seeing it in -- from election to election, overpass cycles. look, these are tough big problems that we're facing. not just here in washington, but by states, bilocally. you can't dismiss that people are eager to see change and moving things forward here. >> rob, what do you think? >> i think the president ran -- i mean, the president in 2008, he basically ran on the platform that president bush's team was incompetent. these guys are idiots, we'll be fine and his administration has been basically a disaster for the economy, and so now people are saying that they had an opportunity, they said they were going to fix the economy, they didn't, and so now i think they're going to be held accountable for that in the next

couple of weeks. >> >> hi, chuck ross from gwinnett last summer, the speaker referred to the budding tea party movement as astro turf and then there was an article written by the speaker and the leader in "u.s.a. today," describing their tactics as unamerican and i'm wondering, if you've noticed that since that time, a lot of tea party rallies, there's been a lot of rhetoric about we are americans, you know, there is, you know, we are not astro turf, we are an authentic movement. i'm wondering if you could address, was that the largest tactical error of this campaign so far? >> you know, one op-ed kind of leads to, i mean, the tactical mistake is on the republican side and that turned into a democratic pickup of a seat in

new york 23. the republicans went out and recruited a candidate, he did not immediate, was not conservative enough for the pea party and the tee tea party ran their own candidate and hijacked the election. >> guy, what do you think? >> i just am kind of focused, instead of on specials, the fact that we're going to win new york 23 and we're going to win pennsylvania 12, and the fact is, i guess that's the last thing that we'll see them had to offer, they want specials, but we'll pick the seats back up. going back to the tactical question on astro turf. the first mistake was electing speaker nancy pelosi speaker and the stimulus, spending $800 million in one day, cap-and-trade and health care, it's hard to isolate that is the worst amongst those four. >> and yet, john does bring up the point that there has been third party candidates who have

taken significant support if present surveys, are you concerned about that? >> in one instance, it's favored instance, which is new york 23, and we have the same or similar problem in hawaii, so i guess, you know, we could sit there and talk about hawaii all the time, we can talk about hawaii all the time like they like to talk about new york 23, but i don't get fixated on one seat when we have a field of 80. >> are you concerned that throughout that field of 80, there are some third party candidates who could take support? >> no. >> not hat all? >> no. >> i think the question alludes to, there is a level of arrogance if d.c. among the democratic intelligence. that is just remarkable to me. and they're so con descending to the american people about how basically they know best and i really for the life of me, from a political, what i do for a living, which is working on campaigns, i don't understand it at all. i don't understand why they don't, you know, this has been building for a year and a half, we don't try to tap in to these,

i think the level of frustration out there and win these people over, but instead, they just continue to attack them, call them names, and then voters, many of them voted for president obama and the democrats a couple of years ago, and it's just -- it's a remarkable display of arrogance. >> i'm going to hazard to guess that you disagree? >> i don't know what the huberis rob is talking about, because i have to tell you, i'm feeling pretty humble. the truth is here that the establishment of republicans in washington are still mired to the culture that's here in terms of the lobbyists the gridlock. this system in many ways, while democrats still run it, in a lot of ways, it still feels like this is a city that belongs to

the republicans. this is their bastion here. >> a 40 seat majority in the house and the president having republican control. this is remarkable, this is good news. i may rest easy the next couple of weeks. >> but i and i aren't having a conversation about power. you keep referring to the so-called culture of the city, and the way it plays out, and you talk about the cocktail circuit and hubris and it comes back to the point i made earlier. this was all of the -- all inherent in the tension that existed between establishment candidates and tea party candidates. a lot of those establishment candidates that ended up losing, this is the same rhetoric that we heard in republican primaries, now spilling out and saying, oh, isn't this true about democrats. the only problem is a lot of these disenfranchised candidates were making that argument about

your candidate. >> that resulted in us leading nine democratic seats. >> let's move on to the next question. somebody from over here. >> good morning. tina johnson, very happy to support this event today. as we get closer to november, the media has been increasingly reporting on the inability of democrats and republicans to meet at the center, do you feel that barring a national crisis, that are you concerned that this type of polarization will paralyze the government on collaborating on some important issues and thereby the country especially at this time that requires revolutionary change for recovery? >> i don't think the country is worried about the -- about the government doing too little. i think they're worried about the government doing too much and so i think having people here, slow the process down, read the bills, think before they spend $800 billion on a -- on a failed stimulus program, these kind of things, will be

celebrated by the majority of the american people. >> go ahead. >> kind of to follow up on that. do you think, the question about the middle, where do we all agree in the middle, do you think that voters this time around, what wins, the people that come to the middle or jim comes to mind where he made the point, you just draw the line and stick to it and negotiate and what do voters want? >> i think voters want the government to stop spending money they don't have. that's what -- and i'm sorry, but independence, it's not -- i mean, i continue to be amused at the plan to get out college students, that they're planning to save congress. the reality is they're saving -- they're losing independents 2-1 in most pools and independents are flocking to republican candidates, because they want the government to stop spending money. plain and simple. panned that's i think -- and that's i think what is playing out across the country. >> there's been a bipartisan

answer to this agenda. it's been no. bipartisan answer on the stimulus, bipartisan answer on cap-and-trade and health care, it was no. i do think there's a sense of hubris when you are voting for a held care bill, shoving it down everyone's throat when the american people are against it. that is an amazing sense of hubris when you say we know better than you do and it's more amazing when you have a speaker in pelosi that shoves through a cap-and-trade bill that is going nowhere in the senate. >> i think the american public wants congress and the government to work towards assisting the middle class, creating jobs for the middle class, not siding on the side of corporate middle interest and who is ultimately looking out for them. >> we know you define corporate special interest as the u.s. chamber, so therefore, the u.s. chamber, its chamber of commerce is a corporate special interest. i guess, the fact is, you know,

the middle class is defined so narrowly by the democrats. the fact is, you all are anti-business. it is a fact, you've shown it today, and you know, i guess, -- i guess the only good job for a democrat is a government job. >> we're for protecting social security, not privatizing it. that was -- >> $500 billion out of medicare. >> all right. let's move on to the next question. over here. >> good morning. i have more of a strategy with preexpect to messaging, and be it, you know, the independent expenditure group, who are or aren't disclosing their donors or the union group. how is it difficult for the four of you to kind of keep on message when there's all this money going out, competing messages, are you seeing that as being helpful or hurtful to your candidates both on the senate happened house level?

>> j.b.? >> i'll take that question on its face. a lot of times campaigns and candidates can be overwhelmed, especially when there's not so many outside groups, but so much outside messaging, that it's not unusual in the especially contested races that you turn on your tv, in places like missouri or illinois, and you'll see on a single race, five, six different messages. it seems to me especially a frustrating thing on the republican side, because there are so many of the smaller right wing inspired groups that see 501c activity as a new toy. but those donors that come together and put up on tv the cause of the day, a chance to say, hey, let's get some attention on this issue. you're right, a lot of times,

that source candidates and confuses the message. >> rob, what does that do for your candidates, are you concerned about the multiple messages, if they exist in colorado and states where there are lots of outside groups joining in in? >> i mean, i think that to be answered honestly, i think always halls something the campaigns have to worry about, but it's been around since mccain-feingold passed, most people who have been involved in this process are used to it now and frankly, i've been, from our point of view, very pleased with the ads and i think they've been largely helpful to our candidates, so it's been a benefit to us this cycle. >> i think there's one thing we can all agree on, the party committee, our hands are tied far more than the outside groups and we should all work together to figure out some way to fix omar khadr some of the copses -- to fix some of the consequences of the mccain-feingold bill. >> a prayer moment of agreement. -- a rare moment of agreement.

how about that. mike over here. >> i run the brady campaign to prevent gun violence. the gun issues and so-called other wedge issues, democrats that have sucked up to the nra are most likely to lose this year in the house, n propublica a is backing people like ellsworth against coates. where do you see the gun issue and the other so-called wedge issues this year, are they totally irrelevant because of the economy or do they play in some places? >> good question. rob, do you want to start? >> i think the nra has been enormously helpful to most of our candidates, a few places where they have endorsed where i wish they hadn't, but largely speaking, they've been helpful and i think to a lot of people, in rural america, that's an important issue, and obviously the republican party is with them on that. >> john? >> i think there are a number of

wedge issues. the thing about congressional races, 435 different congressional races, and you know, races on long island, new york, are different than races in, you know, rural mississippi. i think we're going to see choice play out in a number of races, we will see the issue of the second amendment play out in races and you also see stem cell research play out in a number of these races and it depends geographically where the race is, which side someone cuts to it. >> all right. one more. gentleman in the back there. >> i'm from congressional quarterly. i've read a lot about the mandate trap over the years, because over the last 20 years, virtually every wave of election has really been more about people voting against the party in power, rather than for the outside party. and nonetheless, the winning party tends to regard the election as a popular referendum on their agenda and act accordingly and that's basically what the republicans are accusing democrats of doing in

the wake of doing. now, guy, you said earlier that this election isn't about us, it's about the democrats. which is true, but if you guys win, it is going to be about you. is there any reason, if the republicans do have a wave election in rejection of these guys, that this is -- any kind of an affirmative statement about the republicans' agenda. >> i think it is an affirmative statement. that the american people want a check and balance on this administration. i think it's fairly easy to say that they want -- they want some kind of certainty out of this uncertainty, that is in their marketplace. they would like to repeal and preplace health care, the health care bill. they do do not want cap-and-trade, they would like us to get our fiscal house in order. that's exactly what we'll be able to do. obviously, we'll have a president that we're going to have to work with that we'll have to limit his desire to continue to spend the trillions of dollars that he likes to spend. >> i think there's an important

point, that you bring up here, it's a machine date against. the one difference, that makes this cycle very different than previous ones, is its favorable and unfavorable rating of the republican party and their individual candidates and in 2006, there was a net positive favorable rating for democrats, and same thing in 2004, the republicans had a net favorable rating. the republican brand is even worse than the democratic brand right now, so while it may be people voting against those in power, the choice that's being given to them is not seen favorly by the public, which is why this is much more of a except tv election than they like to think and give credit for. >> the real genius of the republican pledge is there's nobody in this room that can tell you what the heck it is. that going forward, that when you watch a lot of thieves senate debates, there's usually almost consistently a terrific moment when republican candidates get asked a question,

something like, can you tell us what policy or proposal that you have that would be different from policies from the bush administration? nearly every republican candidate doesn't have an answer to this question. there isn't a contrast or a different from the same policies that got us into trouble in the first place. >> rob? >> i just -- i think -- no. i mean -- >> we'll move on. we have time for two more quick ones. we have a question there in the back. >> hi. okay. i was wondering, this is a question more for mr. harrison and jesmer, it seems like the areas a lot you're on offense are the areas in a few parts of the country where obama did less well than the democratic

candidates before him. can you talk about why that is, whether it's cultural, whether it's cap-and-trade, and whether you think that, you know, some of the other areas, that you might clean up better there than other areas of the country that did support obama in bigger numbers than they had in previous years? >> well, respectfully, we're on -- i disagree with the premise of the question. we're on offense, and in six of the nine states rear leading, president obama won those seats, so i think we're on offense in places where the president was in some of these places, washington, california, they have dark it wasn't even close. wisconsin, it wasn't even close, and so i think we're on offense and on pretty blue ground. in the beginning of this cycle, we obviously talked about the fact that we had 48 seats, that mccain had won and yet a

