plan to do well by us, and yet we are totally dependent on them. and as for the cost of this, it is simply untrue to say that we're going to be taxes all day long. the reality is that the cost of a postage stamp every day, we can get economic and national security. it is time to do this in the people of this. the best thing for all of us to do is to stop partisan politics and start dealing with these issues. the issues are about economic security and national security, that we simply must develop more energy. >> could you also address the question about whether the federal government should subsidize the creation of green jobs? >> the federal government has always held businesses to grow.

it is certainly in our national interest and security and economic interests to help these companies start up. i think just like i support these tax incentives and breaks for every other industry, they receive them.l >> let's talk about that for a moment. but sit in on to the north in new hampshire start a green company and that on to pioneer in three years starts making $280,000. could that business. that is an entrepreneur creating jobs. but congresswoman shea-porter was to do is tax that person who created the green job, created the green company, trying to help the local environment, by depressing the amount of money that he or she can make on their return in investment. by point is that this is not the way to stimulate an economy.

let's treat everyone the same. it was 1952 when this country needed an economic stimulant for recession. what he said was that we need to provide tax cuts for everyone. that policy is not a policy being considered by congresswoman shea-porter. she is looking to pick winners and losers. to say that she supports a green job implore and the mosque attacks that same person, it does not make economic sense and it is not good public policy. you talk about partisan shot, we can talk about public policy. are you clarifying that she would support and then tax the person to what? >> right now there's a tax cut in 2000 won in 2003 that need to be extended. otherwise every american will have a tax increase. they are on break at the end of the next week. they could take a position. i would like to see my member of

congress who represents me take a leadership role and say, conservative democrats need to say that we need to extend all of these tax cuts. the businesses are stifled. they do need that infusion of cash. >> i will let you jump in and then we will move on. we're holding a lot of things together. >> is definitely following the republican leaders, they're talking points exactly. we gave the largest tax cut to the middle class and we'll also give small businesses a series of tax cuts. but he does not want to tax anybody. he wants to abolish social security, abolish the department of education, the department of energy -- and so if you're abolishing everything, then you do not need money. but if you continue to provide social security and medicare and take care bridges and roads and the infrastructure, if you plan to educate your children, then

you have to have some money. the thing about the republicans right now in washington, they are saying that it is magical. you do not have to worry. you can have all. this is how we got ourselves into trouble. new hampshire people are too strong -- too smart to believe this. the borrow and spend that they did without paying for it, mr. guinta was working for the former congressman at the time and i don't recall him saying anything, he does not even the knowledge that he was a federal employee that he worked for a congressman. during that era of borrow and spend, why did you not say something?

re

co

cootfuur,

twesebe

rivekes

ic

riofto

ap

te sh

ac

iv ean

bl

ar ham 4k

ff ost ia.eee.di

is cee ous?or

sthne ouo

sthne ouo