>> the cook political report rates the florida senate race a tossup. democratic senator russ feingold faces republican ron johnson. some of the issues discussed art stems of research and extending the bush tax cuts. this is about an hour. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> will keep public television and the wisconsin association foundation -- milwaukee public television presents a live debate between republican challenger ron johnson and democratic incumbent russ feingold, candidates for the u.s. senate in wisconsin in 2010. now the president of the

wisconsin at broadcasters' association. >> company wisconsin broadcasters association foundation and the television broadcasters it serves are pleased this evening to be able to continue our public affairs broadcasts tradition, sponsoring debates in major wisconsin political campaigns. this evening's debate will engage the two candidates for u.s. senate from wisconsin. the democratic candidate russ feingold and the republican candidate ron johnson. this evening's debate is made possible by a grant. >> good evening, everyone. i am president of the wisconsin association of independent colleges and universities. on behalf of wisconsin's 20 nonprofit colleges and

universities, i would like to welcome you to this debate between russ feingold and ron johnson. debates are an important part of our democratic process, and our sponsorship is one way wisconsin's private colleges and demonstrate our commitment to our citizens. the future of our state and nation depends upon expanding educational opportunity. wisconsin's private colleges are committed to excellence in education since before wisconsin became a state. there are many issues in this campaign, the economy, health care, the environment. we need to be educated about all of them appeared to learn more about wisconsin's private colleges, please visit private collegezone.org. to learn more about these two men, i invite you to join me over the next hour for what will be in and lightning debate.

then, the last step is up to you. on behalf of our students, i encourage you to make your voice heard by voting on tuesday, november 2. thank you. >> a format for the debate will allow the candidates to make opening statements, to respond to questions from a panel, and for each candidate to make a closing statement. the order of response has been decided by a coin flip. we have also traditionally as the candidates to agree not to use any sound or pictures from our debate in campaign advertising. in past years, all candidates have agreed. the johnson campaign has agreed to this year. the russ feingold campaign refused to agree. our panelists include the news director of wfdl radio, the news

anger of green bay -- the news anchor in green bay. will begin with opening statements. >> i want to thank the wisconsin broadcasters' association for holding this important debate. i have the good fortune to be born here in wisconsin, to be raised here, and this has always been my home. one of the things that happens when you do that is that you hear the word independent all the time, particularly political independence. my dad talked about it all the time. so when i had the honor of becoming a united states senator, i knew that was going to be a big part of what i tried to do. when i heard people say that it might be a bright idea to pass on fair trade agreements, to send our jobs overseas, i thought, that does not make sense. i oppose this trade agreement. they were so damaging to our

manufacturing jobs. it happened again when both new york and washington said why don't we let wall street make its own rules. i was one of the few senators that voted no for the wall street bailout. it did not do the job. it did not make sure that this would not happen again. the way i would express this independence is by going to every one of wisconsin's counties every year. you know what they are talking about? they are talking about jobs, and they are talking about trying to do something about federal spending. i have been specific. my opponent has not chosen to be specific about solving these problems. so i'd like to continue working for the people of wisconsin on those issues. >> mr. johnson, your opening statement? >> good evening. i would like to thank the wisconsin broadcast association and tonight's of yours. six months ago, i was a full-

time businessperson. i had no political aspirations. this was not my life's ambition. then they pass the health care bill. senator russ feingold joined his party and cast the deciding vote. after that, i felt i simply could not stand on the sidelines and longer. our country is headed in the wrong direction. people are out of work, families are struggling. and washington's response has been ineffective and extremely expensive. our nation's debt now stands at $13.40 trillion. it is jeopardize in the economic future of america. wisconsin voters have a clear choice. they can vote for a career politician, someone whose votes and washington have exploded our deficit and expanded the size of the federal government. or they can vote for someone who has private sector experience, producing jobs, balancing a budget.

like the founding fathers, someone who is at a full career, who has raised a family and is willing to apply his vast experience to our nation's difficult problems. that is what i have to offer. that is what i would like to talk about tonight. thank you per >> thank you. our first question will be from greg, directed to mr. johnson. >> democrats say the wall street meltdown and the recession began before president obama was elected president and the reasons why he was elected, and the president has said that health care reform was a key part to the economic recovery, that an economic stimulus was necessary to jump-start the economy. republicans argued that the democrats' plan has not worked, that the federal deficit has ballooned, that consumer confidence is low and unemployment is still high.

what specifically do you think should be done to create more jobs and to further jump-start what is still a sluggish economic recovery? >> the first thing is the stimulus did not work. the objective fact is we are down 2.6 million jobs since it was enacted. senator russ feingold cast the deciding vote. three days before he cast that vote, he issued a press release and said that within one year, it would create 2.4 million jobs. after three years, it would create 9 million jobs. he does not know how to create jobs. why would he? he has been in politics all his life. he has never created a job. i have. what they should of done is they should have come in the first day of office and said, do you know those tax cuts that are about to expire? we will not let those expire. we will continue those

permanently. that would of created a great deal of confidence in the american economy and businesses with a started investing. i think consumers would have started spending. >> thank you. >> i am pretty proud of the things we are trying to do to create jobs. i will answer your question. what i have done is participating in passing the hire act. any employer that hires somebody who has been laid off more than 60 days gets an exemption from payroll tax for the rest of this year, and that will produce $5.8 billion in cuts in taxes for small businesses next year. mr. johnson says he would wipe out the obama agenda. that means he would wipe that out. the stimulus bill provided tax cuts for 95% of all working families in america, with some $250 billion. mr. johnson says he would wipe that out. he would have to wipe that out. i have worked hard on -- and mr.

johnson has ignored the fact that i have talked every day about passing it further jobs tax credit. for every employer in the state. they would get a 15% jobs tax credit for hiring new employees or giving more hours or wages to current employees. this is what we need to do know after the success we have had with the stimulus package. we need to do more. that is a specific answer about what i would actually do. >> our next question will be directed to russ feingold. >> the congressional budget office predicts that the federal deficit will be about 1.3 trillion dollars in 2010. when you put that into perspective, that is enough money to send every man, woman, and child and the state of wisconsin to college for 27 years. so, what are we going to do to fix this financial crisis? republicans criticized democrats for spending too much on stimulus, which drives up

government spending. democrats criticize republicans for wanting tax cuts that drive down government revenue. so if elected, what types of solutions would you prefer and how would you work with the president on these solutions, knowing that he has to sign any new measures into law? >> this is the fundamental question. on this issue, i think we have to attack it in two ways. we have to completely eliminate or stop here marks. -- earmarks. i have taken the lead with the jamesville line item veto. i also have proposed a specific plan, i call it the control spending now act, which as of 41 specific provisions about how we can cut spending. it would cut about a half a trillion dollars over 10 years. other members of congress, if they did the same thing, we would make progress. i have already gotten some of these things through.

i've worked with both parties in cutting deficits. under the clinton years, together we completely eliminated the deficit. i know how to do it. that is the kind of experience i have. i would work on it every day. i cannot wait to get back in congress and get rid of these with a program. >> i think we have to realize that we do not have a tax problem in this country. we have a spending problem. préval that is in the year 2000, our total federal budget was $1.80 trillion. this year, it will be about $3.60 trillion the first -- the first thing we have to do is establish spending cuts. we need a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. it would limit spending to 20% of gdp. i am open to anything that will establish a hard spending cap. then i think, similar to my accounting background, you establish basic budgeting principles, things like zero- based budgeting.

you can take a look at hiring freezes, spending freezes. but we have to establish that initial spending cap. in terms of specific things we can do, to the extent that we have not spent stimulus funds that have not worked, do not spend them. put them towards deficit reduction. we must repeal the health care bill. it will be a huge budget deficit buster. similar to tarp money that gets sent back. that is about half of the senator russ feingold's proposal. make sure that that is established for deficit reduction. you also need to eliminate your marks, which so crops or process. >> our next question will be from dan lee. >> let's talk about health care reform. it is being widely criticized this campaign season for a number of reasons.

where do you stand on a health care policy and specifically on the reform legislation? are you for or repeal or repair of that legislation? or will you wait until the lot has fully taken affect? >> i believe it is an expensive overreach. there is no reason for us to have the federal government take over 1/6 of our economy. we have the finest health care system in the world. it is not perfect. we have -- we could have done tort reform heard that we save billions of dollars per year. a lot people to buy insurance across state lines -- portability. from my standpoint, this is the main reason i got into this race. i am so concerned that this health care system will destroy the finest health care in the world. my own personal experience is my daughter kerry. she was born with congenital heart defect. the first day of life, she was

rushed to children's hospital where a wonderful man saved her life. eight months later, when her heart was the size of the plum, another man reconstructed the upper chambers of her heart. she is 27 years old and she is a nurse herself in a neonatal intensive care unit. that is because we do have the finest health care system in the world. and this health care bill, is designed for a government takeover of the health care system. that is like a canadian-style health care. that is exactly what senator russ feingold wants. she was a single payer system. the innovation that saved my daughter's life would come to a grinding halt heard >> mr. johnson gave a speech about something other than what was in the legislation. he gave a speech about something he is concerned could happen in the future, but that is not what this bill does. he has called it one of the greatest invasions' he has ever known. does that really invade his

freedom to make sure that over 1 million wisconsinites do not deny coverage? does that really hurt his freedom that people are running into limits on lifetime coverage, and that they can no longer be cut off their insurance? does it hurt his freedom that kids under 26 now can be covered on their parents policies? i wonder if it bothers him that the bill provides health care tax credits to over 80,000 small businesses in wisconsin. he would repeal that. he would take that away from all wisconsin small businesses that will get the benefit from that. does it really hurt us that finally older people that cannot afford prescription drugs will have the funds to cover that does not hold, -- that dough nut hold in medicare part d. he would put the insurance industry back in control. that is against what the people of wisconsin want.

>> thank you. our next question will be from greg. >> question about global warming. mr. johnson has said that global warming is in on proven science, that should not dictate u.s. policy. and senator russ feingold, you said your opponent is out of touch with reality. my question to both of you, can both of you tell the voters do you believe that global warming is real? is it imagined it? is a man-made? or is it a natural occurrence and what should u.s. policy on this issue be? >> i do not claim to be an expert on things i am not an expert on, but i do know that the vast majority of scientists in the world think there is climate change. i can observe a by myself, but scientists say that. of course, i believe that vast body of scientific opinion is

that man made activity has something to do with it. mr. johnson has said, even though a small number of people have this view, he believes it is wrong. he attributed it to sunspots. he said it would be a full airing to do -- a fool's errand to do anything about it. i cannot disagree more. for our economy, for green jobs, and for the lives of our children and grandchildren we had better make sure we do everything we can within reason to limit that kind of thing. how do we solve that? i did not like the cap and trade bill that passed in the house. i thought it was too harsh on states like ours that rely on coal. so i am not prepared to vote for that bill. but we do have to do something, some other approach that would make sure wisconsin people do not get ripped off but at the same time, make sure that we do not left this off because it is

easier that way. that is irresponsible with regard to the future of this planet and our children. >> mr. johnson? >> i do not believe it is a settled science. some scientists have come to my defense on this one. because it is not settled science, it would be damaging to our economy to try to tax energy. some people talk about capping trade that would tax our economy for another one trillion dollars. that would destroy our economy. the effect of the matter is, if we did have something like that, in the state of wisconsin, the average family energy bills would rise by $1600-$4000 per family. it is not settled size. let's face it -- the sun is an important part of our climate. to deny that might have some effect is ignoring the obvious. one thing the senator would not

support -- but he did support a bill that would have the harmful effects are was talking about. >> our next question is from stacy. >> right now in green bay we are paying 34 cents more for a gallon of gasoline compared to this time last year. we have untapped oil fields in the u.s., yet we import more than half of our crude oil from foreign countries. you have both said this is a threat to our national security. what specifically do you propose or support to move america toward energy independence and make sure consumers are not a coward at the gas pump -- gouged at the gas pump? >> i am for an all the above energy policy. i like to see alternative energy come on full stream.

probably the most agreeing available energy would be new coluclear. i would go full steam ahead in nuclear. that would be a job creator. we have given those jobs away to foreign countries, because we're not producing in this country. we need to responsibly were oral is available in this country and that would include anwar. i would take a moratorium of the gulf of mexico once we have established we control there safely. >> russ feingold? >> i agree that there has to be a wide range of sources of energy to get this right. we will still need some crude oil, some foreign oil, we will still need coal, hopefully it will be cleaner coal. the alternatives are exciting. one of them are these wind turbines. a lot of people think their work. right down the road, there

is renewenergy. they will create smaller wind turbines that provide one offor a car dealership or for a farm. how did they put their financing together? in part, due to that stimulus package. without that, this company would not be doing this. it strikes me that that is the kind of innovation we are promoting through the stimulus package to have a diverse energy policy. i think it is very exciting. >> our next question will be from dan lee. >> a key role of the senate is to advise and consent major presidential appointments. often those appointments wait for months before being voted on. in the case of the last two presidents, there have been

several appointments that were left until their final weeks in office. why does this happen, and what will be your philosophy on approving presidential appointments? >> this is a terrible thing that's happened in our country where political parties that decided to fight so hard that they try to prevent new presidents from getting any of their agenda, and specifically not getting nominations, even judicial nominations. what i have done over the years, and this is where the independence comes in. i get a lot of heat from democrats. i vote for appointments, even republican appointments, if i think they are qualified. i do not apply a partisan test. i voted for chief justice robert. s. i agree with him on the right to bear arms. i voted for john ashcroft for attorney general. a lot of democrats for mad at me for that. you can ask every republican about this, i have been one of the most bipartisan people in

the senate in trying to break this logjam. it is ok to vote against certain appointments. you should not follow the party line. mr. johnson is suggesting that i have done -- when it he asked me to vote against the recent appointment from mr. obama, even though they seem to qualify, and a number of republicans voted for them. we need more bipartisanship, not less. my opponent gives every indication that he would be a down the line, every time, straight republican voter. >> i have no idea where the senator gets those comments from or why he makes that assumption. the advice and consent is a very important part of a senator. i take it seriously. in terms of my idea to get along with people, all i can do is talk about my experience. i have been a business co-chair of the partners and education council in the chamber. when they asked me to be that business cochair, the history had then at -- had been that the

business person and the superintendent of schools would be the cochairs. i asked for the head of the teachers' union it to beat our culture. politically, we were far apart, but that never affected our judgment in terms of how we were trying to include education for our kids. i have the record of and have every capability of going to washington and working with people to solve these serious problems. that is the problem -- washington is broken. career politicians have not been getting the job done. that is why i am stepping up to the plate. we're talking about $1.50 trillion in deficit. we are talking about a health care system -- the health care bill was voted on an entirely partisan basis. i have a hard time seeing how the senator thinks that is a bipartisan effort. >> our next question will be from greg, directed to mr. johnson. >> the tea party movement may

have a big impact on a lot of races throughout the country this year. it is a conservative group that claims not to be about parting. labels they hate defecits. they hate higher taxes. they are pro-gun, second amendment rights. they say they support average citizen access to public office. and they are strongly against the government intrusion in our lives. and i want to know where both of you stand on those key issues that are part of the tea party movement. >> i sprung out of the tea party movement. i give a speech in october, 2009, when they ask me to speak about the effect of government regulation on business. i give a speech and told the story about my daughter and defending doctors. what i see in terms of the tea

party, people are concerned about the art of control spending in this country. i share the concern. the other thing is that they are concerned about government control over our lives. government intrusion, the size of government. i think there represents a difference between myself and the senator. i think this election is about governing philosophy. i do believe in a small, limited government, and less government control and our live, less spending, less taxes. i think the senators record has been clear. he wants a single payer, government run health care system. he has voted for higher taxes. he likes higher spending his party has taken control, since then, our deficits have exploded. $450 bill in the first year. $1.40 trillion. this year, congress and not have the guts to pass the budget because they did not want their

fingerprints on another budget that would exceed one trillion dollars in deficit. that is what tea party folks are concerned about this, and i share those concerns. >> i have been waiting to discuss where we agree and where mr. johnson disagrees. they value the constitution. they read the constitution before there were 55 years old, whereas mr. johnson just admitted that he just read it this year. he said he was for the patriot act. i was the only senator that voted against the patriot act. they thought those trade agreements that send our manufacturing jobs were terrible. they devastated wisconsin. mr. johnson disagrees. he calls los trade agreements and what they did to us accretive destruction. -- creative destruction.

it is the destruction of families. tea party people know i stood against the wall street's scam from day one. i voted against tarp. since you mentioned that the average citizen should be able to the debate in the political process, i think that mr. johnson would be the 70th millionairess in the united states senate. i am one of the only members of the senate who is not a millionaire. there is nothing wrong with there being millionaires, but there ought to be economic diversity in the senate. >> our next question -- go ahead. >> neither of you touched on gun rights. >> a follow up, 30 seconds. >> the right to bear arms has been a passion of me throughout my life.

i carry the constitution around with me. even when i was in college, i felt it should be an individual right. that is why i am so pleased to fight throughout my adult life to make that happen. i have no confusion about this. i strongly oppose gun registration and licensing. when mr. johnson was first asked the question, he said he would support licensing or registration of guns, although he changed his mind later. >> mr. johnson, 30 seconds. >> i will be a staunch defender of the second amendment. i think my endorsement by the nra proves that. the senator has voted for every antigun justice of the supreme court today. i think that shows his true stripes. i do need to correct the record. i have read the constitution repeatedly throughout my life. i carried around a pocket constitution for years. the comment i made that he referred to is that before i started this race, i read it five or six times. i started reading the federalist papers for a second time. >> thank you.

our next question will be from stacy. >> we have heard for years that the social security system is broken. it is on the verge of bankruptcy. baby boomers and expected to trigger its collapse in the next 20-30 years, leaving their children, their grandchildren with little or no benefits. can the system be fixed or do we need to start over from scratch? >> the first thing we have to say is that i will be accused otherwise, we have made promises to seniors, to people that are retired and about to retire and have structured their lives around social security. we have every capability of honoring those promises. the fiscal problems in social security have been known for decades. during the senator's 10 year, we have taken into $0.20 trillion in social security financing and they have spent it. the money is gone.

it has been spent on other programs. he did not protect social security. i will go to washington and protect social security. i will try to work to make it sustainable for future generations. as i go around the state and talk to young people i ask the question, what do think about social security? i have not had won a person tell me that they think it will be there for them. that is not fair. they are paying into the system. what they're represents is there will be receptive and are meant for real reform. -- there will be a re--n environment for real reform. i would never mandate privatization or private accounts. >> the sad thing is about this that the promise was not just made to people who are already on social security promise was made to people when they start paying into the system. a friend of mine said the other day, if mr. johnson has his way

and just takes care of people already on social security, it will cut me out. he is in his 40's it would cut me out. the working people in this state are relying on the fact that social security would continue as is. mr. johnson has clearly repeated tonight that for those that are not on social security, everything is on the table. everything is on the table means that he does support and has said he will support some form of privatization, because of a voluntary privatization. if someone decides to go that route and they invest in wall street, and maybe in the stock market, and that collapses. they have lost it. i do not think we can say tough luck to that person in that position. i am committed to stopping privatization. i am specific in wanting to raise the fica level. raise that up, so we can save more money to ensure that the fund is solvent in the future.

no, the fund is not insolvent now. if we have the commission appointed as was done in the early 1980's and make the changes, but i will not do what mr. johnson will do which is taken away from the current process. that promise must be sacred and must be kept. >> our next question is from dan lee. >> the united states has ended combat activity in iraq and will continue in afghanistan at for a tent here. do you agree with the united states policies over the past decade? under what circumstances should we end our combat activity in afghanistan? are we destined to have a military presence, combat or otherwise, in the middle east for generations to come? >> i regretted president obama's decision to double down in afghanistan. i think we need to have a flexible timetable. i was the first one to propose that for iraq.

that is what we ended up having, that is what we are doing. that is what we need here. that threat is much greater in places like pakistan. the leadership of al qaeda in places like pakistan and the somalia and yemen. it is a mistake to spend hundreds of billions of dollars in afghanistan at a situation that is not at the core of the problem. my opponent has said that after a war is started, he would never publicly talk about it. he would not attend hearings come he would not come before a group like this or talk to constituents. he would only make his concerns known privately. that is not our system of government. we have to, under our constitution, which i have studied very carefully, we have to have the checks and balances. if he is not going to do the job of a senator in question, as i have done, you will not get a senator who is doing the entire job. >> mr. johnson?