democrat incumbent had won as well, so we felt like that was a good opportunity for us. we didn't know that the president was going to actively attack the coal industry, which obviously gave us opportunities in the appalachian areas and you said whether it's cap-and-trade or cultural, that is cultural. if you're attacking their way of life, they feel that -- that you may not have the best interest in -- you know, to show you how far they're attacking, you can see the west virginia democrat governor's candidate commercial. secondly, arizona, you know, you have a president that sued a state about a law that the voters like. you know, that obviously provides us opportunities. once again, this is the hubris of washington saying we know more than you do. frankly, the state law does exactly what the federal law does. it just says, hey, at the state

level, we'll do -- we'll help you out with enforcing this. so i think that they've provided this opportunity, because of their hub ry s. >> we have time for one more. move hover here over -- move over here for the last one. >> >> i have a couple of hands up over here. >> i'm a ph.d. students at ucla, and my question to all of you is what can you and your secular organizations learn from the tea party movement and all of the organizations that are going on within the movement, some have compared it to a spider or a star fish. and my research suggests that although there's certain elements of the spider, meaning kind of top down, it has a lot of star fish element to it, meaning very decentralized, the national -- excuse me, the virginia tea party convention that was held last weekend, was one of the most efficiently organized conventions i think high ever attended while i was conducting research, so clearly,

there's something interesting going on. what can you learn about their strategies that various people kind of throughout the country are employing for your respective organizations. thank you. >> guy, let's start with you. >> you know, like i said, at the beginning, tea party movement has a lot of familiarity to the republicans, because we believe that voters and local controls should happen. we actually believe this is the way the federal government should work as well, to allow states and local communities to make these decisions, rather than one size fits all government processes. obviously, that's one of the reasons why we feel the affinity to the tea party movement. the other thing that we have also learned is that we shouldn't do as the democrats do and decide to denigrate americans. and you know, everything that comes out of my democratic side of the mouth mouth, is hey, if you're a business map, you've done something bad. if you're a veteran, you've done

something bad. if you're a tea party member, you've done something bad, rather than understanding that these are a group of americans that are upset and guess what they're upset with? democrats? >> rob, what with can he learn from the tea party movement. >> i agree with what guy said. i just think these are -- these are at the end of the day, citizens who largely weren't involved in the process previously are now involved in the process. i think it's good for the country and good for the republican party. >> john, how do you see the tea party movement? >> one, it's very impressive what the tea party movement has put together and this is a power of grassroots organizing, it's extremely impressive, and i think it also leads to an overall thing that we need to look at is parties are responsible for their constituency politics and if there is going to be a large pickup of republican seats, that is going to be done in part because of many tea party candidates and people have to ask themselves, are the views that these candidates support, you know, what is the republican party going to adopt from those views.

>> j.b.? >> i think that what you're seeing with the tea party movement, granted, grassroots reaction to what's happening, that eagerness to get involved, clearly, you felt that same kind of commitment in the 2008 election around the president, and you go back and look at some more election psych else in 2006 and 2004, -- cycles in 2006 in 2004 that showed a trajectory an empowerment for grassroot groups organizations and individuals that really want to make a difference. >> that will be the last word today. thank you all very much. thank you for attending everybody. [applause] and now these guys are all going to go out an

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

our live coverage begins at 9:00 eastern. and this weekend, we bring you another debate for kentucky's open senate seat. democrat jack conway faces republican rand paul. live coverage from louisville begins sunday at 7:00 p.m. eastern. our campaign coverage continues in a moment. later tonight, a debate for north carolina's u.s. senate seat. incumbent senator richard burr faces elaine marshall, the challenger. then to georgia's eighth district wigs south of atlanta for a house debate. now, our debate in wisconsin for the u.s. senate seat, democratic senator russ fein gold -- feingold is being

challenged by ron johnson, who is co-founder of a plastics company. the event was hosted by the wisconsin institute for public policy and service. this -- wisconsin public radio, the wasau public radio and tell station stations waow, wsaw. wausau, both of wausau and the wisconsin institute for public policy and as much as. thanks also to dean and sandy smith and the staff at u.w. marathon county for making this event possible. our panelists tonight are robert menser, pam warnke and eric marotek. here's the format.

the candidates will have opening statements of 90 seconds each. then our panelists will pose individual questions. the candidates will have 90 seconds to respond to each question. at which point the panelists will ask a followup. the candidates will then have about three minutes and no more than five minutes to respond to the followup at the moderator's discretion in a free-form discussion period in which the candidates can elaborate on their positions, question each other, and respond to each other's statements. if we get through all six questions, and there is time remaining, i will ask a seventh and final question. the debate will conclude with 60 second closing statements for each candidate. we expect everyone in the audience to treat this debate and each of the candidates with respect and dignity. outbursts, heckling and other disruptions will not be tolerated and will lead to ejection from the theater. please turn off your cell phones if you haven't already. and finally, the theater doors have been closed for the event. if you need to leave, you will not be let back in and will be directed instead to an overflow

room. and now a round of applause, please, for our two candidates, senator russ feingold and ron johnson. [applause] now that you've applauded i'll ask you to do something difficult and refrain from applause until the end of the debate. by the toss of a coin senator russ feingold has the first opening statement. senator feingold, you have 90 seconds. >> thanks to the whole greater wausau community for your leadership in making this debate possible. i grew up in this state, lived here all my life and i've been instilled in the idea of wisconsin independence. political independence in particular. and that's had a big impact on the way i've done this job. some people say i'm the most independent member of the senate. it's the reason that i voted against that tarp deal. that wall street bailout.

it's the reason that i voted against all those unfair trade agreements that sent tens of thousands of wisconsin jobs overseas. it's even the reason as you know here that i voted against the no child left behind bill which forces teachers to teach to the test and takes away local control of education. but i go to all 72 counties he have year and hear what people's priorities are. and you all know what the priorities are. it's jobs, cutting federal spending. i have offered specific plans on jobs and federal spending. a jobs tax credit, and a 41-point plan to cut half a trillion dollars out of the federal budget. my opponent has chosen in six months of campaigning to do nothing of the kind. he hasn't offered a jobs plan. he hasn't offered a specific plan to cut federal spending. but i'm still hoping we can have a discussion about it tonight. thanks so much. >> and ron johnson, you have 90 seconds. >> thank you. good evening. six months ago, i was a

full-time businessman running a manufacturing plant that i've been building for 31 years. i had no political aspirations. this is not my life's ambition. but our country is heading in the wrong direction. people are out of work. families are struggling. and they're worried. and the response from washington has been incredibly ineffective and extremely expensive. our nation's debt now stands at 13.4 trillion. and it is threatening the future prosperity of america. wipp voters have a very clear choice. they can vote for a career politician whose votes in washington have exploded the deficit, and expanded the size and scope of the federal government. or they can vote for a citizen legislator. someone who has private sector experience, creating jobs, and balancing a budget. someone who's had a full career, raised a family, and is willing to apply that lifetime of experience and a little common sense to our nation's problems. that's what i have to offer. that's why i would like -- what i would like to talk about tonight. >> our first question comes from rob menser of the wausau daily herald.

>> our first question deals with the health care reform law. critics have argued that the law was passed through congress without bipartisan support. the bear minimum number of votes and against the will of most of the american people. and yet there are also many provisions in the bill that are broadly agreed to be improvements to the current system. things like closing the doughnut hole in medicare part d, preventing insurance companies from discriminating against people with previous conditions and other things. for senator feingold i would like to ask why did you vote for a bill that most in wisconsin oppose and for mr. johnson, you've campaigned on repealing the law. but wouldn't that also mean doing away with the positive provisions that are included in it and things that -- as well as the things that you are -- you -- would be harmful? >> we'll go first with senator feingold. you have 90 seconds. >> i got to reject out of hand the idea that the people of wisconsin oppose this. i've done town meetings and every one of wisconsin's 72 counties for the last six years

since i got re-elected. when i ran, i said if you elect me i'll try to do something to have national health care legislation. and the evidence we have is that 60% of wisconsinites favored us doing something over those years. and 40% probably didn't want us to do it. right here in marathon county in those town hall meetings it was 50-50. i had to figure out what wisconsin people really wanted. and what we came up with was a plan that i think makes sense. it is not the takeover of health care system by the federal government which mr. johnson likes to say it is. it just didn't do that. it's really a compromise that's sort of in the wisconsin tradition. for like 100 years we have had a strong praoist insurance system here. but with strong regulation of insurance. and we have the strongest regulation of insurance to the insurance commissioner of almost any state. that's what this bill really does. and of course your question anticipates that the really big deal which is we finally have the insurance companies out of the complete control of our lives. we have some controls on pre-existing condition denials and every young person under 26

can stay on their parents' plan until they're 26 which is a great thing. the bill is a good compromise that i think brings the country forward on the number one issue that's been brought up to me over the years. i felt absolutely obligated to get something done and i'm very proud that we did. >> and mr. johnson, you've got 90 seconds. >> the health care bill was just incredibly expensive. and complicated overreach by the federal government. we didn't need a 2,600 page bill passed in the middle of the night to address the problems that do exist in our health care bill -- our health care industry. if you think about what are the primary problems, it's cost and access. you think about what the administration, senator feingold, said this bill would do, the first thing they said it would do is save every family $2,500 per year on their health insurance. well, the congressional budget office has the figures in. they estimate it will cost each family $2,100. and now families are starting to get those premium increases. they're seeing there was no cost control whatsoever. they said they would bend the cost curve down.

that didn't happen. in terms of accessibility, for -- the other guarantee they made if you like your health care plan, your private plan, you can keep it. well, their own agencies, health and human services and i.r.s., issued a report and said 51% of current plans will not be grandfathered. they will be put in the government exchanges. so that will be government controled, government regulated health care. so the -- it was a shame because i think we had a consensus to actually address the problems in our health care industry. and we could have done it with individual bills to address those problems. i would have started with tort reform. why wasn't that addressed? that could have saved $200 billion to $300 billion in junk lawsuits. and unnecessary deutsch medicine the doctors had to practice -- defensive medicine the doctors had to practice. >> a followup. >> i would like to follow up with mr. johnson. you have said that you favored repealing the law. and i want to ask again, does that not risk sort of doing away with the provisions like

the pre-existing condition or the medicare part d doughnut hole closing? for senator feingold, the followup is you argued for things like the public option and other ways that the bill could have gone further. do you think that there's still more to be done on the health care reform and what would those steps look like? >> do i start? >> you've got three minutes. >> again, the individual problems facing health care could have been addressed with individual bills. we didn't have to take $500 billion away from medicare. we didn't have to increase taxes $500 billion. we didn't have to put on 16,000 additional i.r.s. agents. what does that have to do with health care? we certainly didn't have to put in the provision, the 1099 provision that requires every small business person to put in a government form. submit a government form to their suppliers and to the i.r.s. every time they purchase more than $600 worth of supplies.

