maryland. george, independent line. good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. ,f the money wasn't an issue then money wouldn't be used so much in an election. money is influence. they would not be using all of this money just to go ahead and do the ad buy, the push calls. the advertisement. people will see that the money comes from the it is one big cycle. we need campaign finance reform. many public finances. we need term limits. money is a big influence on politicians. always has been. we can trace it all look back to the beginning that people use

money to influence. people are not too educated on how the system works. and in order to get the information and, you need to do the advertisement and to the flyers and the calls to influence people, because people do not go out and get information that they need to make an informed decision when they elect people. information they need to make it informed decision. host: what about the argument that people tend to tune it out after a while? they hear so many negative ads that after awhile they stop paying attention. the caller: if you follow anything in psychology, if you plant the seed of doubt, you get people to wonder. if you do it early enough, you have people usually making up their minds. -- pretty early on one way or another. so if you start to influence them early. like a repetitive thing. notice politicians always repeat the same thing over and over again. just like pavlov's dog.

if he says of the over and over again, a mentally that seed is set in their mind and gives them doubt. most people will not go out and do the research, look to the politicians, look to the platforms, look at what they are actually saying and doing. it instead, they hear it, and it kind of influence is them. host: you have experience in campaigning? caller: no, i have experience in marketing so i know the techniques. i know how it works. a direct marketing. if you put the money out there, especially with politicians and elections, they can put people on the ground. people to people talking has more influence when you pay people to do the work. host: let me get your response to david brooks writing this morning. why is there some of money in politics? every consultant has an incentive to tell every client to raise money.

what do you think? caller: i think that is slightly wrong. all the donors side, -- on the donors side, there's a feeling that they are special and they can attend certain events but they also know it buys influence. money buys influence. if it didn't, people would not be spending this type of money. corporations and the chambers of commerce would not be spending this type of money. what they are trying to do now is influence the electorate to their point of view. host: let me ask you this -- what is the best way to get bang for your buck when it comes to marketing, when it comes to politics? beaverbrooks said it may be best where name recognition is low. -- david brooks said it may work best where name recognition is

low. caller: a lot of these organizations do a lot of studies. what they come back is what actually touches -- what message do you want to get them to bid to buy into? you do the message, you see what their concerns are, you see what name recognition are, the reactions, and that is when you send out the message and you repeat the message over and over again to get the buy in. with the local races, if you have a person with a common name for a familiar name, if you notice any go around town and look at the signs, the bigger the sign of the common name is most recognizable. so, people see that -- and that you may hit it on the tv or radio or in the flyer. it that name gets repeated over and over again. at the same technique. it sets the seed in their mind

to say, okay, this person is a representative in my county. i have seen him for years or heard of him for years. there is that influence. host: all right. kathy, democratic live. in dallas. caller: that young man sums it up really well. it is not so much i more about the money aspect. i was just worried about the type of people the money is putting up. when you hear all the crazy stuff from the tea party. they don't believe in civil rights. they don't believe in gays. i think in that aspect, having money and putting money up for that type of craziness. they want to repeal the health care. really not good for the people. money can put up anybody with stupidity. we need strong people that will

try to put the country together for everybody. host: kathy mentions the health- care law. front page of "the richmond times dispatch" and other papers. the va judge said he will make a ruling on the health-care law by the end of the year. the salisbury, maryland. gilbert, republican line. caller: i just wanted to agree with the previous sentiment about the science behind the money and how it influences. it seems pretty straightforward -- if you just take the money out of campaigns, use of the solutions and solve the problems. if it does not influence the campaign, it is no big of taken it out. then you can put the candidates on public television to debate the point.

they could do you watch debates? have you been -- age could you watch debates? have you been following them? caller: have you seen a few of them. host: we are covering a lot on c-span. if you go to c-span.org /politics, you can look to see which debates we are covering every night prime-time on c- span. we are hearing several debates. some of them live. go to c-span.org/politics and our upcoming events section and you could see what we are covering. dallas, texas. jack, independent line. caller: the thing that bothers me about all this money people are talking about, is there was a time in america where contributions broad access. now it buys candidates. pure and simple. it is time we went to public financing. get away from these big

donations. probably have a tick off a box in your income tax, the income tax, where you can get $5 to $200, and that the american people decide. when a candidate or congressman has to get $20,000 a day in contributions from the moment he steps into office for his next election -- term limits, we have them already, voting. when you have to spend $20,000 a day to be competitive, it is obscene, if not evil. host: this tweet from our viewer --

concord, new hampshire. nancy. go ahead. are you with us? caller: good morning to you. i think this money coming in -- in new hampshire where we have this battleground between our congressmen, running for senate , and the former attorney general hoping to replace senator judd gregg. i am a registered democrat and everything i do politically, my husband has a different last name from me, so he is getting garage with its anti paul hodes mailing. cornerstone people, a crossroads, limited taxation. they are sending out the nastiest mailings against our congressmen, and i think it is -- i think the money has

influenced or is trying to influence people's votes. watching c-span as the only option for real news and information. i might suggest that maybe you folks could do a week or two of all the legislation that has actually passed in this past congress. because nobody actually talks about the gi bill, all of the expanded -- expanded veterans' issue. but we also need a program about these tax cuts. because my understanding, although it is limited, is when our government passes a budget, it is to fund certain programs and what ever else in our government. and yet when it cut the taxes, the money is not there to fund these projects so we are borrowing the money. how we make tax cuts permanent if it is not funding our government for what you voted

for? host: i want to show you and other viewers interested this story. abrams writes for the associated press this morning, in "the philadelphia inquirer." delays out what has passed during the 2010 year in congress. the if you look at the front page of "the wall street journal," -- we are talking about the role in politics this morning. what role does it play.

if you look at "the washington post" this morning, they told of the campaign spending by interest groups to political parties. 68.2 million spent so far. if you look at the different interest groups, the top 10 from this past week, 11.9 spent by nrcc, national republican congressional committee, 7.2 million by american crossroads, 9.7 million by, 5.2 million by -- these are all the political parties. interest groups, americans for tax reform, a 2.6 million. american action network, a 2.4 million. national association of realtors, 2.4 million. the center for individual freedom, 2.2 million. 1.9 million spent by the national -- national education association's. if you go to "the washington post" website i have an

interactive data map. the update it every tuesday. you can click on the top 100 interest groups that spending money. it is not just republicans. also democratic groups as well spending a lot of money. national education association. other democratic groups and republican groups that are spending on house and senate races. national, tennessee. dave on the republican line. caller: good morning. just sitting there watching the numbers and it just kind of chuckling because it seems so paltry in comparison to the trillion we spent on stimulus, a trillion on bailout. $2.60 trillion on obamacare. that is really the truth. this is a red herring because democrats can't run on the issues. yes, they did a lot of socialist legislation. they jam the lot of it down our throats. but the truth is, america spends more on cereal than they do on their governments. that is kind of sad.

the first time i can remember this foreign money being brought up was bill clinton's election. unions have thousands of affiliate's. their contributions into this country are not reported. it is just silliness, that is what this really is. host: let me ask you, though, about what influence, if any, do you think advised to spend so much money? what do you think the impact is? caller: i think earlier on an article in talks about the fact that if you got a relative unknown, that is when it really helps to get that person out there. and that is really about all it can do. i know who my congressmen is and i know how he voted and that is why i voted against him. i already knew who i was going to vote for and who i was going to vote against. host: who did you vote for? caller: jim cooper is our socialist in chief congressman.

and i voted for dave paul, his republican opponent but i already knew who both of the more. i did not need advertising to figure it out. host: do you think you are the exception? caller: i certainly hope not. host: a little bit more from david brooks this morning. he writes this --

indianapolis on the independent line. your turn. what do you think? caller: i think is great. the more money, the better. in these people are involved. if people don't want money in politics, they should move to china or vietnam. there is not a lot of money in politics but not a lot of freedom, either. the more money, the better. it means the free-speech. people have a right to redress their grievances. i think it is really just a ploy by the media to control public opinion because they can -- there are the ones molding public opinion. and incumbents don't like it

because they already have name recognition and the challengers have the get their name out. you are not going to get money out of politics because the bad guys are not going to follow the -- the clinton administration made a mockery of the can -- campaign finance laws and nobody >> we will leave this segment to go live to the white house for today's briefing. here is spokesman robert gibbs. >> a couple questions. the president's appearances this week and next week, will we hear anything new in his message? >> i think you will continue to hear the president make a very strong and affirmative case for continuing to move the country forward. and the perils of what it means to go back. i think that has been the base

of his message for quite a while. >> so he will not give another message? ok. and looking at this western swing. what is itary -- about those races that has the white house so interested? >> they're all important races. they are all important votes in the senate, important races. the president knows each one of them from their work in the senate, and he is anxious to go campaign for all three. >> does the president think he can be more effective in those states than states like arkansas or west virginia? >> the president, if you look at, has campaigned in states throughout the country. just this past weekend, we were

in ohio. i think people tend to forget that before governor patrick, there was 16 years of republican governors in the state of massachusetts. not exactly easy gubernatorial territory, at least in the recent past, for democrats. so the president is going to go and hit a lot of places. the vice president, the first lady, they will all hit important races as we head to the finish of the campaign. >> is there anything you can tell us about his schedule for next week? >> nothing. >> is the what does concern that some banks are missing -- [inaudible] >> use of the statement that i put out. there is an ongoing process. fha started it before this round of stories. were we have concerns and wanted

to ensure that services are complying fully with the loss of this country. tomorrow at hud, there is a meeting of regulators including secretary donovan, secretary geithner, a member of the justice department to talk through sort of where we are at our look at this process. in that process will continue over the course of the next several weeks. >> human jr. statement this morning. was the reason for you sending that fuelled by -- [inaudible] >> again, our concern has been ensuring the process adequately compliancys.

that has led fha to be involved in this and the enforcement task force, as well as our support for 50 state attorneys general in ensuring compliance with the law. obviously, that is tremendously important in this process. we have talked about, over the past week or so, the danger that we see in halting the entire housing market. and the danger that it would provide or potentially provide at large in its effect on the economy. >> [inaudible] >> again, we're looking at their process in order to determine their compliance with the law. obviously, they have certain requirements under law that have

to be met. if they're not meeting those requirements, they certainly can face fines from us and can face legal action. >> did the president discussed with secretary diner? >> i do not know if this came up specifically. my guess is it likely did. the president's economic daily briefing centered on this last week. there have certainly been meetings with secretary donovan and others around this. >> is the president talking to any of his friends or contacts in the baking industry about this? >> not that i know of. >> there is a yahoo! news poll and 55% of the american people say that tea party candidates can effectively bring about major changes in the way government operates. how did the president and the democrats lose the mantle of change? >> i think if you're talking about repealing minimum-wage, that would be significant

change. i think if you're talking about questioning the validity t of whether social security should have been or whether there should be a permit of education, i think that all qualifies as significant change. it would effectively bring about major change. dick, i would have to look more closely at what the poll says. this is not necessarily in relation to the tea party, but there continues to be a frustration with the pace of our economic recovery, based largely on the fact that the whole but we are in is huge. the number of jobs that we lost, 8 million or so jobs, the number of jobs we lost leading up to the last election is a significant amount. >> later this week, the administration is going to release a report on women and the economy.

at the same time, president obama will be campaigning for two embattled senators. is there a relation between the two? >> no, look, i think, obviously, we are -- the president has been focused throughout this administration on our economic recovery, on ensuring that businesses have the credit they need to expand. i think this is just a continuation of that concern. and demonstrating what can and should be done to fix our economy. >> at the monthly meeting that the president will have tomorrow, is this a chance to tweak the strategy in that region, or is it more of a comprehensive update? >> well, i hesitate to say with the meeting would involve since the meeting is tomorrow, in terms of its update. i think the president gets for

both the military and diplomatic update on a weekly basis from that region of the world. and as you said, a monthly secure video teleconference with many of the same players to go about the developments in that region and to discuss where we are in several of our goals, including -- and i am sure the president will get a regular update, as he does, on where we are in our goals at trading in afghan national security force, both in police and army. so i better have a sense of the tweaking part of that question after the meeting tomorrow. >> since it does have weekly updates as well, i am trying to get a sense of what kind of weight is given to these

meetings. is it a broader? >> i would say, without getting into a lot of specifics were highly classified meeting, there are obviously part perspectives and a regularity as to go through. and the commanders and diplomatic representatives go through the elements on the ground and in different parts of the country. the president gets back fairly thick weekly update as well as this monthly teleconference. depending on the range of issues that are confronting the situation, again, it can be very granular. as some points you will be very granular, and at some points you will be much more 30,000 feet. >> [inaudible] >> well, obviously, there's a

pakistani delegation here to continue the regular strategic dialogues that were begun in the spring of 2009. i think we see an unprecedented level of cooperation from the pakistanis in taking on insurgents. because we understand -- unlike in the past, it is now in our mutual area to do so. throughout this process and throughout the meetings this week, there will be opportunities for us to detail for the pakistanis what more must be done. and there was clear in the report that was sent to congress. and that has been clear in our statements about our relationships with pakistan. >> and bill clinton talked about

how he has been able to go to some of the areas with a smaller footprint than the president what if you travel. but when you look at what his effectiveness might be for the midterm elections, how do you rate that? >> look, i think he is an effective voice for the democratic party. he is an effective voice for the steps this administration has had to take to rescue the economy, to put ourselves back on a stable financial footing. and he is a tremendous advocate. >> what prompted the statement on foreclosures today? >> a lot having to do it the processor and bank of america. >> is the precedent hearing from speaker pelosi or harry reid talking about a moratorium nationally? >> again, there have obviously

been calls to freeze the process. my concern has been what it that affect is for the housing market in a broader sense. take a state like florida. about a little more than a third of the housing transactions that are going on right now are individuals who are purchasing long, previously foreclosed homes. that is in many places with is beginning to spur a housing recovery. many places have been hit extremely hard with the housing crisis in the great depth in housing prices, which leads to people being under water in their mortgage and the economy at large and their ability to make those payments. so our concern with that moratorium is that a process

that has followed all aspects of the law and is in the midst of the contract to purchase that from somebody else, that process is frozen, too. we believe that, as i said in a statement, all services must comply with the law. there will be held accountable if they do not. but at the same time, we see the down sides of what a moratorium could do to the larger housing market. >> and what about the timing of the hispanic education announcement today. coming two weeks before midterms. is there anything political in that? >> no, this is a renewal of an executive order on the dropout rate and the education -- the dropout rate in latino communities, something that has

been talked about for quite some time. and our efforts to ensure that we're doing all that we can as efficiently and effectively to address it and the other educational issues are done because it is the right thing to do, not because of politics. >> what does it mean to the president, to the white house agenda, to retain control, democratic control in that the senate? >> look, i think that we are -- i think that we have a comment -- we have a sense of what has to happen over the course of the next couple years. we have to continue our economic recovery. the president outlined ideas in the past month or so for cutting taxes on businesses as it relates to expensive new purchases. our investments in construction and infrastructure that are tremendously important to getting things going.

we understand we have to take a look at and with our met german mark term financial picture. we have to implement the important reforms in both health care and on wall street reform. that is going to happen and needs to happen regardless of the make up of by their body in the next two years. >> you took some heat in july for protection about the election. >> i do not make a prediction in july. >> i guess he suggested the possibility that the republicans could take control. so there's not a change of heart in terms of the analysis? >> think if you look in the days after that, i said the same thing. >> are some of the western race is tight? >> i think i said this on sunday as well, i think the political environment derives from our economic environment.

we're at 9.6% unemployment. we have seen 8 million people lose their jobs. we have been dealing with the housing crisis for several years. all of which we're making progress on. the housing market largely stabilized nine months of private sector job growth. we're moving in the right direction. i think it is the president's message out on the campaign trail. because what we see is the facts on the ground. >> the kentucky senate race is done kind of man -- nasty over a campaign at over rock paul's religion never college. >> i have not seen that and i have not talked to the president about it. >> there was a $250 emergency

payment -- [inaudible] -- because the cost of living did not go well. >> look, we have seen an economy that has seen the savings of seniors as the result of investments changed dramatically. >> is to under $50 going to help with that? >> i think it did when we did it in the recovery act. i think it would make a difference in the lives of seniors now. >> about a third of the stimulus being talked about. >> if my mathematics is correct, about 40 up the two hundred $90 billion or so in tax cuts, yes.