>> first of all, i would look at anything, any kind of military incursion in terms of what is in the best interests of america. is there a clear and present danger? i have not seen in the intelligence reports. i will tell you someone who does and that is president obama. he is seeing something where he believed that we needed this surge of 30,000 troops. i am giving him the benefit of the doubt. we have general david petraeus, probably one of the finest general's we have today. it is a resolution that senator feingold refused to vote for the censure of moveeon.org who said "general betrayus."

when they are in battle, i will never grandstand or undermine their efforts. i would try to float a resolution to cut off funding for our troops in battle in iraq -- i would never do that. i would never talk wittalk untip a consensus, until we can obtain a majority and then go to the american people and say, we need to reverse course, but i would never play politics with war. >> our next question is from greg. >> since 9/11, american residents have lived under the threat of another terrorist attack. so my question to both of you is is the government doing everything it can to protect our homeland, and have we done the right things to prevent another attack? >> well, the proof is somewhere

in the pudding. we have limited the number of attempted attacks. we've had some recently during the obama administration. i did not want to see the patriot act. i wish we did not have it. the reason we have it is because we are under threat of terrorism. so we need to take that very seriously. i would want to make sure we have a very good intelligence service. the other thing we need is we need a stronger missile defense. that is something the senator has voted repeatedly to gut. one of the big mistakes the president made coming into office as he removed the missile defense shield from the czech republic and poland. that would protect us against potential threats in iran. you've got another rogue nation like north korea that has possible nuclear capability and missile capability. we need a strong missile defense as well. >> it is interesting to hear all of a sudden mr. johnson saying that he really trust president

obama is judgment when it comes to the issue of afghanistan but not on the stimulus, not on health care, and not on missile defense. which is it? the fact the president is doing the best job he can. but we have not been focusing since 9/11 on the real issue. the real issue is al qaeda is an international syndicate that operates in many countries. we should not be invading country after country and get stuck there when the real plan is to work with other nations, and almost every nation in the world wants to get these guys, to find them and destroy them. that is essential and we have to have a global vision of that. it will not get that global vision by talking privately to congressmen. you have talked to other people. rep to talk to experts, to constituents, the people of wisconsin have something to offer you and me about their views about what we should do to protect our country. and the same thing goes for making sure that iran does not become a nuclear power.

that is not something we can even consider. all options have to be on the table to prevent that. and i am working every our virginity i can to make sure that directly or indirectly -- i am working every opportunity i can to make sure that directly or indirectly, around is not -- iran does not become that threat. >> stacy, direct your question to russ feingold first. >> 60% of americans say they support immigration reform. many states have introduced legislation to deal with the issue because they do not believe the federal government is doing enough. meanwhile, the federal government is suing the state of arizona over its new controversial immigration law. would you work for stronger federal reforms in the senate, and should the federal government be working with the states rather than suing them?

>> iowa been working on this issue for years. in fact, but -- i have been working on this issue for years. many of us wanted to get this done years ago. it was prevented by a filibuster, a republican filibuster, who would not let us bring the issue up, even though president bush wanted comprehensive immigration reform. he wanted to do the right thing, which is to be tough on the borders, be tough on employers who abuse the opportunity to use undocumented people, and find a decent solution for those that came here on documented but were working hard, if they have to pay a penalty, get a temporary penalty, touch base in their home country, half pay another penalty, and get in line behind everyone else for citizenship. that is what we need to do. the answer is not having the states do this. i understand why arizona did it. it is because the federal government failed to act. you cannot have a state-by- state federal immigration policy. recently, when i had a minute with the president, i said, we

need a jobs tax credit for the next two years, and we need to take up immigration reform right now. it is our job. it is not the job of the state. >> mr. johnson? >> i think the issue of immigration is relatively simple. step one, we have to secure the borders. i would not agree with comprehensive immigration reform because it has to be a two-step process. we tried comprehensive reform in the 1980's. we granted amnesty, which i would always be opposed to amnesty. the senator has voted for amnesty twice. we first have to secure the borders. and we do need to enforce the laws on the books against employers who are enticing people to come over the borders illegally. the other thing we should not be doing is passing legislation that also attracts people cross the border. the senator has of voted for social security benefits for illegal immigrants. he has voted for food stamps, funding for san shore cities. those are the kinds of things that attract people -- funding

for sanctuary cities. the solution is a two-step solution. we have to secure the border, and force are laws -- enforce our laws. then you can take a look at how you handle the people that are here. >> our next question is from dan lee, directed first to mr. johnson. >> that's me. farmrning to wisconsin's families, would you support a 2012 farm bill? >> but my parents grew up on farm. all my aunts and uncles are farmers. sometimes i would go down and milk the cows, bail hay. i understand the farming tradition. i understand how difficult dairy farming is. in the state of wisconsin,

farming and food processing is a very large part of our economy. as 12% of our total economy i was in the plastics business, so i have been traveling around the state talking to farmers are trying to learn more about agriculture. the one thing i found there is consensus of is that we have to keep our export markets opened. our farmers rely exports for demand for their product. so we need to make sure that we maintain free and fair trade. i will always fight for fair trade. in my business, we exported about 20% of our product. we export to about 25 different countries. one of our largest export markets is a china. i think it is extremely important. in terms of 2012, i think we need to look at the pricing mechanism. it is archaic. i was surprised to find out that milk farmers do not find out what their pricing is for two weeks to four weeks after they deliver the product. that has got to change. there have been instances where wisconsin farmers have not been

treated fairly in comparison to farmers from other states. we need to correct the process. >> we do have to change the milk marketing order. the problem is that it has been based on proximity to basically wisconsin over the years, and it has been one of the toughest battles we have had because of the regions are constantly fighting each other. this has been the greatest demand of wisconsin farmers, and i have fought as hard as i can. but it is deeper than that. the real problem we have with the dairy right now is that the money is being made in the middle. the consumer basically pays the same thing for the cheese and the milk and the farmers get less pressure is making money in the middle? it is some combination of the retailers, the processors, and the cooperatives? . we to strengthen our antitrust enforcement. i have been urging the administration to do that. we just had the national dairy forum. the most important thing is to make sure that we do not have

these bad trade agreements. mr. johnson supports every trade agreement that has come along. there'll be in new zealand zealandoagreement on dairly. i bet you anything, mr. johnson would vote for it in a new york minutes. >> our next question is directed at russ feingold first. >> my question is about embryonic stem cell research. do you support or oppose a government funding of embryonic stem cell research, or do you believe that the president of research funding guidelines of violates a law against federal funding of embryo destruction? >> i strongly support all forms of a stem cell research, including the embryonic that has the most potential. this is where my opponent and i disagree.

the only cuts and spending he has talked about given the federal deficit, is cutting back funding. that creates a real problem for families in this state that hope to have a cure for alzheimer's or parkinson's. they think it is cruel. you know what? it is bad for wisconsin's economy. you say you are about jobs. the university of wisconsin is among the world leader in stem cell research. we depend more than any other state on the federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. it will destroy one of the greatest job creators in this state. the truth is, in this area, you are out of touch with the business community in this state. i know except what they want. they wanted the stem cell research. this is an attack on wisconsin business. >> mr. johnson? >> my biggest concern with the health care bill is that it will destroy medical innovation. obviously, my family has benefited wonderfully from

medical innovation with my daughter kerry. so i am totally supportive of stem cell research. the good news is because we have a free market system, the real advances in some some research have occurred with adult stem cells and umbilical stem cells. i support that. we need to aggressively go after those cures. 99% of all proven cures use adult or below concord stem cells. i do not think we should close. i did not think that we should destroy life. we need to advance medicine on all avenues. i am a big supporter of stem cell research. >> our final question will be a from stacy, directed first and mr. johnson. >> what is the single, one promise that voters can hold due to an six years? >> i would ask you please, both to just do one minute.

mr. johnson? >> one guarantee i made in my convention speech, i will never vote with my reelection in mind. we have serious problems facing this nation. out-of-control spending. $1.30 trillion deficit this year. we have got to get to solving this problem. we need to get our federal debt under control. that would be a guarantee. i am not doing this because ron johnson wants to be a u.s. senator. i want to go and represent the state of wisconsin and start addressing these problems. frankly, my opponent has been there 18 years. he has had his head in the sand and refused to address them and fix them. >> i am not going to try to have it both ways. mr. johnson wants to have it both ways. he says a big spending and deficits are bad, but he wants to have $700 billion in tax cuts

for upper income people over the next 10 years. drive up the deficit and use all the rhetoric of cutting deficits. i proposed half a trillion dollars in deficit cuts. i promise i will work every day as i have in the past to cut wasteful federal spending. >> thank you. that concludes the question and answer portion of our debate. each candidate will now have the opportunity to make a 1.5 at minute closing statement. mr. johnson, you are first. >> once again, thank you to the wisconsin broadcasters association and to tonight's of viewers. wisconsin voters have a clear choice. during his nearly 30 years in politics, senator feingold has worked hard to create an image as an independent maverick. i don't think it's true anymore. we could have used a deficit hawk when a senator cast the

deciding votes for the failed stimulus bill and the health care bill. he voted for the last three budgets which added almost $3 trillion to our debt. we cannot afford the failed policies any longer. i offer a different direction. as a citizen and legislator, who has been building a manufacturing business for the last 31 years, creating products, exporting products, creating real jobs, i know what it is like to live under the regulations and taxes that career politicians impose on the rest of us. i would like to use that lifetime of experience to help our economy grow, so we can create jobs and we can actually get our federal debt under control. the idea and promise of america -- it is something incredibly precious. america is exceptional. it is our job to make sure that it not only survives for future generations, but that it thrives. that is exactly what i would like to do. thank you and good night.

>> senator feingold. >> thanks again for doing this debate. as people prepared to make this decision, i would advise may be just asking a few questions. the first question is which of the two of us do you think will be independent, bipartisan, and will visit every one of the counties in the state every year to listen to people? the answer is obvious. he will not. i will. which of the candidates is serious about talking about exactly what they would do to create jobs, to create job tax credits, and also to make sure that we do something about this federal deficit? i have been specific about these matters. mr. johnson has essentially punted on these matters. he said recently at the milwaukee press club that he would not state what the specific cuts were because he might be attacked. finally, ask yourself of the two of us, who is on your side? a manufacturer who would vote to

send manufacturing jobs overseas? or the guy that was recently named the number one enemy of the washington lobbyists? i think the choice is obvious. it is now your decision. i would like to keep working for you. >> thank you, mr. fine gold. that concludes the debate between wisconsin u.s. senate candidates republican ron johnson and russ feingold democrat. this debate has been sponsored by the wisconsin broadcasters association foundation, through a generous grant from the wisconsin association of independent colleges and universities. we think the candidates ,mr. ron johnson and mr. russ feingold, for their participation. and we think our panelists -- we thank our panelists.

over 80 wisconsin radio and television stations have broadcast this debate. to ensure that every citizen of wisconsin has had the opportunity to hear and see the two leading candidates for the u.s. senate from wisconsin in 2010. in the traditional of service to their communities, they hoped that bringing you this political event as a public service will contribute positively to this campaign and aid wisconsin voters as they approach their nextto elect wisconsin's u.s. senator on november 2. on behalf of the candidates, thank you for listening and watching. good night.

♪ >> in the wisconsin senate race, clear politics has republican businessman ron johnson leading senator feingold by nine points. both the cook political report and cq politics and rate the wisconsin race a tossup. senator feingold has raised more than twice as much money has mr. johnson for his campaign.

our campaign coverage continues with the senate debate from connecticut between democrat richard blumenthal and republican linda mcmahon. following that, in ohio governors' debate between incumbent of ent democrat and t republican challenger. later, live coverage of president obama at a campaign rally in philadelphia. the supreme court has started its new term. you can learn more about the nation's highest court with c- span's laetest book. candid conversations with active and retired justices. revealing unique insights about the court, available in hardcover wherever you buy books and also as an e-book. now a connecticut senate debate between richard blumenthal and republican linda mcmahon.

they are running to replace retiring democratic senator christopher dodd. the debate, courtesy of news 12 connecticut, is one hour. votes 2010 -- the debates. >> welcome to today's's debate between the candidates for senate in connecticut'. the post are the business council of fairfield county, the greater business council, the bridgeport regional business council, and news 12. each candidate will have 26 minutes to see -- as they see fit -- to use as they see fit. the candidates will field questions from our panel. they can also converse with each other. they cannot ask questions of each other, but they can talk to

each other. each candidate will have two minutes for closing statements. our panelists are the editor for hearst connecticut papers, the managing editor of the norwalk hour, and ebong udoma, a senior political reporter for the radio. our candidates -- linda mcmahon, the democrats and dick blumenthal, the republican. >> good morning. president bush enacted cap and trade measures to control rain pollution. you have said you are opposed to that legislation. could you explain what steps you would take to reduce fossil fuel emissions? >> let me thank everyone who is here this morning. for those in attendance and those watching as electronically.

i would like to say that, first of all, i think all of us want to make sure that we protect our environment. we want to make sure that we have clean air, clean water to pass along to generations to come. that is certainly our goal. i also believe that we need to balance our economic needs with our environmental needs to make sure that we keep that where it needs to be. i'm opposed to cap and trade, otherwise known as the national energy tax, with my opponent has supported, because it is just what i said -- and national- energy tax. it is absolutely going to cause our families -- are middle class more money. it will cause families -- cost families in connecticut about $1,000 more per year for electricity, raised the price of gasoline by about 68 cents per gallon, and, at that time when we have so many families that

are our of work and during a recession, it is not the time to receive -- to increase taxes. i believe we need a national- energy policy to protect the environment. i believe we should move toward wind, solar, geothermal, and fuel-cell technologies. connecticut is the world's capital in fuel-cells. i think we should increase nuclear production. all of these would be cleaner ways to produce our electricity in our country. i think that those are prudent and we should move in that direction. in order to get there, i believe we should incentivize our businesses. i think that companies who will move toward a cleaner technology should receive, during the time of movement and change for that technology -- they should get 100% tax credits for that development. once the technology is in place

and that you'll is burning cleaner, they should have a preferred tax rate for getting there. it is a way to incentivize businesses to move from carbon- burning fuels to clean technology. however, currently, our country is still 85% dependent on carbon fuels. i do think, at this time, we need to continue to environmentally and safely and plot -- environmentally-safely explore our own resources, both oil and natural gas, we should do in the offshore drilling in a safe and prudent way. we should continue to explore for natural gas. we will be less dependent on foreign countries, some of whom are today our allies, but whom we cannot always count on being allies. while we have a movement to move

to clean-burning fuels, i think we should continue to explore our own natural resources here to be economically independent from our foreign sources and also because it is cheaper. we have great resources year. we have enough natural gas that is projected to take over the next 100 years. it will need to be done in an economically-sound way. what we have seen with our offshore drilling, with bp's disaster, we saw that the company clearly bypass safety regulations and took short cuts. we must ensure that does not happen. i do not think the moratorium that has been placed is prudent because it is costing jobs and sending jobs outside of the united states. i think the states that are involved with the offshore drilling need to have their -- >> can you let mr. blumenthal --

>> one second. we will move toward an economic and environmentally-prudent way to develop those. >> mr. blumenthal. >> thank you. >> could ask are enthusiastic supporters to save their enthusiasm for the end of the debate? >> thank you to you all for being here today and channels will for hosting us and all of our panelists and artisans. we need a national-energy policy. that policy must create jobs, cut utility costs, in effect, makes polluters pay, and reward connecticut for being a relatively clean fuel-burning state. we should be belly proud -- very proud that we're one of the cleanest-burning fuel states and the country -- in the country. as attorney general, i have

pursued a national-energy policy to make polluters in other states, whether it is co2 or other forms of emissions, pay for contaminating our air. we can create new jobs. for example, at the fuel energy company that i visited yesterday, there are eight projects waiting in the state of connecticut. they're not going forward because there is insufficient financing. we can provide incentives and support and financing to create green jobs in our state and cut utility costs. the cost of utilities and energy in connecticut are just too hi for ordinary consumers, small businesses, and other businesses. we are one of the highest electric the -- electricity cost states in the entire country. over the course of my two

decades as attorney general, i have fought those energy interests. i have helped to cut $2 billion from rate hike that otherwise would have gone into effect. -- rate hikes that otherwise would have gone into effect. we must continue to battle the interests that would create co2 pollution and also raised our utility costs. cap and trade is dead. tappan trade died in the last congress. let's be clear. i wrote a letter to the congress supporting a bill that inc. cap and trade concepts. i also advocated changes in the bill that would have made it better for connecticut. it is not an energy tax. i oppose a national energy tax and will continue to steadfastly opposed the national energy tax. the claim that cap and trade is a national energy tax is based on phony numbers from a right-

wing group designed to scare people and protect the energy interests -- special interests that i have fought relentlessly over the years. my opponent and i have a very different view on drilling. many of you probably received an mailer from her during the height of the bp crisis. he received a lot of mailers from her so you may not remember this one. it essentially advocated more drilling and continued drilling, even in the midst of that in mind i submit -- even in the midst of that environmental crisis. i support a moratorium until we determine what the causes are. >> ms. mcmahon, would you like to drill deeper on this? >> thank you very much.