and senator feingold, there's an attempt to strip that out to repeal that. senator nine gold voted against that repeal. so this is a huge overreich, incredibly complex and designed -- overreach, incredibly complex and designed to be government run health care. barney frank said this is the path to single payer and senator feingold, that's what senator feingold wants, a single payer government run solution. >> i want what i voted for. i want this bill. because i think it's the right solution. yes, i would have preferred a public option. i think it would have made it even stronger. but mr. johnson says we shouldn't have patched individual bills to deal with all these problems. guess what? we tried to pass all these things individually. and the insurance companies killed every single one of them. we tried to have a patients' bill of rights for years. we had a huge effort, a bipartisan effort, the insurance companies killed it. we got it in this bill. they killed the ability of us to make sure that over one million wisconsinites are

protected from being denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition and let insurance companies completely prevent people from being able to have lifetime coverage because of lifetime limits. on their coverage. that was eliminated in this bill. the big thing you mentioned is we finally got that doughnut hole filled. we got seniors between $2,000 and $6,000 expenditures are getting no coverage for their prescription drugs. we tried to do that before, ron. couldn't do it. so the idea of doing it bill by bill, it ain't going to happen. it happened because we got together and did a package that really finally put us in control and took the insurance companies out of control. and i sure don't want to see that repealed. >> mr. johnson, anything to add? >> it will put the government in control. the government will get in control and get between the doctor and patient. it is a government takeover. when these plans go to the government exchanges, the government is going to totally regulate which insurance companies can even participate in that. and senator feingold, that's

exactly what you wanted. i am a little confused in terms of what you want because six years in a debate you said you want a 50 state solution like tommy thompson's welfare reform. a 50-state solution but what about single payer health care, you said i'm for it. always have been. >> this is of course a 50-state solution. these individual exchanges, ron, are separate state private insurance plans. this is not one national plan. and so that's exactly what we ended up doing. and it isn't in place yet. couldn't possibly know what the rates are going to be at this point because we haven't even gotten it into place yet. how could you know? a state-based system, private system but we will make sure the insurance companies don't run our lives. >> let's go to pam warnke, the next question. >> let's turn to the economy. senator feingold, some argue that the massive economic policies meant to improve the economy have done little to turn it around. how do you respond to concerns from voters that these policies aren't creating jobs or helping working families?

and mr. johnson, you say that most politicians have no experience creating jobs in the private sector. and you tout your business background and strong credentials in this race. why do you think your experience in business better quches you to craft job creating and economic policies than someone with a background in policy creation? after all the country is not a private business. and what kinds of policies will you support to help create jobs? >> we go first to mr. johnson and then senator feingold. >> i think first of all you have to understand where real jobs are created. real long-term self-sustaining jobs, and that's in the private sector. and of course i've been doing that nor 31 years. i've been producing products. and i've been creating real jobs for 31 years. i understand that. when they passed the stimulus bill, the assumption is government can actually provide long-term jobs. and it doesn't. and the fact of the matter is senator feingold cast the zithe vote for the failed stimulus -- the deciding vote for the failed stimulus package. three days before he cast that vote he issued a press slice

and said it would create 2.4 million jobs in the first year and nine million jobs after three years. obviously that doesn't -- hasn't come true. we are a year and a half into this. we should be up 4.5 million jobs and down 2.6 million jobs. it does require the knowledge and the experience of realizing how do you create a job? what are the incentives and disincentives? what effect do the rules and regulations and the taxes, the government imposes on the private sector, how does that impact business creation, job creation? i understand what that is. i think it's a different perspective. a perspective that's sorely lacking in washington. we have 57 lawyers in the senate. we have zero manufacturers. our country is facing some very serious fiscal issues in this country. i think a little accounting background, a little business perspective is long overdue. that's what i'm offering to wisconsin voters.

>> let's get away from attacking other people's jobs and career choice scomms talk about the question. the question is whether this recovery that we've been trying to do is worked at all. ron, your arguments about this that i've heard time and again were carefully evaluated in the milwaukee journal sentinel yesterday. they said you were completely wrong about your claim. that the recovery bill did nothing. is that something we should -- under this bill, we have seven times more road construction in the country than last year. anybody tried to get here tonight, you probably figured that out. that has a lot to do with it. we have 08,000 more weatherization of homes across this country. and i've been to the sites in ashland and stevens point where this is happening. and guess who is doing that work? it's not government employees, it's not i.r.s. agents, it's your local heating and cooling people and local construction people that are doing that work. but i am the first to admit that the recovery bill was an emergency and only a single

step. it was not meant to create permanent jobs. but it did in fact according to the c.b.o. create somewhere between 1.5 million and three million jobs. that's something i think you want us to have, not forgotten about. and the haier act on top of it provides jobs for people and companies who have been laid off for over 60 days. a company gets an exemption from their payroll tax for the rest of the year if they hire somebody. we have built these two and they are beginning to make a good difference. >> pam warnke, a followup. >> how seriously do you take climate change as it relates to the economy? will you push for the creation of green energy jobs and policies that embrace alternative energy? >> whichever one of you wants to go first. go first. >> i'm happy to go first. i simply don't believe that global warming is proven science. man made, man caused global warming. and as a result, the last thing we can do is penalize our economy, tax our economy, tax energy, up to $1 trillion.

incredibly devastating from the state of wisconsin and a bill that senator feingold for on the -- in the senate, similar to the house bill that would have increased the average cost of household energy. it could have cost wisconsin 40,000 to 60,000 jobs. on the basis of unproven science i wouldn't support cap-and-trade legislation. >> well, look, i do not substitute my judgment -- i wouldn't substitute my judgment on manufacturing for you. and i sure as heck wouldn't substitute my judgment for the vast majority of sign -- of scientists in the world who say that climate change is real and man has something to do with it. i respect those scientists. and i think they're right. i think we better do something about it. mr. johnson has said specifically that it would be a fool's errand to do anything about it. well, that's just ignoring our responsibility to our children and grandchildren. and to our old ability to have a planet that people can live on.

but ron, it's just not true that i voted for a cap-and-trade bill. when that house passed that bill, i said wait a minute. i don't want it to hurt the wisconsin economy. we have a more coal-based economy than other states. and that bill was cooked in favor of the nuclear industry. i let people know that i was not going to support it. i let the administration know. and i'm one of the reasons that that bill didn't get through. because i am very concerned that ratepayers in wisconsin and businesses in wisconsin do not get hurt by what we need to do to try to solve this problem. but just sticking our head in the stand and thinking that somehow this is caused by sun spots does not solve the problem. >> mr. johnson, do you have a response to that? >> well, senator feingold did vote for cloture on lieberman-warner bill which was a very bim to the house bill and would have had the same impact as the house bill. i think he did vote to move it forward. >> moving a bill forward so you can discuss it and debate it is part of the process.

i don't know, ron, if you want me to vote against debating bills. recently there was a financial regulation bill in the senate that you actually agree with my vote on that. and i voted to have us take it up. what are we going to do? never debate bills and i tried to amend it and the amendments were lousy. and i became the only democrat to vote not with the republicans because they want it to be even weaker but the only person to not vote for it because it didn't do the job. the notion that you could say that because i voted to debate a bill that somehow i was for the substance of the bill. i'm the strongest advocate to make sure this bill doesn't rip off wisconsin. i will always be. >> as detch stating as that -- as devastating as that would have been for wisconsin you shouldn't have allowed that thing to move forward. >> let's move on to eric. you have the next question. >> let's turn to social security. according to the congressional budget office, social security will be able to pay full benefits to every recipient until the year 2039. so there are concerns as more americans age and retire that

the money will run out. i believe there's also a resolution going through the house and senate right now that's called for no cuts to the program at all. my question fow is are changes needed -- my question to you is are changes needed and those that pay into the similar will see something when they retire? >> and we're going to start with mr. johnson and then senator feingold. excuse me. i'm mixed up here. it's senator feingold -- >> that's what i want but i wasn't going to argue with the moderator. >> we know how to do this. what you got to do and this is one. cases where you have to do this is take it out of the hands of the congress and create a commission which was done in the early 1980's, a bipartisan commission, that creates a package to create -- improve the solvency of the program and send it back to congress and not allow any amendments. that's what they did. and that's how we first got into the practice of raising up that fica level, the amount you

pay out for social security in your paycheck was way down around $60,000 and create add graduation in that that's helped keep the fund solvent to the date that you set. but it's not high enough and only goes no 1d06,000 and every county, says raise that fica limit way up and i would strongly propose that but we have to do it to get it through and have a commission to do it. what i will not tolerate is changing the program fundamentally. i strongly oppose any form of privatization of social security. i will oppose any attempt to have people's accounts whether they're already in social security or whether in the future to go to wall street where they can risk losing their social security which is fundamental for so many people's lives. mr. johnson has specifically said that as to people who are not yet in social security, everything's on the table. and that obviously includes some forms of privatization. i will fight that every inch of the way. >> mr. johnson, you got 90 seconds. >> i certainly recognize that promises have been made to

seniors. people that are currently retired, people that are about to retire. and our country has certainly every capability of honoring those promises and i'll be dedicated to honoring those promises. but the fiscal problems of social security, that we are facing in the future, they've been known for decades. certainly been known durk the 18 years of senator feingold has been there. and he's done nothing to fix social security. he uses it as a political weapon. he's very good at doing that. but he's never done anything to fix social security. instead, he's spent more money, he's incurred more debt, and just make it that much more difficult for us to fix the problem. during his tenure, $2.2 trillion have been paid into social security. the american people by & large thought that was being tucked away and not being touched. no, it's been spent. it was spent on other government programs. the money's gone. so certainly what i like to do is take my accounting background, my business background, and a dedication to actually go into washington and address this problem.