>> [inaudible] -- continually show people do not think health care is a good idea. democrats are fighting so hard in these races, and a lot are losing because of a failure to communicate on some of these policies. a lot of people not even knowing that they got a tax cut. >> in some of these places, you may have states and localities that have raised property taxes or have raised different taxes to deal with budget gaps and budget deficits. in terms of making work pay, we model making work pay differently from tax cuts that had been done previously we're one check was mailed out. when people get one check, they realize this is all we are getting. and in terms of that, it is harder to get that money back into the economy. if people did it spread out in a

consistent way, and we know from economic data that people tend to spend that money, that was the point of that tax cut. explained better? it is more of a political question. >> tweeted based on the substance of wanting to get the economy moving again. we have seen just in the last couple of days fairly prominent republican pollster -- imagine health care, discussed what is not such a good idea talking about repealing health care reform. right. it is to start closing the doughnut hole, something that was left as part of the prescription drug act that was passed in the early 2000's. people up to 26 can stay on their parents' insurance. for the first time, they're

making decisions. families are making decisions that are not at the mercy of a child that is sick getting kicked off their own health care. i think those are issues and make a real difference in people's lives. >> you have spoken numerous times about the republican fell year -- a failure to work with you on various issues. looking ahead to next year, are you considering at all what the white house needs as far as a different approach working with republicans? >> we will continue to reach out to those on the other side of the out to get things done on behalf of the american people. we will -- i did see an abc poll that demonstrated that the president -- but the american people view the president of having by about a two-to-one margin to work with others to solve problems.

the same poll shows that by a two-to-one margin, republicans in congress are not seen that way. i think the actions of the republican party in deciding not to be part of economic recovery despite the fact that they have asked to be part of the spending on economic recovery on occasion, not doing anything on wall street reform and things like that. i think regardless of the outcome of the elections, people are going to -- the voters are going to expect of the two parties will work together to solve the problems. that is what they expected after 2006, after 2008, and what they're likely to expect after 2010. >> do you think you should continue approaching it the same way that you have? >> i think we will continue to reach out to the other side of the aisle to solve the problems that the american people most

want us to address. you'll have to ask mitch mcconnell, who stated quite clearly that the strategy was not to cooperate and to say no. you have to ask john boehner who put up the statement opposing the stimulus as the president was about to load the motorcade to go to capitol hill to talk to the republican caucus about the recovery act. >> had you see this changing with the influx of the knowledge of the republicans and the tea party -- >> i do not want to get in the business of what the makeup is. i think that even as you look and voter preferences, looking under beat the numbers, people want the two sides to work

together. they want us to address the issues that they face. you look back to say 1994, and if you look at the standing -- just look at the standing of the republican party leading into 1994 and leading into 2010. and you have a fairly stark difference in how the party is viewed. i think that is because the republican party has, through its political strategy, not offered a series of alternative ideas. they just said no. >> do you think that will be better to get the president's reelection? message fromnk the voters will be that do we want people to solve problems. >> you say that again and again,

but i have asked the question before. it is 100% on the republicans' side -- >> think when you ask me this question last week, i said i am not appear to say we have been 100% of the things we have done perfectly. there are two lanes between here and the capital. when it goes this way and one that goes that way. when we were loading up the motorcade go that way, the statement was coming this way. i think it was with the new york times that mcconnell said their strategy was to simply say no to everything. in my surprise that there has not been as of political cooperation when the leaders of the partisan told the newspaper reported that their strategy is to say in no to everything? no, i am not that naive. i can read.

that was their strategy. it has been called off very effectively. that is what people do not have a great reverence for the political party. >> to what extent have you all been planning for the various midterm course correction scenarios we're going to have in a couple weeks? >> in what way? >> to what extent as the white house been planning how it is going to respond if the republicans take control of the house, it and make big gains in the senate? >> i have not been and i do not know of a massive number of meetings on that. we have been focused on what we have to do it hand. there will be time for that later. it is not as if there are not plenty of things to do.

>> what is the point of having a trigger for cost-of-living increases for social security if every time the trigger is not met, the money goes out anyway? >> i would take into account the economic situation that we are in. and understand, as a said earlier, that we have seen what happens and what has happened to people's lives savings to their investments and to the struggles that they have had in this economy. our belief was that this is still something needed, and that is why it is proposed. >> how close are the industries involved in the foreclosures as far something to write that might need a policy? >> again, we have had fairly regular meetings here.

the president spent time specifically on this within the past week, even as fha has begun looking into the process several weeks ago. as the investigations conclude, we will see what the show. i would be remiss if i did not say some of this will ultimately fall under the consumer protection bureau, an office that it will roll back wall street were formal not exist. i think that is a corn as we move forward. >> twice in recent weeks the president has quoted from the declaration of independence and has omitted the declarations a

reference to rights of the creator. why did he omit that? >> i have not seen the comments, but i assure you the president believes in the declaration of independence. >> on his interview in "rolling stone" -- >> do you subscribe to that? >> no. [laughter] >> the president called fox news "destructive to the country." he also believes that talk radio is destructive. or is it only fox news? >> i do not remember exactly what the president said. speech is important in this country, but facts involved in that speech are equally as important as we enter into these political races. i think that is what his

objection largely is. >> one has made it clear that they will not keep don't ask don't tell. the president made it clear don't ask don't tell will end on his watch. will he put pressure on senate majority leader harry reid to push for a vote during a lame- duck session? two, depending on what happens after the midterms, how does the presidency ending don't ask don't tell if he has no democratic control? >> in terms of -- well, the process obviously with the judge will render on her own ruling. and that likely goes to a three- judge panel to consider.

and we're monitoring developments as is the department of justice. the president believes the policy will and under his watch precisely because in the defense operation -- authorization bill pending in the senate is a provision that would repeal of the president believes is unjust, with the president believes is discriminatory. it is passed the house. the president will push for defense authorization to the past, containing the provision, when the senate comes back from the lame duck. we have a lot of important business on that legislation. the repeal of don't ask don't tell is certainly one of those aspects. my sense is if you can get through a filibuster, and again, everything takes 60 votes these

days, that there are a majority of u.s. senators that believe, as the president does, that this policy is not right. and that it harms our national security. so the president will work during the lame duck to ensure that bill is passed and what has passed the house and what passes the senate can end up on his desk for signature. again, i think every can get past the procedural hurdles, that a majority of the u.s. senate believes, as the president does, that it is time for this policy to change. the courts have in a number of different instances out west determined that the life span of this policy is coming to its natural end. i think that was recognized in the house. i think it will be recognized in

the senate. and the law will be repealed. >> if the president believes that, why does he not repeal it now? just waiting until after the election? >> 1, the senate is not here. remember, the law that was passed by nearly 1990's does not give the power to repeal the law to the commander-in-chief. it is a congressional action that can only be terribly repealed through another legislative action. -- it is a congressional action that can only be repealed through another legislative action. someone asked why not simply signed an executive order lakari truman. the law that was passed -- someone asked why not simply sign an executive order like harry truman. the law does not provide for executive action to remove the law. as we said last week, we believe

the law should be repealed, and we believe that, as the pentagon studies -- as the pentagon studies a transition that is orderly, we think it will come to pass and repeal the law. >> [inaudible] >> yes. >> then there is no longer any more. >> again, the earlier answer that i gave, which is we believe that the process has to be put in place for an orderly transition. >> sent the justice department says officially repealing the case, -- appealing the case, is it true that they believe it is a constitutional law? >> i enumerate the president's belief that it is discriminatory, unjust, and harms our nash -- national security. >> what about the constitutionality?

i am confused. if it does end up in the filibuster, would you avoid the double-would you force a filibuster? you were saying that if it goes through a republican filibuster in congress. you could never force a filibuster. >> maybe i am confused. the president will work to try to get 60 votes. >> will he force the republicans to filibuster it. >> final passage? again, it is in the underlying bill. it is in the base bill. i think you can go back and find republican quotes about the harm of not passing a defense authorization bill in the past. and ensuring that we have the necessary resources for our military to do what it needs to

do. >> i know you said the white house is focused on the topic at hand, not on looking at what happens after the election. what is your wish list for the next few days as he goes out to the west coast? what does obama hope to accomplish? >> well, i think he hopes to accomplish with the debt over the weekend in boston and in ohio. in reminding voters what is at stake, who has their best interests in mind, the steps that have been taken to get us out of the economic hold that we found ourselves in, and to continue to move forward on those policy decisions. that has been the basis for what he's talked to voters about over

the past couple of weeks, and i expect that will continue tomorrow and throughout the trip out west. >> the afghan-pakistan meeting tomorrow, is president karzai going to be part of the teleconference? >> no, this is -- he has never been a part of those monthly meetings. i think on the guidance, we will put up the participants. they looked a lot -- the roster looks a lot like the afghan policy review meetings of last fall. >> to what extent is there going to be an assessment of the taliban we have been hearing about? >> reconciliation led by the afghans has been a topic of many in the past meetings. i expect that we will get an update from general petraeus, the ambassador, and others on

where they see the progress on those talks, and their hopes for seeing the progress continue. i anticipate, as in the past, that will be big topic tomorrow. >> the "new york times" has a store the startup, what the president cuts in american income taxes and nobody noticed? they had a poll last month saying fewer than one in 10 americans knew that this administration or taxes. why hasn't the administration been able to effectively communicate this? >> i got that question like two rose ago. apparently, it is me. i cannot get the same answer through about nine different people. i will try one more time to underscore my personal ineffectiveness at communicating through an entire row of people that we're in an

economic situation that is unprecedented. that has the federal government cut taxes, and we saw the economic impact of the make you work pate -- the making work pay tax cut into the paycheck -- into the paychecks of the individuals, families, that went on to spend that money and increase consumer demand and economic growth. that is not to say that people are not making an evaluative decision on their entire financial public or whether or not the state or locality that they live in had to raise taxes. we could have mailed checks in bulk, meaning the entire amount out, but economists found that when that happened in the past administration, most people tended to save and not spend

that money. our hope was to get the money into the economy. that is what has happened as a result of dividing that tax cut up and putting it into people's paychecks. car ithe president's ditched metaphor, -- >> it now includes lattes. >> said republicans could ride along in the car, but that would have to sit in the back seat. is that language about firing up the base? or -- >> somebody else called a shotgun. go-ahead. sorry. [applause] >> only because that was in last

week's "rolling stone." [laughter] >> you are funny. >> i tried. >> the president mentioned the importance, and is that language conducive to the partisan relationships, when the president says they can come along but have to sit in the back seat? >> well, i think the president has on issues big and small tried to work with and try to offer opportunities for republicans to work with the democrats in coming up with solutions for them. we're in a campaign season now, and i do not actually think the president thinks they're drinking a lot they'reslurpees. sorry. but i think that the president

uses that as a metaphor for the role that republicans have thus far play. look, as i said, we're hopeful that regardless of the outcome, republicans seek to participate in representative democracy. that is what the voters demand. i think that is what they hope to see regardless of the outcome of this election. >> the president's campaign message seems to be directed at democrats. we reached the conclusion that the message should be elected to the base of democrats and not independents? >> i think we're at a point in the election that we normally get to in every election, where individuals are talking to their voters and trying to get them fired up and try to get them out. i think it is with the president is working on doing. and i would say, i do not know

who was on the trip on sunday, but that seem like a pretty big crowd to me. >> the president is doing a backyard chats science and. how much of these backyard talks with everyday voters influenced his agenda? is it changing how he thinks? >> well, this is, you know, from dating back more than six years that the president has set done some form of, i think you can call this roughly a town hall meeting, were you hear directly from the concerns of in the interests of voters in america. he will certainly continue to do that. i think we hear the importance of cutting taxes on small businesses. we hear the importance of

continuing our education reforms. we hear a lot of issues that are not just important to the american people but important to this administration, and we will continue to pursue policies to ensure that we're making good on the promises that the president made just a few years ago running. >> what constitutes a win? >> i am not going to play predictor, april. >> i am really not asking you to -- i am asking you to define it. there is historic effort in this midterm election for the democratic party to get out the vote. it has not been done, at least the last 12 years, it has not been done. with that push, there will be at

least -- there will be better than normal anticipation, that the numbers will be higher than the past. i am not asking you to predict, but there will be more movement than before. >> i think that the efforts of the campaign committees and the dnc, particularly, at helping to fund those committees has reached a level of help that has not been seen by those committees recently. the amount of technology that is being used, the funds that go from the dnc or funds from the president's campaign cannot directly to the committees that ultimately help campaigns, it is unprecedented. the democratic party is working

every day to increase enthusiasm. therefore, increase turnout as we get closer to the elections. >> on that note, do you expect that your base in certain communities, particularly where there are more african americans, youth, and maybe independents, you would see a higher than normal -- >> compared to 2008, there were rarely instances in which the composition and the enthusiasm during a presidential year is obviously always different than an off-year in elections. it is our hope to take in these races a winning coalition and put them together for the democratic candidate. the composition into level -- we

are not going to have as many people voting in 2010 than we had in the presidential election. >> did the president agreed with the contention last night that the u.k. would still have a first-rate military? he did not say that he did in the readout that you put out. >> i can check the readout. certainly, the level of help and cooperation that we get and the sacrifice of that country in places like afghanistan is certainly a vital and important to our coalition. they will indeed continue to have a first-rate military. >> since that call,