in connecticut, i think we have made progress toward clean energy. at what cost? an egghead has a second-highest energy costs in the country. -- connecticut as the second- highest energy costs in the country. we need to balance economic and environmental causes. mr. blumenthal, you said cap and trade is dead. you might need to check with president obama, because he has certainly said it will be one of his primary focus is next year, to make sure that cap and trade is put back in place. he will focus on it. you took a position -- first you sent a letter supporting cap and trade. when you were asked in the media if you supported cap and trade, you said no. then you said it was dead. i think we need to know where you stand on that particular issue. for you to say that these are

right-wing think tank members, check with president obama. he is the one who said, when he first talked about cap and trade, we will necessaries -- necessarily see electricity costs skyrocket. but the numbers aside. we're going to see increase costs -- increased costs. .et's incentivize companies let them develop their technology for cleaner-burning, give them tax breaks ones that technology is in place. we all benefit from that. punitive measures and lawsuits, i do not think there are the way to go. lawsuits do not create jobs. they drive jobs out of our state. i am absolutely not a proponent of raising any kind of tax on our families here in connecticut. >> mr. blumenthal? >> and national-energy policy

passed to provide for the future, not look back to the past -- a national-energy policy has to provide for the future, not look back to the past. i have been accused of supporting and national-energy tax, but that is misleading. that is the hartford courant's wordsabout my opponent's about me supporting that. my opponent said she would have had a hard time whether -- deciding whether to support a broad water. i fought those projects because they pose an environmental threat and also a security danger and offered no real benefit to connecticut. we do need to use more natural gas in the short-term. we are reliant on national gas -- natural gas for much of our

energy needs. we need to be honest about the compatibility of the environment and energy if we have -- energy. if we have a national energy policy. i would just say one more thing about energy. right now, we're providing $40 billion in subsidies -- tax breaks, loopholes to special- energy interests. i would shut them. my opponent has sided with the energy interest on that score. i can assure the people of connecticut, first and foremost, i will stand for them against those special interests. energy companies that i have fought over the years for their benefit. to cut electricity costs and make sure they do not dominate the public interest. i will fight for the people of connecticut, stand for them against those special interests in washington, d.c. we have seen that washington is

dominated by those special interests. >> i want to make sure energy does not dominate the entire debate. i want to move on to the next question. your question for mr. blumenthal, please. >> good morning. i think we would all agree that our transportation infrastructure needs serious improvement. there was a recent proposal that seems to be about 30 years away. what, on the federal level, as senator, would you do to improve mass transit in this part of the country? >> mass transit is a serious need for the connecticut and northeastern region of the country. it is very important for environmental and energy interests, as well as security concerns. mass transit, high-speed rail, can be promoted, encouraged, and supported by the federal government. i would strongly advocate and fight for more transportation , forng for connecticut'

the 95 corridor, for the hartford-springfield-new haven route. we can not only transport people, but more goods and provide more services, and promote economic revival. investment in our infrastructure is absolutely critical. we ought to be encouraging back kind of it -- that kind of investment in infrastructure through those kinds of federal projects and federal grants and other forms of federal support, but also through a tax policy that makes sense. i support a middle-income tax cut now, without holding it hostage for a tax cut to the wealthy, combined with an infrastructure program which will help revive our economy. i would not hold that middle-

income tax cut hostage to the tax cut for the wealthiest 2%. >> mrs. mcmahon. >> if you have traveled on 95, we know there is a need to get cars off the road and improve our transportation system. in stamford, conn., we have one of the biggest projects going on in the country. we have our transportation- oriented development running right into the long island sound. it is of -- a full community where you can live, work, and play. it will be an incredible development. i think we need to see more of that. a similar building is gone on in new haven. if we look to increase mass- transit, we can also certainly development more -- develop more of these work-play-living areas which are going to be very environmentally sound and get more traffic off the roads.

federal dollars can be used to support those. as a senator, i would look to bring those dollars into the state in terms of grants, with full preparation in transparency. and i certainly want to say to everyone here that -- with full appropriation and transparency. and i certainly want to say to everyone here that we should not raise taxes on anyone. there is no disagreement on that. we would not raise taxes on anyone. why would you let the bush tax cuts expire at the end of this year and have a negative impact on small business? they create 70% of the jobs in this country. 72% of the revenue that is earned by these small businesses would be affected by this tax increase. my opponent wants to increase taxes on a greater area. let me tell you what will happen.

$12.5 billion would leave the state, primarily throughout fairfield county. $12.5 billion would go to washington to be spent. i would rather leave the money here in connecticut, in the hands of our families and people who create jobs. until we create jobs in the private sector in this country, we're not going to have a sustained recovery. when mr. been and always talking about special interests, -- mr. blumenthal was talking about special interests, i would like to know what they were the same special interests that are bankrolling his campaign. >> mr. blumenthal? >> transportation, properly spent, can encourage small businesses. i am very much in favor of encouraging small businesses through transportation and infrastructure investment, road- building, and also, most

important, mass transit and railroads. but we also need to provide targeted tax cuts to small businesses, not by extending the bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% and blocking a middle-class tax cut as my opponent would do, which violates principles of fairness and economic wisdom. targeted tax cuts, for example, deductions for startup costs ar4 e indeed tax credits -- tax cuts for new hires, payroll tax exemptions, very specific kinds of aid that will make possible the creation of new jobs and preservation of existing ones. absolutely, small business is the engine of new job creation, but targeted tax cuts are the way to provide the support that small businesses need, combined with financing. right now, small businesses tell me they cannot borrow because

the banks will not lend. the government can help enable better financing through direct loans from the sba and other names, the buy america program, to make sure that our federal tax dollars are used to buy products made in the united states. my opponent actually buys through wwe most of her products that are manufactured overseas. she sends jobs overseas through wwe. we need to close another tax people -- tax loophole that rewards companies for sending jobs overseas. it cost us $200 billion over time. i will fight for the people of connecticut against those special interests. the people of connecticut know me. no matter who contributes to my campaign, no matter the amount,

i want to stand for them. they know it not for my words, but from my record of action over 20 years. standing strong against the special interest is what we need to do. washington is just not listening. >> ms. mcmahon? >> wwe does not make toys. mattel makes toys. wwe licenses mattel toys to distribute them around the world. i have no doubt, mr. blumenthal, you have bought mattel toys for children over time. what we need to do to encourage our businesses to grow and develop is to make sure we have the right kind of environment. businesses leave our country because we of a 35% corporate tax rate here. -- we have a 35% corporate tax

rate here. the average world tax rate is 18%. mr. blumenthal has said he does not want to raise taxes on the middle class. he talks about his 20 years as attorney general. maybe some of you here may not know that, i did not at first, that mr. blumenthal also served as the state legislature -- in the state legislature for six years. was he was there, he voted for the largest -- while he was there, he voted for the largest tax increase ever, at that time. he voted to almost double spending in the state of connecticut. i submit to you, this is his record as a legislator. he had six years -- the term of united states senator. i do not think we can send to washington with his tax and spend philosophy -- i do not

think we can send mr. blumenthal to washington with his tax and spend philosophy. >> i think we will benefit from both sides been quiet during the debate, with all due respect. i hope i am not usurping your role. >> go ahead. we get a taste of your leadership skills. [applause] >> when wwe buys products overseas, manufactured abroad, it has deprived our workers of jobs. it is not just toys, not just mattel. it is all kinds of merchandise, manufactured overseas by workers there, when american workers could be making the same product. millions and millions of dollars spent by wwe. now, it has a say and a choice

in where those products are manufactured. my opponent, as ceo of the company, has a choice about how she would spend those corporate dollars, whether she would do, as many americans do, by america. i say by america. the federal government ought to be doing it. i defended the made in america label when it was want to be diluted. i feel strongly that we have a responsibility to fight for fair trade policy. american workers are the ones who suffer, as well as american businesses, and our entire economy, when the chinese, for example, manipulate our currency -- and their currency to our detriment. when they manipulate their currency and undervalue if, our products are priced higher. we ought to be fighting -- someone has to be there for our middle class, saying we need tax cuts, fairer trade policies so that made in america works. the example of my opponent

buying her products overseas is a very unfortunate one. i voted for that tax increase in 1989 -- more than two decades ago. i also voted for tax cuts when i was in the legislature. if we want to go back to what i was doing in 1989, we can talk about what my opponent was doing around that time when she was tipping off a doctor who worked for her about a federal investigation -- a criminal investigation. she hired the doctor, she tipped him off to the investigation. that is a matter of record. i am running on my record of two decades fighting for the people of connecticut, standing strong for them against those energy interests and special interests that would harm them. >> ms. mcmahon. >> mr. blumenthal, i think you want to constantly focused on wwe, because it is really

difficult for you to focus on the economy and creating jobs. wwe is certainly a company for which i am very proud. of the last 28 years, wwe has averaged creating 20 jobs per year. primarily in this state. i can tell you that we need more of that here in connecticut. we need someone who knows how to create jobs in the private sector so that we can have an economic recovery here in our country. when companies here in the united states by products -- buy products from outside the united states because that is where they are manufactured, what we need to focus on his reading incentive for our country, our corporations -- focus on is creating incentives for our country, our corporations to have the right environment to grow. they need to have a climate of certainty. they do not know what is coming

down the pike at this point -- health care reform, whether this national-energy tax is going to happen, whether card check is going to happen, what the tax creases are going to be -- tax increases are going to be. when people create jobs, they have to manage their downside risk. we have created this perfect storm of uncertainty from washington. i want to be able to change that. i know how to create jobs. i have done that here in connecticut. i would like mr. blumenthal to talk about the jobs that he has created here in connecticut. >> perhaps that will be part of the next question. >> ms. mcmahon, last week, u.s. accepted the endorsement of the national federation of federal -- of independent business. it includes a freeze in the

minimum wage, simplifying the americans with disabilities act, and the family medical leave act, which was authored by chris dodd. do you agree with their agenda? >> certainly, that gave rise last week to whether or not i would consider reducing the minimum wage. i certainly would not. let me be crystal clear about that. i have said that i would absolutely consider whether minimum wage would be increased moving forward. i think are responsible center would do that. i was very pleased to except the endorsement. -- accept the nfib endorsement. the owner of the company said at a press conference and i agree that one of the tenants of how they want to move forward -- tenets of how they want to move

forward is to let government stay out of the way and let the free market and free enterprise system allow business to grow and develop in our country. that is certainly what i support. i think they bring to the table the attitude that we need smaller government, less taxes, less spending by our government. businesses can then have the culture to grow and cooperate. we do not have proper working capital right now because we have so much restriction and regulation on small community banks. i have talked to so many community banks around the state to look, telling me -- around the state to have been telling me that they might have loaned money, but it cannot because bank regulators are saying that his business might become non- performing, therefore you have to have more assets on your books in order to loaned to him. we are freezing capital in the marketplace. n freezing capital

in the marketplace. groups like nfib are helping growth. i am pleased to have their endorsement. >> when my opponent accepted that endorsement, she was axed -- asked whether she would consider reducing minimum wage. she said she would look at it. i would not need to look at it. i would say, absolutely not. the other day, during our debate, she virtually accused me of lying and when i reproduced this exchange. now she says she misunderstood the question. the fact of the matter is, she said she would look at reducing the minimum wage. she talks about creating jobs. many of the jobs she has created at wwe have no health

insurance. they're hired as independent contractors. her company is under investigation now by the state for allegedly miss classifying, illegally mis classifying those workers as independent contractors, and denying them health insurance and dodging taxes on social security, medicare, and other forms of taxation such as unemployment compensation. creating those kinds of jobs without health insurance is certainly not something that i would brag about. as for creating jobs, i believe that we can have public-private partnerships such as have occurred in the fuel-cell industry. when i visited the to-sell energy corp. -- a fuel-cell

energy corp., they describe to me how they had been encouraged and supported in developing new technology and were thereby enable it to build their company with technology that was the result of that public- private partnership. there are other ways that we can encourage and support jobs -- by providing financing, by fighting for fair trade policy, and certainly in the area of green jobs, are public sector can play a vital role. right now, korea, south korea -- they are developing more jobs in fuel cells than the united states. you think our technology -- we ought to be embarrassed and ashamed that a technology developed in this country is actually being developed overseas. as united states senator, i can assure you i will fight for more support for those kinds of jobs that provide good incomes for our people, good sources of

economic revival, and most importantly hope for our children in the future that we can be leaders once again in the united states and the global economy. that kind of vision and courage is what i hope to bring to washington. >> ms. mcmahon? >> let's be clear about the minimum wage issue. just check with the new york times and the connecticut mirror. mr. blumenthal, you always like to attack this audit that is going on with wwe with independent contractors. it is a routine audit going around. monday night, you said it was a criminal investigation. >> no, i did not. >> you said it was criminal. you said it was a criminal investigation. i would certainly think, let's

give you the benefit of the doubt. maybe you just misspoke again when you talked about the criminal investigation, like a time when you talked about how you had served in vietnam, like the time when you talked about you were not going to vancouver for the fund-raiser, like the time, after you apologized for vietnam, you again miss characterized -- mis characterized your draft status. given how you miss a beat in the mist -- you misspeak and you mischaracterize wwe, i think it would be criminal for the united states attorney to accuse the company of criminal activity and then tuesday that it was outside of your jurisdiction -- and then

to state that it was outside of your jurisdiction. you certainly have called for criminal investigations before. i just want to clear that up. we clearly need to -- we clearly need to incentivize and i agree with that. our business is here in our country. for south korea to be using our technology, absolutely agree and that's what i'm talking. we need to incentivize businesses here. we don't need them to drive them offshore by having high tax rates. let's make r&d tax credits permanent here in our country. let's make sure that our corporate tax rates are competitive at least for around the world. tax loopholes exist because companies who produce products outside the united states, or have offshore businesses, they pay the tax to that particular state and that is a credit against tax paid here. but the balance of that money gets taxed if you bring it back here to this country. other countries don't do that. if a company's based here in the united states, it's a french company, and they pay taxes here in the united states, they don't pay it again in france.

so what we're doing is penalize companies. to now say that we're going to close the tax loophole so that that company will have to pay the full tax on that dollar when it is earned outside of the united states? i can tell you what will happen. companies won't have a base here. they'll go offshore completely. we won't have any tax revenue and i think that's backwards, mr. blumenthal, and it gets back to the fact you don't understand business. it's not your fault. you've been in government all your life. [laughter] >> mr. blumenthal? [applause] >> let me assure the it is clear that i'm not involved in the investigation of wwe. i said on monday night of my jurisdiction is civil. the allegations against wwe are

potentially criminal. as for vietnam -- i want to make clear, as i have said again and again, i am proud of my military record. on a few occasions, out of hundreds that i have described, i in accurately -- inaccurately characterize that. it was not intentional. it is no excuse. i take full responsibility and apologize, as i have done before, to the people of connecticut, to our veterans, and will continue to champion the cause of the veterans and continue to fight for program called -- for program called "no veteran left behind," because we have too often kept no faith with our veterans. the tax loopholes that encourage jobs to go overseas cost us more than $200 billion. my opponent is siding with the special interest that would seek to retain them, just as she has

sided with the energy interests in favor of the $40 billion in hidden subsidies and preferences that the energy interests receive and presumably also with the tax loopholes and subsidies that agri-business receives worth billions of dollars and the sweetheart deal that our pharmaceutical drug companies have received under the health care bill. that sweetheart deal costs us $200 billion. it prevents the federal government from negotiating medicare drug prices that would save us that money and other measures that would cut waste and fraud in health care that's absolutely necessary to make health care work. the present bill is simply a good step in the right direction but by no means the end of progress we need to make in our health care program. standing up against special interests is in no way what my opponent wants to do.

she has put profit ahead of people at every turn and that is the kind of united states senator she would be. i have fought for people and i would do so in washington against those special interests, stand strong for the people of connecticut. >> your question for mr. blumenthal. >> mr. blumenthal, some have suggested you have been unnecessarily harsh and litigious as attorney general toward small business. i want to read you something from what a couple of small businesses that use suit had to say about this. if you are a small business owner and mr. blumenthal sues you, life as you know it is over. your bank accounts are seized. liens are placed on property and assets. even if you win, you will wait

another year. you're out of business, you are dead. how do you respond? >> i have stood strong for small businesses and jobs when they were victims of wrongdoing and also stood strong and fought for consumers when they were victims of wrongdoing. my job has been to fight for people who are victims of wrongdoing. and i have stood for a car dealership when it was going to be shut down by general motors. i have stood for stanley works and jobs there when it was threatened with a hostile takeover. and stood with the workers at pratt when they wanted to ship jobs elsewhere. my job is to fight for people. i have saw to fight for people -- sought to fight for people,

using the law to make a difference in their lives, and most particularly and most commonly, in many ways, i have stood for people who were victims of health care insurers. when they were denied health care coverage, i have gone to bat for them, work for them, and made sure that someone was in their corner to get the medical treatment they deserve. again and again, in thousands of cases, whether stem cell transplants, cancer treatment, or other life-saving treatments, we have worked and fought for the people of connecticut and we have used the legal means available to make sure that small businesses are defended against wrongdoing as well as ordinary consumers. i would cite one other example.

when property-casualty insurers in connecticut and around the country fixed prices therig -- and rig bids, we recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for consumers and small businesses here in connecticut. small businesses are often the beneficiaries of what we do. >> ms. mcmahon? >> i have not talked to a single small business around this state that felt they were a beneficiary, mr. blumenthal, of your actions. what are you fighting for now? higher taxes, bigger government, a health care bill that is going to take $500 billion out of medicare spending. i have heard you say that just goes against medicare advantage.

that is going to reduce payments under medicare a and b to hospitals. there is a potential that seniors will not be able to get their care. there will be taxes on manufacturing of medical equipment. what will happen? that cost will get passed on to consumers. it is very definitely want to cost our seniors. this health care bill will raise taxes. you have applauded health care passing. you say it is a good start. i have to say that i think a bill that starts with premiums that are going to go up by double digits, taxes on small businesses, increased premiums to families, we will lose health care coverage rather than gain health care coverage, drive the cost of health care up and i think make it worse, driving doctors of the medicare business -- i do not think that is a good place to start. i believe it ought to be repealed. we ought to start again.