and make social security sustainable long term. and i will look at all the options. you have to have an open mind. you have to be flexible about this. the only two options i would take off the table is i would not agree to a job-killing payroll tax increase. and i would never force privatization on anybody. and continued to claim i would, i would not. i would not force privatization on anybody. >> and eric, you have a followup. >> i do. when we talk about social security naturally the next thing to come is medicare, medicaid. similar concerns about funding there as well. what do you see is the government's role in providing health care to the growing number of elderly as well as the needy and does the current system there need a change? >> first of all, with regard to social security, the notion that the fund is currently insolvent is absolutely false. as you said it goes until 2039. and it is simply a scare tactic to try to pretend that anything else is true. it is solvent. and actually, the medicare program, which i'm going to address now, is in more need. of getting reform in the near

term. that's exactly what the health care bill dolls. the bill that mr. johnson would repeal has its first act has been specifically analyzed to make sure that medicare is solvent for 12 more years. and we do that not by cutting medicare benefits. a mailer out that says we're cutting senior citizens. medicare guaranteed benefits, that's absolutely untrue. it doesn't do that. what it does do is cut $400 billion to $500 billion out of the program that actually goes to wasteful aspects of medicare advantage and to all kinds of waste, fraud and abuse. so if he has his way and repeals the bill, we'll eliminate the best step we've taken to make medicare solvent in the fult. we need to protect the medicare benefits for all seniors. i do not believe in cutting back on them. and the only way to do it is to be responsible and that's exactly what we did in the health care bill. >> we are in an open discussion period. mr. johnson. >> well, as of social security we do need to honor those promises and i'll be willing to

do that to those who retire and are retired. the unfunded liability of medicare and our three main entitlement programs is $76 trillion. our total u.s. asset basis is $72 trillion. it's a real problem. it needs to be addressed and needs to be addressed honestly. >> if i could just respond. >> well -- >> go ahead. >> i was going to say the way you don't address or try and fix medicare is create a whole new entitlement. add another entitlement as an unfunded liability. and take $500 billion away from medicare. it will -- 175,000 seniors in wisconsin that will not have their medicare advantage. they like that program. so this -- the new health care entitlement is really -- you can take a look at it as somewhat of a redistribution of health care from seniors to an entirely new group of people. that's a problem. that is not -- you don't fix one entitlement program by creating a whole new one that's going to be a huge budget buster. >> look at the exchange we just

had. this is my-minute about the whole -- my point about the whole difference between us. i offered a solution to social security, raising fica, and he rejected, no sthrution, just i'm not going to do that. on medicare i pointed out we had a specific thing in the health care bill that he wants to repeal. two areas that all the official estimates say are going to be -- make medicare solvent for the future, he doesn't have an answer or plan and just wants to say we have this debt and these problems but absolutely no idea what he would do about it. that's the easy way. that's the way you don't have to face criticism. but it's not the responsibility you need from a u.s. senator. >> i have a very specific proposal. we repeal the health care bill. that will save trillions. >> precisely. >> that will save trillions in unfunded liability, trillions in deficit spending over the next decade. and it will restore the $500 billion that's been taken away and taken out of the medicare program. >> and the insurance companies

-- >> that was the worst possible thing you could have done to try and preserve medicare. >> insurance companies will get their fair chunk of that back. you bet. >> let's go on to rob mentzer. you have the next question. >> mr. johnson, you have called -- a foundational book for you, the book paints an heroic portrait of a group of rich businessmen who leave society to escape from the poor who are basically portrayed as social parasites in the book. and rand also endorses selfishness as a virtue. a book by that title. what is it about her philosophy that smeels to you and what makes that a foundational book for you for? for senator feingold, the aspects of rand's thought that tends to appeal to conservatives and libertarian is her strong defense of individual liberty. and her opposition to any form of collectivism. so do you agree with the notion

that much social spending amounts to redistribution of wealth? >> mr. johnson, you have 90 seconds. >> first, i'll dispute your description of what is being talked about. the way i describe it is take a look at the title of the book. atlas -- alice shrugged. alice is the producers of the country and shrugged is overburdened with rules and taxes and they shrug or quit. they don't quit all at once. they quit one by one. what the book talks about in a fictionalized manner is what happens to society. when the producers of the society quit. again, because they've been so overburdened by rules and regulations and taxes. and it is a warning. it's a warning what could happen to america. and when you talk about -- when you hear people talking about a tipping point, that's what we're concerned about. that's what i'm concerned about. what's happening in this country.

where we have more people that are net beneficiaries of government than are actually paying into the system. that's a very serious thing to worry about. and that's why for my standpoint, atlas shrugged is a huge warning in terms of what we need to avoid in this country. >> senator feingold, you have 90 seconds. >> i believe in a community. i believe in the community of wisconsin. i give you credit for being consistent with that -- with "atlas shrugged." you believe the producers are a very special group of people. they're better than the rest of us. so if things aren't going their way, you take the position that people shouldn't have unemployment compensation. because your view has been that they don't want to work. you oppose minimum wage. you support trade agreements that ship tens of thousands of jobs of many of the people in this community overseas and say well, i'm a producer. so that's good. because it's creative destruction. it will all work out in the end. it might work out in the end for you. and other people who are very

well-to-do and fortunate. what about all the other people in the community? who are suffering? i don't think these people should ever be allowed to not work if they can't work. and i know people in wisconsin, they want to work. but these policies that you support are making it impossible for these hard-working wisconsinites to make a decent living. and i assume that makes them shrug as well. >> and rob mentzer, a followup. >> one part of this -- the discussion about sort of wealth redistribution is -- has to do with the progressive nature of the tax code. and this is -- part of the debate about for instance the bush tax cuts. set to expire which included larger tax reductions for those in the upper income brackets than those -- those in the middle class workers and others. so to get sort of specific on some of these ideas, does it make sense for the bush tax cuts to be extended even for the wealthiest individuals?

>>ness a free-form discussion period -- this is a free-form discussion period. >> i think we have to have common sense on this. because mr. johnson and i both have talked about the federal deficit. he calls it the tipping point. and i don't even disagree with that. so wait a minute. we're at a tipping point. can we really afford to make the federal deficit much larger right now? i think we have to figure out a common sense solution. and a common sense solution is to extend the tax cuts, middle class tax cuts, for working people and it even benefits wealthy people to some extent. but those tax cuts that are just for the very wealthy, we can't afford it. it's $700 million over the next 10 years. that's going to create a tipping point just by itself. so we have to come one a solution that makes sense and that is the right compromise at this point that i would support. 95% of all working families in america. there are tax cuts for businesses in the health care bill. and the act provides for some

$600 billion -- those tax cuts should be acknowledged as well. >> senator feingold continues to put words in my mouth, things i've never said. i'm not opposed to minimum wage or extension of unemployment benefits. the fact that we talk about that is exhibit one, how much the stimulus failed. and the last thing we should be doing is increasing taxes on anybody. in this weak recovery. and we -- when he talks about that top bracket, what he's talking about is $750,000 -- 750,000 businesses. 750,000 businesses that employ 25% of the total work forgs. -- total work force. those are the engines for economic growth. and i am all for the workers of wisconsin. that's a huge difference. i export product. i produce product. i export products for about 25 different countries.

one of our largest export markets is china. i've got faith in the workers of wisconsin. and faith in the workers of america that if we can get government out of the way, if we can make sure that the government creates an attractive environment for business creation and job creation, wisconsin workers, american workers, can compete with anybody in the world. we live in a global economy. it's not whether we choose to compete. we have to compete. i've got the faith in the wisconsin workers that we can compete because i do it every day. and i'm extremely supportive of the workers that work for me. and the workers of wisconsin. >> here's the difference again. he's only talking about 5% of all the businesses. 995% of the business would say not experience a tax increase if we didn't do the increase for the cuts for the very health wealthy. this is a big myth out there. how does it work that the only businesses are worthwhile? the only producers that are worthwhile are the ones that are very well-to-do. most of the jobs are created by people of average income. and modest income. they are the engine of the

economy of the state in this country. and they should not be disregarded in this way. >> we're going to move now to ma'am warnke -- to pam warnke. >> the united states foreign policy in the middle and near heast is taking a massive monetary and human toll. the war in afghanistan, now in its 10th year, and spilling over the borders to pakistan, the u.s. has 50,000 troops in iraq despite the end of combat in that country. what will bring about a successful conclusion to our military presence but also keep americans safe? >> senator feingold, then mr. johnson. >> we can't afford this unwise approach to those who attacked us on 9-11. and that's al qaeda. obviously the iraq war had essentially nothing to do with that and was incredibly expensive. the afghanistan war had to do with that and i supported it and now the leadership of al qaeda is not in afghanistan.

they are principally in places like pakistan and yemmen and somalia and other places. this is costing us $100 million a year. and if we -- we just can't snord it and also not the twhy get at the enemy. so i've taken the lead in the senate in saying why don't we have a timetable that the president would propose to gradually bring those troops out of afghanistan? i think he's beginning to look at that. 2010, goo

our website, c-span.org. welcome back. chris van hollen, head of the de triple c -- dccc. let me read this headline in "the philadelphia inquirer" --

these for donations are being used buy ads against democrats. as well, this allegation that there is no proof that foreign donors have been part of influencing this campaign. moveon.og put out and against mark kirk. do you tnk this is a good idea, what the white house is saying about the chamber? guest: there are a number of issues here. first of all, we should agree that these groups should disclose to their donors are. there was a piece of legislation called the disclose act. the chamber bitterly opposed it. it stood for the proposition of

that said people who are trying to influence campaigns, the voters have a right to know who is donating to a campaign. you should have nothing to fear telling voters who is behind these ads. with respect to the chamber, a couple of issues. they receive in their general fund contributions from foreign entities. if they can isolate and segregate those funds, then they can run these ads with those dollars, and that is legal. the point the white house is making is they are all going into one general fund. you can use that money to pay your staff, whic will then free up other monies to pay for this. host: so you are not ccerned at the white house is going too far with this? guest: no, it is important to remember the chamber bitterly opposed the idea that they would ve to disclose any of tir donors. let me just say, the disclose

act was supported by some of the ry partisan groups, the league of women voters, common cause, which has been for fair campaign finance reform, democracy 21. these are nonpartisan groups who stand up for the public interest. we believe it is in the public's interest to know who is spending all this money, because they are spending it for a purpose. this is n charity. these groups are trying to buy a congress that serves their interests. in addition to the disclose act, the chamber opposed our legislation to remove the subsidy is thareward multinational corporations that outsource american jobs. that may he been a good subsidy for multinational corporations, but not for american taxpayers, american workers, the vast majority o american businesses.

host: let's stick with this allegation. ed gillespie writes this morning in "the washington post" op-ed pages -- is this just a mter of republican beating you at the game when it comes to some money? guest: no, and everyone should know that he is the former chairman of the republican national committee. he has been raising money for some of these groups thatre spending lots of money here. the fact is, the monies that

were spent in 2008, a vast majority of that was disclosed. they were disclosed der the rules we chose to operate under. what we are talking about here is a massive amounts of secret money. i think all groups should disclose, left, right, or metal. that is the fundameal issue. -- or middle. it should apply across the board. we should remember, this chamber opposed the disclose pact because they did notant voters to know who was funding these things. if you are a boater, looking at a tv ad -- let us say it is speaking against health care reform -- if it is funded by health insurance companies, you will have a certain impression.