[unintelligible] is the president still confident in knowing that the number of troops will be cut by that kind of figure? >> there were some discussions prior to that phone call that led us to believe that the readiness and capability of the british military would continue. >> thanks, robert. >> in this busy campaign season, how is the president preparing for his trip to india next month? what does he want to achieve? >> look, obviously, this is an important relationship. it was the first day dinner that was held here. -- it was the

first state dinner that was held here. i think that gives you an indication of the importance of that relationship. we will have -- it is an important economic relationship. we will have again, a chance to go through. the president is involved in a fairly regular meetings with the national security team to ensure a successful visit not long after the elections. from the viewpoint, economically, we understand what we have to do to create jobs, to grow our exports, to insure that it does not just fall on american consumers to drive the world demand it. that is a lot of what you will hear the president talk about on that trip.

thanks. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs every morning on ""washington journal." weekdays, watched live coverage of the u.s. house of representatives, and weeknights, congressional hearings and policy forums. look for our signature interview programs as well as special programming on weekends. through november, see coverage of campaign 2010 as the political parties battle for control of congress. our programming is also available anytime on c-span.org.

c-span, created by cable, provided as a public service. keeping an eye on political news, house minority leader john boehner has all but disappeared from the political canvas as he prepares to become speaker. his office will not release his campaign schedule and he is declining all requests for interviews. his last national tv interview was on october 4. the 2010 midterm elections are two weeks from today, and each night on the c-span networks, which are showing debates from key races across the country. here is our lineup for tonight. the focus will be the illinois senate race. an hour later, the pennsylvania governor's race. then, the florida can't it's

spar -- the florida candidates spar. at 8:00, it is massachusetts 4th house district. later, the dates from pennsylvania's eighth district race, followed by arkansas' governor's race. >> now the debate for west virginia senate seat with the candidates governor joe manchin, john raese, and mountain constitution party jeff becker. this is about an hour. >> welcome to the 2010 senate candidate debate, sponsored by the associated press and west virginia university school of journalism.

maryht's moderator is dean ann reid. >> good evening and thank you for joining us for this live debate. with the balance of power in congress at stake, the u.s. senate race in west virginia has become one of the races to watch. it is probably no exaggeration to say that the outcome of this election could have a significant impact on important issues facing all americans such as health care, the economy, and the environment. the winner of this race will serve the remaining two years of robert byrd's term. he held his seat for 51 years, so these are some pretty big shoes to fill. it with me in the studio tonight when the four candidates vying for the senate seat. they are democratic governor joe

manchin. republican candidate john raese. jeffconstitution party's becker. and mountain party jesse johnson. the format of the debate is as follows. some questions will be directed to specific candidates. as time permits, there will be a total of two minutes for rebuttals per question, which i will directthe opening question is directed to all candidates and each person will have one minute to respond. each candidate will be asked to

give a closing statement at the end of the program. my role as moderator is to make sure that the candidates adhere to this time limits and to keep the discussion moving. we are going to ask the first question in the order in which the candidates are seated, beginning with governor manchin, and we will reverse this order for closing statements. the candidates have not been given the questions in advance. to our first question, addressed by melanie hoffman. >> this has been a negative campaign. if you are elected, what positive changes will you make to not only improve the lives of americans, but especially the citizens of west virginia? >> six years ago i became governor and i asked for the support of the people of west virginia because i knew we could do better. and we did. we put our party aside.

we left our special interests at the door and we started looking at the challenges we head. six years later, we are recognized as one of the best states and nations, as far as our financies. right now in washington, people are upset. they are putting party first. democrats and republicans are both wrong with this. special interest second and the country third. we need to do the same in washington. that is what i intend to do, as we did in west virginia. you must put the countries first, the same as we did in west virginia. >> thank you. mr. becker. >> we need to get back to our founding principles. the declaration of independence was the promise, and the constitution was a full settlement of that promise. i think we need a renewed interest in american civics.

and studying history. we need to pay attention to the wisdom of our founders. and, well, the constitution was a compact among the states so that the -- and the senate was intended to represent the state's in federal congress. i think we need to get back to the issue of federalism, the state-federal relationship, were rather having -- rather than having senators being fourth and fifth representatives for west virginia and being responsive to the people, i think the senators could be working more with the state legislature and hoping the state legislature get their needs met in congress. >> thank you. mr. johnson? >> i believe the negativity

that all the people across the nation, as well as people in west virginia are experiencing is the result of our real lack of fairness in our electoral process today. we are faced with a great need for media reform, and taking money out of that. we are faced with a tremendous need for the public financing of our elections so that we have a level playing field and everyone has the same amount of money to proffer their points of view to the american public. i think this is crucial for our national security, frankly. facing what we experienced with the citizens united act, it has put us in a very precarious position with intervention from multinational corporations abroad. one of the key things i want to focus on in the senate is the

passage of the disclosure act as a jumping off point, that there really needs to be the public financing of elections. we see it working very well in arizona and maine. >> thank you. >> thank you. i do not know how we cannot be- in this country, because when you look of the unemployment situation -- i do not know how we cannot be negative in this country, when you look at the unemployment rate. this is unacceptable. a lot of people are angry. what i want to do in the united states senate is to bring back the spirit of americanism, capitalism. my forte is creating jobs. when you have laws like obama- care that will destroy our health care system, when i see a situation like cats and trade which is so bad for west

virginia, -- cap and trade, which is so bad for west virginia, when you look at the stimulus program that has sailed to america. these are programs we need to change in this country. i can bring the spirit of capitalism to make a positive change in status following the line -- instead of following the line that has brought failure. >> mr. raese, senator byrd was known for bringing federal jobs to west virginia. you oppose the government's current role in the economy and would seek to abolish earmarks as well as the minimum wage. what is your consensus? would you pursue public dollars for west virginia if elected? >> i think you bring up a good

point, when you say let's abolish earmarked. since 1994, there have been 90,000 earmarks. what it does is that it creates career politicians. i think that is one of the problems. you mentioned senator byrd, and his ability, bearing back a lot of federal money. my question, is that the best answer for the problems of west virginia? i do not think so. i believe that when you teach a man to fish that he eats for a lifetime, but if you give it a man a fish he eats for a day. i want to bring back the spirit of capitalism. it requires the limitation of government powers and puts a limit on them to create the freedom of the individual. i think it is very important that we do create those freedoms. let's start looking at programs that make sense for america, that makes sense for west virginia. i would like to start cutting taxes. i would like to quit printing money.

i think we need to have a regulatory reform bill that puts was written and america first again. -- puts west virginia and america first again. >> time for rebuttal? >> on the earmarks, infrastructure is it -- is where roosevelt and eisenhower had gone. water, infrastructure as far as roads, broadband, those are things that the free enterprise system will not go there. they will only go with the market is. for all of us to have an opportunity, there has to be a partnership. the federal and state governor should -- government should be your partner. there has to be the partnership. i recall that they said that senator byrd brought the fbi.

10 years fast forward, it is one of the most progressive, one of the most efficient uses of the federal government they have ever had. it has done so well that the department of defense is expanding. a committed work force. you have to look at what the returns on the money invested. it should be transparent. the thing i think people are upset about, no one knows where and who is making the earmarked. if it is transparent, we will build a road or water line or supply, we will give people the opportunity for quality of life. that is something that we should look into. >> this country is an amalgam. it is a melting pot of race and religion and ethnic background. we are an amalgam when it comes to who we are, and senator byrd stood up for the constitution,

and the constitution dictates and spreads the the promise of this country that is not just capitalists. we have socialistic constructs that are intrinsic to our identity, our success in the 20th-century is born of the fact that we have firemen, police officers, we have a military, a tremendous infrastructure. cash if we work shirley based on capitalism -- if we were sorely based on capitalism, we would not have that. we are a country of great promise. that is what we have to preserve against all of these different imbalances. >> ok. mr. becker, do you have a comment? >> my only concern is with earmarks, you have senate candidates using those as part of a way of a vote-getting. part of the 17th amendment,

senators are chosen by the state legislature. imagine if we went back to that situation, and democrat zel miller advocated this, repealing the 17th amendment, where the earmarks would not be used for votes. >> thank you. we need to move on to the next question. our next question comes from michael myer. >> governor joe manchin, what would you do as senator to help rein in the federal deficit which is now running at about $1.30 trillion? >> the same as i did as governor. coming into the state, i knew we were in trouble. i said we could do better, we started looking at the on managed dead and the underfunded liabilities and started bringing those under control -- we started looking at

the on managed -- unmanaged debt and the underfunded liabilities and started bringing those under control. we as governors lived with the balanced budget amendment. it is worked well for west virginia. the debt we are amassing right now is unconscionable, and it is something that your grandchildren and children will not be able to live with. the cato institute is saying that west virginia is the third best run state in the nation, fiscally responsible. we have been disciplined. we have to live within our means. people in west virginia every day have to make decisions. we should be held to the same and this government has to be held to the same. runaway spending will stop with a balanced budget amendment. >> would you like to respond? >> i would concur with a balanced budget amendment, but i would remind governor manchin

that he is for stimulus. when you look at stimulus, we are looking at $780 billion of suppose it progress by barack obama. if this is his idea of the way of save and cut spending, it is odd to me. >> i would like to respond. the country is in freefall. i am not you're blaming president bush or president obama. we need to fix it. the bottom line is that we have all the states that are falling through except west virginia. system of this package was passed. we have been -- i have been criticized for not spending stimulus quick enough. we shored up because we knew it would come to an end. we did not support the second round of stimulus and did not. people have become so dependent, and it means everyone is waiting for someone to take

care of it. in west virginia, we do not do that. we take care of ourselves. >> something neither of you address is the issue of tax cuts regarding the deficit. in particular, were due stand on the repeal of the bush administration's tax cut for families that make $250,000 or more? >> i am for the tax cut across the board, and i am for making them permanent, not just extending them but making them permanent. the democrats left washington without the opportunity for people to vote on those extensions. i find that concerning because we are going into a lame duck session. what it really is is the largest tax increase in the history of united states. i find that concerning. so i want to make the bush tax

cut permanent. i certainly have felt that way from the beginning, and when you looked at mr. manchin's record, he did not comment about the tax cuts until practically a month ago. my record is clear -- i supported the tax cuts all along. i would like to make them permanent. >> mr. manchin, where do you stand on repealing the tax for families to make $250,000 or more? >> i do not think that during a recession you mess with any taxes. when i became governor, i have a record that speaks for itself because we have cut taxes and west virginia. -- in west virginia. $235 million worth of cuts. this is for all of our citizens and businesses. this is when i first came in, they said, we have to raise

taxes. i said, i cannot ask the people to pay more until i know we are running this government efficiently. within one year, we were able to reduce taxes. we have a proven record and it works. >> mr. johnson, would you like to respond? >> i am adamantly against the bush tax cut for the wealthy. i see different options, and that is why i am here. there are different options to look at in regards to wiggling down our debt -- wittling down our debt. first is our bloated level of spending -- when $1 out of $3 goes to the department of defense, which is one of the two agencies that are not accountable. this is a serious issue. when we have no conventional enemies that we are dealing

with. we are not at war and have not declared a war since the second world war. however, when we look at this, one of the ideas i would suggest that look and very closely is what has happened in the last 20 years with the derivative market? we have gone from no derivative market to a debt that is nearly $700 trillion. nell, this is greater than the entire global gdp. -- now, this is greater than the entire global gdp. we could provide universal health care for all citizens in this nation, which in my interpretation of the constitution, is a right. >> mr. becker, could you respond? >> yes. article i gives limited powers to the federal government. most of these departments are not authorized by the constitution. we need to look at these and

phase them out. the government, but we need to i know people are employed by the government, but we need to phase out as many of these programs as we can carry the republicans campaigned on this in 1994 with the contract of america. they did not do it they said they would do. now the republicans have the pledge for america. and it has -- well, it begins with on page 33 with a request, or a demand to have each piece of legislation began with a statement of constitutional authority. we already have that in congress. the house of representatives has their own role, rule 8, section "d." republicans have not fall this, and the democrats do not do it,

either. >> thank you very much. we need to go on to the next question. >> mr. johnson, coal mining is the most important industry in west virginia, but it is blamed for a lot of environmental problems. what is your opinion of the cap and trade legislation? >> i am in favor of the restriction of carbon emissions. we should not be dealing with carbon emissions on the level. what worries me about the cap and trade bill is the trade element. as i was describing with the the derivatives market that wrecked our economy, the trade element of that bill creates a whole new unregulated market for giant corporations, and that is a future drain to the american

coffers and worldwide. coal mining is essential to west virginia, but i have prospered since 2004 a change, a way to stop mountaintop removal immediately. and then transition away from burning coal. we are wasting a non renewable resources that west virginia university itself identified more than 5000 products more than 20 years ago that we can manufacture in that sense. i have proffered a new coal economy based on carbon. carbon manufacturing, to rebuild manufacturing in the state of west virginia and rebuild the middle class in america and started from the hills and hollows of west virginia. it this can be done now. -- if we have the political will and someone who would stand up on the floor of the united states senate and fight for it,

and i will do that. >> john raese, you oppose cap and trade. >> yes, i do. it would be disastrous for this country and for west virginia. it is not about the environment. it is about controlling manufacturing in this country. when you look at the essence of co2 release in this country, if you take all of the oceans in the world, they emit 125 billion -- of co2. it does not make any sense. when you look at the scenario in the state of west virginia and the myth that there is global warming, and the other myth than man causes global warming. i do not believe in that myth. i think what we need to find is

more accessible coal. we need to start growing this country with our natural resources. >> i respectfully disagree with president obama. that being said, coal has built this country, because it has been dependable, reliable, and affordable, and domestic. if you want this nation to be strong and secure, you have to quit buying the oil and products that other countries are using the money against us. if you want to stop the run from a nuclear armament, then quit buying a product -- if you want to stop iran from a nuclear armament. we needed to develop our renewables. we need to do everything we can in west virginia to be energy independent. that is how we will have a secure, free, and strong a

secured card would you like to go, mr. johnson? >> we keep going back to this coal for energy model. more energy shines on this planet in one day than all of mankind consumes in a year. geothermal has a greater potential for this state and then coal mining and all other sources combined. we have options and no political will in washington or the state of west virginia to explore them. >> mr. raese, question for you. what solutions to do you offer for the state and for the country for when the coal runs out? >> that is an interesting question. when the coal runs out, you are looking at almost 200 years.