[applause] >> mr. blumenthal. >> if ms. mcmahon wants to talk to small businesses that have benefited from the work i have done, she ought to get out more and talk to other small businesses in connecticut. [applause] as i have done consistently over 20 years -- listening to the people of connecticut is where my best ideas and energy has come from. you know, my opponent would have a little more credibility on fighting taxes if she had not hired washington lobbyists over a decade, paying them more than $1 million to strongarm congress. she claims to be different, but there is nothing different about hiring lobbyists to strongarm congress to kill legislation, as

she has attempted to do put -- kill legislation that would provide protection to children against the marketing of sex and violence. she also lobbied against the steroid investigation -- hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on washington lobbyists. that is no different. that is politics as usual. i have never favored high your taxes, as an energy tax, as my opponent has said -- higher taxes, as an energy tax, as my opponent has said. i believe we should cut the middle-income tax now. at middle-income tax not only inhibits economic growth, it is also unfair if it is held hostage for the wealthiest 2%. i would not block that tax cut and i would also stand strong in favor of the minimum wage, no

questions. we should not look at whether it should be reduced. i would make sure that those tax loopholes are reduced and that we avoid the extension of the bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%, because they would, not only be unwise and a matter of economic policy -- as a matter of economic policy, but they would not help small businesses. less than 2% of small businesses are affected by those. we need targeted tax relief for those small businesses. we need middle-income tax relief and help for small businesses. we should not alone -- balloon the deficit by extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%. >> ms. mcmahon. >> wwe did hire public- relations firms to expand our

programs. we approached congress relative to having the troops from wwe go to afghanistan and iraq to entertain our men and women there. there were dollars used to fight for first amendment rights for television programmers and also when we at wwe were asked to testify as part of the -- you probably saw that whole business with baseball that took place a couple of years ago -- we hired a law firm. it is the law firm we have had an used for years -- and used for years. you talk about this increase of tax on the wealthy and that small businesses are run the 2%. that's small 2% 3 its 72% of the

revenue -- 2% creates 72% of the revenue. they are the ones who create jobs. if you want to impose a tax when they are already paying 35%, the tax would go up to 39.6%, as would those in the higher-income tax brackets. that is 3.5% or more than walmart will pay as a corporation. i submit to you that taxing small businesses at a higher rate than walmart is getting taxed is unconscionable. we're not going to continue to create jobs in the private sector by doing that. mr. blumenthal, i am really happy that you have fought so hard for small businesses and that you traveled the state. wwe has been in the state for 20 years. you stop by one day and had a cup of tea with me. that is the extent of you listening to my ideas and how we

have 600 people here in the amount of taxes we pay. you're fighting for an increase in taxes. let me remind you, when he was in the legislature, one year, he voted for the $850 million tax increase that affected middle- class americans who are still paying for it today. he almost doubled the state's spending. we cannot afford another tax and spend senator in washington. we cannot afford you, mr. blumenthal, we have enough of you already. >> joe ferrari. >> your against trying terrorists in civilian courts. this recently occurred. did the process change your mind at all? >> i believe you are referring to a terrorist who is also a citizen of the united states. there is a difference. i think there is a different

rule to apply there. when you are talking about collegiate mohammed -- khalid sheik mohammed, 9/11, i do not think those terrorists should be afforded the rights and privileges of view -- of the united states citizen and i believe they are more appropriately tried in a military tribunal. >> i believe the question of where it a terrorist should be tried it depends on the facts. ksm should be tried in a military tribunal. an attack on this country by a person from another country, directed, trained, supplied in a direct attack on the united states, should be tried in a military tribunal, particularly if it would come -- compromise intelligence interests. my attitude and approach as a prosecutor -- as a former united states attorney -- i want

the swiftest and shorts conviction -- surest conviction for anyone who does harm or threatens harm to the united states. i would continue to make decisions based on each case as it came before me. [applause] >> ebong udoma, your question. >> they had just traveled to cuba to discuss with cuban government officials the relations between the two countries. he is an outspoken critic of the embargo. what is your position on cuba and the embargo? >> i think we should be open to normalizing relations with cuba. i think we should consider steps in that direction, but i may not agree completely with everything that chris dodd or

any other member of the otherstates. i want to make clear -- any other member of the senate states. i want to make clear that i want to do what is right for our state, the working and middle- class families. >> ms. mcmahon. >> i, too, think we should take steps to remove this embargo. it has been there for a long, long time. there are probably some people here who would like to have cuban cigars. i also think that we have to look at our free trade agreements. when we export our products that we make here in the united states, we create jobs. i believe it was president obama who said that, for every one% increase in exports, -- 1% increase in exports, we create 250,000 jobs. america does still manufacture.

i think we're still the largest country for manufacturing and exporting goods. we need markets for those goods. free-trade agreements are necessary. there are pending free-trade agreements in congress now. as we open those doors and have opportunities to export, we absolutely create more jobs in our country. >> panelist, thank you very much. candidates, it is time for final remarks. by the cost of the queen, -- the coin, ms. mcmahon, you go first. two minutes. >> again, i would like to thank everyone who is here today. i am running for the united states senate because our economy is in shambles, people are out of work, our families are hurting, nest eggs have been devastated, and they're not enough people in washington -- there are not enough people in

washington who understand how to create jobs. i want the american dream to be there for my grandchildren and for that next generation. my opponent has made a convincing case today, but he has extensive government experience and i do not disagree with that, because he has spent a lifelong career in government and on the government payroll. i am the wife, mother, grandmother, and i'm a businesswoman who has doubled in building a business at the same time -- juggled with building a business and raising a family. he their job was easy. i have known lean times and prosperity. i have had to make tough decisions. the twist in this election in november is absolutely clear -- choice in this election in november is absolutely clear. we have a career politician versus someone who knows to a -- knows how to create jobs.

i want to keep money in the hands of the families and the job creators here in connecticut. we have to change the direction of our government. we have to create jobs in the private sector by incentivizing small businesses. we have to not raise taxes to cover spending. i want to reduce spending and balance the budget. over the past year, i have spent almost every day around our state, meeting with many of you, talking with you, listening to you. as a senator, i want that young, single mom who has lost her job to be able to know she has a champion. i want that veteran that i talked to after he has been up at rocky hill to know that he has a champion. i wanted teacher struggling for innovation to know that she has a champion in the senate.

i would like to leave you with this thought. he picked up the phone and call your senator, wouldn't you feel better connecting with someone who has walked in your shoes? i would. thank you very much. it would be my privilege to be your next united states senator. >> hold your applause, please. [applause] mr. blumenthal? >> thank you to everyone for joining us today and to the people who are listening for giving us your attention. elections are about choices. this election prevents -- presents the stark, clear choice. my opponent says she is different. she has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on washington lobbyists to stop a measure that would protect children from sex and violence. she has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on her

investigation or involvement in an investigation conducted by the government into steroid use in her company. she is different from me. she has spent her life building her fortune. i have spent my life helping people build their futures. i am proud of standing for the people of connecticut, working for them, advocating for them. we worked with cathy and her family to keep her small business open and preserve those jobs. was denied's baby health insurance coverage for a formula that she desperately needed. for billy clark who works at pratt-whitney--

>> we are >> according to most polling, mr. blumenthal is holding on to a single digit lead, a smaller lead an earlier this year. hethe abc's "this week" blamed his fall and the polls on money. his opponent, a former executive of world wrestling and entertainment has spent $22 million of her own money on the race. both of the cook political report

>> a special presentation of campaign 2010 -- a gubernatorial debate, sponsored by the ohio newspaper organization, the coalition of the largest eight newspapers in the state of ohio, live from the toledo main campus. here is your moderator. >> good evening and welcome to the ohio gubernatorial debate. we're so glad you are with us. we think we have a dandy on tap. wherever you are watching from the buckeye state or all across the country. we welcome in the two major candidates for governor. one of them will lead the state government for the next four years. let's meet them and say welcome to ted strickland, the current governor of ohio and former of

representatives. good to have you back in northwest ohio. we also want to welcome the republican candidate for governor, a former member of the u.s. house of representatives, john kasich. thank you for being here. before we get started, let's introduce our panelists who say a sincere thank you for this being put together. we're coming to live from the -- to you live from the university of toledo. we are very familiar of the work -- with the work of this man from the toledo blade. we have gaile here as well. -- gayle here tonight. also a guest from the akron beacon journal. rules.eview the

3 minutes for opening statements. 90 seconds to answer a question; 90 seconds for a response. 30 seconds for rebuttal. 2 minutes for a closing statement. a coin toss has determined the order for this debate. it is time for opening statements. governor strickland. >> good evening, everyone. i want to begin by saying thank you to the people of ohio for allowing me to be your governor. we have been hit hard by a national recession that was not of our own making. it was caused by two things -- mismanagement in washington, d.c., and misbehavior on wall

street. i am here to share with you what i have been trying to do as your governor to move our state forward and bring about recovery. this is what i have done. i have balanced two budgets while cutting taxes. we have cut the state income tax 17% since 2005, most of that sense i have been governor. we have given senior citizens who own homes in ohio a large property-tax cut. as a state senator, my opponent tried to eliminate the state income tax -- the home state exemption by cosponsoring legislation that would have actually raised taxes on our seniors. i have been trying to cut taxes on seniors. he tried to raise them. we have done other things. we have invested in energy. we have a major energy

initiative underway. we will have the largest solar farm built east of the rocky mountains built here in ohio. we will be the first state to put peninsula -- wind out in lake erie. industry, the biofuel industry -- these energy jobs are exploding. we have frozen college tuition to make it more affordable for young people. we have invested in k through 12 education, moving up to fifth in the nation and best in the midwest. the federal reserve out of pittsburgh says we have the sixth-fastest growing state economy in america. my point was a congressman -- i call him -- my opponent was a congressman. i call him all what -- a wall street congressman. he voted for nafta. he voted to give china special trade status. he sent thousands and thousands of jobs out of ohio. he tried to privatize social security because wall street wanted him to do that. they want to get their hands on

our social security resources. when he left congress, they rewarded him with a big drop on -- job on wall street working for lehman brothers, a company that went bankrupt on september 15, 2008, representing the largest bankruptcy in american history. thousands of ohioans lost their life savings as a result of that bankruptcy. my opponent walked away with a $400,000 bonus. this is the choice in this election -- the choice between two people and the choice between two value systems. wall street on your systems -- values which believe in outsourcing our jobs or ohio value systems which want to build the state for the common good. >> mr. kasich. >> i have traveled the state and talk to a lot of people. people are nervous. some of the mourners, some frustrated, and some just downright scared about the economic state of ohio.

since ted has veen -- been governor, 41 states have outperformed us. we're the 42nd best state in america. that is not acceptable in ohio. we have rising poverty and rising homelessness. in the term that the governor has been here, we have also had rising taxes. i was in washington and i spent 10 years of my life fighting to balance the federer budget. you know why? don't put things off till tomorrow that you need to do today. do not mortgage our children's future. if we can balance the budget and make the government more effective and efficient, we can return power to the states. we can then create economic prosperity. in the 10 long years of my life from 1995 when i became the chairman of the budget committee, i have built a team to balance the federal budget. the day finally arrived in 1997, building that team and becoming the chief architect of

the balanced budget proposal -- a bipartisan effort -- we were able to balance the budget for the first time since men walked on the moon. we pay down $500 billion of the national federal debt. we helped families. we went from trillions in the holes to trillions in the black. we were creating jobs. the american economy was never stronger. by then left 0-- i then left. i took 10 years out and understand why people are nervous about politicians. i have a record of what i was able to do to bring prosperity to the state. not to talk about it, but to actually do it. i returned to public life because i believe that we can make government more efficient and effective. we all know there is plenty of room for that. if we can reduce taxes, we can make the state more competitive. if we can take the six-foot pile

of codes and regulations that strangle our small business people, i know we can be more successful. if we can train of high winds -- ohioans for 21st century jobs, we can actually get it done. the small business community -- the nfib as endorsed my candidacy. -- has endorsed the candidacy of john kasich and mary taylor. the ohio chamber of commerce, for the first time in 117 years, said, "kasich is the man we need to move us to an era of prosperity." shrinking government, lowering taxes, making the environment pro-growth and not restraint of business. i need your help to be governor and to join my team to restore the greatness of our state. >> thank you to you both. we now begin the question portion of our debate. as moderator, i have the honor of asking our first question. the coin toss also determined twho would receive this questio.

the question goes to mr. kasich. here we are in toledo, heavily involved in the auto industry. we're also very proud that we have emerged as the leader in the solar industry. the school that we're at is a large part of that. it is an industry working hard. they should be finding 25% of their energy and renewable sp sources by 2025. what standards would you preserve? >> the one thing you do not want to do in the state is for the government to impose mandates that could result in higher energy costs for our beleaguered citizens. you not want them to be not -- do not want to put the businesses in a position where they cannot be competitive. i think you'll have seen that we have lost 15 factories to indiana, maryland, and tennessee, because we were not competitive.

alternative energy is fantastic. it is one of the things we ought to do. the university of toledo deserves credit for the things they have done. we are thrilled about first solar. we need not just one industry and a focus on an industry that is relatively small, we need a portfolio of businesses. we need to be the leader in manufacturing. we need to push information technology. we need to push financial- services. we need to be in a position to work with the university of toledo and the other fine schools around the state to promote development in medical technology. we need to promote agriculture. it is a portfolio of businesses. we are diverse. we need averse economy. if we have trouble in one area, -- need a diverse economy. if we have trouble in one area, we will not be sunk. we have stood still for too long. we need diverse economy. >> governor, 90 seconds. >> we do have a diverse economy.

that is why i developed the hubs of innovation program, identifying the core strengths of the major cities in our state, and investing in those. energy is one of those or -- core strengths. we were happy to make this region the solar hub. my opponent did said that he -- say that he would consider getting rid of the standard -- the 25% by 2025 standard, which is resulting in massive investments being made in ohio. as i said, we announced this week that we will be building in ohio the largest solar farm east of the rocky mountains. it will create 600 jobs in ohio. we will be the first state to deploy wind in lake erie. six turbines have been ordered. it will be the big inning -- a -- the beginning, a

demonstration project at will -- that will lead to a wind farm out in lake erie. we are seeing the solar industry provide jobs for our people. we must not turn back. when the congressmen implied -- congressman implied that he would consider getting rid of the standard, he obviously did not know that we had a cap -- a 3% cap that will keep costs from exploding. he ought to know what he is talking about before he makes a statement about something as important as the wind and the energy -- the solar policy that we have. >> that is your time. >> you have lost almost four under thousand jobs since you've -- 397,000 jobs since you've been governor. you promised to turn ohio around. we have a love and our promises in the middle of a political campaign. -- we have an 11th hour promise in the middle of a political campaign. the tax foundation says we're 48 in the nation. we're not competitive because of raised taxes and increased government.

the bottom line is i do not think york government -- your administration understands how to promote -- >> that is your time. now a question for governor strickland. >> a recent poll found that most ohioans one specific answers on how you would deal with the potential billions in t shortfall. schools and universities that could be under the knife want to know. name two areas where you would cut the budget or raise revenues. what would be off the table, if anything? >> we are facing a major budget crisis. it is the result of this recession. the recession, as i said in my opening statement, was not caused by ohioans, but by wall street and the shenanigans that took place there. let me tell you what i will not do -- i will not make matters worse by saying that i am going to begin eliminating our state

income tax during a budget crisis, a tax that provide about 46% of our raw state revenue. -- total state revenue. i have made tough choices and balance two budgets without raising taxes. some of the agencies and state government that i am responsible for are operating with 70% of what they had received in past budgets. i will set priorities, as i have. education will remain a priority. the basic and essential services that our people must have will remain priorities. i have demonstrated that i am willing to make cuts. we have about 5000 fewer state employees now than when i became governor. that was tough to do. it represents about 7% of our state work force. necessary to carry out my

constitutional responsibility. that responsibility is -- is to maintain a balanced budget. >> we have 90 seconds, mr. kasich. we're looking for specifics. >> i understand. he securitized tobacco and it was supposed provide a stream of revenue for 44 years and he spent it all in four. he used stimulus dollars to operate the government and he raised taxes. he voted to raise taxes in 1993 and he raised taxes and the last -- in the last budget. he raised taxes. you're the seventh-highest taxed state. what it gets down to, ladies and gentlemen, is if you do not have a state where you can lower the cost of doing business -- there was a fine article that pointed out that indiana has lower costs. if you are a small business person, you are searching for low cost. you cannot be raising taxes when you are already one of the highest-tax states. that is why businesses are leaving. that is why we have lost

397,000 jobs. ted strickland will raise taxes -- i will not. i have a history of budget- cutting, reforming, restoring and providing tax cuts, and simplifying the operation of government. when i was chairman of the budget committee and we got that budget agreement done on a bipartisan basis, a mirror was strong financially. that experience will work right here. less government, lower taxes, common-sense regulations, trained workers -- that is the answer. i will not raise taxes. he absolutely will. >> rebuttal? >> what you have done is outsource jobs, congressman. you have signed off on outsourcing ohio's jobs to china. you were a board member of the company where you signed off to send hundreds of jobs out of ohio to china.

that is part of your record. the people of all-need to know. -- of ohio need to know. >> next question, mr. kasich. >> in the current budget, the governor and the state assembly have planned to put off a tax cut to individuals and small businesses. with the budget problems, you have said he will not face -- raise taxes. can you promise that tax cut will take effect as promised? >> we're going to restore tax cuts. if you are a restaurant and you do not have enough customers, you do not raise the prices. you lower prices and you lower your overhead, changed them menu -- change the menu and that is how you get more customers. same with ohio. you have to move aggressively

to bring down the rates that are chasing our best on japan yours -- enter and yours -- entrepeneurs out of our state. let me make a statement about that company. we have more employees working there after that action. it is the second-largest business in the county. these are the distortions that i have had to listen to for almost a year. i'm here we -- i'm glad you're here to debate. we absolutely need to make this government more effective, more efficient. we need to reduce the tax base. we need to run the state from the bottom up, not the top down. spending in the general revenue fund is going to increase by 9.7%. every ohioan could only hope and pray they could get that kind of rate. we will run the government more

efficiently and more effectively. >> governor strickland. >> i will ask the fact checkers to check that because it was not accurate. we did face a large budget shortfall. i froze the taxes at their current level. i did not raise taxes, but kept them at their current level. what my opponent says he would have done would have cut $851 million out of our colleges and out of our k through 12 education system. that would have been devastating to our kids and to our schools. i was not willing to do that, but apparently he was. when we cut spending to our higher education, tuition will go up. that will cost moms and dads more money to educate their sons and daughters. if we cut state-level taxation, as he wants to do by eliminating our state income tax, it is going to drive the tax system down to the local

level. what he is suggesting will result in property tax is being increased. there is no doubt about it. you cannot spend money you do not have. you cannot educate kids if you do not have resources. if we eliminate our state resources, folks at the local level will end up paying more. >> rebuttal. >> you have been asleep at the wheel. if you had come out of the box when you were elected governor and did what you promised to do -- turn ohio around -- you would have created a government more effective and more efficient and you would have dealt with the tax situation. instead, you raised spending. you talk about getting rid of 5,000 workers. you hired 4000 people back after you got rid of that 5000 people. you raise taxes. people are paying more because you change the law and denied them a tax cut. >> that is time. next question for governor strickland.