host: in this article, it says that you tried to jam through this bill, but you carefully adjusted the labor threshold's to benefit labor unions. guest: that is false. if you look at the bill, the same rules apply across the board. labor unions would have to comply, and they should, and will comply once the bill is signed. once again, he tries to portray this as a partisan thing. i would ask fair minded people, is the league of women voters a partisan organization? common cause? i have supported disclosure in all forms in the past. i believe it is intriguein the t

of voters to have that information. ironically, the position the republicans have taken to campaign finance reform is, they do not like any limits on what people can give, but they have already it -- always said, let's disclosed. let's disclose. maybe they can present a bill. that is the question here. there is this very toxic nexus between the interests that are running these ads, special interests that have been fighting an agenda that, for example, would have stopped the outsourcing of american jobs, begin to rein in wall street. these companies have been hurt in the past due months, and now they are spending millions of

dollars to try to elect republican candidates who will serve their interest, at the expense of everyone else. host: inside the newspaper this morning -- inside the "the new york times" -- can democrats win these races? guest: yes, they can, and it is a good question in the context of the conversation we are having. what is ppening in these races are, these groups with a nice sounding names, all these groups are parachuting in and unloading millions of dollars of secret money into these elections. they do not have the interest of

the community at heart, i can assure you that. their focus is trying to get elected people who will support their agenda. the more we find out about these donors, the more it is clear, an agenda that suppos big wall street banks, mortgage companies, oil companies. host: can we expect more money from the dccc to be coming in in the next couple of weeks? guest: we will be helping anyone that need support. host: there was a guest -- there was a story yesterday in "the new york times" about mary kilroy looking vulnerable. will you put more money into this race? guest: we have already invested

a lot of money into that race. we have a full bore effort the. we have been supporting her fully. every day, she is getting more money through the state coordinated effort, which is ongoing. host: first phone call for mr. van hollen. larry on the independent line. caller: your guest keeps talking about people putting money into the elections, but i do not hear him complaining about the union's donating to the democratic party. guest: as i was saying, i believe the principle of disclosure should apply across the board, regardless of what organization you are talking about. when the unions, indivuals, or anyone else into bits to

candidates, campaigns, number one, therere limits on what they can contribute. and it is totally transparent and disclosed. what we are talking about here are these groups who are secretly funding all sorts of campaigns. they go into a particular district and spend millions of dollars without telling the voters who they are. i would agree with you entirely, whether it is a unit organization, one of these other groups, they should disclose. the fact is, you have millions of special interest money going into support republican candidates. what we are saying is, you can spend the money. and that is not the argument. but for goodness sakes, tell the voters who y are. why won't you tell them who is funding these republican candidates? host: don in minnesota --

sarasota, florida. caller: is a delight to get through. it is a delight to speak to this gentleman. i have seen him on some talk shows and he is heading of the campaign. i think wha i have to say is the essence of the president's, democrat's problem. this president, and his team specifically, the dnc, in general, have failed miserably, in my opinion, to communicate what they have don but their agenda has been, what it will be coming in clear and simple terms. nobody out here understands what

is in t health care bill, and there are some very positive accomplishments in there for american citizens. while the stimulu was helpful, you have allowed the republicans -- as a john kerry allowed himself to be swift voted -- you have allowed the republicans to frame the argument and defined. this happened last year when the public thought that there were death panels. guest: obviously, there are different views on how to best communicate a message. i think what the president is doing now is right. drawing clear choices that people face in the eleion. as he said, the choice is simple. do you want to continue with the progress we are making on the economy, recognizing the day that the president was sworn in and we are losing 700,000 jobs a month?

we have now seen nine consecutive months of positive b growth. are we where we want to be? of course not. no one is satisfied with pace, but why would we want to go back to a set of policies that serve special interest at the expense of everyone else, and drove the economy into a ditch? i agree, when it comes to things like health care reform, we need to focus on the specific, positive ements of the bill. a lot of it has been lost in the discussion. for example, as a result of the bill,oday, children with diabetes, other pre-existing conditions, can no longer be discriminated against by their insurance company because of that condition. today, people can no longer be kicked off of their insurance policies after they have been

paying their premiums month after month when they need it the most. i agree, we need to do a better job getting that message out. wall street reform, as the president made clear -- president bush and secretary paulson put into place the t.a.r.p. program. we ended the program. we also made it clear that taxpayers would not be left holding the bag for reckless gambling on wall street. the american consumer should not be held hostage to bad decisions made on wall street. we have closed many of the loopholes that awarded multational corporations to ship jobs outside of the country. on a focused very hard make it in america agenda, where we invest at home in a clean

energy infrastructure, so that we can build things here. the president has also pointed out, what the republicans have proposed, is nothing more than a rehash of the policies that favor the special interest. they have a provision that would add $700 billion to our deficit, put it on our credit card, to be paid for by everyone else. it would put us further into debt with countries like china. that is wrong. know it did not help produce jobs. after the eight years of the bush administration, we actually lost millions of jobs. i think the president is framing the choice clearly. fore you rush out to the poll,

stop, take a close look at what the democratic and it stands for, and what the republican candidate stands for, and make that choice. host: "the wall street journal" this morning has a sidebar story -- the dccc had not given as much money to that race, not because of a lack of a doozy of for her, but this is a tight race. if you were to give her more money, would that put her over the top? guest: first of all, stephanie has been a wonderful governor for the people of north dakota. she had done a wonderful job contrasting the issues between her and her opponent. she is in a strong position now. the dccc has supported the

campaign and is continuing. host: but if you gave her more money -- guest: we think she is in good shape. she continues to receive resources from day dccc. host: next phone call. go ahead. caller: i work in asia about nine months a year. i hear these guys talking about wanting china to allow the renminbi to apprecie. basically, we are saying, we do not want to pay $5 for a product, we want to pay you $10. the products that we buy from china today we cannot make in this country. those jobs are never coming back. nixon, kissinger, when they opened up china, they knew that

we could not keep on polluting our country making those products. the great lakes were on fire. we could not keep destroying our country. those jobs will never come back. when i hear this, it upsets me because i know that i am paying more for those products. what we need to do is find out what china needs, and that is food. guest: of coue, we should export more chinese goods to china. and as you know, they have a lot of barriers to ir trade. one of the things we are focused on is creating an equal playing field for american manufacturers and businesses. i think it is clear, when the chinese manipulate their currency, it puts american products at a competitive disadvantage coming here in the u.s. and in export markets

around the world. i think you now see the international community coming together in consensus, that what the chinese have done is distorting the international marketplace. all we are asking for is an even playing field, a fair shake, for american workers and jobs. when china manipulates its currency, it makes it more difficult for us to compete. the united states can compete with anybody, always has, always will, i y have a fair and even playing field. but distorting currency, by definition, tilt's that field against american workers. that is why we pushed legislation through the house to try to correct that issue. we were disappointed republican leadership opposed our efforts to oppose -- create that playing field.

host: texas. julianne on the independent line. caller: i was calling in to talk about disclosing this foreign money for collections. how can this president say that, when he will not even disclose his own birth certificate, showing he is a u.s. citizen? he will not do that. as far as republicans, sending all them jobs overseas, this democratic party wants illegals to come over here to work cheaper. that is all there is to it. guest: with all due respect, sir, that is nonsense. this president has reinforced border security. in fact, in the last few months, congress passed legislation to increase our resources for border security. the president supported that

bill, encouraged that bill, and signed that bill. you're questioning the president's birth in the united states is just an indication that there are some individuals that can not face reality. it is unfortunate that in this country we are having that kind of debate when we have so many issues at stake. host: shelbyville, indiana. mary. independent line. caller: my husband and i have a small business. i want you to know that this president's policies, y'all's policies have all of our customers completely frozen. they are not expanding, they are not buying our product. the president of the united states calls the u.s. bankers fat cats. this administration promotes the

worst business policies that i have ever seen in my life. guest: the fact of the matter is, in the last 20 months, this administration, congress, has enacted a whole series of tax cuts for small businesses. small businesses have much lower tax liability today than they did 20 months ago as a result of this series of these actions. we also just past the small business lending and the jobs bill. that legislation provided additional resources to community banks, with a caveat, the direction that they have to get that money out the door for small businesses that are creditrthy. that bill was held up for months and nths in the senate.

republicans blocked it until one republican, a retired member of the sene, said, let's stop playing politics with this legislation and get it passed. and as a result, a few weeks ago, the president signed legislation that would increase access to credit for small businesses, and which provides more incentives for small businesses to invest. under the bill, those who invest in the nex18 months will get a significant write-off in terms of their capital gains. the president has taken a number of important measures to try to get small businesses back on their feet, make sure they have the support they need to support the jobs we need in this economy. host: a democrat of oregon, a longtime member of the hill,

said in an interview that he may vote for someone other than nancy pelosi for speaker if the party keeps a narrow majority in the house. he said, any time you suffer losses in politics, you need to step back and ask, do we need to make any changes? should democrats do what others are doing in politics, others in business, look at who their leader is? guest: the elections take place three weeks from today. we will be talking to the american people about the issues they care about, discussing the main issues between the democratic and republican candidates. the democratic caucus is a big tent. we have a diverse set of views. in fact, that is something that distinguishes ourselves from the republican party, who has a very

narrow band of ideological purity. that is why you see what that is happening in delaware. we have a diversity of the views, but there is a lot more that unites us than separates us. one thing that unites as is focusing on making sure that everyone in the country has an opportunity to succeed. that is why we want an even playing field in terms of chinese currencies. with wall street, we do not believe workers across the country should be held htage to bad decisions. the president has not said the bankers are fat cats. what he said are there are some major banks onall street, insurance companies, like a.i.g., that made terrible and reckless decisions, but because they were so large, eveone

else was hit by the fallout of their collapse. we are not going to allow that to happen again. we are not going to allow those institutions to blow up a big bubble that profited them, and then the burst hurting everyone else. those are the kinds of issues that have united the democrats. that is why you see these special interests fighting back because they do not like the steps of the steps that we have taken back to phone calls, paul in -- host: back to phone calls, paul in cleveland. caller: 1 caller has said that they do not explain what the democratic party does for people like me. i'm 75 years oldnd a retiree. this is the first year that i did not have to pay federal

income tax. i am on the board which is listed as poverty wages. 31,000 per year -- $31,000 per ar, my wife and i live off of that. and this is the first democrat that we have had in ohio for a long time. he has lowered our senior citizens real-estate taxes 25%. if you people should have people like us standing by you and explain to the public what you have done. bear with me -- host: i think we got your point. so thawe can get some more voices in your, we will move on. thanks. guest: i think your caller raises a good point to and there's a lot of misinformation out there. one of them deals with the fact of taxes. taxes have been reduced since

this president has been in office, on small businesses and on individuals. in fact, about one-third of the recovery bill was providing tax relief to 95% of working americans. we have had a series of small business tax cuts. what republicans are proposing is to hold a tax relief for 98% of american people hostage until they can get tax breaks for the top 2%, even though that will add $700 billion to the deficit. it is interesting that one of the callers prada up spaull businesses. we should not hurt small businesses. we need to support small businesses. only 2% of small businesses would be affected by the proposal. when you look at that definition, it turns out that the republican definition of

small businesses includes a bid to -- big washington firms, hedge funds. that, at the end of the day, is who they are trying to help, as opposed to our tax measures, which are trying to help middle- class americans. host: how you respond to the washington journal editori this morning saying that defense spending rose by 4.7% to 600 texting $6 billion -- $687 billion.