the myth is that the co2 emission is all about burning coal. governor joe manchin stated that he does believe that global warming is caused by man. and that is where he and i have a difference. >> what is your position on what the state should do when the coal runs out? >> the coal is in a transition period, which could be 30 or 50 years. until there is a reliable fuel of the future, coal is our base load. the rest of the world is using more coal than ever. china. we cannot compete with the

higher price of energy until we are able to transition. you did not leave your base field, and there is nothing to replace it with. there will be a fuel of the future, i am sure. i think it should be done right here and west virginia. -- in west virginia. i know in west virginia we have the ability, the technology, and the research to help develop different ways of using coal and the fuels of the future. coal will be a mainstay for many years to come. >> we need to move on to the next question. >> despite the recent federal mine safety legislation, six months ago, 29 miners were killed in the upper big branch disaster. if you were elected, what more would you have congress do to protect coal miners against

these kinds of disasters? >> as you know, the safety of our miners is the most paramount thing in my mind. i have sat through too many tragedies and i never want to do that again. the bottom line we speak of is how do we have a safe workplace, not just minding but any workplace in america? what we have right now with the upper big branch investigation still going on -- the federal, state, the independent that they are doing. we have been coordinating our office, our legal staff has been preparing legislation with ventilation and how that should be controlled. what we have done and west virginia, we have challenged every miner to take control, to make sure you are in a safe workplace. if not, stop. make sure you are not in harm's way or any of your fellow workers. we empowered them to do that. we have a hot line. we cannot continue to have

people in an unsafe situation and nothing is done to control it. until this investigation is completed, and we will have legislation on the state level. on the federal level, we will be prepared to coordinate that with the state. that is what we did after the coal mine disaster. we did that with safety. we will do that after the upper big branch investigation is completed. >> mr. johnson, would you like to respond? >> i would like to respond to the 200 years. we are consuming coal at an accelerated rate. the future starts tomorrow, and that is the moment we walk out of here. governor manchin is talking about mine health and safety. what we need to look at is proper application of

regulations. that is not being offered at the state or federal level, or would not have the situation with looking to the epa to enforce our laws. a former congressman wrote the mine health and safety act. had it been followed, ventilating that mine, then these acts of god would never have happened. deep mining is safe as long as it is done properly. we have perfected that in west virginia and around the world for years. there are many possibilities with carbon to utilize safety pods and many walls are being shipped abroad. this is an opportunity for us,

and the future starts tomorrow. >> would you like to address the issue of legislation for mine safety? >> i agree with governor manchin that we have to wait until all studies are in before we can formulate a plan of attack, but i am concerned about the obama administration and his direction that he is going against coal. i am concerned right now for the safety of our miners. when you see washington, they do not have the best concern of all the things that we do in the mining business. i am in the coal mining business and the limestone mining business. i have never been asked by any bureaucrat ever about my input into safety, my input into what we can do. my family has been in the mining business for over 97 years. i'd like to see more of the

private sector and fall. -- sector involved. people that are experienced at what we do, instead of a lot of washington bureaucrats like we are seeing today. >> on to our next question. melanie hoffman, your next question is to mr. becker. >> as a member of the constitution party, what is your position on the continued buildup of american troops in afghanistan? >> i think we need to first take a look at happened on september 11. there were three buildings that collapsed on september 11 -- world trade center seven was two blocks away from the twin towers. it was not rained on by any debris. at 5:00 p.m. on 9/11, james stanley, a reporter for the bbc, was standing at ground zero reported that building seven collapsed, when you can

see it over their shoulder. then it did collapse. this is foreknowledge and it needs to be investigated. the altar of building seven -- the owner of building 7 before 9/11 had taken out -- the owner of the building 7 on 9/11 had taken up an insurance policy. he said he gave the order to pull it. it is a controlled demolition term. more evidence of foreknowledge. you can look at the bbc footage. how did the british know 20 minutes ahead of time that this would happen. this needs to be investigated. there is a preponderant of anomalies surrounding the events on 9/11. architects and engineers, over

1000 degreed and licensed architects and engineers have looked at the information, and there is so much information -- it does not make sense. the only way the official story could have been is if the laws of physics changed. >> what is your position on the buildup of troops in afghanistan? >> i support the commanders decision for the buildup and the president followed that recommendation. with that, we must support our troops and must give them the needed support they have in order to complete their mission. you have to listen to your front field commanders. we can all sit here and surmise what could have or should have, but that is not the case. we have too many of our national guard.

i see too many of them off. and i am there when they come back. sometimes they do not always return. that is the most devastating loss, when a person loses our luck -- their life for us. i have to look at that family and thank them for the sacrifice they made. with that being said, we must support and make sure they are safe. we must make sure they have all the support they need and return home safe. >> i will like to ask mr. raese or mr. johnson if they would like to respond. >> when general mcchrystal requested troops, he only got 70% of the troops. once again, president obama did not listen to his generals. i know when you have a war you have to listen to your general. when they request the troops,

you have to do it 100%. my philosophy is -- we win, you lose. >> mr. johnson, go ahead. >> i think what we need to keep in mind is that this is all the result the pursuit of empire, being the policeman of the world. that is a dangerous folly. when $1 of $3 of our money is going to a defense model, and we have a crumbling infrastructure and public transportation, that we need to consider that we perhaps should not be in these excursions abroad and that it's truly not making us any safer, and in the process, we are giving up our civil liberties. when we consider that deaths of 9/11, and i'm not making light

of that, but sheer fact, in our health care model, sloppy penmanship kills 7000 people per year. >> mr. raese, you said you wanted to repeal the health care legislation congress passed. what is it about this new law that you do not like? >> i do not like socialism, to tell you the truth. when you have a doctor-patient relationship, that is the way it is supposed to be and that is the way we have the greatest health care system in the world, and that is the way it is right now. that will change, because from here on out, under obama-care, something that governor manchin supported, you will have a patient-bureaucrat relationship, because the first person that patient has to go to

is a bureaucrat. that is called a panel. i disagree with it. i disagree with the fact that it has 20 new taxes in it. i disagree with the fact that you have over 189 new federal agencies that will go with it. you will see insurance companies and doctors come under the penmanship of the federal government. i disagree with all of that. i would like to repeal every part of it, because it is pure unadulterated socialism. it is the worst bill that has ever come out of the united states senate and house. right now when you look at the gross domestic product in this country with obama-care, you are looking at the fact that we are over 51% of the gdp in the country would be controlled by the federal government -- unacceptable. >> mr. manchin, i do want to address what john raese said, in that you came out in support of health care legislation in

the spring, and now you have seemed to distance yourself from it. why the change? is there anything good in this legislation for west virginia? >>. i am not prepared to scrap the entire bill. we have never passed a piece of perfect legislation. there is a lot of work to be done. i am not prepared to tell your child with a pre-existing condition that he or she cannot be covered. i am not prepared to tell someone who had cancer, i am sorry, you cannot have insurance. i am not prepared to tell someone who might have a cap on their insurance, we cannot pay any more. there is a lot built into the bill that democrats and republicans agree with. that is a pretty good start. that is how we do things in west virginia. we need to fix what we have. you do not go up there with basically starting and repealing everything. it just does not work that way. there are people -- there are

things that people depend on. there are things that people have been denied. there are people that cannot afford basic health care. working people are the ones left in the cold. if you're old enough, you have medicare. if you're poor enough, medicaid. if you are incarcerated, you are covered. if you are getting up and going to work every day, you are the most vulnerable. that has to change. there are three parts that i will change. 1099 has to be repealed. that is onerous to small businesses. also, the firewall, to where it is not protecting abortion. that is what states need to respond to. >> our health care problems in

this country are largely the result of skyrocketing health- insurance costs and those are the result as the mccaren- ferguson act, public law 15, this is amazing, it exempted the insurance companies from the sherman antitrust act. there was a bad supreme court ruling that ruled that insurance was not commerce. of course insurance is commerce. the corporations are a for- profit business. now there have been attempts to try to repeal the mccarren it- ferguson act. it failed in the senate. just this past february, the house passed a repeal bill, over 400 votes for repealing it.

now there is a companion bill in the senate, and i will support that vigorously. it is ridiculous that any company or corporation should be exempted from antitrust. the ama did a study i read, in the past 14 years, some 400 health insurers have merged. they can fix prices. >> i am consistently stunned at this health care act is characterized as socialism. it is not socialism at all. it is capitalism on steroids. you have to pay to a private corporation and you are under penalty of law for not doing so. this is not socialism by any stretch of the imagination. i am disturbed by the fact that

it was drawn behind closed doors and, with great giveaways to the prescription drug industry as well as the insurance industry. when you consider, in 2001, pfizer was the most profitable company in the fortune 503 $7.80 billion that your -- $7.8 billion that year. this is extremely dangerous. as i mentioned before, 7,000 people die from sloppy penmanship and health care. -- in health care. >> thank you. we need to go to our next question. we go to john hingsbergen for his question. >> we invited the public to submit questions for this debate. mr. jim kirk offers this

question. in your campaign, you have embraced many issues that are associated with the republican party. your position on climate change legislation and the health care bill are a couple of examples. can you identify any issues you support that would be cause for democrats to support you? >> social security. i am not for privatizing social security, because there are so many west virginians that support it -- that depend on it. if that would have been privatized, with the downturn of the financial markets, 40% of the values would have been lost. we would have had 55% of our seniors thrown into poverty. minimum wage. i believe in the minimum wage. i fought for that and i believe in it. it is basically helping people

have a balance, or have a floor, if you will, so that there is some dignity and some reward. if you put that out to the market, it will fluctuate to wear, how low is low enough? you have medicare. i believe in medicare. basically every time this country got in trouble, every time that we hit bottom, it is the democrats that helped the people struggling and trying to take care of their families. i believe strongly in that. i am more of a centrist in its fiscal matters. i think it is important we bring people together to make sure that we do not put burdens on people for things they cannot afford. when it is time to help people, we are always there. but i believe people should help themselves, too, if they are capable. the expansion of entitlements, i am not a big proponent of that. i believe in giving a helping hand. i've always done that. i cannot take care of the people who truly need it if i do

not. >> this is a two-part question. this is part two. >> this is for mr. raese. in light of your opposition to setting a minimum wage, how would your policies prevent a further slide in middle-class income? >> my opposition to minimum- wage is that i did not -- i do not agree with that. it is something nobody can live on. i think it is too low. i do not like government setting price or wage controls. i want a better wage for everybody. in order to get a better wage for everybody we have in this country, we have to start lifting jobs and manufacturing where they should be carrot not like -- not like manchin and obama. they enjoy people working for $7.25. they like this. i do not. demand is a very important word. demand in this country, with

the obama policies, is running a large unemployment line right now. minimum-wage is one of the worst things possible for unemployment. so i would like to raise the level of the playing field, because we need to set an environment that creates jobs in this country by cutting taxes and spending and putting american manufacturing first again. unless we do that, we will always be mired in how low can we go. i am opposite of that. i am positive in how high we can go. i've treated a lot of jobs in my lifetime. -- i've created a lot of jobs in my lifetime. >> i will ask another question. this election has become a referendum on president obama and his administration.

my question is, why has president obama become a focal point in this election in west virginia and should he be? mr. manchin, you can go first. >> i hate to inform my opponent, but mr. obama's name will not be on the ballot for u.s. senate in west virginia. it will be me. my record has been very clear. and working to bring everyone together, democrats republic -- democrats, republicans, mountain, constitutional party. when this much money has been spent to try to scare people that i will do things i have never done, that i will let somebody control me or be a rubber-stamp for somebody, but i have never been. we would not have all of these people to endorse me. when you talk about the endorsements. after six years, we have all the working people, all the labor. we have the u.s. chamber of

commerce. we have the coal association, the national rifle association, the health care providers, the doctors and nurses and hospitals. these people do not endorse me because we agree on every issue. they are too diverse. they endorsed me because we put a plan in place. they endorsed the process of bringing people together. i am not a rubber-stamp for anybody. never have been in my life. in the of senator byrd, he did not care -- in the spirit of senator byrd, he did not care what political party. >> it certainly sounds like a career politician to me. i am not after special interests. the reason we are concerned about what president obama has done is that if you are in business today, i defy anybody to supply a business plan moving forward. it is virtually impossible. when you look at obama-care, when you look at the stimulus,

taxation, the fact that we have not made any decision whatsoever on the bush tax cuts. when you look at cap and trade. when you look at governor manchin's support for carbon tax, you have to wonder about obama and manchin and which direction they are going. there are choices in this election and they are very clear. when you look at business today, the private sector, we are the people that supply and motivate and bring this country together and make this country move. when you have people like obama and manchin, you have to be concerned about the future of this country because they are together on all five of those issues and have been. i think west virginia realizes where these people have been and where the country is going. i am a businessman. once again, i think i know a little bit about making jobs in this country. >> i think we have to let mr. manchin respond. >> there is no cap and trade in west virginia.

the bill he referred to is house bill 103. how would i have the coal miners, the state chamber of commerce supporting me if anything we have done would harm their livelihood? if you have enough money and can spend that much money to scare people and make them believe that is absolutely false, that is what you get. the bottom line we have here to do with is president obama or president bush. i am an american. i wanted president bush to be the best he could possibly be. i want my country to succeed. i will help whoever i can. i am going up there to help. i am bringing the successes we have had in west virginia to make this country better. >> we need to actually go to

closing statements, to allow everyone to have their last say. we will be going in reverse order from our first question, which means that john raese, you have one minute. >> i want to thank west virginia public radio and west virginia for watching today. whoever is elected today will go into the lame duck session, a two-month session. we have the bush tax cuts. we need to make them permanent. we have a cap and trade which is the wrong direction. i would like to go to the united states senate and put this country in the right direction which is free enterprise, capitalism, and what has made this country great for a long

time. i want to see the united states rise again. >> considering the fact that i did not get to answer the last three outrageous statements made on both sides, you know, i asked the public as in campaigning, are you sick enough yet? if not now, when it? everyone i know, that i come in contact with in the public, everyone has a sick feeling in the pit of their debt. they know something is wrong -- pit of their gut. they know something is wrong in this country. you will not find a two party system in the constitution. there is a reason for that. i want to throw in, you know, the privatization, workers' compensation, d.o.t. h, we have

some serious privatization going on. we need a living wage for the citizens of this nation and the citizens of the state of west virginia. there are answers that simply have no political will being exercised. >> i am sorry. your time is up. >> thank you for sponsoring this debate. the u.s. senate is considered the world's greatest debate of body because the rules allow unlimited debate time. unfortunately, we have not had that time here. i would like to direct people to my website. one of our great patriots said that the people are uninformed and can be easily misled.