>> ohio's public employee pension systems are seeking legislative systems -- legislative changes to shore up their funds. some would ask their employees to accept concessions and others would ask taxpayers to pay more. how would you make the system is financially sound for the long-term? how would you address the practice of some school district employees and even some officials by retiring in returning to the same job to reserve -- receive both project -- both paycheck and pension? >> i have great concern with double dipping. i think that needs to be addressed. i think many transparent. -- we need transparency. that is why i have said that the records that the major newspapers have called for should be made public, as long as individual information is protected. i am led to believe that is possible. i urge transparency. i am troubled by double dipping. i think it is being abused. it needs to be addressed. this public pension system need

s to be solvent. in order to make it solvent, we have to call people together -- all parties together and they have to come together and work in good faith. simply arguing or fighting will not solve the problem. it must be solved. it can be solved. i do not want to lower the standards of public benefits and retirement benefits for anyone. but, it is absolutely necessary that we recognize the fiscal condition of our public pension systems and come together to find a reasonable solution. i believe those solutions can be found, but i repeat -- not by arguing or screaming at each other, only by working together in good faith will we solve that problem. >> mr. k six -- mr. kasich? >> i do believe these need to be reformed. you have to have an actuarially sound system. they try to dump this into

social security. i told them that i would stop that bill from passing. we have to do this. we have to reform it, but you do not do it on the back of an envelope. when you went into government, were assured of more security, more benefits. the trade-off was, you did not get paid as much. what people in the private sector say to me as i traveled the state is, i have no pension, i have 41 k -- 401k, and i do not get the pay or job security that public employees have. we must make sure that we do not create more inequity when we solve this problem, where a person who is working every is supporting someone in the public sector. there have to be some real give-and-take. ohioans are very concerned about receiving a giant have as

tab being put on them as they worked in the private sector. we have to protect the people who are retired and getting close to retirement. the system must be made sound. >> i think it is relevant to know that, as a member of lehman brothers -- a managing director of lehman brothers, my opponent went to our public pension systems and try to get them to invest with lehman brothers. he says he was not successful, but i can tell you that when lehman brothers once -- went bankrupt, our public pension systems lost over $480 million. solvency is important and we need to work toward it, but we need to make sure we are making a sound investment. >> michael douglas has a question for mr. kasich. >> you have said that if you are elected, governor strickland's new evidence-based for primary and secondary education will be "don."

-- "gone." you have said he will put more money into the classroom. what specific education model will you support and how will you pay for it while eliminating the deficit? what role will local property- tax play in that model? >> the problem is the governors's model is not paid for. the program has not been fixed. there is no money in the program. we amended it a lot of unfunded programs on to local schools -- have mandated a lot of unfunded programs to local schools. if you check the record comedic and find that the evidence- based model has not been very successful -- check the record, you can find that the evidence- based model has not been very successful. we have taken power away from teachers and resources away from students. we must do everything we can to make a higher number one in --

make ohio number one in terms of dollars in the classroom. we're night in overhead red tape -- ninth in overhead red tape and administrators. we should be at the tail end of that. if it can get dollars in the classroom and repeal a lot of the unfunded mandates that schools say hamper them and get in the business of promoting shared services so that schools work with the others -- you do not need six superintendents, principles, administrators, coordinators. we need to operate schools more like businesses. set them free. it dollars in the classroom. have a school choice and give people the opportunity to see what excites kids. that information can be transferred into public school. if we do that, you have a much lower-toned debate. >> my opponent does not understand there are no unfunded mandate in the evidence-based model. it is designed to drive money into the classroom.

when i became governor, education week ranked ohio 27th in the nation. they now say that our schools are fifth in the nation and no. 1 in the midwest. our goals must be to make our school number one in america. we competed with 46 other states for race to the top resources. we were one of 12 states that won $400 million -- that won. $400 million will be coming to ohio to enrich our schools. the model i adopted will be phased in over time, but it is structurally constitutional, i believe, because we have carved out the major elements that constitute a quality education for our kids and at the state of ohio is committed to funding. we must take the burden off the loper -- off the local property tax payer. when i became governor, the state provided about 40% of the

total cost of elementary and secondary education. our current budget has it at 52%. when my model is phased in, the state will have assumed 61% of the total cost, which will give property tax relief at the local level. >> the governor's education program is somewhere over the rainbow, frankly. there is no money in it. it is like getting in the car to take a family vacation, but there is no gas in the car. that is the situation. it does not put dollars into the classroom. it prescribes so many different items that a local school have to comply with and they do not have the money that superintendents and smaller districts are saying uncle. repeal unfunded mandate. school choice. it will empower teachers and help our students do better. >> we're going to change targets here.

>> you recently issued an executive order barring any state government office from signing a contract that leads to purchasing services outsourced to other countries. you touted the in sourcing of jobs to harness. -- insourcing of jobs to ohio. you criticize your opponent for supporting trade agreements that have cost ohio jobs, get you a champion exports and jobs in ohio driven by those same agreements. you appear to favor export but not import, in-sourcing but not outsourcing. is this realistic or fair trade? >> i think it is. i want to outsource products from ohio and america, not jobs from ohio and america. listen, i think we need to trade. trade is a huge part of ohio's economy. we need to support it. trade must work in both directions. we have had great deals that

were patently unfair to our country, our workers, and our domestic companies. we have had rules that were not enforced, especially during the bush years. i think we need to put a stop to it. i opposed nafta because i feel that it was constructed in such a way that it was going to cost ohio jobs. it has cost ohio jobs i opposed -- it has cost ohio jobs. i opposed granting most favored nation trade status to china for the same reason. we have lost thousands of jobs. my opponent has said that we have not lost any jobs to china. we know that is just not right. i support fair credit. -- have fair trade. i support a level playing field. i'm working with companies to export our ohio products. i want to be a good partner with other nations, but it must be fair and a level playing field for that that happened. -- for that to happen.

>> mr. kasich. >> ohio has lost five times as than other countries. we're losing jobs because we are not competitive. the governor himself stripped cinema's money to texas and that -- shipped stimulus money to texas and that money was then outsourced to a call center in el salvador. he voted twice to provide three -- to provide free trade to china. i don't know how you can stand and say you did not raise taxes when you did and you did not vote for a trade deal when you did. if we wanted to develop a trade war, it will develop -- destroy agriculture in a while -- in ohio. farmers do not want that to happen. my position? fair trade, not free trade. i helped the steel companies get protection when they needed a breather. they needed to get their act together. i worked with steve -- two o

fthe -- of the major steel companies to get that protection put in place. ronald reagan worked with harley-davidson. it is fair trade, not free trade. this administration is not doing enough to prevent china from manipulating their currency and stealing our jobs. we need to have the end telling -- we need to tell the administration -- start callign the -- calling the president and telling him to get on the ball on this. >> that is time. >> welcome to my world. i have been arguing about china's manipulation of their currency for years. our democratic friends in congress are finally taking thit seriously. the house is passing a bill that makes that possible. if we can get your republican friends in the senate to go along, we will have dealt china the kind of lesson they have

needed to learn from us. they have been manipulating their currencies, costing us hundreds of thousands of job as a result. >> thank you. the next question is for mr. kasich. >> we have seen the ohio department of development's worked in action, going back to the production of the chevrolet kobold -- cobalt and a more recent product as well. how would your plan to privatize economic development have done better? >> that same department of development sat on their hands when we lost that co. in dayton -- those other companies, including in dayton. we have lost 397,000 jobs. we did not even have a permanent director for seven months. it is like going to war without having a general in charge. i want people that can moved at -- move at the speed of light, findentland -- who can

financing, markets, connect people all over this country. i also believe that our universities are a tremendous opportunity to commercialize. we have started to do a little bit, but we're in the infancy stages. if we could open up the research and development at our universities, we would be doing far better. the bottom line is, if you believe that bureaucracy can move at the speed of business, then you would not support jobs ohio. if you think we need to get a group of people who have been experienced and can going to the toughest places in the state and removed to -- and began to remove barriers and work with companies to be stronger and to expand and to alternately searched the country for other opportunities -- which cannot keep doing what we're doing. -- we cannot keep doing what we're doing. 46 other states have-- 41 other states have outperformed us

because we have been too slow, not innovative, and i would change that. regret that this time. governor strickland. >> -- >> that is time. governor strickland. >> if he had his way, there would likely be no auto industry. i was there when the car came off the line. it was almost totally made in ohio. it is a wonderful,. -- it's a wonderful car. 4500 people working at the plant. three shifts per day. you say the stimulus should not have passed. the stimulus and the decision to save the automobile industry made the automobile industry possible. $650 million is being invested in youngstown and not would not have been possible without the stimulus. i do not know why you think the

president and our democratic -- what you think our president and democratic friends should have done. 8.5 million jobs were lost, most during the bush administration. we have taken firm action to stabilize this economy. the free fall has been stopped. all you and your friends want to do is criticize and say no, no, no. we have been working in ohio to create jobs. you were working on wall street outsourced our jobs. i think the people of ohio can tell the difference between us. >> you are a broken record. you have to get over that. we will talk about that in greater deal. -- detail. youngstown shows us the potential for manufacturing. we have performed worse than 41 other states since the sky has -- this guy has been the governor. our unemployment was 10.1%. homelessness was rising. the bottom line is we need to have a job-creating an

environment and culture. >> thank you, mr. kasich. gayle. >> governor strickland, the recession and the foreclosure crisis have only made life more difficult for ohio cities that were already struggling with crime, the loss of the employers, deteriorating infrastructure, and decaying neighborhoods. in addition to encouraging job growth, how would you help struggling ohio cities? >> ohio cities are vital to ohio's overall economy. we cannot have a strong state without having strong, healthy cities. it is one of the reasons we have developed our ohio's of innovation's hubs of

and opportunity program. each of our cities have individual characteristics and strengths. the toledo area's strengths are the university and the solar industries. we have designated this area as a solar hub. we're doing this in cincinnati with the marketing hub. over in cleveland, where the biomedical and medical industry is so critical and important, we are designating that as the biomedical hub. and we believe these investments in these hub areas will result in the lcoal -- local economies growing and thriving. we are doing other things as well. we are putting resources into our cities. we're doing that through our department of transportation.

we're trying to build an infrastructure that will create economic vitality and growth. we have done that by investing in rail. the north baltimore facility is just one local example -- >> that is time. mr. kasich, not more than 90 seconds. >> i was very privileged to receive the endorsement of the cleveland plain dealer, who is very concerned about the state of our cities. they know that when it gets down to is creating economic growth. -- they know that, what it gets down to, is creating economic growth. we have a lot of great assets in our state. cleveland has the university hospital, the cleveland clinic. we have the university of toledo. in cincinnati, we have proctor and gamble. in columbus, we have cardinal health. we have tremendous assets all over the state, but we have not leverage to them. -- leveraged them.

we have not been able to get them to talk to one another and to open our laboratories and universities to create exciting and new 21st century jobs. entrepreneurship is key. the reason why the cleveland plain dealer said they want john case it is because they have the -- john kasich is because they have the sense that we will get moving. the ohio chamber of court -- chamber of commerce endorsed my candidacy for governor. that is the first time they have endorsed in 117 years. the small business community came out in force early. everybody is saying the same thing -- four more years of tax, spend, and regulate will not work. we need to set people free, said are e -- set our entrepeneurs free to create jobs. >> brief rebuttal. >> what do i say about that endorsement? they said they were endorsing him with trepidation. that was their assessment. quite frankly, it is not as

important what the newspapers say, but what our ideas and plans are, how much we care about ohio and our histories. >> time. rebuttals are quick. next question for mr. kasich. >> last years that a dramatic change for casino prom -- casino -- last year set the stage for dramatic change in casino gambling. governor strickland has tried to add slot machines at our race tracks. where would you draw the line? >> i'm the first person who has run for governor who has said he is not opposed to gambling. most say they are against it only to flip flop. i will not take a position on that yet. i'm concerned that we're going to get ourselves in a position

where we could erode our culture. we could put our kids in jeopardy. we have to be very careful about this. i am well aware of the fact that people want to leave this state and go to other places to spend their money. it passed a be a consideration. it has to be a consideration. i will tell you that the deals that have been struck so far are not good for ohio. we have the casinos and the state does not get its fair share. the state ought to get its fair share and ought to regulate these operations. if we move forward as we should -- and i stress if we move forward, it has to be done in a comprehensive and well thought out way that fundamentally protect the culture of our great state. i know that ohio is next on its -- ohioans are mixed on their own feelings on this. so am i. we will spend some time thinking about this issue. if we decide to move forward

and design a program, we will protect our families and provide the resources to the state of ohio. i have not yet made a determination. >> where do you draw the line, governor? >> the people voted to establish casinos in cleveland, columbus, cincinnati, and toledo. that was the will of the people. it was not something i supported. the people have spoken. our responsibility is to make sure that, as gambling is instituted in the cities, it is done in a way that protects the local communities, where people of high-integrity of our chosen to oversee the operations and it -- high integrity are chosen to oversee the operations and to make sure that crime and other sordid elements that sometimes are associated with gambling activities are prevented from coming to our cities. the fact is that ohio does have budget problems. although i have always been an opponent of gambling, i do not think it is a good economic policy, quite frankly, i felt that the race tracks were the

least harmful approach. these were isolated areas, adult-appropriate venues and so on. my responsibility as governor, or whoever the next governor is will have the responsibility of making sure that the commission that oversees the operation of these casinos is made up of people of high quality will do a good job. >> i would agree with the governor on that. i think we have to have the highest -- the people with the highest character to deal with the people voted for. before we go for the to expand expand thiso program, especially to try to solve to solvehole -- before we go forward to expand this program, especially to try to solve the budget hole -- let me reiterate, the jury is still out in my mind. if we move forward, we will get

our share in ohio. >> another question, this time directed to governor strickland. >> we do not directly vote for the lieutenant governor. you're running mates would be a heartbeat away from leading the seventh-largest state in the nation. tell ohioans why there would be in better hands with your choice than your opponent's choice. >> my wonderful running mate is here with me tonight. let me tell you something about her background. she was going to a -- born to a single teenaged mother. she worked hard. she went to college at ohio university. she then attended the ohio state law school. at a very young age, she decided to run for judge. she ran for the common police court in franklin county. she defeated a sitting, republican judge when she was 32 years of age. she served on that court for nine years and developed an

amazing reputation throughout central ohio as a judge who was wise, effective, compassionate, caring, and she was recruited away from that position to go to nationwide children's hospital in columbus to start a grass-roots organization to be in the advocacy for their children and family -- four children who were abused or for troubled families. she built that into a 400- person operation with a $30 million-per year budget. she is hugely qualified. she is hugely respected. and she will make a great governor it is ever necessary -- if it is ever necessary for me to vacate the office. >> we're talking running mates, lieutenant governors. >> i am thrilled that she agreed to be my running mate.

may is a -- mary is a mom, the wife of a small business person. she understands the travails that small business people have to go through. she was also a cpa. people think the answer is term limits, which i support. what we really need in politics are people who have been in business and understand how to create jobs and people who have had political experience. to me, that is the formula that makes sense for driving our united states government that has been out of control in in a better direction. she was also a state representative. the boys down there tried to put a lot of pressure on mary to vote for their tax increase. it was republicans doing it. she said, no way, no how. they stripped her from her committee assignment and she did not bat an eye. that same kind of pressure applied to me. she was strong. she turned around and ran for

state auditor -- the only republican who was elected. she has done a fantastic job of spotting the problems of this state. if she had been listened to more by a lot of people, it would have paid off. i really proud that she is my running mate. she is terrific and she is as qualified to do anything she sets her mind it too. -- mind to. thank you for asking. i do not have anything negative to say. >> governor perry >> i guess -- >> governor? >> i guess we're both fortunate to have talented women as their running mates. i think my opponents running mate, with all due respect, shares his ideas regarding outsourcing of jobs. she stood beside mr. kasich and boasted that, as a cpa, she had actually encourage people to leave ohio and go to florida or some other state in order to abide -- to avoid paying of higher taxes. >> you are watching the ohio gubernatorial debate.

we're glad you are watching. boy this time fly when you're -- boy, does time fly when you're having fun. we do not have time for another round of questioning. one of these candidates will be elected 26 days from now to lead this state for the next four years. they have to come minutes to -- two minutes to reach out to the voters of ohio to tell you why they are the person that should lead this state. the order was approved earlier. governor strickland, two minutes for your summary statement. >> i want to thank the people of this great state for giving me the privilege of serving in the governor's office for the last four years and, before that, in the congress. before went to congress, i went to a senior citizens' center in pike county. i bought a plaque that had a saying from the hebrew scriptures and the book of micah. "and then what is required of us? but to do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with

thy god." i took that with me to the governor's office. i think those admonitions laid out how someone in public office should try to live out their life. to do justice -- to try to do the right thing. to love kindness -- to care about other people. and to walk calmly, knowing that -- walk humbly, knowing that none of us get through this life on our own. we are all interdependent and we all need each other. that is the spirit i have tried to have. it is the spirit i will keep with me and in the governor's office in you give me the -- if you give me the privilege of continuing to lead this great state. thank you for watching this debate. i ask for your support for this election season and i promise you that i will serve you to the best of my ability. thank you very much. >> governor strickland, thank

you for being here tonight. and now you're closing statement -- your closing statement, john kasich. >> are we better off than we were when ted strickland took office? i like ted strickland. i'm not running against him. i am trying to straighten out ohio and restore our great legacy. we want our kids to go to college here. we want our kids to graduate and stay here. we wanted to have a great and -- them to have great and exciting opportunities so they can find their god-given destiny. we do not want to have to get on airplanes and travel all over the country to see our grandkids. we want to restore ohio. when i look at ohio today, it saddens me -- the massive unemployment, rising party, -- poverty, rising homelessness. ohio is going to be great again. we have to shine it up and use that great formula -- setting people free to engage in the

economic opportunity. we need to create jobs and pull people together. over the course of my lifetime, my mother said, raise the bar. bring people together. over my career, i was able to do some amazing hearings by -- things by building a team and by working with people on the other side of the aisle. we have these assets in the state, the people, the physical assets, the brain trust -- if we can just improve the conditions and the atmosphere, ohio will be the greatest state in america. my goal -- to make ohio in the top 10 places where businesses and people want to come. it can happen. it is all out there. shoulder to the wheel -- i want to climb this mountain to make ohio great again. i would like you to climb it with me. i appreciate your support and

hope we can get your vote. >> thank you for joining us for this face to face, man-to-man, toto -- toe-to-toe debate. i wanted think our panelists -- thank our panelists for being here as well. thank you for your work. gentlemen, the idea of public service is a high calling. sometimes what we have to do to get there is not attractive. we thank you for your willingness to serve our state. may i also add it, and i think your supporters -- matt also add -- may i also add, and i know a lot of your supporters, that this may be the best audience we have had. now is the time to say thank you. [cheers and applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