guest: what you have are two things going on. number one, you have the recovery bill, which is still helping generate economic activity. and if you were to cancel the recovery bill right now, as some have proposed, you would immediately cancel about 60,000 contracts and awards. i want to be car, this is money heading to small businesses, having to economic development recovery efforts around the country. if you want a sure-fire way to get people out of work, if you cancel those contracts. if you want to send uncertainty as the message to the economy, that does -- that is what you do. the other thing is the unemployment compensation. the fact of the matter is, this is for people out of work. it makes no sense to someone who lost their jobs through no fault of their own and can no longer make their rent payment that we

are going to just say, see you later. that is not just that individual -- bad for that individual and the economy, it is bad for their landlord if they cannot get their rent and it has a ripple effect throughout the economy. yes, we believe that people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own and are continuing to look for employment, which is a requirement of unemployment compensation, should continue -- to receive that. it has been suggested that people on unemployment, that they like it. that is insulting host: -- that is insulting. host: but that does not argue with the fact that total spending is up in the last couple of years. guest: the big things are small social security and medicare. -- our social security and

medicare. we have begun to curb the curve when it comes to health care spending. which is why the congressional budget office has -- the congressional health care office has an act of a plan that would reduce spending in the next couple of yearsecause we do need to get a handle on those costs. that is also why we have enacted the pay-as-you-go legislation. it says the government has to do what families have to do. you have to increase the -- increased income or cut spending elsewhere. it is unfortunate that our republican colleagues opposed it. it was in place during the clinton years and helped to put the brakes on spending, which is why when clinton left office we had a huge projected surplus in this country. finally, the president has set up the deficit reduction -- the

deficit and debt reduction commission, which i would point out is a piece of bipartisan legislation that had been supported by republicans and democrats. of course, when it came to vote on it, a number of republican senators who have their names on the bill voted against it, which means the president had to create the commission as a matter of executive order, rather than a matter of law. host: next call, good morning. caller: good morning. mr. van hollen, did you pass bills that were never read and did manteca locy not to say that we have to pass this to see what is in it -- ended nancy pelosi not say that we have to pass this to see what is in it? host: that has been pointed out quite frequently. guest: we have to read the legislation to vote on the legislation.

much has been made of this in the context of the health care reform bill. the health care reform bill has -- was considered for a long time -- as you know, we had a big debate in this country. members of congress read the bill, and they should read the bill. this notion that somehow republicans want to read the bill and democrats don't is just on its face ridiculous. everybody needs to familiarize themselves with what is in the bill. do their homework -- that is the responsibility of a member of congress before he or she votes on these measures. the fact of the matter is, there has been a lot more transparency with regard to the process over the last 20 months than before. and we can talk about many of the reform measures thatere taken, including on things like your marks where it looks like -- like earmarks where it looks

like republicans were born to do a lot to change the earmark process, but now it is nowhere to be found in their so-called pledge. because it is pretty clear from the last time they are in charge, there's a lot of pressure from their members to go back to that. we made significant reforms to that process, reduced dramatically the spending through that process. it appears that they want to unleash it again. host: margaret in florida, independent line. hello. caller: i do agree about the disclosure of donations, but what i'm more concerned about is the electronic voting machines. i'm referring to an editorial in a local newspap a few months back. it brought to light the recent merger of ef &f, the dominant

voting machine provider. it raises arm when one country -- one company has so much control over the equipment for the democratic process. senator schuler has called for a review of the merger. i do not like one company making the voting machines. it opens everything up to fraud. i'm wondering what has been done about this. guest: thank you for your question. you are right, we need to protect the integrity of the voting process. everybody has a stake in this, regardless of their political persuasion. we need to do everything we can to encourage that. i have supported lislation

that would make sure that we have a verifiable paper ballot where you have electronic voting. what we need to do is make sure that every state has in place a system that adequately reflects the people. and we will continue to support the efforts. obviously, there are concerns when you have a monopoly of voting machines, but i think we have to remain vigilant. very vigilant oversight is required in this area and we make changes and i think we should make them nationally with respect to a verifiable paper ballot. set host: antonio, texas, gilbert -- host: san antonio, texas, gilbert. caller: most of the time when i watch c-span or the media, all

you see is the republican point of view and they are trashing democrats. but i want everybody to know that not everyone in texas is just republicans. i agree that the voting machines are improper. we expect to have long lines in african-american communities throughout the nation because we feel like they're always trying to attack our votes. guest: you have a great candidate for goverr, bill white, in texas. with respect to the voting process, there were many components, we were just talking about the integrity of the voting machines. you raisanother issue -- making sure that there are enou machines or the voting places are accessible so that you do not have long lines of voters. obviously, when you have to wait in line for hours and hours and

you are rushing back to or from work, it makes it harder. it discourages people from voting. and we need to make sure that there is a process. ny states have moved to systems where y are allowed early voting. i think that is a good idea. many states are moving more toward abstee ballots, where they also -- also protect the integrity of the process but allow voters to vote on their own time. host: oklahoma city, steve, independent line, go ahead. , caller: losman, thanks so much for your great work. and you have done great things for -- congressman, thanks so much for your eat work. you have done great things for the country. i wish the president would take advantage of the power that he has to reach the people and get out there and quit trying to play the middle ground and call

them out for a they stood on bankruptcy laws, minimum-wage, as chip program, polluting the environment -- the schip program, polluting the environment. there are terrible for the country. guest: i think the president is doing a very good job about framing the issues in this election. he is obviously going a across the country to talk about issues that are important to people. it goes back to how we started this discussion this morning about all of these secret, special interest groups that are dumping millions of dollars into these campaigns. as the president pointed out, they have an agenda, these groups. for the last 20 months we have reined in a lot of these special interests and what they are trying to do is to elect members of congress who will support their agenda at the expense of other people. there are 60 + organizations that we now know are funded by

the insurance industry, obviously, upset that heth care reform passed, endicott in support of the republican budget that -- and in support of the republican budget that was voted on last year. they want to privatize it and turn it into a voucher program and eliminate the guaranteed benefits. all of these companiestand to make tens of millions of dollars if candidates who support those views are elected. these are the kinds of issues that the president is talking about and it is important. we just hope people will be listening. host: would you like to see more help from democratic outside groups in this election? guest: we would help -- welcome help from groups, but every group should discloseheir donors. that should be to protect the democratic process and to let

the voters know so they can judge. the voters are the best judge of whether or not the people who are spending all of this money of the voters' interests at heart or whether they have is special interest agenda. and the reason they are not telling you was spending the money is because they know that, they know that if the voter has that information it will undermine the credibility of the ad. host: 1 donor to democratic causes in the past was george soros. he was quoted in the "new york times" in their view that he sees an avalanche coming and that is what he is not proceeding in the this race. he thinks republicans will take hours. guest: i think voters will look before they leap and they will see that a lot of these republican candidates do support a special interest agenda. a double continue to allow multinational corporations --

that will continue to allow multinational corporations to get the jobs. wall street does want to turn back the clock. they spent a lot of money on lobbyists. george soros, richard b. pointed out, always disclose -- it should be pointed out always disclosed his volvement. host: where you headed in the next week and in the coming days? would you be going too specific districts and where? guest: i will be spending time in my own congressional district. i am one of the fortunate members of congress that gets to go home every day since i live in maryland. i will be going to an event in chicago where the first lady will make an appearance to support a number of our candidates there. and i will be looking at the schedule elsewhere to see where

else it makes sense to go. but again, my advice to every member of congress is to make sure that you have the time to spend with your constituents and talk about their >> on this morning's "wall street journal," microle hirsch joins us. his recent book is capital offense. after that, steve bartlett, president of the financial services round table. he'll talk about housing foreclosures. later, campaign reporter shane d' aprile. and the obama administration announced it will lift the moratorium on deep water drilling. later in the day, the national commission on the b.p. deep water spill will meet. live coverage begins at 1:00

p.m. eastern. law candidates are campaigning for votes. swournl reporting that republicans and democrats are pouring money and political muscle into races in about 16 states. keith johnson joins us. what's happening? >> this is one of the things that is a little bit off the radar i guess for the people who are watching sort of you know who is going to win control of the house on november 2 and who is going to be the next speaker. little off the rad ar fhe people watching, sort of who is going to win control of the house on november 2nd and who is going to be the next speaker? this is the battleground for the -- both political parties and especially for hard-core political operatives because he who controls the state house, then controls the process to draw up the new maps of congressional seats for the 2012

election. depending on how it is done, it could make a big difference for years to come. >> what organizations are making the contributions and how much are they spending? >> in all, it is about $200 million that we have been able to track down. that's almost exactly split between republicans, spending and democratic spending. it varies, you got the republican governor's association spending money, the democratic governor's association spending money. both have an organization which is dedicated specifically to channeling resources and cash and expertise in to local races, you know, unions are weighing in on -- on the side of many democratic candidates in many states, business interests on the other side. it is pretty much across the board. it is a lot of money, a lot of foot soldiers and a lot of political muscle. >> you write in fact that the fight is reaching a fever pitch at the governor's mansion. why is that? >> we got 37 different

governorships that are up for election this year, that's the that on the one hand and the other reason that the governorship is important is that in many states, not all, but in many states, the way the laws work, the state house -- the -- the local house and senate can draw up a redistricting plan butt governor hat final say. >> in the future both parties talk about maybe 25 seats that could be decisively effected, maybe for the next decade. it just -- it depends on who wins where, who has control over redistricting, how it is carried out, what kind of court k458ance -- challenge happen. but the point is, you could very easily with a -- a slash of the pen, you could create a district

which is safer for your party, which increases your probability of winning it or keeping it, which means that you have to put fewer resores into that, in the next cycle, which means you could put more resources in closer races. there's 20 or so seats that are potentially the jackpot. >> you're saying this could affect the redistricting effort. what does all of this spending, what effect does it have on the mid term races? >> these are state house races that we're actually talking about. these are things like state assemblies, there's about 7,000 of races at the state level. this is the state housing, the state senate and then of course the governor's races as well. this is not for the -- for the sitting congressmen, you know, in wisconsin for instance, there's 99 assembly men which is the lower house in madison and the capital, you know, there's

99 assemblymen and both democratic and republican operatives see about 20 different seats in play, and so they're pouring money into those races to different degrees. >> keith johnson >> with elections three weeks away. we'll be having debates every night on c-span. republican christine o'donnell faces democrat chris kunz. thursday, we'll go to las vegas for a debate between nevada's senator and majority leader harry reid. he is in a close race with sharon angle who is supported by the tea party. our live coverage begins at 9:00 p.m. eastern. now a u.s. house debate between georgia democratic congressman

jim marshall and republican challenger austin scott in the eighth congressional district. the debate took place on sunday at the atlanta press club and was moderated by frank balloy. the vase rated a toss up. before this debate, we traveled to geese eighth district, which is south of atlanta. >> these vans are traveling the country as we look at some of the most closely contested house races leading up to the mid-term elections. >> how are you? >> good to see you. >> good to see you.

she might get some of them and allow them to vote on some individual items but until then, they are delivering each and every vote to her that she needs to pass for the obama/pelosi agenda. >> i don't think they are realistic about debt and the country's -- what our obligation is not to pass crushing debt to the next generation, so i voted against these budgets but i did think that the fiscal stimulus was appropriate. i didn't agree with some of what was in it but you hardly ever get exactly what you want in washington. >> the race between the incumbent democrat, four-term democrat, jim marshall against austin scott, a state representative from georgia,

through some rural areas in the south atlanta suburbs and the metropolitan area in the congressional district is macon county. the district is a republican-leaning district. john mccain picked up 67% of the vote in the district here in 2008 so this is a district that john mccain won. if you look at the numbers about one in four mccain voters actually vote for marshall in that race. marshall tends to run to right of those democrats. while he is a reliable democrat inside the caucus votes, he is not terribly reliable when it comes to things like health insurance. he is not terribly popular with liberals but he has maintained a very strong connection to people in the middle. perhaps it is best -- there are two really good -- in this district. one is that he has tied himself very closely with the air force

base future. he spent a lot of time with the committee that worked to keep the base open. they were successful and in fact, they expand sod there are a lot of folks at the base who see jim marshall as having worked very hard on their behalf. you want to see things come back to the distribute. a lot of work is bringing things back to the district, particularly in rural communities so i think if you talk to a lot of county commissioners, they will say i don't necessarily like the fact that he is a democrat, but he works very hard for distribute and has worked very hard for that reputation. austin scott is about 20 years younger than jim marshall. he is a state representative. austin scott has been in the general assembly i think for three terms now. he exudes a lot of confidence and youth. he started outrun r governor.