another said that those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it. please visit my website. learn more and get involved. i seek to be open next u.s. senator of west virginia, and i -- i seek to be the next u.s. senator of west virginia, and ask for your vote. >> when i was governor, we did not put our political parties or political ambitions first. we put our state first. in washington, there are a great many challenges that we have. i want to go there to take the common-sense approach we used in the west virginia, i want to take it to washington. this is a great country. i will be independent. i have always been independent. when you see what is happening in this country, i am as mad as you are.

when they put their own ambition ahead of this country, and that has got to change. i believe in you and i am asking you to believe in me. i want to thank our candidate and our panelists. i am sorry we were not able to get to everyone with every question. and i want to thank you, our audience, for watching and listening to this debate. good night. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> of course, the 2010 midterm

elections are two weeks from today. each night on the c-span networks we are showing debates from key races around the country. here is our lineup for tonight. live at 8:00 eastern will be the illinois senate race. following that, the pennsylvania governor race, followed by the florida senate debate, and finally, the debate before candidates -- the debate between candidates for wisconsin governor. the wisconsin public radio poll was conducted october 12th-15th with a margin of error of five points. mr. walker is the milwaukee county executive. his opponent is the mayor. we aren' airing that at 11:00 eastern tonight on c-span. we are also airing political

debates on our companion network. at 8:00, the massachusetts fourth district where barney frank is running. that will be followed by the pennsylvania eighth house district race and the arkansas governor race. there is political news from the hill and a fund-raising e-mail in which president obama asked supporters for more than $900,000 in donations before thursday to finance a get out the vote pushed. 15 races are still up for grabs in the final days. republicans will need to pick up 10 senate seats to win a majority in the senate. coming up next, a debate between the candidates running to replace the retiring at congressmen in the wisconsin seventh district. they will focus on regional issues such as milk subsidies,

great lake reservations, and national topics. sean duffy was once on the mtv reality show "the real world." he has 44%. she has 35%, with 89% margin of error. this race is -- with an 9% margin of error. this race is rated a toss up. district, democratic senator julia lassa and republican challenger sean duffy face-off in a live debate. here is news channel 7 news director susan ramsett. >> good evening everyone. thank you so much for joining us. on behalf of wsaw-tv news channel 7, wsaw.com and gray television, we are proud to host tonight's live debate between candidates for wisconsin's seventh congressional district.

the race for the seventh is one of the most significant that voters will decide this election day. whoever wins will take over a seat held by retiring congressman dave obey for 41 years. this is not just an important race, it's an important job. once in washington, he or she will represent more than 260,000 voters across 20 wisconsin counties. so, which one of these candidates will best represent your views and beliefs? well, we are hoping in the next hour, this live debate will help you decide. so, without further ado, it is my pleasure to introduce our moderator for this evening, president and ceo of the wisconsin broadcasters association foundation, john laabs. >> thank you and good evening. this evening, we will all have the opportunity to participate in an historic event. the most widely broadcast political debate ever in wisconsin's seventh congressional district. it will be seen live on wsaw-tv and wsaw.com in wausau, and

kbjr-tv in superior, and will be delayed broadcast tonight at 10:00p.m. on kdlh in duluth, and later this week on weau-tv oclair, wdio-tv superior as well as nationally on c-span. wisconsin's seventh district has been represented for the past 57 years by two wisconsin political giants. melvin laird and david obey. this evening's debate will engage the two leading candidates to succeed to the seventh district seat. the republican candidate, former ashland county district sean duffy and the democratic candidate, state senator julia lassa. the format for tonight's debate will allow for the candidates to make opening statements, to respond to questions from a panel of reporters and, finally, for each candidate to make a closing statement. the order of responses has been previously decided by a coin flip. our panelists this evening

include judy clarke, news anchor weau-tv, mike lauber, news anchor wsaw wausau, and barbara reyelts, news director of kbjr-tv and kdlh-tv superior/duluth. we will now begin with 1.5 minute opening statements. senator lassa? >> well, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here tonight. i just want to thank wsaw, weau and kdlh for the opportunity to speak to you tonight as well as you viewers who are watching this historic debate. i grew up not too far from here. on my parents' small farm. i went to school here. my husband and i are very proud to be raising our two young daughters here. the fact is, growing up on my

parents' farm, i learned the value and the importance of hard work. making sure that we made every dollar stretch. and the importance of having a strong middle class. that is really why i am running for congress, because i believe that people here, we work hard, we play by the rules. all we expect is to be treated fairly. but that is not what we are seeing coming from washington. there, we have seen where special interests have been given special favors because they have deep pockets and loud voices. that needs to change. we need to make sure that we're putting middle class workers and their families at the top of the priorities list out in washington d.c.. that's why i really called on members of congress to take a 10% pay cut until we bring unemployment down and that members of congress do not receive a pay raise until we have a balanced budget. >> thank you.

mr. duffy, your opening statement. >> thank you, i want to thank channel 7 for posting tonight's event. senator lassa, thank you for participating. i think it is great that we have a live debate in the seventh congressional district and i appreciate everyone to being interviewed -- everyone to me in. -- tuning in did in my lassa master of law school, i knew i wanted to have a family. so, we moved back and at this point, my oldest child 11 and my youngest is 3 and victoria is 3 months old. the reason i got into the congressional race is when congress decided to pass the nearly trillion dollar stimulus bill. government borrowing and

spending does not lead to growth, prosperity, wealth or jobs. at that comes from the private sector. i am running for congress because i believe wisconsin and america can prosper again. i am one to go to washington to fight to kickstart our economy and bring jobs back to wisconsin and make sure we put hard- working families back to work. thank you. >> the key, mr. duffy. our first question will be from judy clarke directed to mr. duffy. >> the latest figures from the congressional budget office at one point was three trillion dollars for 2010. not many people say bay like or favored changing taxes, but do you plan on raising the money to pay the deficit without raising taxes? we have a $13.3 million national

debt. if you break it down, that is $43,000 for every man, woman and child in this country for live to put it a different way, when my daughter victoria was born six months ago, on goals and handed her a bill for $43,000. we have to get our national budget under control. we have to balance our budget. the bottom line is that we need to put americans back to work. more people are going to work on a daily basis. they pay more taxes. the bottom line is that if we increase taxes, we will see more job losses. there is a direct correlation. the congressional budget office said that if we increase taxes on january 1, 2011, we will experience a 1.2 million person

job loss. it does not mean that we will bring more money into the federal coffers. a stimulated economy where people are working is one where taxes will flow into federal coffers and we can look at balancing the budget. >> center lassa? >> thank you for the question. i think is important that we recognize what is happening at the federal level in terms of the spending that is going on. for years, our middle class families have been squeezed. have had to focus on how to make our family's budget balance. we had to make some difficult choices and prioritize where we wanted to see our money spent between our needs and wants. i think that is what the federal government has to do as well. we need to make sure that we are balancing the budget.

prioritizing what we need to be spending on in terms of how to get this economy rolling again. also, we need to make sure that we are not spending money on just what our once our. we need to bring this budget back into balance. that is why i call on members of congress to not get a pay raise until we balance the budget, that we close the tax loopholes that are encouraging our corporations to move good paying american jobs overseas that we do what we can at the federal level in order to make sure that taxpayers are getting the best bang for their buck. we are making the process transparent and accountable. >> our next question will be from mike lauber. >> your marks, which are spending products put into a bill without voting, it is a

poor way to legislate. year marks can -- earmarks can benefit. congressman obey the disparate have the feel about your marks? would ever seek one that would benefit the district? >> the fact is, i believe that we should in the process. i think that every tax dollar that is being spent on a project should stand on its own merit and that it should be weighed against other spending. i really think that we need to be able to get a handle on our federal budget and deficit. this is one of the ways to do that. it also makes sure that the process is much more transparent for individuals as well as

taxpayers because they know exactly where money is being spent instead of earmarks being put in the process where it is not so much out in the open. i think that is what is important. i appreciate all the work that congressman toby has done over the years, but the fact is that the earmarks process is something that we really need to change. we really need to crack down on federal spending. >> mr. duffy? >> my concern with earmarks is that it is slip in under the cover of darkness. i want to bring transparency to this process. what i would like to see happen is that any project that we think is worth federal dollars, let's bring it to the house floor and let everyone see it and have a great conversation on what american spending is appropriate. just because i am not in favor of earmarks does not mean that i am not in favor of money being

spent in the seventh district. not all government spending is bad. if it is good spending, i will advocate for those projects and make sure wisconsin projects get funded. if you look at a lot of our businesses, a lot of them get work for the federal government. i will advocate for our hard- working businesses in wisconsin because i think are great. i will use my bullhorn as a congressman to make sure that those contracts come our way. but, senator lassa says she is not in favor of earmarks. as a state senator, she voted on 7 $1 million worth of earmarks. if you do that in madison, you will probably do the same thing in washington. >> our next question is from barbara reyelts for mr. duffy. >> during the campaign, you both have said that you have reservations about the obama administration and the health care reform plan.

you had basically three options when you get to washington. you can vote to repeal the whole thing or you can work to reform certain elements of the health care plan or you can let things go on as they are for a while and see what the results are. what would you do with the health care plan? >> that is a wonderful question third i think the primary goal of health care has to be with reform that will reform. we are not fundamentally addressing the root cause of one prices are going up your over year. the bottom line is, we need tort reform. we need competition across state lines we need to make sure that citizens can pool their resources and have better buying power against insurance companies. i want to make sure there is transparency to make sure that

if we are shopping for a service provided by a health-care plan, we can look up the cost of the. i think that we should take off a lifetime cap and someone who has a pre-existing condition, i think they should be able to buy insurance. i look at senator loss of's ,roposal -- lassa's proposal and she voted for a bill that gave more power to bureaucrats and took power away from families. i do not want to see that happen. that will cost the wisconsin taxpayer $15 billion and it will be paid for by way of a 12% payroll tax. that would make wisconsin far less competitive and it would ship far more jobs to other states. that is the wrong way, but reform is the right way. >> senator lassa? >> i remember when i was kicked

off my parents' health insurance when i became too old. i had a cavity and had to go into the dentist to get it fixed. i did not have the money at that time to have pain medication and overcame when the doctor was drilling my cavity. it was one of the bus painful things i have ever had to go through, but the fact is, we have people in this state and in this country who are making even more difficult health decisions than what i had to make in the dentist's office. that is why, with this health insurance law, is making sure that children who have diabetes can get health insurance. making sure that if you become sick or become pregnant at your health insurance cannot kick you off your health insurance plan. senior citizens life-saving medication better able to be afforded. i am concerned about the piece

about mandates. it mandates individuals and families to have health insurance. the fact is, we need to make sure that the health insurance coverage is affordable for them, otherwise, i believe it is not fair. what my republican opponent is talking about is handing the keys back to health insurance executives. >> our next question will be from judy clarke, directed to senator lassa. >> there are many proposals being offered calling for changes on how the dairy industry should get support from the government if at all. would you stand on a support program and the few are in favor, what alternative do you favor that would provide dairy farmers with a fair and low wage, price, and allow them to make money and make dairy prices affordable at the consumer

level? >> thank you, so much for that question. been someone who grew up on a dairy farm, i am familiar with so many of the challenges. one of the reasons why my dad had a factory for 38 years is because we needed the extra income that the job brought and the health insurance benefits. that is like so many families across this state. that is why i believe that when the new farm legislation comes to the table and needs to be drafted, we need to make sure that our small family farmers, dairy and others, are there to have a voice. we just saw where dairy farmers were getting low prices, prices that they were getting back in the 1970's.

how can a small family farm get the fertilizer, the seed, buying new equipment that they need if they're getting prices that they were receiving back in the 1970's? it is just not realistic. what i believe that we need to be doing is crafting that legislation to allow farmers to get ahead. but also do things like cracking down on the imports that are coming in. that will help our farmers as well. >> mr. duffy? >> as i traveled the district, i had a chance to deal with the farmers. i hear different comments from all of them about what they think should happen to turn this very situation around. going from $9 to $21. it is a feast or famine scenario that they go through.

we want to make sure that our families can make a living carried -- make a living. one in 10 of our workers work in agriculture. i think it is a great industry to export these products. let's try to export our great dairy products to the rest of the world. 96% of all consumers live outside of america. i think that we can work on policies to help with that export. and we pass our forms from generation to generation, and when we pass that on, one of the impediments to doing that is the estate tax. when father passes away, they get slammed with a significant stake -- estate taxes and that makes it more debacle. i support policies that will support forms. >> our next question will be

from mike lauber. >> the next negotiation the u.s. negotiates will probably deal with austria and other countries. since new zealand exports 95% of their dairy production, and they would love to have access to the u.s. market, what step would you take to make sure they would not drive down costs? >> i am not in favor of free or fair trade. i think this would drive down our dairy prices. i think we have to look at how many consumers are outside of america. what i want to see us do is see how we can export american products but not jobs. that is why i want to see us have an effective tax rate that allows us to compete on this

global stage. american products are taxed in america and when they are exported, they are taxed again. the products from japan has the tax laws of their products and it comes into america tax-free. american products are at a disadvantage because of our rules and how we tax their exports and imports. we have to make american products far more competitive on the global stage. >> senator lassa? >> one of the main issues we will have to deal with in the next congress has to deal with fair trade. when we are talking about products coming in from new zealand and other areas that impact our dairy farmers, i think that we have to be very cautious about that. we need to make sure that our

dairy farmers, as well as other american businesses are able to compete on a fair and level playing field. that is not what is happening right now. we are not doing what we need to do to enforce agreements, making sure that wages are being paid like they are supposed to be paid the way that the situation is right now, american businesses and our workers cannot compete because they are all at different levels. the debt has been stacked against them. we need to make sure that we are enforcing what we have in place and enforcing that we need to. we need our american businesses

to compete and out compete anyone in this world. the fact is, they cannot deal that when the deck is stacked against them. >> our next question is from barbara reyelts. >> the help of like superior is critical environmentally. many parts of the state like northwestern wisconsin is very important to the economy. and invasive species is troubling to many. how would you work to protect the health of the great lakes? >> well, the great lakes is an important resource, not only for our state but for our country. it is the largest freshwater body that exists. we need to make sure that we protect that, not only for the health of our state's residents,

but also for the environment and the workers who depend on the work that is related to the great lakes. that is why i believe that we need to make sure that we're doing what we can to be proactive in making sure that there is no pollution coming into the great lakes which is deteriorating quality. there are so many communities across the state and in other states that draw water from the great lakes for drinking water. i believe we need to make sure that we preserve that national treasure that we have with the great lakes and that we worked as a community to be able to do that between the business community and also the environmental community. >> mr. duffy? >> this is a great asset and a

great resource. i have the privilege of living in ashland. i get to see the beautiful lake every day. i know what it means for our wisconsin economy because i see what it does for tourism. it has people come to ashland and go up to cornucopia and use this great resource that we have. it is the largest freshwater body. we need to protect it. if i am the next congressman, believe me, i understand the value and is important and i will go to washington to protect the body of water. >> a follow-up question? >> the reason that you both agree, but neither of you address how he would protect the great lakes. one of the great problems or invasive species.