[applause] >> thank you, gentlemen. thank you. [applause] and a reminder to all of you who are still watching as we want things down, whether it is early voting, absentee voting, or 13 hours on election day, november 2, the first tuesday of november, there is not a hand these gentlemen will not shake in the next 26 days. they are out there working for you. it is up to you to get involved. let your opinions be heard. make sure you go vote.

thank you for joining us. >> four more years! four more years! ♪ >> the cook political report rates be ohio gov. debate -- governor's race a tossup. today, president obama delivers remarks at a campaign rally in philadelphia. he will be there to support democratic senate nominee process that and the man who is running -- nominee joe sestak

and the man who was running for governor. you can see that today on c- span. >> the supreme court has started its new term. you can learn more about the nation's highest court with c- span2 latest book -- the supreme court. it has candid conversations with justices, reporters who cover the court, and attorneys who argue cases there. it is available in hardcover wherever you buy books and also as an e-book. >> the international monetary fund and world bank held their annual meetings this weekend and washington. imf managing director dominique strauss-kahn spoke. this is about 30 minutes. >> good afternoon. welcome to the closing press conference from the imf financial committee meeting.

the rest of the annual meetings will continue. we will have a brief opening remarks from the chairman of the imf, youssef boutros-ghali, followed by the managing director, and then we will open for questions. >> thank you and good evening. we just concluded the 22nd of the policy-making body of the imf. we have -- you probably have the communique. we discussed a number of issues, chief among them the global economy and the global recovery. we analyzed by number of dimensions in that. we came to the conclusion that the global recovery is happening, but it is fragile. it is uneven around the world.

it is still threatened by a number of elements that put -- push on the downside. some elements are related to sovereign debt, other to financial sector that are still recovering. we also have examined the continuing work on financial sector reform doen by the -- done by the fsb and a number of other bodies. we welcome the basel iii reforms. are keeping coordinated with the regulatory reforms so that they keep up with the policy and structural reforms in the economy. low-income countries have recovered, some reasonably well. nevertheless, poverty rates are still a concern among the membership. we're making sure that the

instruments that we have established within the imf are able to help these countries when they need assistance. we have gone extensively into the reforms of the institution, of the imf, the reforms regarding orders -- " does, governance, the size of the executive board, and there has been significant progress on a number of these elements. all of the parties involved are converging toward a package that we think will move the institution to a new place, make it more adaptable and more able to deal with problems now that have become multilateral in most of their features and have become very prescient.

we have also look at what is happening in the world economy. there are structural changes that need to be implemented. there is a rebalancing between surplus and deficit countries. there are frictions. there are a number of points of friction. these are being addressed. the institution -- we of all come to the conclusion that the imf is the place to deal with these issues, exchange rate and others. they are being addressed in a multilateral fashion, in a systematic fashion. the reforms we are instituting will make this a permanent feature of the institution -- multilateral surveillance -- and established the instruments and tools was -- with which the institution can address problems and make it more of a multilateral nature. again, we looked at the landing facilities. they have been instituted --

lending facilities. they have been instituted in the last year. they stand ready to assist any country should it need assistance. the issues of surveillance and -- have come to the front. they have to be analyzed. it has to be drafted and managed. the natural institution to do that is the imf, and the reforms that we're instituting are going to make this institution better able to deal with challenges that did not used to come up previously. thank you very much. >> thank you. managing director? >> i have very little to add. i think the breakfast -- i think

that move was very effective. we have done that for a couple of years. we had the people gathering and it makes it possible to have real discussions, a useful. the recovery was so uneven, it created differences in the industry is, triggering flows which have triggered reactions and problems in the international monetary system. we needed to find a more cooperative way to deal with this. it is a very interesting step forward. at the same time, there is the report presented to use six months ago. it has now been more precisely defined.

it is in the process of being experimented with. --re's estimate implications and there are systemic implications. the idea is -- usually the process is through bilateral surveillance. . the need has been discussed. now i think it is part of varco blocks. i expect a very important

reserve. i will, myself, attend for the article four for the major players to show the interest to have in trying to make this consistent. for this point of view along with the study we will make on how to manage in the short term and the problems created, an interesting step forward has been mated -- has been made on this. the other question is the one the chairman addressed which is the mandate. this has made many headlines. as you know, we still are not there, but we are not too far.

one is the size of the "increase, the next is the shift, there's the question of the board, and also the selection of the managing director. i think an agreement will be found in the coming weeks, days. it is not done. there are some diverging views. we already had a change of record in 2008. one week before we completed the view, we were still having diversions. i think we are still on the right track. >> thank you. we will open up to your questions. please, raise your hand.

there will be a microphone coming. please identify yourself and your news organization. do we have a microphone? thank you. >> in the first press conference you describe your systemic stability initiative. you just spoken now about boosting surveillance. is that what you meant or are you the divorce something broader? >> i do not know why we have so much noise about this story. we need to boost our initiatives. the fact that 51 to attend personally to the article conclusion of the so far 5 bigger partners or members.

we have to take many initiatives. it is not something new. we have taken the initiative for several months. during the last week, there has been more noise about currency which means we will probably have to speed up than to implement things. the normal business is to enhance surveillance. >> in the fourth row back, white shirt. yes. take the microphone and identify yourself. >> thank you so much. i am with "the new york times." after hearing the sustained attention on currency and exchange rate disputes, are you disappointed that the most the committee could agree upon which would be to work toward a more balanced pattern of global

growth recognizing the responsibilities of surf -- surplus and deficit countries? there are some who will think that languages to any effective. >> the language will not change things. policy needs to be adapted. the question is not to change the language. the question is needed policy to make the change. it is a question of -- welcome the two questions. there is the question you mentioned which is the long term central question of rebalancing and there is no way to believe global growth could be read balanced without changing some currency value because it is clear we will have high growth in one part of the world and a low growth in another part of the world. there's also a valuation in parts of the world where you have low growth. another question is more short term.

will be triggered on the currency board? that is probably too strong of a word, but some emerging countries, this is a reality they are facing. they're facing large capital interests and need a way to react more on the surface of the question. these are rebalancing growth. the problem is we can talk and talk about that. what we need is real action. i do not believe the action can be done in an incorporated way. that is why the framework is still in fortin. the discussions taking place at the g-20 are going to be so important. it is to make it possible for the membership to discuss the questions at stake which is exactly what we're facing. >> thank you.

>> if i may add also, membership of the imfc recognized explicitly that of the solution is going to have to be cooperative. one thing emphasized in the reform of the institution, whether surveillance or mandate, is to allow the institution to be the center for resolving these kinds of situation. they are aware is a cooperative solution. >> thank you. on the middle aisle, right hand side. >> thank you. [speaking german] [unintelligible] i am just wondering what are the remaining obstacles to achieving that goal?

if it can be done in a few weeks, why not now? >> there is one obstacle which is the agreement of the members. there are a long list of topics but a large part of the gap has been bridged. there are still a long list of topics that the members want to discuss. a laundry list solution will be provided in the -- i do not want to say days or weeks, but a small number of weeks. >> front row, lady with your hand up. >> thank you very much. i am with [inaudible] >> during the meeting there is a

new argument. some countries suggest we should link with currency exchange rate change. do you agree that it should come at the expense as currency exchange rates change? can you tell us if such an idea is still being discussed in the coming weeks. >> i have not had anyone saying that condition for the quota reform to take place -- i do know what would happen on the currency side. what i have heard, which makes sense, is that when countries want to have a bigger quota and have more say, more voice, more influence, then they must also share the problem. they cannot be in the center and a free rider. the more you are at the center, the bigger part you need to take.

the logic that the biggest members of the institution, let's say the 6-12 biggest members are the ones on which of the stability ride -- stability relies. the higher you want to be in the ranking, the more responsibility you have towards the global economy. it is not technical or blackmail. it is just the logic of an institution where you have members having more weight than others. >> thank you. third row back, the gentleman on the right. >> you mentioned that you will bridges a break in the confrontations. can you describe the role you envisioned? is it the role of an arbiter, a judge?

could you describe your role? >> all of that. you describe it. i debate tradition and the inclusion for the united states. i took it and i followed it. i think it is important -- not only that. we also work done article for for the year rose zone. -- article 4 for the eurozone. the direct discussion were standards about debating the most important number. it is part of this new initiative that i think is useful for the systemic stability which is to have more discussion, sometimes unilateral, sometimes bilateral.

it needs to be used in a multilateral context by the imf. >> thinking. front row in the middle. -- thank you. >> i am from greece and have a question about greece. thankfully we are not in the center these days. you have said governments are on the right track as far as these measures are concerned, but you also said that we need growth. greece has had no growth. i was wondering how greece can achieve growth in the world economy that is anemic or has uneven growth? >> first, i have repeatedly said you are absolutely right that grace is on track. i think what will be achieved by the greek government and even more by the greek people is really amazing. the whole population has realized that there were at the edge of a cliff and they needed

to manage. they are doing that. it is a very good example given to all of the country's having problems that nation, when needed, both to the efforts to get them back on track. of course growth is necessary. the program puts greece on track with growth, but later on. as you rightly say, if the environment, especially the european environment is that if it will not help. you are absolutely right. it is consistent with the fact that we are trying to push towards those having some fiscal room to do more on growth, having in mind that some others have no fiscal groove at all and may not be exactly indicative of

greece. they need to focus on fiscal conservation. i do not know if we said a few words about that in the opening press conference, but i have seen as often as last week that the measures of the imf for sometimes difficult to understand because sometimes resale should push and sometimes you should consolidation. it can -- it is consolidate as much as you have to and stimulate as much as you can. depending on which country we're talking about, it is not the same message. in europe, there's probably some room to support for growth. that would be helpful for everyone, including greece. >> thank you. just a few more questions. third row back in the left. yes. there you go.

>> i am from sao paulo, brazil. the u.s. and china keep talking about their currency. both have their points. anything that should be done should be done. it is like a broken record and it keeps saying that again and again. what has to be done now. what can we expect for the meeting in one month? >> i do not want to raise dictation to the g-20. what i want to explain is that a discussion which takes place not only between china and the u.s. but with other partners is a

very important one. i think we are now arriving at the moment where people are discussing the right stuff. they are discussing on the exchange rate. the real problem, as we said, is of rebalancing. the exchange rate will be more of debris -- more of a consequence than that. it needs to be done in a cooperative way. that is a message from the framework that we will provide for the g 20. what i expect is that the product of this idea will be strong enough to avoid conflicting situations and will try to take into account a win- win situation which does exist. the win-win situation is where

everyone is better off rather than trying to find a domestic solution to global problems which come as we know, do not work. >> do you want to add anything on that? >> the note, the gist of the meetings this time, the problems to be facing now and in the coming months need cooperative solutions. they need people to talk to each other and to come up with plans that are agreed upon by many. the imf is being reformed with that in mind. when surveillance happens in happens among all. when policies are designed, they are designed multilateralism. any policy in one country affects others. therefore, from now one as the economy becomes more integrated, the surveillance and the mandate of the institution has to be

more integrated around the world. >> i will add one point. i agree absolutely with what you have said that cooperation is needed. i have been assisting a lot about the possible vanishing commitment to cooperation in london and the idea that because maybe people have it in mind that this is over that corporation should decrease. what i realized during this annual meeting is -- i do not know if i was wrong or if things have changed, but all means to green -- all needs to agree. it is obvious necessarily for everyone, even in the more quiet times which are so quiet, but not as quiet, they needed to go ahead with the cooperation

because the economy is a globalized economy. even those being very vocal on the question of flowing, the need for capital control, intervention in the market. they see that and then they think turning to the imf, what can we do? everyone realizes there is not one single solution you could apply in your country without having a plan that the local level. that is why cooperation is one version of the meeting. the other is a rule of the imf. i am proud that everybody is saying the right way to do things is in the imf. >> thank you very much. i know there are more questions, but there will be another press briefing later on after the development committee. thank you very much.

>> we taken out to a park in north west philadelphia kicking off a rally where president obama and vice president biden will be campaigning. they will be joined by the senate candidate and the candid for the democratic gov. seat. he is running against the state attorney general. the president has made a number of visits to philadelphia. you can see the senator now speaking to the crowd. the race for the u.s. senate here is being rated a toss up by seeking politics. while we wait for some of the

speakers to appear, we will take a look at this morning's "washington journal" on the political environment before the 2010 elections. we want to welcome sherry, a blogger for the hill newspaper, republican stratjidge, and maria, democratic strategist. thank you for being with us. let's begin with a new study that came out this past week saying that hispanics more likely to vote for democrats but maybe less likely to go to the polls. the enthusiasm gap that we've been hearing about. >> i think what's happening is not a whole lot different than what's happening with the overall community in terms of democrats and the quote/unquote enthusiasm gap. i think right now is when democrats as well as latino democrats are starting to realize that there is an election, that it is important, that there is a lot at stake. and democrats across the board from president obama on down to every candidate who is running

in a district where latinos can make the difference are going to underscore the key differences between the parties. and for latinos, there is a lot at stake not just from the standpoint of economic policies in terms of if the republicans do take over congress it's going to mean going back to the same failed economic policies that put us on the brink of the second great depression. but in terms of the latino community, it also means understanding who has been with the latino community from the very beginning in terms of immigration and any other issues that is important to the latino community. it's been democrats, the white house. republicans have completely turned their back on the community, betrayed the community. in fact, the language that has been used in the debate has been very anti-hispanic and very racist. >> one theory is that the republicans are going to the polls. in all the polling that is been conducted you know who is going to get there. but as the president tries to rally the base, that could up the ante and increase in

turnout on election day what we're not seeing in the polls right now. and the president doing his second of four addresses today in philadelphia. does that worry you? >> no. i think everybody to sta expected the gap to start closing. it's working somewhat but the base is not happy with him. doy want to take issue with something with regard to the hispanic community. this is something george w. bush did very well with in texas. they're not enthused about the democrats. when we're talking about immigration i think we need to be clear. with regard to illegal entrance, illegal immigration. leel immigrants do not necessarily go along with the notion that we should grant amnesty. so i think that community can still be up for grabs and there's a reason why they're not enthused and that's because the democrats haven't won them over. with regard to democratic

voters in general, or at least the base, we've seen the president go out there and use very devicive language. democrats know that they can't get a lot of those independents and undecideds right now are probably not going to break for them. the only thing they can do is go to those folks who turned out in 2008 and get them enthused. they have to get likely voters out of registered voters. it sounds simple because it's a simple idea but it's extraordinarily difficult. it's a real uphill climb. the president has not been able to get these folks enthused when he was just elected two years ago and they're ready to sit home now, that's a big problem for him not just now, not just next month but in 2012. >> let's look at the unemployment numbers. now, it is 14.8 million. the gallup organization out with a poll this week saying the unemployment rate is actually closer to 10.1% across the country. in states like michigan it's

13, 14% and among college students, the unemployment rate is 16%. >> absolutely. there's no question that that is the biggest obstacle, the biggest problem facing not just democrats but any person who is running for elected office today. it is the unemployment rate. it is the jobs issue. there's no question about that. the first one who will acknowledge that is president obama himself. he will also say that everything that this white house and the democrats have put in place has been to try to put us on the path to a recovery, given the extremely huge disaster and economic hole that we were in when the president took office. we were losing 850,000 jobs a month, steve, when the president took office. that was less than two years ago. we have now seen the nine consecutive months of private sector job creation. are we where we need to be?

absolutely not. but the hole was so incredibly huge, we are still climbing out of it. but there is no question that what democrats have put in place have put us on the that road to recovery. we need to do more. >> there is one word that george willis used this morning. the word is overreaching. >> in fact, if you look and sherry talked about his liberal base, the liberal base is not as happy as they could be with him because a lot of folks think he didn't reach enough. a lot of folks think that the economic recovery act didn't work as well as it should because it wasn't big enough so there is a lot of i think anxiety out there in terms of the economic situation, but there is no question an economist will tell you, economists from across the political spectrum that the economic recovery act really did help if in really slowing that catastrophe that we were facing when president obama took office. but there's no question we need

to do more. >> part of that economic recovery act came with the tarp program. tim geithner has a piece this morning in the "washington post," he points out that tarp was created by a conservative president with the support of republicans in congress and now it's being used against this president. is that fair? >> i think everything is fair in politics. look, we're talking about the entire package that this president and the democratic congress is responsible for. and you e inherit what you inherit. nobody comes with a clean slate when they take over congress or becomes the president. i think there's some liberals who are angry with the president for not doing enough. i think there's a real confidence gap. i think it has to do with competency. i think if this president is challenged by someone in his own party in 12i in the primary, it's -- 2012 it's not going to be from the left from an ideological position. i think it's going to be from a competency position. when you have an economic team

promising no more than 8% unemployment and now we're over 10%, there's a psychological impact as well as just the joblessness impact. so i think the president has a real problem. you're going to have democrats that are going to lose in november who probably think they shouldn't have. and the white house said we'll are just casualties that happen in every mid term. but just like in war, the public can only withstand, only tolerate so many casualties. i think it's possible that because of some of the democrats that are going to be losing, because of the problem with the president, -- they may agree with him ideologically, but they don't trust him to get it done, they don't trust his team. he went out there and shoved through obama care which was absolutely huge, unprecedented to do something that massive that affects every american and do it without any republican support whatsoever. and he didn't do the politics first. the polls were against him. he didn't go out there and sell it but he forced his rank and file democrats in congress to walk the plank and vote for it.

now many of them are going to lose as a result. so i think the anger will be on his lack of ability to lead and to sell his program. not necessarily because they think that he didn't do enough. . . one recent

report, right here in illinois, this senate race have outspent the senate race 2/1 funded and advised by karl. so the question to the people of illinois. are you going to let special interests come to this state and tell us who our senator should be? >> they joined yesterday saying this may not be true. the "new york times" also writing about this. guest: here's the problem, steve. because we will never know

host: specifically about the gps? >> there are several groups that are spending millions on behalf of conservative candidates to try to beat the opponents. it's something that's unprecedented and came from the supreme court citizens united. i think what this says to the american people, you now have corporations, billions and billions of dollars that have the same exact voice as one american voter. that's not real democracy in my eyes. everyone should be very concerned about this. to me, it's aback lash to standing up against wall street. the credit card companies and credit card reform. what the obama administration

did standing with gulf coast residents. it's kind of like the empire strikes back >> obama never campaigned when mccain outspent him. >> you can't compare the money spent by outside groups. he discouraged the outside spending. it's completely different. you know exactly who's donating to the obama campaign and to the committees. when you have these shadow parties and groups, it's completely fair whoever wants to give money to them. we will never know >> i think the reason the democrats are backing off. their hands aren't clean. it's really, really hard to lobby those charges when you have an awful lot of special-interest money. when you look at the stimulus

spending and what money was given. i think it's no surprise they are starting to back off. they can complain about the money being. the obama campaign has lots and lots of money. that's the last thing the republicans want to look like. the american people have a problem with washington spending their money. you have a lot of self-made millionaires. the whole business man or business woman image has been negative. now you have american saying that if you have someone that knows how to make money. that's what kind of person we need. instead of throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks with our tax dollars.

promising only 8% unemployment which you point out has gone up and up. i think they have a real problem with credibility and stop complaining giving money to republicans. the last thing they want is people looking their own campaign. >> sherry jacobus and maria cardona >> good morning. can you hear me? host: we sure can. >>caller: i am calling to say i think the democrats are on the positive side. i see a lot of fear tactics happening. so i say, open alive. yes we can. we shall succeed. it never works. it never works. so keep hope alive, maria.