there is a crowded republican field in goffer so when it looked like marshall might be somewhat vulnerable he changed to the senate race and is doing quite well. he has a lot enthusiasm and projects a you feel vibe. -- youthful vibe. both are committed to reducing the federal deficit. jim marshall sl the chair of the balanced -- for the balanced budget amendment. they talked about the service and doing a good job of it. i think the major issue is going to become that jim marshall is a democrat. that may be enough to be a winning race for austin scott. i do think money is about to start falling into this race. i think republicans are looking at this race as a race that

could provide the tipping point for control. i think this race is becoming more and more favorable particularly because there is a base -- what the republicans' task is to do in this district is to convince republicans, not democrats, that they want to vote for republican accounts, not vote for marshall. i have several republican friend who is tell me they don't vote for democrats ever, except for jim marshall. >> c-span's local content vehicles are traveling the country as we look at some of the most closely contested house races leading up to november's mid-term elections. for more information on what the local content vehicles are up to this election season, visit our website c-span.org/lcv. the 2010 atlanta press club debates brought to you live.

originating from the studios of g.p.b.. this is the debate between the candidates in georgia's eighth congressional district. it is located in middle and south georgia. it includes all or portion of 21 counties, some of the largest cities in district include macon, dublin. let's meet the accounts, they are in alphabetical order, jim marshall serving his fourth term and austin scott the republican nominee owns an independent insurance brokerage. first round, the accounts will each answer a question -- candidates will each answer a question and then the second round they will each ask a

question of their opponent and there will be an opportunity for r rebuttal and then they will continue questioning the candidate. finally each candidate will have 30 seconds to make a closing statement. before we get started we would like to meet our three panelists. josephine bennett, next we have andre jackson, editorial editor for r the atlanta constitution and the editor for georgian trend magazine. the candidates will be asked a question by one of our panelists and they will have 60 seconds to josephine, you will ask the first question of mr. scott. your say you would have voted against the so-called stimulus package. yet georgia has received $6.3 billion. would people here be better off

had they not received that money? >> i believe we would have done better not to have stheaveed stimulus money because over the debt that was put on the back of our children. the $783 billion that has to be paid by the american working people. >> andre jackson is next up. he will ask the question of jim marshall. >> representative marshall, in this election, what distinction should voters see between fiscally conservative democrats and the republicans? >> i take issues one at a time and try to do what's best for my country and the folks that i represent and i will continue to do that. i think people know that of me now. they know i'm a conservative democrat who tries to refleshts the values -- reflect the values they represent and their interests. i think that is the choice to make, whether or not to retain me in office. i'm honest.

i tell truth when i talk with people and i think that is probably what they will make their decisions based on. >> that will conclude round one. it is now time for the candidates to question each other. 30 seconds for the question. 60 seconds for answer and 30 seconds for a rebuttal, if needed. mr. scott, start your question for mr. marshall. >> you claim to be a fiscal conservative yet you voted for barack obama's stimulus bill and spending nearly $2 billion of the bill to create jobs in china and sending millions of payments to inmates and dead people. did you not read the bill or did you read it and see this waste and not care to stop it? >> the stimulus bill has been looked at real hard by different economists. one of them was mark zandi, john mccain's economist. they published something that is called how the great recession

was brought to an end in july 2010. i'm happy to provide you with a copy. it is easy to find. basically had we done nothing at all, we would be in the second great depression. our g.d.p. would be 11.5% already and our employment would be 8.5 million less and we would be experiencing a budget deficit of $2 trillion this year and next year $2.2 trillion and after that 2.5 trillion. it is responsible for 3.4% of the improvement, 2.7 million jobs. now recently zandi has come out and said we ought not to extend the bush tax cuts at 250,000 dollars. the same fellow. he said that would cost us

770,000 jobs. >> scott, you 30 seconds. >> you voted for the $800 billion stimulus and the $700 billion wall street bailout and 87% of the spending bills that have become law. you voted to raise the debt to $14 trillion and the fact is you're simply not being honest when you say you're for a balanced budget when you look at the georgia voters and tell them that on the tv. >> all right, mr. marshall, it is now your turn to ask a question of austin scott. >> you voted against a law against people who are legally here trying to transfer money out of the country. you said you believed immigration reform, and i think this is a quote, should be about protecting americans, not punishing individuals. could you explain what you mean before that? >> i read the bills before we

vote on them. if you had taken the opportunity to read that bill, you would have seen all the exemmingses in that wire transfer. it did not make sense to make western union the enforcer of what congress is trying do. it is you and theos up there this washington that have failed to secure the border and address the issue of immigration reform and quite honestly, if you want to know why we have the problem of immigration, it is in washington, d.c., congressman and some of you are going to have to be replaced before we get that issue addressed. >> real quickly, i would like you the answer my question. your quote was should be about protecting america and not punishing individuals. when you commented before, you said that we shouldn't be punishing these people, hurting these people. they are just poor folks trying to help their families le could you tell us what you mean when

you say we shouldn't be focused on individual? >> that debate is very public and you have access to the transcript of it and you know that in that debate, said that congress had failed to secure the border and we needed to put an end -- and we need people in washington, d.c. to pay more than lip service to immigration reform, which is all that you have done. >> we're going to move on. that concludes our second routine rourned. this is the debate -- the candidate will be allowed 60 seconds to respond. as moderator, i will then determine if a rebuttal is necessary. we begin this round of questioning can susan. susan? >> my question is for mr. scott. i'm wondering what you would have done differently from mr. marshall during the last two

years had you been in office. if there were any specific bills you would have voted against or points of agreement that you have with him? >> first and foremost, i never would have voted for nancy pelosi to be speaker of the house of representatives. i think that is the one thing you can start with then. if she had not been spoker of the house i think you would have had open and honest dialogue. he co-sponsored a bill for card check. he voted to raise the national debt to $14 trillion. i have an 11-year-old son. for my generation and wells we're going to have to pay that money back. there were many issues i would have voted quite differently on. >> i'm sure there are many differences between us. i try and take each vote as they come without regard to party

interests and try to figure out what is best for the country and in essence that is the way i vote and the way i have voted for a long time. i can talk about specific votes if you want to but basically that is how i do it. >> the next question will come from josephine. >> you have been generally supportive of a strong defense. would you consider defense cuts in order to reduce the budget and the deficit and how do you do that and protect the air force base at the same time? >> there are efficiencies we can introduce where the defense department is concerned and we're working on that. the defense department is very cost conscious now? but we're in two wars so this would be the wrong time to discuss cutting the budget. hopefully iraq is winding down. we're still having action in afghanistan. i think people demand that we spend more money on our security overall. i think rob since well poised for the future.

i think it is incredibly important to our national defense and i think the best thing we can do is get health care reform correct and that would reduce our federal debt. in the long run we're going to have to tighten our belts across a whole range of different subjects. >> our next question will come from andre jackson. >> mr. scott, which would be in your opinion, the largest burden on the u.s. economy, maintaining the status quo or immigration or paying for an arizona-style immigration reform that groups like to georgia municipal association say will cost up to $45 a day per inmate for each person who is arrested on immigration offenses. >> clearly maintaining the status quo is the greatest threat to our economy. what congress has done is ridiculous. they have not secured the border and they have not protecting the integrity of our laws or our

lands. i think the status quo is the worst possible thing that we can do with regard to immigration. >> susan, you are up next with our next question. >> i would like to ask mr. marshall, having to do with immigration, is there any legislation you would support that might include a path to citizenship for individuals who are already in the united states? >> no, i have a piece of legislation which does none of that. what it does is dramatically enhance our electronic employment verification process. it increases very dramatically penalties on employers, both civil and criminal, that employers who fail to use the process would suffer and then it gets rid of what is referred to it is a subcontractor exemption. i frankly think problem we have here is people come for jobs.

that's principle reason they come. if we can cut off the jobs, that is the most cost effective way for us to stop the flow of illegal immigrants coming into the country. i have voted for every piece of legislation that will improve our defense along the border, electronic, increasing border patrol and funding for i.c.e., etc. i think the best way to deal with this problem is to go ahead and stop the jobs. >> josephine will ask our next question. >> mr. scott, if you had just one specific legislative goal you were able to achieve in congress, one that differentiates you from your opponents what would that be? >> if i could only write one piece of legislation, it would be the first time that you failed a drug test would be the last time that you received an unemployment check. >> all right. straight to the point. >> andre jackson.

your turn to ask the next question. >> representative marshall. what should congress do, the federal level in general, what needs to be done further to help resolve georgia's water woes? >> the federal government i'm afraid is going to have a role to play in this because the three states that are in dispute can't seem to get together. i have told my colleagues in florida and alabama. i didn't ask them. i told them they were not going to cut off georgia's water supply, atlanta's water fly flie supply where the cat hoochi is concerned. it is going to occur. the question is going to wind up being in the details. what i'm hope sfl that the governors that have been working on it, they can get together and resolve this.

there is a deadline looming. if the governors can't make progress, this is up to the delegation. getting something done is going to be challenging, but one thing for sure, we're not going to cut off atlanta's water. nobody is going to vote to do that. >> our next question comes from susan. >> mr. scott, i would like to ask you a question about immigration, assuming that no legislation passed offered a path to citizenship, how would you propose to deal with the 10 million or 12 million undocumented or illegal workers who are here now? >> yes, ma'am, i think we just have to return them to their homeland just as the way we do now that we're able to catch. we're going to have to step up the number of people and resources in those areas.