the problem is, the shipping industry is a multimillion- dollar industry if you start thinking of how to get rid of the ballast water, how would you handle that? you also have canada to deal with. how would you handle that? >> senator lassa, we have 30 seconds and your first. >> there are a number of different ways we can handle invasive species one is that any type of living creature that would be transported in the ship's hull would be killed. we into do this through a variety of different means, but we need to make sure that that is happening. we need to watch the asian car which is coming up from the rivers south of us from chicago. >> mr. duffy? >> we have to work with our

shippers and other companies to make sure they have procedures and policies that will allow us to effectively handle invoices pcs. -- invasive species we need to make sure the we will address this problem effectively. >> our next question is from judy clarke and directed to mr. duffy. >> unemployment is reaching 10%. job creation is a big issue in many campaigns. do you think that the federal government should play a role in creating jobs, and if you believe that there is a roll, please be specific about what that role should be. >> i just came out with my plan for stimulating the economy and getting job growth going. it is on my job site. the out-my website. -- my website.

a constituent employs 131 people and invest $1 million and his business and if he does that, he would create 15 new jobs. but he says he is 62 and he will not make that investment because there is uncertainty coming from the government. what he means by that is that he is uncertain because he does not know the cost of health care. we have bailouts in the stimulus. all that has caused him to walk down and not create jobs. the bottom line is that there are 15 families that do not have a good job and central wisconsin. those decisions are being made all over wisconsin and that is wrong. under senator losses leadership, she has expanded unemployment. we have seen businesses leave

this state. on friday, we saw that health care is going to leave the district. that is what they have been doing in washington. what she has done in madison, she will also do in washington. >> senator lassa? >> thank you very much for the question. i come from a family that has a small dairy farm. the fact is that my dad also worked at a factory for 38 years. during that time, there were times when work at the factory slowed down. i know very well what is happening with so many families that have lost a job and been laid-off or are concerned about whether they will have a job next week, next month, or next year. i really believe that we need to close the tax loopholes that are

encouraging corporations moved good paying american jobs overseas. we need to stop that. it is absolutely crazy for americans to work as hard as we do, we pay our taxes, and then turn around and give corporations their hard-earned tax money just to move jobs overseas. that is what separates our republican opponent and i. he wants to keep those tax loopholes in place. we need to be rewarding businesses that invest in wisconsin and american workers first. talking about the job losses in the state and the country, the country has been brought to its knees. >> our next question, mr. lassa -- mr. lauber?

>> we have seen jobs disappearing. we have paper mills in the seventh district and it is one of seven companies that are looking into whether chinese or indignation paper imports are unfairly priced and pushing u.s. companies out of the market. what steps was to take to protect wisconsin paper companies? what i have already taken steps to do that. -- >> i have already taken steps to do that. i do believe that we are seen where china, indonesia and other countries are selling their paper products in this country for less than what they can even manufacturer for. the saddest meeting that i have ever had to attend was over in port edward where employees in

the community were gathered. the reason why there plant closed is because of this unchartered -- on fair trade. we need to get tough on china. we need to make sure they are not selling their products here for less than a 10 make it over there. we also need to look for a way for them to be priceless -- profitable. paper manufacturers take would waste and turn that into gasoline. this is a new promise for our paper industry treate. we really need to be making sure that we're focusing on that and being able to move forward because that is a real promise.

>> mr. duffy? >> we see wisconsin jobs being outsourced, but they are not going to other countries, they are going to other states. they are not closing their doors and to shutting down, they are going to more competitive states. we cannot do business in wisconsin because of the policies and the taxes that senatorial loss of voted for in madison -- senator lassa voted for it in madison. there was a 22.5%-$22.5 million tax last year. these policies killed jobs in wisconsin. >> the bottom line is that we have chinese paper being dumped here in america. we have policies in place to

take care of that. the president has that ability and i think that he should impose it. i am not a big fan of tariffs, but when we have unfair trade practices, i think it is appropriate. to all of our loggers out there and those in the paper industry, i am a man that has made a living anticipated in their sport that goes back 100 years for the >> our next question is from barbara while its and it goes to mr. duffy. >> with the federal no child left behind legislation, calls the -- schools have to compete for funding. teachers have to meet certain federal standards or face having their schools punished financially and a lot of other federal regulation. how do you feel about this level of federal involvement in

schools? >> i have to tell you that i believe that our children are our greater resort -- greatest resource. i want to make sure that they get the best education possible. 20 years ago, they were competing against ohio and iowa. now they're competing against china and vietnam i want to make sure that there is as much local control as possible. it is not necessarily good for cincinnati or minnesota or minneapolis for milwaukee, but i want to have as much local control as possible. that was president bush's program. that was a lot of mandate without a lot of funding. what obama is doing right now is positive. let's have all of these different schools try to

implement procedures the will educate their children most effectively and in the best way possible. when they do that, there is competition. when you do it right and do it well, you get resources from the federal government. it is a great free market principles that will encourage competition among schools and i would support that. all the while, i want to make sure that we keep as much control as possible at our local level. >> senator lassa? >> i want to go back to the last question. i cannot disagree with my republican opponent anymore. when a plan announced that they were closing, over 400 people are born to lose their jobs. they are not going to minnesota 400 -- minnesota. 400 jobs are going to mexico. they are binding the hands of

american businesses and american workers. millions of dollars were spent in revenue last year and chose to move to mexico so they could make more. they left their employees in the dust. regarding education, i am a mom that has to young girls who, right now, the wanted the princesses, but the fact is that when they grow up, i want to make sure that they and other kids like them all across the state have a good, sound, quality education so that they can grow up and be whatever they wanted the. -- they want to be. all the way up into higher education. they are our future work force. we are talking about our nation's future in economic development and job opportunities. that, to me, is important. >> our next question will be

from judy clarke and will be directed to senator lassa. >> social security is the government's largest entitlement program. according to the social security administration, suspected long run costs cannot be sustained and by 2025, there will be twice as many older americans as there are today. what should be done with this program? >> social security is a very important program that 1 million caesars -- 1 million seniors are relying on. my grandmother's all source of income was a security. there are many that rely on social security as a big portion of their income. that is what they have to live on every month. that is why i believe that it is vital that we protect social security for our current

retirees, but also for our workers who are paying into social security as well as medicare. that is why i believe that we need to stop using the social security trust fund as a way for paying for other government programs. that has to stop. just by doing that, we can extend the life of social security until 2040. take it seriously -- i do take it seriously. this is something that is really in contrast to my republican opponent who has supported paul ryan's budget in the past where it includes privatization of social security. >> mr. duffy? >> thank you.

the bottom line is companies have left wisconsin to go to other states because other states are more competitive because of the policies that senator lassa advocated for. when people are not working in wisconsin, the on not paying social security tax. that is part of the problem. we have to get this economy rolling again. senator lassa like to say that i want to privatize social security. the milwaukee journal sentinel called her a liar. i do not want to privatize social security. i want to shore it up. i want to make sure that our seniors did exactly what they bargained for which is their benefits. those that are about to retire me to get their benefits. what are we want to get from social security in my generation?

i am talking about means testing. at the top earners may get a smaller return on their investment, maybe 3.1%. the rest of us would get the current rate of return which is 4.1%. that will go a long way into shoring up the system. as a senator, senator lassa rated the state transportation trust fund, the family compensation fund and she has done it in madison and she will do it in washington. >> our next question is for mike lauber directed to mr. duffy. >> wisconsin -- nationwide polls have shown that washington is out of touch with the average american. comment-how would to insure that you would address these issues?

>> i have been running for 18 months. i know how large the district is. i have crisscrossed all over. i actually have a callus on my hands from shaking so many hands of wisconsin voters. i will make sure that i will live in the district. i love wisconsin. i am going to raise my kids in wisconsin. i will travel at the last moment on monday and come home on thursday. when you go to church here and your kids go to school here, you were in touch with people here. i am going to do something different than what congressman toby did. i will make sure that i have at least one town hall meeting in every county every year. people need to see their congressman and have a conversation with their congressman. i want to make sure i have open office hours so that they can find me. i think accessibility is

important, especially when you talk about legislation that was recently passed from health care to capt. trade, it is -- to cap and trade. i want to have an open-door policy so that anyone who wants to have a conversation with me will have that opportunity. >> senator lassa? >> thank you. i look forward to addressing your question in just a moment, but i do want to jump back and talk about social security. the fact is, back in may, my republican opponent, when he was asked about social security and medicare, he said that paul ryan, who is a very conservative republican congressman, has some very good ideas dealing with social security and medicare. when he was on this morning, he changed his tune and said how he was opposed to the privatization of social security and medicare.

in terms of talking about staying in touch with the second congressional district -- the seventh congressional district, it is a large and a first district with many wonderful it.ple in tha my oldest daughter goes to public school. my youngest daughter will be starting 4k next year. i think this is one of the best ways to really keep in touch with constituents. the fact is, when i am out a grocery shopping, checking over the clearance rack and one of the local department stores, i have people come up to me and i think that is a way to stay connected. >> our next question is from barbara reyelts, directed to senator lassa. >> senator obey was talking

about money being poured into wisconsin. i asked if he was for or against both of your campaigns. yes the millions of dollars. how do you feel about outside entities influencing this district, and if you are elected, how would you change that? >> thank you very much for that question. the fact is, a couple of weeks ago, my daughter was celebrating her sixth birthday. on the television appeared this u.s. chamber of commerce and that was an attack ad against me that listed my home telephone number for me to call. the fact is, i can understand if someone is or to attack and, but

they should not be attacking my family. we have seen, in this race, where there have been nine outside groups that have been spending $1.2 million or more in attack ads against me to benefit my republican opponent. we need to know where that money is coming from. who is donating it? we need disclosure in those ads so that voters know who is paying for it, and what did they to get by spending that kind of money to buy this congressional seat for their candid? i think it is important. i support the disclose that fact. it will make sure that donations for ads have to be disclosed to the federal elections commission. they would have to stand by their ad so that they have to take responsibility for what is being said. shareholders should be have a

majority if they want to spend money. >> mr. duffy? >> to respond to senator lassa, in regard to social security, ever independent organization that has investigated this has called a misleading or alive. i do not want to privatize social security. in regard to adds, i believe that families are off-limits. that someone would put a at up with senator lassa's home number on there, i think that is wrong. i cannot imagine the u.s. chamber intentionally putting up at home number. i do not have any control over what these party people put up. we see these as the same time

the viewers do. i am on the receiving side of this. the national democratic party, the first at the rand, the whole country was against me. senator lassa did not condemn that ad. a lot of people have received literature pieces in the mail .org.women'svote another group is called emily's list. she should call on those organizations to find what they stand for and who supports their organization. >> your final question is for mr. duffy. >> although they can be effective, most voters have claimed that they do not like negative ads. whether the message comes from your campaign for outside sources. without quoting your own strength for qualifications, say

something nice about your opponent. >> that is a good question. i think that senator lassa is a very nice person and a wonderful mother. i disagree with the ads that she puts on television about me. my ads have been positive. we have a young child and a construction what -- construction worker getting -- construction worker getting dumped in water. she had one very good at, but after a week, she turned to negative ads. i think senator lassa is a good mom and i think she is a good person, we just disagree on a lot of political issues. she has a wonderful husband and i think she puts her family flush -- family first.

>> senator lassa? >> thank you. this race, i have been in it for five months. i know how grueling it can be. both sean and i have young families. we have two young girls. that is why i really do appreciate, as a mom, the dedication that he has shown to his family and his wife. i think that is very important because that can be a lot of stress on the campaign trail. just making sure that you're able to juggle your daily schedule and make sure you are spending enough time with your kids. for me, it is laundry in doing .ooking and stuff like that

in terms of negative ads, when my opponent talks about my farm and and the values that i have, he was running too negative attack ads at that time. i had to respond. i think that is very important for voters to know. i think that the debate is wonderful because it allows individuals to hear were the candidates stand on the different issues. i really do appreciate the opportunity to be talking to you. >> that includes the question and answer portion of our debate. thank you senator lassa, thank you senator duffy barred -- mr. duffy. you now have 1.5 minutes for closing statements. senator lassa? >> thank you again for hosting this debate.

as i said, it is important for voters to know where the candidates stand on the issue. that is why, throughout this campaign, i talked about washington putting middle class workers and their families first. they have forgotten about us. we need to make sure that we are back on the top of the priorities list. that is not special interests giving special favors. we need to make sure that we're growing our economy again. we need to be able to come up with innovative ideas to help the state and our national economy be able to move forward. one of the big issues that we talked about during this debate is social security. i will jump back to social security if i can.

i am not the only one talking about how my republican opponent shifts his position on social security, but it is also politico. having voters be able to hear from the candidates, where they stand on the issues, is so very important. if you are out there listening and you're looking for a candid that is -- a candidate, i ask for your vote on november 2. >> mr. duffy, your closing statement. >> i want to thank channel 7 and senator loss of for encouraging a debate. as we have gone to this conversation, i think there are distinct differences that you will see. she believes in bigger government, more spending, and larger deficits. she has a 0% rating for small business organizations.

which talks about business, she has a 0% rating. she has voted for small businesses 0% of the time. i think that we can kickstart our economy and bring jobs back to wisconsin and put our hard- working families back to work. i want to go to washington and make sure that happens. i think we have a great american tradition and it is a tradition for each generation leads to the next generation. i think that this is the first time that the great tradition is in jeopardy. i will go to washington and i will fight to make sure my kids and your kids and grandkids have that great tradition alive and well what here in wisconsin and right here in america. i appreciate the debate. i appreciate you listening. have not. >> that concludes this debate between the seventh congressional district and a desperate we think the candidates, state senator julia lassa and mr. duffy and we think

our panelists, or ryle says -- barbara roberts, in judy clarke. this evening's debate has been brought to you by gray television and broadcast through wisconsin to insure that every citizen in wisconsin has had an opportunity to hear the two leading candidates. in the traditional spirit of service to their communities, the radio and television stations that have and will air this debate hope that bring the political event to you as a public service will contribute positively to this campaign as they approach their next member of congress. now, on behalf of these

candidates, mr. john duffy, senator julia lassa, thank you for listening and watching. good night. ♪