>> i love rita. >> republicans in 2011 who will control the house? republicans or democrats? >> i think democrats will still have control. i think republicans have completely overturned their hand. they started talking about taking control of the house. now each if they get within one seat of taking control of the house and senate, it's going to be seen as a failure on their part. they have talked about it so much. they really now have to deliver. there's no question and it's not a news flash that democrats were going to lose seats. we knew this less than two years ago. we took a lot of seats in 2006 and 2007 which were in

conservative districts. we know there's going to be a handful the seats that will shift over to republican hands. the news here is, i think the republicans have over played their hands. to make sure the environment, the money, the message goes perfect on election day. it's too much to hope on their part. i think democrats at the end of the day are going to continue to focus on this message of it's a clear choice. stand with workers and the middle class or you stand with the wealthiest individuals and the big corporations who all they want to go is ship jobs overseas and return to the failed economic policies of the republicans. >> the democrats will lose and we will all be blue dogs. congressman talking about the job situation we were discussing

a moment ago. >> the greatest rep to job creation in our country is the flawed idea that we can tax, spend and borrow our way to government. people are stubbornly devoted to the idea of spending and borrowing. for the past four year, they have been controlling our congress. from the white house to capital hill. 500 miles away from here in washington, the spending bench is going on that threatens our economy. we are gripped by uncertainty. under obama and speaker pelosi, washington has been throwing everything at them but the kitchen sink.

first it was a stimulus. a few months later, came the threat of a new energy tax when they called cap-and-trade. then obama care. and people work requirements. >> congressman john boehner. what's going to happen in the house? >> i am going to agree with maria, you have republicans getting too enthusiastic thinking this is done. this is a print. these last few weeks, republicans have to turn out and keep widening that enthusiasm gap. host: what's the margin? >> i'm going to say 60 seats. i'm going to be really optimistic. you have five possible seats for the senate. the republicans need to win four of them.

i think we will out of all of them. i think everything is very, very close. sharon is ahead slightly. illinois, west virginia. john racy pulling ahead by a pretty wide margin. california we are down just a little bit. the big question is the senate. the house, people need to be enthused. i wrote this in my column. i am a blogger and a columnist. i wrote this, republicans need to be careful. they are doing very, very well. the wind is at their backs. i don't think boehner is doing that. but the republicans are excited. i think the margins are going to be great. on friday. there was a gallup poll that

says 54% are republicans. and only 40% were calling themselves republicans. to give you an idea what's going on outside of washington beltway that our genius pollsters are finding. host: if you don't get the senate, people will be looking at delaware. chris coons is up 19 points. their first debate we will cover. her campaign has become a p paritiy. >> i think it definitely has changed how the republicans's

numbers might line up. the focus on christine o'donnell and it might make the republicans take the senate. she was the winner of the republican primary and not doing well there clearly. because of the extreme -- media on her and her campaign. we're missing the larger point of the republicans that are doing so well in the fact that you have charlie cook for that. he has 12 democrats incumbents, usually when they are doing not so well in the polls. you consider them a toss up. you put them in the lean republican column can. there's a lot of big things happening out there. to focus on christine o'donnell. if it weren't for the parities, would they focus on anyone else?

>> i have one question for christine o'donnell. are you a good witch or a bad witch. >> the point sherry bring us up is a good point. democrats need to focus on the substance of this. snl aside and the cheap shot i took a side. that's something democrats will continue to focus on. this is not 1994. this is not a race where the republicans are seen in such a better light than democrats. if you look at polls where democrats versus republicans, democrats don't have high numbers. but republicans have very low numbers. the committees have done a great job raising money. they are doing hand to hand combat in really speaking to the

needs and the interest of each of their constituents and making this about a clear choice. if you want to go with the failed republican policies they will put in place again. it's interesting that john boehner talks about wanting to be for small businesses. this white house and democrats have passed 16 tax cuts for small businesses. the latest which was just signed by obama backed by almost 0 republicans. they have a credibility issue when it comes to financial issues as well. they were handed a huge surplus when george bush came into office. that's a choice we're willing to take to the american people and that's a choice i think we can win. host: we're talking to maria

cardona and sherry jacobs. americans won't be caught flat food-footed. >>caller: when you put that up from nbc. why don't you say they're a direct operative. put your chart and you will see what was there since 2000. the democrats left us there. she doesn't say anything when the outside started, she never said anything about thank >> thank you. bob. host: sherry, >> thank you. i think the outside money is an interesting issue. another thing. maria keeps talking about the failed republican economic policies. i think that's a line that

voters aren't really listening to that much. right now, these are the democrats economic policies. we have a democrat president and the democrats have had the congress. we have this unemployment it's dissenting, you have republican tea party candidates who basically all they have to say is i will rein in spending and vote to cut the bush tax cuts or keep other things going for taxes. i will vote for taxes. i will will repeal obama care. this is why you have democrat after democrat after democrat not even admitting in their over ads they are democrats. not linking themselves to president obama are or they voted for obama care. they are being rejected now by

the electorate. so democrats at this point are grasping at straws. trying to sound like republicans and win over tea party voters. i think they are desperate. they very having trouble even doing that. >> following up with no republican will dare to cross the aisle. >> christine o'donnell was not new. she benefitted from obviously the tea party movement and outside support from tea parties outside of the state. what i do think that is going to happen. you will have a lot of democrats

that will want to work with republicans. the tea party issues and why there are so many trying to get the voters, the issues are not the social issues. although a lot of your tea parties are social candidates. they want to repeal obama care and tax cuts that help job creation and small businesses. i think what you're going to have a congress, republican-lead congress, that once they get over the feelings of the election. i think speaker boehner will bea able to get a lot of republicans. the focus is on economic policy which draws in a lot of people. you don't have to have that line drawn in the sand. >> chris has joe biden as the worst week in washington in part

because of the rumor was that shot down of hillary clinton runs with barack obama. you worked for then-senate hillary clinton and some of the comments joe biden has made. and the two of them are appearing in philadelphia and later this week in delaware to campaign for chris coons. you called this story, "cable cat nip". >> i did. it's something people in your world love to talk about. there's no truth to that rumor. the white house said so. secretary clinton has said so. i think vice president biden has done a great job and what the white house has done for voters. what the democrats need to do in terms of making sure they get to

their base voters. when you put the two together and have a stark choice of making sure you rein in the insurance companies. the affordable care act now holds insurance companies accountable. they cannot now take way your insurance because you get sick. children can now get covered. these are kicking in that democrats are running ads on this and many more. then you have all of the other reforms that democrats have done in terms of standing up for the middle class and working families. giving them the largest middle class tax cut in a generation. again, that is a fight we're willing to have.

had you compare everything that democrats have done for student loans. making sure college is affordable for 8 million students. making sure our young people are ready for college. all of these things are i think so that would be repealed and says so in the repeal of the republicans. it's fighting for the working class families or fighting for the top one % of wealthy individuals. >> the college students aren't going to have jobs when they get out. the jobless rage is huge. the long-term unemployment rate, that's where we haven't been there are for 75 years. people out of work for six months or more. that's where the roots are very deep. we do have a democrat in the white house. it's a policy. we don't know what our taxes are going to be in january. because the democrat-lead

congress failed to address we don't have a budget. they know there's an angry electorate. nancy pelosi is frozen. every policy they have instituted has failed. the unemployment rate is down. >> obama care was not sold to the american people. you know what? this is a democracy. people are going to vote at the polls and largely with their voting is obama care. those are the facts on the ground. and it's so simple and the american people understand it. they want repeal. that's what candidates are running on. they wouldn't be runing on it. that's the big issue out there. host: have some more coffee. >> it would be spending. it is jobs. every poll will tell you that. right now, while i don't think american people like

politicians. they don't like washington, congress, democrats, republicans. but when they are forced to look at it, right now, they like the candidates talking about repeals obama care. cutting taxes, spending, shrinking government and having an atmosphere where small businesses can create jobs and get the government off your back. >> the new religion they have on spending, we wouldn't be in this whole to begin with. >> it's a new religion. gone -- began george bush handed obama this deficit. this election cycle, if americans want to continue on that road to recovery, they need to support their democratic

candidates. only fighting for one % of wealthy who don't need a hundred thousand dollar tax cut. >> the overall debt is approaching $14 tril >> 9/11 to the rally where president obama and vice president biden are campaigning. this is live coverage on c-span. >> the momentum is now to prepare the moment that heels this nation. we need a solid year, every one of view, to come out and help. john f. kennedy said once one man can make a difference but every man can try. he was wrong. we need several men and women down there to ensure that this nation is yield.

i ask you all, more than anything, to just remember you do not want -- vote once for change but you keep fighting for change. [applause] any democrat, and the independence, any thoughtful moderate republican, and even those conservatives -- america needs you. we must ensure that this election two years ago does not go to waste. we need to keep fighting and we need everyone. thank you. [applause] >> to introduce the vice- president of the united states, please well home -- please welcome the allegheny county executive. ♪ ♪

welcomed the philadelphia, everyone. is good to see you all. 23 days out. you know what the stakes are. we need to get the vote out. there are some real fundamental differences between the two parties and what we are talking about today. if you care about education, you need to show up to vote. if you care about $400 million to fund basic education, you need to show up in a vote. if we care about jobs and putting people back together -- putting people back to work, we need to train them. we need to expand and get early childhood education on the agenda. sooner or later we will figure this out. we will figure it out that is much better to invest in our

children pre-kindergarten instead of putting them in jail when they are 16, 17, 18. look at the young people here today. we owe it to the presidents of the united states. this is about his agenda and where we will take this country. i do not want to go back. do you want to go back? i want to make sure we can implement to the new health care policy so we have affordable, accessible, quality health care for everyone. i want to make sure we have it in ministration that understands this race is about jobs, jobs, jobs and putting americans back to work, putting pennsylvanian back to work, and focusing on the core issues to get back our middle-class. the only way we can do it is with your help. 23 days. we need you to show up. we need philadelphia to show up to send a message that we are

not turning the clock back and we are behind the president. we will push his agenda for word, right? i know you will give a typical southeastern pennsylvania welcome. ladies and gentlemen, the vice president of the united states, joe biden. ♪ [rock music playing] >> hello, germantown. hello, philadelphia. hello, gov. look at all these kids down

here. i hope you are able to vote. hey, people. i tell you what. i hope you remember. joe sestak, the admirable. i have the great honor of introducing the president. i want to introduce you to the president. mr. president, welcome back to my second city in my native state of pennsylvania. [cheers and applause] mr. president, a lot of people here have been hit pretty hard by the economic policies of george bush and his republican friends. after eight years of unregulated

greed, skyrocketing deficits, an awful lot of people have been hurt. let me tell you something, mr. president. these people are tough. these people do not stay down. they believe. they believe in you, mr. president. mr. president, like my dad used to save when you get knocked down there is only one thing to do -- get up. just get up. people, we are getting up. we are getting up with the help of the man i am about to introduce. ladies and gentlemen, on which are starting to grow our way out of this republican debacle from the last eight years. we are creating jobs. but we are building a new clean energy future. we are making college affordable for the middle class once again.

mr. president, that is because of view. mr. president, i promise you one day philadelphia is coming back. pennsylvania is coming back. america is coming back. the mr. president, welcome to the home of the phillies. ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. where is he? well, you know what? i guess that means you have to hear me for 20 minutes. no, that is not good. no, that is not good. ladies and gentlemen, and actually, let's call for him. obama, obama, obama.

♪ [cheers and applause] ♪ >> hello, philadelphia.

[cheers and applause] >> yes, we can! yes, we can! yes , we can! >> thank you. aw, this is -- [cheers and applause] thank you. this is a good-looking crowd. this is a beautiful crowd on a beautiful day. it is good to be back here, pennsylvania. it is good to be back in pennsylvania, good to be back in phillie. [cheers and applause] i know part of the reason you

are fired up is because of joe biden. plus, joe look school in those glasses -- joe looks cool, doesn't he? when i was campaigning, right after i selected joe, we were at some events, some town hall meetings, and everywhere we went with joe, some women would come by and say, "you know, and joe is kind of cute. can you introduce me to joe?" and joe is married to a wonderful jill biden. in addition from hearing -- in addition to hearing from joe biden, i know you have heard from ed rendell.

senator bob casey is in the house. the state treasurer is here. another congressman is here. congressman joseph stiches here -- joe sestak is here, and others. i want to think kevin johnson for the invocation. -- to thank kevin johnson. and give it up for -- i am glad to see that this crowd is fired up. are you fired up? are you ready to go? i have got to make sure that you

stay fired uppe. to catch the phillies and the eagles. i do not want to get between and their sports teams. two years ago, two years ago, you defied the conventional wisdom in washington. they said, "no, you can't." they said, "no, you can overcome the cynicism, you cannot take on the big challenges of our time, no, you cannot elect a skinny guy with a funny name to the presidency of the united states." what did you say? >> yes, we can!

yes, we can! yes, we can! >> that is what you said. >> yes, we can! yes, we can! >> but i want you to understand that that was not the end of the road. but was the beginning. i myself have not delivered the change that we need. just because of the election night and the inauguration -- yes, everybody was having fun, and there was singing and bono. we understood what we were going up against. the only thing that the election did was it gave us the chance to make change happen. it made each of you a shareholder in the mission of

rebuilding our country and reclaiming our future, and, phillie, i am back here two years later because the success of our mission is at stake right now. on november 2, i need you fired up, as fired up as you were in 2008. [cheers and applause] because we have got a lot of work ahead of us. you know, after that last election, it was my hope that we could pull together, democrats and republicans, to confront the worst economic crisis since the great depression. i hoped that we could get beyond the division of red states and blue states. >> yes, we can! yes, we can!

>> that is what i thought, because the we are proud to be democrats, we are prone to be americans. there are some that feel the exact same way. when we arrived in washington, they knew it would take more than two years to climb out of this recession. they knew that by the time of this election, people would still be out of work. they knew that people would be frustrated. if they sat on the sidelines and republicans just opposed everything that we did, if they spent all of their time attacking democrats instead of attacking problems, they figured they might be able to do well in the polls, so they spent the last 20 months the note --

saying no. even the policies they supported in the past. they said no to middle-class tax cuts. they said no to a bipartisan deficit-reduction commission. if i said the sky was blue, they said, "no." if i said there were fish in the sea, they said "no." they figured," if obama wrote loses, then we win -- they figured," if obama loses -- , "if obama loses, then we win." i took whatever steps were necessary to stop the economic freefall, to stop the second

depression, even if those decisions were not popular, even if they were not easy, because you did not elect me to do what is easy. you elected me to do what is right. that is why you sent me to washington. you did not send me to washington to put my finger to the wind and figure out which way the wind was blowing. spend all of my time reading the polls. you sent me there to solve problems, and 20 months later, we no longer face a second depression. our economy is growing again. the private sector created jobs nine months in a row now. there are 3 million americans who would not be working today if not for the economic plan that joe and i put in place. that is the truth. [cheers and applause] now, what is also the truth is we have still got a long way to

go. the hole we are climbing out of it is so deep, the republicans messed up so bad, left such a big mess that there are still millions of americans without work. i want everyone to understand this, just in case there are still some undecideds out there. before i was inaugurated, and before joe was inaugurated, we have lost 4 million jobs in the four months before that -- in the six months before that. we lost 600,000 a month after that. before economic plans were put in place, we have lost almost a million jobs because of their policy, -- almost 8 million jobs because of their policies. there are still millions of americans who can barely pay their bills, millions of

americans who are just barely hanging on, millions of middle- class families who were struggling even before this crisis hit and who are out there treading water. i know. so, of course, people are frustrated. of course, people are frustrated with the pace of change, and, believe me, so am i, but no matter how angry you get or no matter how frustrated you are, the other side has decided to ride that frustration and anger without offering any solutions, and a lot of folks in washington think that is strategy. they say the other party people are more enthusiastic, that you what are going to stay home, then you will not all come out like you did in 2008 -- that you all will not come out like you

did in 2008. they say that you will not hear as much. name isy that if obama's not on the ballot, you will not care as much. they think you will let the same policies that gave us these shambles come back to washington. i think we are going to win, but you have got to prove them wrong. it is up to you to show them that you cared too much about this country to let us fall back, -- that you care too much about this country to let us all but. everybody, i need you to understand. -- you cared too much about this country to let us all -- let us fall back.