>> mr. marshall, you voted against health care bill. if you could write your own health care bill, what provisions would be in it and why? >> what i would do is start where we are and gradually migrate towards a system that has a real functioning markets. we don't have one in our current health care scheme because of what is reffed to it is a third party pair system. 88 cents of every dollar comes from either an insurance company or the government. as a result of this bill it is going to increase. what i head in the direction is catastrophic policys with the insurance company not really being involved in health care until you get to the catastrophic level. save accounts that roll and catastrophic policies that roll so that more consumers are act i everly engaged talking about costs. what would happen is the standard of care would change dramatically and costs would

drop dramatically. we could say as much as 600 billion a year if we could just migrate back to a reasonable free market system where health care is concerned. it is terribly important to the country that people understand this. i published this in the "national review." folks can pull that up. i have it on my website. >> would you like to weigh in? >> absolutely. congressman, with all due represent. you did nothing and said nothing. you waited until there were 217 votes to pass the legislation and then you walked back and said no. you came home and said well, i voted against it and then you said you wouldn't vote to repeal it. now you say it was a disaster that must be repealed. why didn't you stop it that you referred to as a disaster before it passed? >> i wrote extensively about it before it passed. i appeared any number of times

on fox and local news shows. i talked about it in aufl my town hall meetings. this started in roughly july of last year and i was consistent throughout that entire period of time. the bill, as it was taking shape is a disaster for the country that is going help a lot of people and hurt a lot of people. it is going to increase costs and we can't afford it. i've been extremely vocal and it is just untrue to suggest otherwise. >> we're going to move on now. >> my question is for mr. scott. you mentioned repeal in your last comments of the health care bill. what solutions would you use and propose to cover the uninsured in this country that we all pay for under the present system, if you can call it that, of health care. >> the idea that the federal

government should be allowed to require people to purchase insurance that they don't want to purchase i believe violates their constitutional right not to purchase that insurance if they don't want to. do the states have the right to do things? maybe but the united states constitution does not give the government the authority to impose additional tax on citizens if they don't choose to purchase that health care product. >> i would like to follow up with mr. scott. are there any provisions of the health care bill that passed that you support or that you would like to keep? >> no, ma'am, there are not. there simply are not. >> we'll move on. your turn? >> mr. marshall. we can talk about health care and we can talk about immigration but i think what a lot of georgiaians deeply care about now is the economy. what plans do you specifically

have that would benefit georgians when it comes to unemployment and when it comes to helping our economy here? >> we have done an awful lot at the federal level, most of which i supported to stop this collapse, to stop it from becoming the second great depression, which is where it was headed toward. i just recited the figures from mark zandi. a lot of economists have weighed in on this. at this point, most of what additional things we would do, i would hope we would pay for as we do it. we might do some additional things but i think the economy is picking up now. you can see it where manufacturers or hard orders are concerned. you can see it in the stock market. i think we're headed in the right direction. frankly the government can't do all of this for us. we're going to have to do it for ourselves. the government can stop from slowing down but basically the government needs to back off on

the spending and tighten its belt and show some confidence that it can get its debt under control and i think the economy itself will take over and take care of the needs of georgians. >> my question is for mr. scott. what you said these days about getting the federal government out of the way of this and that, flipping that around a little bit, what should washington, if you are elected champion, what should they be out in front of that will best help get georgians and people in the united states back to work and in a more competitive global economy. >> i understand we need private sector job growth. the way to encourage that is to stop discussions about cap and trade. stop the discussions about this horrible bill that jim marshall sponsored that is driving jobs overseas. i think if you look at america and american industries, there is a lot of cash sitting on the

sidelines. if we had a tax policy for 201, i think that would would helped get the economy back on track. how irresponsible could a group of individuals be? >> mr. marshall, 30 seconds. do you wish to rebut? >> i don't know that a rebuttal is really called for as much as i would say the government has an awful lot with what our trade policies are and our exchange rates. we're working on exchange rates. they are used by countries like tchine disadvantage us economically. and then our trade policies have been basically a disaster. there is no strategic ig thought. it is largely driven by money. >> susan? >> my question is for mr. scott.

bipartisan is something that we hear a lot about but we don't seem to see much of it. can you name some specific areas where you believe the congressional democrats and republicans are close enough to make, you know, a bipartisan solution kneesable or is that just -- feasible or is that just completely off the table? >> i almost think and this might not be the answer that you're looking for. i almost think it is a generational issue. i think from my generation as a republican, when i'm talking to a 40-year-old democrat, we understand that we have to work together to solve some of the problems. i think the generations that are ahead of us and have been in control of this country for so long, are not willing to work together because they are stuck in their ways and so for those of us in my generation that are 40 years old, we understand if et to a position where we agree on 90% of it then it is

time to move forward on that particular issue. >> would you be specific about some of the issues that you feel are right for bipartisan action? >> i think jobs and the economy. i think is private sector job growth is something when you take small business owners, 40-year-old small business owners that are democrats and 40-year-old small business owners that are republicans, we're going to agree on reducing the rules and regulations over our businesses. >> 30 seconds to respond? >> it is not really a response. i sort of agree with what he just said. the problem is the institution itself. there are very few members of congress that have voting records like mine that take it issue by issue and lately i've been about 60% towards the republican side of substantive views and about ho% towards the democrat side. because there is such discipline from the republican side they don't vary from what they want.

it is a real problem for the country. >> josephine? you have our next question. >> mr. scott, earlier you said when it came to illegal 12 million illegal immigrants you would send them all out. for georgia's community, a lot of those immigrants are very important and all of them are not legal that are here helping our farmers get their crops to market. is that kind of a blabet statement and is it real -- blabet statement and is it realistic? >> we have the program that allows farm labor to come in and leave once the crops are picked. those feamples who are abiding by the rules and paying the additional fees to avoid are at a disadvantage to those who are not. we need to make some adjustments to that program but i think there is a way to make sure we have an adequate number of

permits to pick the crops and protect our agricultural economy. one of the things i will tell you that i'm adamant that we need to address in this country is this issue of birthright citizenship. a child who is born here illegally should not be a united states citizen. >> my question is for mr. scott, what would be the largest two things in your sight if you are elected to reduce federal spending? >> gwen, the first thing i would -- again, the first thing i would saturdays if you have two people seeking an unemployment check because they failed a drug test when they went and applied for a job, i would make sure anybody using social programs is not using drugs. if we give them a check, we are enabling that activity and that is something that needs to be

stopped. the thing with regard to the federal dwovet and the bureaucracy as a whole, the number number of federal employees is probably the first place we can look for significant budget reductions and get the employees back down to the level they were in 2008. >> i agree with most of what has been said. the biggest thing is get health care right. costs would go down and access would go up and that is huge money. the medicare trustees estimate that the current liability for medicare into the future is about $3 billion. we have to do something about that. >> you have the next question. >> mr. scott, you alluded to the costly bureaucracy and yet you

have said that you believe that the drug tests should be administered to welfare recipients and also earlier, you said that you thought that individuals are in the country illegally, the 10 million or 12 million, you know, should be sent home. do you believe these two things could be accomplished without adding to the bureaucracy? >> i think that you could turn around and reduce the bureaucracy in certain areas and hire people that were actually the boots on the ground getting the job done. when i'm talking about boots on the ground, i'm talking about people carrying out to work. we have too many bureaucrats in washington, d.c. so yes, ma'am, i believe that we could reduce the bureaucracy and still have the number of fleece it took to get the job done. >> i think that if we did what i would like to see done, you a

lot of people that want to leave because they can't make a living here so you have lake-effect of help. without that helps you're right. you're quite right. this is an enormous task and seems to me the most cost-effective way is cutting off the reason that people come here. >> mr. marshall, you're considered conservative by democrat standards. what philosophies of yours if any are inherently democratic? >> you know, i don't think of myself as having democratic or republican philosophies. i think of myself as worrying about the country and the folks that i represent and the future for my kids. those are american issues. and i feel pretty strongly about them and then what you see if you watch my voting, i just sort

of pick them. i never think anything -- it is rare that something is controversial that we vote on is ideal. i mean, they all have problems with them. they are not the way that i would have drafted them precisely, in almost every instance, but what i do is i don't approach things and say let me think about this from a democratic perspective or a republican perspective, but what is best for the country. on substantive issues lately i'm shaded toward the republican side than the democrat side. i'm in the middle is where i am. that's where most americans are. you want to keep the people in congress that have the guts to stay there, which is really hard to do on the fiscal issues you vote on a higher percentage of times than that. you voted for the $800 billion stimulus and 87% of every spending bill that becomes law.

the truth of the matter is you are a fiscal liberal. >> they have these ads that say i vote with nancy pelosi 90% of the time. they are just utterly false. the highest figure you can possibly get if you take into account all of the votes like naming post offices, etc. is about 66% of the time. the national journal rates your voting record and it has made and during the time that miss pelosi has been the speaker i was 55% no, 40% yes, one year. 56.5 the next year. 58.5 in disagreement with her on the bills that the national journal looked at as a substavent bills defining the

differences between the two parties. >> our next question comes from andre jackson. >> representative marshall, you spoke a moment ago about your worries about the future of this nation. what worries you the most about the status of civil discourse in this country as we discuss substantive issues at a critical time? >> there is way too much sound bite stuff going on and people willing to tell untruths in order to secure political advantage. it is sort of the ends justifies the means philosophy. americans are really busy. it is not -- it used to be if you turned on the tv and left it on about 6:00 or 8:00 at night you would see tv shows. now it is all -- lots of americans don't pay any attention to this stuff. we have huge issues facing us and the discourse is really awful and there are very few calm, measured voices out interest there. i cite david brooks of "the "new

york times" as one of them. i don't waste my time reading or watching a lot of their tv shows. it is no not intended to tell the truth. it is intended to skew things for a political view one way or the other. i don't know how you stop that but it takes a lot of good people to come together and realize that is what is going on and not tolerate it. >> 30 seconds. >> you know, again, this end justifies the means, win at all cost politics is something that my family and are are feeling now and i think we'll have plenty of time to discuss that later. again, i want to go back to the fight. you voted for the $800 billion stimulus and the $700 billion wall street bailout. you voted for every spending bill that has become law. when you're on tv looking at the

general public telling them you're in favor of a balanced budget. >> we have time for one final question. the candidate will have only 30 seconds to respond. >> my question is for mr. marshall. during the primary, i believe something like 20% of georgians turned out to vote and the expectation is that it will be a higher turnout but still nothing decisive. do you believe that the generally negative tones of campaigns has contributed to the lower voter turnout? >> both sides tend to turn voters off. you can imagine mcdonald's and burger king across the streets from the other telling people that it is going to kill you. we do that to the public. that's kind of what's going on as far as politics is concerned. >> that was our final question. no more time for questions. each of the candidates in the

election for the eighth congressional district will now have 30 seconds for a closing statement statement. our first closing statement will come from austin, scott. >> i'm going to vote in washington the same way i speak. i'm going to go up there to work and create jobs in georgia. i understand that the economy is the number one issue. we're going to get the federal government off the backs of the small business owner and we're going to let them drive this car out of the ditch and get america back to work. >> our final 30 seconds will come from jim marshall. >> thank you for all of this. i appreciate it very much. i grew up in tough times. my first job was 75 cents an hour. i for a long time there, as a labororer, mechanic, schoolteacher, just did what i could to make ends meet. we have gone through tough times like this before. if we could pull together and stop the extremists on both sides, and have some policies that work for america, we have

great days ahead of us and i think people need to believe that and have some confidence that that is what is going to occur. >> we'll wrap it up. we certainly appreciate you taking time to be with us. thank you for taking your time. that does conclude our debate. the general elections will be tuesday, november 2. early voting is going on right now. our thanks to the candidates. we would also like to thank the atlanta press club for raising this debate. for more information about the atlanta press club, you may visit atlantapressclub.org. this particular broadcast has been screened live and will be available on demand on g.p.b.'s website. we invite you now stay with g.p.b. for 12th congressional debate coming up next. thank you. >> the atlanta press club debate

series is made in possible by donations from the late tom watson brown. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> on c-span, we're bringing you campaign coverage from around the country. we'll have the debate between harry reid and sharon angle. this weekend, we'll bring you another debate for kentucky's open senate