♪ >> the 2010 midterm elections are two weeks from today. each night on the c-span network, we are showing debates in key races around the country. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, the focus will be on the illinois senate race. that will be live. an hour later, the pennsylvania governor's race and then the florida senate race. finally, there will be the debate for the candidates to be the wisconsin's next governor. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, it is massachusetts for the district or barney frank is up against

republican sean be lap. then it is pennsylvania's it helps district race and then followed by the arkansas governor's race. republican marco rubio is maintaining his race for florida's senate seat. charlie crist has 31%. democratic kendrick make is that 22%. joe biden continued his campaign schedule today with a visit to vancouver washington, delivering remarks on behalf of patty murray who is in a tight bid for re-election to a fourth term. senator murray is leading her republican opponent. >> c-span is local content of

vehicles are traveling the country while we look to some of the closely contested house races leading up to this november's midterm election. >> it is with a lot of hard work, it is with a message that you guys believe in, which is limited government. get the government out of my way and let me blaze my own trail. quit spending money and get some people back to work. that is the message that is resonating up there. i think it is amazing. you probably feel on the ground what i feel all the place. folks are rising of saying we are going to take our country back. that is great. [applause] >> i am here to say we are in this together. but people do not vote on election day, we will wake up and things will be really bad. we want to wake up knowing that we will continue moving forward. the first thing i learned about politics is, if you are in a whole, quit digging. [laughter]

we are out of that hole. i do not want to go back to digging out of it. >> the candidates for the 11th congressional district are the incumbent freshman. she is being challenged by an atom can singer. he isn't iraq war veteran. -- he is on iraq war veteran. being a freshman, she is automatically a target because republicans want to get that seat back. she also has voted with the president on two of the most controversial bills introduced, the stimulus package and health care reform. she is being targeted on a couple of those issues. however, she did run on health care reform, so that is supported by voters here. more stories come out about how

that money is being spent and she may have problems of the. she is having trouble now separating herself from nancy pelosi. there have been mailers' out linking the two of them together. but the shoestring to really present herself as an independent -- but she is really trying to present herself as independent. there are a few urban pockets, but it covers the south and southwest parts of chicago. there is a tiny portion that goes to a central illinois, which includes university town. it was a district that was created by the republicans in the last redistricting. there has been a pocket of tea party activity here. they want less government, less spending, all issues that are coming up in this race. she did come from day royal

hunting and farming community. she doesn't -- she did come from a rural hunting and farming community. she is a homegrown gal. that she has that going for her. she works really hard. and she is a known commodity around here. i think he is battling with voters being very familiar with her and feeling like she is one of us. >> my district has always been a swing district. it could go either way. when i won last time, we knew that it would be a tough race. i represented a swing district when i was a state senator for 12 years. it could have gone either way even then. but the voters, they like the fact that i am an independent fighter. i am the eighth most moderate member of congress. people want somebody who is going to fight for them.

i brought the soon-to-be-vacated sell across hospital. we need to make sure continue to fight for this district. >> adam is a young 30-something up and comer in the republican party. he read the first time at age 20. then he joined the air national guard and served several tours of duty in iraq and if you in afghanistan as well. he is well spoken and comfortable talking to the media. he has challenged her in a lot points. his credit fund-raising. he is not tough -- he is great at fundraising. he is running on a more pro- business, lower taxes platform. he was interestingly not the most conservative person in this primary. it is getting some tea party support. he ran in the primary against

some who are more conservative that he was. i have seen him pull back a little bit from his message. he ran on a message that it is too partisan in washington. >> we know unemployment all around the country is bad. in my district, it is especially bad. it is over 11% in a lot of areas. people want to get back to work. in illinois, specifically, there is corruption. there has been a culture of corruption for the last decade and even beyond that. people far beyond that. they are tired of the arrogance of government. that is why we see out of control spending, out of control unemployment. in many cases, washington, dc needs to run the government the way people run their homes. >> i think his biggest

challenges that she has been in congress for 10 years. if he were a democrat who served all this time and that whole throw the bums out theme could work for him. she cannot wear the jacket for the deficit and all the problems that washington is facing because she has not been there. they're good at raising money and putting out mailers. by all accounts, they will probably raise and spend over $1 million. it is one of the most watched races in the country, both the d.c.-based organizations are paying a lot of attention to this race, spending a lot of time looking at it. we have not seen as much money pouring in from those two entities. the democrat national campaign committee and the republican side are both focused on these two candidates. i think the republicans can lead

and the democrats are desperate to hold onto it. they want to make sure that there be hangs onto the seat. >> c-span local content vehicles are traveling the country, visiting communities and congressional districts as we look at some of the most closely contested house races leading up to this november's midterm election. for more information on what the content vehicles are up to, visit our website, c-span.org /lcv. >> more from illinois 11th congressional district with a debate between democratic rep debbie alderson and her republican challenger adam kinzinger.

>> i am running for congress because of my grand kids. i have one of them right here in the audience. i want to work for a better future, not only for them, but for all of you, your children, and your grandchildren as well. we want to see that they will have the same opportunities that we had. we have achieved a lot over the past two years. we are seeing the economy began to recover. we have a lot more to do. we need to continue moving forward and we are seeing signs of progress. however, if you're a person without a job, there's still a crisis and we need to do everything we can to get things back on track for you. one of the things that i have done to help his hammer out a deal for the new intermodal facility in juliet. there are a lot of jobs being created there.

there are construction jobs. we are seeing a lot of shipping containers coming in with goods from all over the world. but what i really believe is that what we need to do now is fill those containers with american goods and ship them back fall to china, india, and mexico. to do that, we need a level playing field for american workers. we need more tax credits to companies who are creating jobs in america. and we need to see more investment in american workers and in american infrastructure. and we need to end the unfair tax breaks that lead to companies like caterpillar who are shipping jobs overseas. these are things we need to move our country forward. the fact is our economy was driven into a ditch because of the policies of the bush-cheney years. one thing that i do believe is that my opponents policies would move us back in that direction.

his vision would have dire consequences for our district because of the main purpose of his positions being more free trade. they are the same policies that put our economy into that ditch. and they are the same trade policies that have shipped our jobs overseas. they are the same tax policies that give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires and to companies that continue to ship our jobs overseas. i believe we need to head in a better direction. one that puts american workers on a level playing field and the middle class first. that is the choice this november. adams policies want us to go backward to the bush-cheney years. but we cannot go back. we have to go forward. we are digging out of this whole, not going back into it. so i am asking to be your voice so we can continue to move forward. thank you all so much for being

here. [applause] >> thank you everybody. [applause] thank you for coming out. this is inspiring to me to see people that engage in democracy. i know there is a lot of back- and-forth and a lot of talk about the issues and we will get into those. but we have great respect for each other and we understand that is what has made our country strong in the first place. thank you for coming out. it is great to be at illinois university. i am 32 years old. i know that takes some people by surprise. when i was 20, i was elected to a position on the mclean county board.

i felt that the incumbent had lost touch about what representation truly is. so i worked hard and i went door to door and you look like a 15- year-old when your 20. it was an interesting process, but i 153-47. -- but i won 53-47. after the bombing of the world trading center, i knew my life would never be the same. i responded by joining the united states air force in the air national guard in october 2001. i began the process of becoming a pilot. i went to officer training and it has taken me to iraq and a number of other places all over the world. i remember flying monday and thinking, if i am willing to fight for my country on the inside, i have to be willing to fight for it on the outside -- or if i am willing to fight for

my country on the outset, i have to be willing to fight for it on the inside. every child born today is born with over $40,000 in responsibility to the federal government and we are approaching 40% unemployment. we were promised that unemployment would not go over 8% if we pass this $800 billion stimulus. we have a lot of challenges. in 2005, when we should have been talking about have to get people back to work and creating an environment that allows free market to floors and allows the on to burners to have confidence, -- it allows the entrepreneur to have conference, we spent all the time talking about health care. we had to do something about health care, but this was the wrong answer. you deserve representation. you deserve somebody that will be accessible, that will have town hall meetings, that will stand in front of you and not be afraid to take your questions, as tough as they are. i am standing appear saying that we will have a great debate tonight. i am looking forward to

representing you starting on january 3. thank you. [applause] we will start with their first moderator for the evening, our student body president. the first question will go to alverson.pers >> this is a mix -- this is an incredible experience for all of us. many economists argue that social security will be in a crisis situation by the time my fellow students and myself are

at the age to collect benefits. what changes, if any, would you propose for social security? >> thank you, david. social security is a guarantee that our seniors have paid into. right now, it is solvent for another 33 years. can you imagining their seniors money was in the wall street debacle? right now, 43% of our women seniors rely solely on social security. 33% of men. and we need to make sure that it is there for them. we need to put together a panel, like president reagan did. he bit the smartest and the brightest and those changes are only now taking place. now i am hoping that is what president obama will do. he needs to put together that panel. and we need to create more jobs. this is all about jobs. we would not be talking about this if we had more taxpayers. instead, we have policies that are shipping our jobs overseas.

if caterpillar bills as manufacturing plant and those people were working at this plant, i do not know that jobs and people working in beijing are paying into bay -- into our system. we need to create jobs here so that people working here with great jobs are paying into our system. >> thank you for that. i find it very interesting. they called social security the third real politics for a reason. .the congresswoman was interviewed and she said we have to depoliticize the situation. both sides have to put their arms down on it and come to solutions. i agree. three days later, she lost an attack against me that had a number of senior citizens talking about the fact and saying that i want to raise the retirement age and basically i want to privatize social security. but the be very clear. i do not want to raise the

retirement age. i do not want to privatize social sicker. i believe that promises made need to be promises kept. but i also believe we have to put our arms down and talk about how we make it solvent in the long run. she says that, for 33 years, it will be solvent. that would be the case if we rob the social security fund from the beginning. the money is not there. we have to come to a real solution. i agree. we need to be politicized this because even to talk about results in a campaign ad. we need to come together and understand that, my goodness, we have to come with real solutions, not just words. >> would you like to rebut? >> i sure would. these are adams' words, that he had said, that we had to

entertain the idea of raising the retirement age and entertain the idea of capping benefits. we cannot afford such largess. these are his words. >> do you believe that all of the bush tax cuts should be continued? if so, do you think they should be continued permanently? >> yes, i do believe that we need to extend the tax cuts and make them permanent. a democratic senator from indiana and other democratic senators and close to 40 or 50 house democrats have abousaid tt we cannot raise taxes in a bad economy. we are sitting on the buffet right now of a second double-dip recession. i hope we do not touch that. we talked about coming back, but

i do not feel we should be -- what i do not feel we are recovering the way we should be. to raise taxes in this environment and take the money out of october nor's, small- business owners that employee -- out of entrepreneurs, small business owners that employ many many people in the audience. now they are saying the rich are those that have more than two hundred $50,000. but many are small businesses who are wondering how they will pay benefits. the congresswoman said that, mainly people who makeover to under $50,000 -- that make over $250,000 our athletes and celebrities. i do not think so. >> we need to put the middle class first as well as small businesses. in this last congress, we passed

a bill that was a co-sponsor of. anything other -- anything under $250,000 you can write off immediately if you are starting a small business. the number one thing i hear -- i serve on small business -- 50% of everest -- of everything use and investing in your business you can write off on your taxes. we need to stop giving lindsay lohan and paris hilton tax cuts. [laughter] it is true, that is who is getting these tax cuts. we need to make sure that we're helping the middle class. >> well -- [laughter]

part of the problem that we face in this economy right now, for those of you who are entrepreneurs, the problem the economy is facing is uncertainty. we have the health care bill that does not take effect until 2014, but we see continued spikes in health care costs. right now, small-business owners are sitting there saying, you know, i want to spend my business. i want to expand my capital, but i think i will be charged more indexes at the end of the year. so what you have is uncertainty. they have capital they're willing to invest in this economy, but, instead, they sit on it and say, let me wait until january or next summer or 2014. these are real solutions. we need to eliminate that uncertainty. if we want to get people back to work. we do not need slogans. we need real plans.

when you talk to an entrepreneur, they will tell you -- i have some uncertainty that i just do not know what to do. when you talk about raising taxes again and even a huge group of democrats have said that that is the wrong answer, we need to take that into account and look at it and say what we have to do to foster an environment so that people are hired back and we can get this economy rolling again? do you favor the elimination of most or all earmarks in regard to federal funding projects? if not, what types of projects do you believe are appropriate targets for earmarks? >> i do not believe in the elimination of air marks. i do believe in the way that i have taken them on. i believe that they should not go to private companies, that they should be only for non-for-

profits or municipalities. you can go directly to my web site for full vetting. i work with one voice here in mclean county. there are people in this room who get together, business, education, labor, all coming together about what is important to their town. we talk about the things that are important. and we are able to work with them on getting some earmarks. it is very difficult to get projects, especially now in this economy. but the republicans have decided that they will use the rhetoric and say "no earmarked" and that just hurts the community. if you do not take earmarks, some bureaucrat in washington d.c. -- washington, d.c. will sit there and office and decide who should get the water, the sewer, the infrastructure projects.

my district is made up of a lot of little towns that washington, d.c. does not even know about. so i am the only one who knows what is best for my district. as long as we have the proper reform and people who do it right, they are good for our district. and we need to continue them and just make sure they are done right. >> what are your feelings about earmarks? >> i do not believe that, with a broad brush, we need to say absolutely no earmarks. we know this all too well here. a lot of road projects and a lot of funding goes to north of i- 80. they have the political clout. i don't think there's anything wrong specifically with every earmarked. but we need to have an aggressive earmarked reform. i remember hearing in the 2008 elections that we would have the most open and transparent congress in history. i do nothing that has happened. i think a lot of earmarking

still gets into bills that are not related into the bill. i think it is important that the government understand that infrastructure and creating a free and fair and permit for the free market to flourish and national defence, infrastructure is a very important job of the federal government. i'm not against that. we need to have earmarked reform. we have to make sure it is not a monument to me. to be for community education is very important as well. sometimes there are infrastructure projects at the campus the need to be done. sometimes there are programs that are not funded elsewhere that will be an investment into the future of our students, whether it is technology, engineering, mathematics, or anything else. these are very important things to compete in. but we cannot have pork spending. there is a difference between some earmarking and pork spending.