the chairman of one of their campaign committees promised that if a work -- if republicans take control of congress, they will pursue the exact same things they did last time. we know what the agenda was. we know with this agenda was, to cut taxes mostly for millionaires and billionaires, to cut regulations for special interests, to cut back on investments and education and clean energy and research and technology. the basic idea is we let corporations do whatever we want, and we leave everyone else to fend for themselves, and america somehow was going to grow in the process. well, let me tell you something. the problem with their theory is it did not work. we tried it for eight years. it did not work for middle-class families who saw their incomes

fall when republicans were in charge. between 2001 and 2009, the incomes of the middle class went down. they did not go up. they went down. it was slower than it has been over the last year. when they were in charge, they took a record surplus from bill clinton, in by the time i got there, we had a record deficit -- and by the time i got there. and because of that free-for-all we had on wall street, we are still digging our way out. that is their track record. now, listen, everybody. i do not bring this up because i want to litigate the past again. i bring this up because i do not want to live the past again. i do not want to go through what we have already gone through. i bring it up because this is the philosophy of the other side that they intend to bring if

they win in november. republicans might have a new name for it. they call it a pledge to america. but it is the same old stuff they have been selling for years. has everybody read the pledge to america? let me tell you, it turns out that the pledge was actually written by a former lobbyist for aig and exxonmobil. that should tell you something right there. you cannot make that stuff up. the tax cuts that would only go to the top 2% of the wealthiest. 98 persons and of you would not get this tax cut, -- 98% of you would not get this tax cut. that is their big idea to get the economy moving again.

these are the same folks who lecture us about fiscal responsibility, but now, they want to borrow $700 million to give a tax cut on average of $100,000 to millionaires and billionaires. when you ask them where they are going to get the money, they say, "we do not have it." but, mostly, they are going to borrowing from other countries, and just to pay for a small part of it, they want to cut education by 20% they would reduce financial aid for 8 million college students -- education by 20%. they would reduce financial aid for 8 million college students. one of the most important things for economic success. the notion that we would give up tax cuts to folks who do not need them and sacrifice the next

generation, that does not make any sense at all. i want to ask my republican friends, do you think china is cutting back on education? do you think south korea or india are cutting back on education? those countries are not playing for second place. they are pulling for first place. america does not play for second place either note -- second place either. so, phillie, as long as i am president, we are not going to let washington politicians sacrifice your education for something we cannot afford, and that is a choice in this election. joe and i, we have got a different idea about what the next two years should look like, and this is rooted in our idea about how this country was built. we know government does not have all of the answers to all of the problems. we know the private sector is

primarily responsible for creating jobs and prosperity. i believe government should be lean and efficient. i do not want anybody in washington wasting taxpayer dollars. that is what i proposed a spending freeze, to set up a bipartisan commission -- that is why i propose a friend krispies -- i propose a spending freeze. we believe in doing what people cannot do better themselves. we believe in a country where we look after one another. we believe in a country where working people can come together so they can get a minimum wage and better working conditions. we believe that i am my brother's keeper. imi sister's keeper. that everyone deserves -- i am my sister's keeper. but is the choice in this election.

we want to make permanent, we want to make permanent tax cuts for the middle class, because you deserve a break. instead of the other sides plan to keep giving tax breaks to companies that are shipping giant -- instead of the other giving tax to keep breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas. american manufacturers and the clean energy companies. i want the solar panels or wind turbines not build overseas but built here in the united states by american workers -- not built overseas but built here in the united states by american workers we want to make a new college tax credit per minute -- by american workers.

we want to make our new college tax credit permanent. we're going to fight to keep the reforms we made to the student loan system. tens of million dollars of subsidies that would be going to banks are going to students. that is where they belong. if the other side wins, they will try their highest -- hardest. we cannot let them do that. we cannot go back to the days of taxpayer funded bailout. we cannot go back to the days when credit cards could raise your rates without any reason or insurance companies could deny your coverage or drop it because you get sick. we need to keep the new law in place that says if you are looking for a job or have a job

that does not offer you coverage, and you are a young person, you can stay on your you're' insurance until 26 years old, and they cannot drop in because you get six -- -- they cannot drop you because you get sick. many of the republicans that are running right now, these are the exact same folks that spent the last decade driving our economy into a ditch. and once we were elected, and joe and i, we put on our boots, and we went down into the ditch. it was muggy in dusty down there, and it was hot -- it was muddy and dusty down there, and we started pushing hard to get it out of the ditch. and we had people like joe

sestak to help us, and once in awhile, we would look at the republicans, and they were sitting there, kind of taking a break, fanning themselves, sipping a slurping -- slurpee. and they did not help, and after pushing and pushing, we finally got it out of the ditch. now, the car is in little ended up -- is a little dented up. it needs a tuneup. but it is moving. it is going in the right direction. we are on level ground now. we are starting to make repairs.

and suddenly, we get a tax on our shoulder, and we look back, and who is it -- we get a tap on our shoulder, and we look back, and who is it? it is the republicans. and they are saying, "we want our keys backe." they cannot have them. they do not know how to drive. they can ride with us if they want, but they have to get in the back seat. we do not want the special interests riding shotgun. we want working families and the middle class. they are the priority. i just want everyone to notice that when you get in the car, and you want to go forward, what do you do? you get in, and you put it in

"d." what do you do if you want to go in reverse? you put it in "r." listen. can i just say, at the end of the day, really, it will depend on you. whether the republicans get the keys back. thanks to a supreme court decision called citizens united, they are being held along this year by special interest groups, spending an unlimited amount of money on attack advertisements, attacking folks like joe sestak without disclosing who is behind all of these attack ads.

you do not know because they do not have to disclose. now, that is not just a threat to democrats. every american business and industry deserves a seat at the table, but they do not get a chance to buy every share. we see what happens when they do. they put the economy at risk, and every american me and of suffering, so you cannot let it happen. -- and every american can end up suffering, you cannot let it happen. you cannot stand by. so, philadelphia, that is why i need you working harder in this election than you did in the last election. we we need you. we need you to fight their millions of dollars with are millions of voices. -- with our millions of voices.

all across the country, we have got to finish what we started in 2008. because if everybody who fought so hard for change in 2000 it shows up, i have confidence we will win -- everyone who fought so hard for change in 2008 shows up, i have confidence we will win. what they are counting on is that you will stay home. they are counting on your silence. they are counting on your and neshek. they are counting on your apathy. -- they are counting on your amnesia. they're counting on the fact that you are so completely turned off, you are not going to

vote for anybody, and if that happens, they win. phillie, let's prove them wrong. let's show washington one more time that change does not come from the top. change comes from the bottom. it does not come from millions of dollars in advertisement. it comes from people out there, knocking on doors, making phone calls, going into the beauty shop, going into the barber shop. i know we are a long way from the excitement on election night. we are far from election day -- from inauguration day. i always told you it was going to be hard, because change has always been hard. but from the first days of our nation, every time americans have tried to bring about real, meaningful change, we have faced down disappointment. we have faced fear, and we have

faced down doubt, and as americans, we have always move forward. we have always kept fighting. our destiny is written by us. that is how we came through war. that is how we came through depression. that is how we got civil rights legislation. that is how we got workers' rights. it is being tested right now, but if you keep moving forward in the face of difficulty, we will not lose this election. we will win this election, and we will make sure that every american has the opportunity to live out the american dream. god bless you, and god bless the united states of america. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

♪ >> ♪ your love keeps lifting me your love keeps lifting me higher and higher higher and higher ♪ ♪

♪ your love keeps lifting me higher and higher higher your love keeps lifting me higher and higher higher ♪ ♪

your love keeps ligtifting me higher and higher higher higher and higher higher lifting me higher and higher higher ♪

♪ ♪

♪

when you wish upon a star ♪ >> ♪ you are a shining star ♪

own's now i got my so if you find yourself in need why do not listen to his words of heat? ine child free of se be someplace, yes, i can you are a shining star, no matter who you are shining bright to see waht yohau

can truly be ♪ >> wrapping up this rally, president obama and vice president joe biden have been campaigning. you can see the rallyly began he on c-span -- see the rally here again on c-span at 10:10. tomorrow, house speaker nancy pelosi will also be campaigning in the 22nd district. the committee has been funding advertisements for the democratic kennedy -- candidate. we will be bringing you coverage of the 2010 elections beginning

tomorrow night at 7:00 p.m. eastern concerning the senate seat in kentucky. we will also be live at 8:00 p.m. with the indiana race for the senate. later, we will hear from the candidates for governor in michigan and those in the new hampshire governor's race. that is tomorrow on c-span. we take a look now at some of the attack ads from the campaign in 2010 and whether it is possible to determine what is true or false in the advanced -- in the ads. >> good morning, thanks so much for being with us. us. guest: thanks for having me. it's an effort to broaden fact checking the way that we do it, where we rate things on a truth

meter from true to false to our lowest rating, pants on fire. we've partnered with newspapers around the country in sen states to do the same fact checking that we do. we train them, we host their content, and they put the truth meter to politicians in their states. and it's been very successful. we've done more than 600 fact checks in those states since we started earlier this year. and i think it's really been good for voters. voters now have a better sense of what's true and what's not. host: one of the ads that's been getting attention, harry reid and sharon angle will be debating and we will cover it this week. did he? guest: we rated this barely true on our truth meter. this is one we did on friday. this is an ad similar to some

scomplinets that have been made about democrats in other states. we check this at first in one of their races and what we found is that indeed the congress did pass when it passed health care reform it rejected an amendment that would have put some restrictions on health care coverage on things like viagara. but in this case, it's not the case that harry reid or anyone was out saying we've got to make sure that there is viagara coverage for convicted sex offenders. and indeed, during the debate in the senate one of the democrats said, well, all you're doing here is creating material for a campaign commercial. to one of the republicans. well, that was true. they created good material. we rated it barely true. there is truth in the sense that that coverage exists. but it was not an affirmtive effort by harry reid or other

democrats to do this. and they have opportunity before that provision of the law kicks in to correct it. host: a lot of attention on cross roads gps. this is a group put together by karl rove and ed gillespie. is this one example of what we're going to see this election and in 2012? guest: we've seen an explosion in the ads from these independent groups that are maybe not as independent as the law might suggest. and what's happened is a lot of the corporate money instead of aca company or a big corporation advertising under its name, the corporate money has gone to these groups that depending on how the group is set up, whether regulated by the commission or under the tax laws, the group can operate

without disclosing its donors or at least in not disclosing its donors initially. and so they can spend tens of millions of dollars without us knowing who is behind the ad. and in many cases these ads repeat the same points that are being made by the republican or democratic candidates, i guess it's important to point out that the spending has been very lop sided in favor of republicans, that groups like cross roads are affill yated with republicans spending much more money. and their record for accuracy is not very good. i think we've rated five or six ads for cross roads gps or its affiliated group and i don't think they've gotten better than a half true on our truth meter. host: let's look at some of the ads. in the california senate race, the first, a republican 527, if

you want to call it that and the response from barbara boxer. >> california seniors are worried. barbara boxer voted to cut spending on medicare benefits by $500 billion, cuts so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking medicare altogether. boxer's cuts would sharply reduce benefits for some and could jeopardize access to medicare for others. and millions of americans won't be able to keep the plan or doctor they already have. check the facts and take action. call boxer. stop the medicare cuts. >> as c.e.o. she laid off workers and shipped jobs to india. >> i know precisely where those jobs go. >> because she shipped them there to shanghai instead of instead of bur banks. 30,000 workers gone while she took 100 million for herself.

outsourcing jobs, out for herself. >> i'm barbara boxer and i approve this message. guest: we've looked at both of those claims first in terms of the claim about medicare is one that we've heard in a lot of congressional races, not just in california. and this is interesting an attack from republicans. republicans have never been totally comfortable with medicare, the whole idea that government would run a big health insurance program like that but they have used it often in this campaign to go after democrats. and what they're saying is that by voting for the health care law that democrats, in doing so, voted to cut medicare. and they're trying to give the impression, particularly to seniors, that their medicare benefits might be jeopardized. in this case and in many others that we've rated, we rated the claim barely true. it is true that barbara boxer

and other democrats voted in favor of the medicare law which does reduce the future growth of medicare spending by about $500 billion. but it is not the case that that would cut medicare benefits, which is the implication by the add. and likewise in the case, and i don't remember our ruling on the attack on fiorina, we have found many exaggerations particularly on issues where the republican candidate ran or helped run a company and the democrats will seize on that and try to say that the republican in some way eliminated jobs, and particularly sent these jobs overseas. there's a front page story in the "new york times" today about this pattern particularly as it relates to china. in ohio, we have in several cases rated claims by lee

fisher, the democratic candidate where he has tried to blame rob portman, the republican candidate, who was president bush's trade representative for shipping jobs to china. and we have rated those in one case i think half true and in another case false because i think in many cases here the democrats are exaggerating the impact that the republicans had on where the jobs have gone. host: so who is cross roads gps? that's a question on our twitter page. guest: sure. cross roads gps is one of the two groups, and you mentioned earlier, that fair affiliated with karl rove and ed gillespie, very prominent republicans in the past ten years, and it is a group that is funded to a large extent by corporate donations from what we've been able to tell. we don't know a lot about the donors because particularly for cross roads gps they don't have to reveal the donors. cross roads gps operates as an

-- under the tax code as a nonprofit 401, not c but 401 something organization, and so we don't know who the donors are. we do know that it is republicans who are running it. and in many cases they're repeating the talking points that the republican candidates are using in those races. now, last week a couple of groups, democracy 21 and another group that's concerned about spending money and politics, they asked the i.r.s. to investigate cross roads gps and questioned whether it is truly operating under the tax laws properly. host: our next call is dar lean from dallas. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you c-span. calling to reference to the ladies you had on earlier, ms.

cheryl and also ms. maria. i enjoyed watching them. please have them on more often. and also, with the sites, i didn't know we had one here in texas. that's wonderful. and also, we are excited and we start early voting at the end of the week. so we just wanted to let you know that we are actively ready to go and we are fired up and ready to vote again. host: thank you. let me bring up her point because she talks about early voting which in many ways is changing the dynamics of these elections as more and more people vote by mail. guest: it really is. there were questions about the concerns about the sanctity of the voting booth and what happens when people vote early. on the other hand, it's very convenient for people working during the day and can't make it to the polls in florida where my news organization is

based, a huge percentage of people are going to vote early. so it raises some interesting issues. it also changes the dynamic of some of the last minute ads and things which aren't necessarily going to be just the week before the election. i think it sort of moves everything forward. host: let's look at the florida race, where crist is running against meek. and according to the current polls here are some of the ads in that race. >> work longer, get by on less. that's the rubio retirement plan. rubio wants to raise the social security retirement age. that means you'll work harder and longer for your money. and rubio wants to cut benefits. it's already tough enough to make ends meet. there's a better choice. charlie crist is against

raising the retirement age. he'll protect social security because our srs have earned it. >> the choice is clear. marco rubio stood up for taxpayers by saying no to the failed obama stimulus. charlie crist embraced it. marco rubio opposed obama care. charlie crist has flip flopped. marco rubio says no to obama's energy tax. florida needs a strong leader to put a check on obama's agenda. that's marco rubio. >> i'm kendrick meek. with three of us running you should know what makes me different. i'm the only one who has fought against developers draining the everyglades. the only one against privatizing social security. the only one who is prochoice who took on george bush, who

fought for tax cuts. i'm the only one who can approve this message. >> a little bit of humor but also some pretty sharp attacks in that race. >> we've been very active in florida. we're part of the st. petersburg times so naturally we've been doing a lot of fact checking there. we operate plit fact florida as a partnership with the high pressure system herald and we're getting help -- moim herald. the press is helping us. and we rate that first ad that you showed, the charlie crist ad that had those very unflattering black and white images of marco rubio. this is part of the art form of these campaign ads. i always think it's funny how thake -- they can find the least flattering photos, and they show themselves in living color. in this case charlie crist was making a claim about marco

rubio in social security saying that marco rubio wants to raise the retirement age for social security and some other things. we rated that half true. we -- it is true that rubio has talked about that. we gave it a half true because we felt that crist was leaving out some important information. that being that rubio has said, like many other republicans who have talked about making changes to social security, that he would protect current retirees and people who were close to retirement, and that these changes wouldn't occur immediately and they would somehow be phased in. the other ad that you showed, the across roads gps ad attacking crist, we haven't looked at that particular ad but we have looked at several others with some of the same changes, some of the same charges about crist. his support of the stimulus. and he was indeed, and that ad

shows the very famous hugs that he gave president obama when obama came to florida. and we've looked at some of those, too. it's interesting when you watch these ads all day long like i do and you just hope that voters look beyond the ads because they're giving such limited amount of information about what's happening in these races. and i hope that they go to a site like ours or to other news sites to find out what the truth is about these things. because if we had to look at the overall accuracy of ads in this campaign, i would rate them as barely true. having a germ of truth, i would say most of the charges that we see here on these ads have some grain of truth, but they are twisting it, distorting it, exaggerating it in some way. host: our conversation is with bill adair, the editor of pliti fakt, which he is keeping track

of these ads. you can check it out. and what is the liar, liar, pants on fire, which is my favorite at the website. robert is joining us from tennessee. republican line. good morning. caller: hello, gentlemen. i was wondering what the gentleman thought about maybe a state-run fining system for these politicians who are not quite fully honest with their ad. guest: in other words, fining them for not telling the truth? caller: yes, sir. guest: i don't think that would be a good idea. we have freedom of speech in this country, and i think it's important to allow our elected officials, to allow anybody to say what they want and then to allow a free and independent press, like ours, to help you, the voter, understand what the truth is about those things. and you can take that information and do something

with it. but i don't think it would be a good idea to get government involved and have the government deciding what's true and what's not. host: sasha asking the question guest: no. we have groups in various states, and even with all that we have sort of the equivalent of two to three full-time fact checkers in each state plus three full-time fact checkers for our national staff. we're getting a relatively small portion of all the ads. we are, though, i think getting the majority of the points that are being made. for example, that claim about medicare that we heard in the ad against barbara boxer has been made repeatedly in many republican races, and so i think we're getting the main

themes. and if you come to our search box by topic, you can probably find that we have rated the claim that you're interested in. host: we have a compilation of ads as well on our site and a lot of debates coming up in the week ahead. we encourage you to check it out on our website. tomorrow night, the kentucky senate live here on c-span getting under way at 7:00 eastern time. that will be followed by an indiana senate debate. and later in the week, the only debate wednesday in that delaware senate race. and on thursday evening, live coverage between senate democratic leader harry reid and sharon angle his republican opponent. that gets under way at 9:00 eastern time. you can see it all this week >> and, again, you can watch c- span's continuing coverage of

the 2010 election tomorrow night beginning at 7:00 p.m. eastern, with candidates running for the senate seat in kentucky a debate in the indiana senate race, -- for the senate seat in kentucky. then, a debate in the indiana senate race. this begins tomorrow at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. tomorrow on "washington journal ," the condition of u.s. cities as a result of the economic downturn. desmond lachman talks about the impact of devouring the dollar at home and abroad, it -- the impact of devaluing the dollar. "washington journal" live on c- "washington journal" live on c- span