we absolutely need to have earmark reform. we cannot just talk about it and assume it will get done or use it in campaigning for elections and not do something about it in washington. >> i will clarify the fact that i am so happy that, in the past two years, we have been able to do so much for the different towns in mclean county, for illinois state university, and all of it, if it were not for ear muffs, we would not have the 20 two million dollars for the multi modal center here. we would not have been able to do the things that we have been able to do here. i took it upon myself before it was even popular to make sure that the reform was done my way, on the internet, and vetted in front of everybody. we have already been stilled and that nothing can be named after anybody. those are things that need to be

continued across the board. >> do you support or oppose the health care reform? please support your answer. >> i oppose it. when the republicans were in congress, we should have seen and realize the fact that people were hurting. the health care system was getting out of control. cost was too much and we did not do anything about it. but in 2009, some of talking up putting people back to work, we talked about health care. in this district, there were not any town hall meetings to come and discuss it. this bill was wrong. when it came down to was the government said that health care costs too much money. so we will write a big fat government check to cover the cost of health care. the truth is we need to talk

about what we can do to bring the cost of health care down and then talk about where the government can step in. to me, is absolutely unconscionable that we could have helped reform without serious tort reform. we need to allow small groups to band together in big groups and have the buying power across state lines for competition. we need truth in billing so that when you get a bill in the mail and its is $15,000 and you can realize that it is really only two thousand dollars. we need to make sure we're taking care of folks that cannot afford it ultimately. we need to bring down the cost of health care. >> wow, interesting. [laughter] i support the health care. i know some people repeal and restart. i do not know anybody out there who wants to go through that again. i believe in employment and

improve. -- in implement and improve. we have brought to bear a plan that every member of congress has. we also have done things that brings cost of doing business down. everybody wants to say that there is no tort reform. but what is in it is the fact that the cost of bringing a case to court is so expensive. so we have put in their that every state needs to put together a panel, a peer review group, a certificate of merit, whatever it takes to make sure that these frivolous lawsuits are not even brought to court. that is where you bring down the costs. not let these entire things come up to hundreds of thousands of dollars and then go before the jury and then capture them. i voted for caps in 2005.

that is not where you bring down the cost. out of court that and the frivolous lawsuits to not go to court. i had another call me and she said, you know what? i could cry. my little 2-year-old was born without a kidney. only now, on september 23, when we stopped denying kids because of a pre-existing condition is he now going to get health care. those are the kinds of things that we need to be talking about. there is more time to be talking about health care, but this is something that will be worked on for a long time and it will be improved. it is like diversifying your portfolio. what works, let's build on. what does not work, let's fix. that is what we need to continue to do. >> i understand the stories of people that hurt and i am very concerned about it. that is why i think we need health care reform that really can drive the cost of health care down. we see it everyday.

i talked to small business owners honestly probably every day to tell me they just got their new health insurance bill and it is not looking too good. as you project into the future, is not looking good either. i believe we need to fully repealed this health care bill and replace it with something that makes sense. in fact, the day after it passed, i thought in my mind, you know what? typically, when legislation passes, it is more popular. i said i would do town hall meetings to talk about what is in this bill and what we need to do to rectify it. i thought it was going to become more popular. you know what? the cries for repeal have only grown. it is close to 60% of americans who say we do not want this. i know, if you would have had town hall meetings in this district, you would have heard people screaming and crying and asking for just some clarification. there was a lot of confusion out there. we just want a clarification. so i did close of 14 or 15 town

hall meetings and have over 3000 people at them and give folks the opportunity to talk about what was in the bill and talk about their concerns. >> we have reached the half point of this debate. it is hard to miss any of the campaign as from riverside in his congressional race. some of your opponent's campaign ads contend that you followed speaker nancy policies leave from a stall of your votes. can you provide us examples where you have not agreed with her position? >> yes. if my opponent wants to run against nancy pelosi, he really should go moved to california. [cheers and applause] i am endorsed by the nra. that does not make for a too happy.

i have not agreed by too many of the regulation bills. i represent all of the waterways in my district. there are a lot of chemical companies along the waterways. there was a chemical building came up. i was against it because it provided too much regulation. there was the first wall street reform bill that i voted against because it loved my small banks into the same bill with wall street reform. i was -- because it lumps my small banks into the same bill with wall street reform. most people have in their package that i was named by the national turner the eighth most moderate member of congress because, if you take out -- the place that they get the 92% is if you take into consideration "the journal," "the adjournment"

if you take the substantive vote, and that is where you get the eighth modernist member of congress. >> i do not need to move to california. where i have a disagreement is the 93% voting record that the congresswoman has had with nancy pelosi. she voted with nancy pelosi 100% on all the big issues that you are concerned about this year. we are concerned about cap and trade. it is a manufacturing killer. that is a confidence destroyer. and that is a terrible bill, even for manufacturing in general. we have a stimulus bill that the congressman voted on that tax $800 billion into the responsibility of our children and grandchildren into the future. the money we're spending right now is not ours. it is generations to come.

she voted for the stimulus, cap and trade, the health bill. we can go on and on. 93% of nancy pelosi's voting record is not representative of the 11th congressional district. [cheers and applause] >> when it talks about the stimulus bill, which is about $787 billion, that included infrastructure. that included $22 million for a multi modal. that included money for high- speed rail. it is about the same amount of money that my opponent wants to add to the deficit, the $700 billion, for tax breaks for lindsay lohan and paris hilton.

they do not live in my district. [cheers and applause] also, when you talk about energy, let's talk about the fact that we are right here in illinois state university where we have a new renewable energy program degree. i think the students that go to school year want jobs. and they want to go to school. [cheers and] applause we want to continue investing in clean energy. we want jobs here in america. we want to invest in wind, solar -- we have more nuclear plants than anybody else in the country. i have six nuclear reactors, three nuclear plants. i am looking at a nuclear reprocessing. i am on the nuclear working group at washington, d.c. and the co-chair of the energy task force. we want jobs here and clean energy. i think that is what the people who went to get an energy degree here at university of -- at illinois university -- at

illinois state university students want. [applause] >> the next question -- in regard to our concern about unemployment rates and the fact that many people said they have lost their jobs, what would be more specific proposals for creating more jobs in the 11th congressional district, recognizing that this district of the economic diversity within its boundaries? >> absolutely. here is the first thing. there's probably a fundamental disagreement between the two of us up here. i believe that the president and congress do not create jobs. jobs are created in the private sector. unless we will open some kind of a facility that just randomly hires everybody and puts them on

the government payroll, the government does not create jobs. the private sector does. now we have to look at why jobs are hurt? why are we losing jobs? wire businesses not expanding? part of it is the lack of content. you look 20 years down the road and uc europe rioting in the streets because their government is out of money and then washington, d.c. is out of money, too. you look around that a new health care bill is coming in -- the cbo is constantly revising how much this will actually cost. when you look at the cap and trade bill, you say, my goodness, you will tax the company that produces jobs and produces goods? you are going to tax them at a greater rate? they will leave. we have to get rid of the uncertainty environment and get back of the belief that it is the american spirit that will make this economy recover.

it is not constant pieces of legislation out of washington, d.c. that just say things and piles that onto our children. >> what would be more specific plans for creating jobs in the 11th congressional district? >> when i took office almost two years ago, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. we now, after 22 months of job losses, we have created 863,000 private-sector jobs. people want to talk about how many jobs will lose, but state and local governments are doing exactly what we have asked them to, tighten your belts. let go people, and that is what has been happening. we, especially myself, my whole mission has been making things in america again. creating jobs in america. making sure there are manufacturing plants that are energy-efficient so they can compete so we can bring jobs

back, not allow the american spirit, as my opponent says, which makes the ceo's of caterpillar mitch and sending their company in china and producing the there is the right here in illinois where we could be employing people with good paying jobs and now watching the unemployment rate going up so that a few people and shareholders can get rich. i also want to make sure that we invest in clean energy, research and development. americans can out-compete, out- in of it, and out-worked anybody in this country and in this world. summit called me and said, debbie, i went to an estate sale and they held up this lt. thing. i didn't even know what it was. but the auctioneers said, okay, here is a real antique. it says "made in america." everybody in the whole audience clapped and the thing went for hundreds of dollars.

this is ridiculous. we need to get back to making things in america and not giving tax breaks -- your money -- going to people who can fill jobs overseas. we need to create them here and need to treat them here in america. >> when the stimulus past, we were promised unemployment would not go over 8%. goodness, it may go over 8% if we did not pass it. the congresswoman said we need to pass this bill because this bill would at 8600 jobs in the 11th congressional district. but we are $800 billion more in debt. the congresswoman also said that the stimulus is allowing america to recover. america is in recovery now and i

wish people would see that. i do not think many of you out there truly feel like the economy is roaring back right now. what do we get for it? in our districts specifically, we have the opportunity to add high-paying jobs that are good that energy independence. we have an opportunity with nuclear reprocessing in our district to hire a lot of people and we have an opportunity to play a role of a leading congressional district in getting america's energy secure. we need energy security and we need energy independence. for now, with the significant

federal deficit that we are facing, what specific programs would you target to make spending cuts to reduce the federal deficit? and what would you propose to generate additional federal revenue in dealing with this deficit? >> first, we need earmarked reform, no big contracts. they need to be reformed. i signed on for a 5% pay cut. if you think about it, is still just a drop in the bucket. the only way we will get it to handle on the deficit is by getting control of our health care costs. we have a huge disagreement here between the two of us on how we do that. i took that tough vote because i know that this is the only way to get a true handle on our costs, for bringing down the cost of health care. you and i and anybody who has

health care is already paying a tax of about $11 a year for the people who do not have health care -- about $1,100 a year for havepeople who do not healt health care. they have uncompensated care and charity care. the cbo is our referee. anywhere from $100 billion to $130 billion is what the cbo says we will bring down our health care costs in 10 years and after that even more. >> thank you for that question. i think it is very important. we absolutely have to freeze the growth in government right now. 18 months ago, the federal government and expenditures have grown in double digits. it is out of control. at a time that you, in your

home, you are attending your belt and you cannot got to eat every night anymore and you have to make temptresses, the federal government is writing checks, giving them to everybody. we have to stop that. we have to hold the bureaucratic as accountable. nobody knows bureaucracy -- the republican majority in congress, which i believe we will have in january, needs to hold bureaucratic heads accountable in making tough decisions. that includes all level of government and in all areas of government. we need to cancel the unspent portion of the stimulus spending that is still obviously sitting there other than being spent. that is in the hundreds of billions of dollars. [applause] and i believe that the health care bill is actually going to be a burden on the future of our country and on the budgets of our country and we need to repeal the stroke care bill that was passed and replace it with something that makes sense. those are the temptresses we

have to make. we have to grow the economy. -- those are the tough choices we have to make. we have to grow the economy. getting people back door so they can pay taxes, getting businesses humming again so they can get revenue to the federal government. if you can freeze the cost of federal government right here and grow the economy and get tax revenues increasing by increasing economic production, eventually have a balanced budget again. that is absolutely essential. we will not be able to just cut our way out of this. we have to grow our way out of this. we have to get people back to work and we cannot just sit around and talk about it anymore. [applause] >> i guess the thing that bothers me most is what everybody seems to have, which is amnesia. [laughter] the eight years of the bush- cheney administration got us into two wars, a medicare part

of the program that costs almost $1 trillion. none of it was paid for. now, if you have a tax increase or a tax or you spend money, you have to find a way to pay for it. that is what we are working on and i am looking forward to see what our deficit commission will come up with. we truly really have to get this under control. you can i get us into two wars and not pay for it and that is what bush-cheney put us into. [cheers and applause] and then, i also want ad, there is a story that told me, a former. -- a farmer. when you work in congress and to listen to people, you hear stories.

somebody called me and said, debbie, i have an income of $250,000 to my farm and i still get a $40,000 check from the government. he said, there's something wrong with that. we need to do something about ag subsidies. they only need to go to family farmers were struggling, not some big corporate farmer. >> thank you. >> that is another place we need to cut. >> again, audience, i'm understand you have emotional responses to some of what the candidates are saying. but i will might give them more time if the audience takes it away. back to the campaign ads, we certainly have seen some reflected in your opponents as. do you think that age and governmental experience should be criteria for voters to consider? >> a lot of you have not had the

pleasure of seeing her ads. first off, the congresswoman is the only incumbent member of congress in a competitive race in illinois that has not run a positive ad on herself yet. her first ad included three people were the final line was "young man, you do not know what your doing." i am a young man. i am not ashamed of that at all. the other one, the social security one, is misleading on my record and completely false on that. it says, "adam, you are a young man and you have a lot to learn." i do not want to learn the habits of springfield. i do not want to learn the old habits of washington, d.c. and spending and avoiding and getting away. what think you comes into play in this campaign? i think she's trying to do that. i think she is trying to say, you are a young guy and this and this. but the truth of the matter is we are talking about bringing in a fresh perspective to

washington, d.c. we're talking about a generation of people who are idealistic and who believe that size to come to the other and achieve big things and see a vision of a country that we believe in. that is the great thing about my generation. so m.i.a. young man? yes. will i bring a fresh perspective to washington, d.c. you doggone bet you i will. [applause] >> first of all, i am sorry he has such a thin skin. it has nothing to do with his age. it is his vision. first of all, we are very different. we disagree on the fact that his main goal is more free trade. i disagree. i want to create jobs in america. i don't think we would have a problem with the economy of people would stop sending jobs overseas and start making things in america. [applause]

that is the difference in our politics. i am sorry, we disagree on the fact that he has -- i and is using his words -- it has nothing to do with his age -- it is his vision. we have a disagreement in our vision. i'm here to protect our seniors. i am endorsed by not only the committee to preserve social security and medicare, i was endorsed by the alliance for retired americans. they have endorsed me because they know i am the one who will protect social security and medicare. that has nothing to do with his age. this is his vision. it is me you will represent the people in this district which is about jobs in america, not shipping them overseas, and protecting our senior citizens and medicare. >> i appreciate that. when she said it is my vision for the future or her vision for the future, those commercials do not provide any kind of a snapshot into a vision for the future. they provide a vision of fear. it is the politics of fear. it is trying to scare people

into not voting for you, but for some deals. that is an important thing to know your. i have thick skin. i have been through a lot. but to say that it has nothing to do with it, may be the final mind should have been "adam, you have no idea what you're doing," not "young man." the congress woman looks at the polls and says what we have to do to peel away his support? let's tell them he wants to stick with their social security check. let's tell them he wants to ship their jobs overseas. i do not want to ship jobs overseas. we want to create jobs here in the united states. we want to get people back to work. we want to do that, but we have to figure out what is wrong with the environment we have in the united states that is forcing jobs to go overseas? it is the extreme taxation and cost of doing business and regulations and everything else

and the chinese and india sit there and say we will not? you at near the rate. it is impossible for our to sell their products on the open market because the prices so high. we have to figure out that in a garment and get back to the competitive nature that america is so good at. >> i want to follow up with that. you made a specific allegation in the campaign ad and you address it. and he's as the year does not support the cap on social security. i would like you to address that. >> sure. i have his words right here in the paper. it said "social security will need to be capped at the rate of inflation. you cannot raise the retirement age right now, but at some point, you have to." that is january