able to work with people, very attractive candidate, and it is sort of a representative raised as to whether democrats can really still win seats in the south. that is one of the ones i am watching. i'm watching a race in texas where there is a longtime incumbent democrat. it is one of the most republican congressional seats in the is held by democrat. he has managed to survive for a number of years, but we have a very strong challenger, a businessman named bill florist. there is a couple of at large seats in north and south dakota, where in north dakota, the long term congressman earl pomerantz is facing a real fight for congressional seat. there are a couple of races in florida, in ohio, but really in the house you're probably not hearing as much about races as

you may in the senate. in terms of governor, if you are about california, that is an interesting race. it is interesting because the polls would show that jerry brown has the edge, but when i talk to my friends in california, they tell me even their democrat friends are voting for meg whitman, because they now california has enormous problems. i cannot imagine facing the enormous problems they are facing that they will go back to jerry brown. so i think that is an interesting race. of course the governor's race in florida is interesting, the governor's race there. we were there last night, and it is viewed as tide. talk about an ugly race. the ads are really nasty and negative. it will be very interesting. florida and ohio, obviously because of our experiences in 2000 and the 2004 presidential race, those are races we watch

very closely. i am excited about ohio. i believe john mckissick and rob portman are about to be elected asich and rob portman are about to be elected senator and governor there. >> we are going to come out -- we have been pulling 42 marginal districts and i think we will come out with another 10 either tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. if you go through those races, you will find that there are five or six that the democrats are clearly winning, and the original 42. fundamentally, i think the untold story -- and you can check -- the untold story is that when republicans expanded their targets, they had to expand their targets because they were not going to get transfer in congress out of the district that they had targeted.

i think that the read races fascinating. i think if -- i think the re id race is fascinating. the tea party came in and changed the nominating process, though the race is still pulling extremely close. but i think the likelihood here that you are going to have a clash between core democratic leadership versos tea party in nevada -- if harry reid winds, that will be a big reaffirmation for the party. >> and i think very bad for the country. other than speaker pelosi, harry reid is one of the beast -- has one of the lowest fare rebels -- one of the least -- as one of the lowest favorables in the

country. >> i will urge my fellow democrats to do everything they can to keep harry reid in office. against the tea party candidate. >> one race that we're talking about is the alaska senate race, which we will not know until well in the evening, in fact maybe three weeks afterwards when they count all the right-in votes. there are some pretty provocative ads. if there is one race that will surprise you, that is one to keep your eye on. >> there might be quite a few of those stay up late at nights because of the absentee ballots that need to be counted. >> thank you for being here today. one of the things that i heard obama supporters first say is that although we are disappointed that we might lose the house, it might be good for his reelection prospects. i'm wondering about that theory

that obama wins by losing. >> it and i believe that is a bit of spin. it would be better for the president to keep both houses of congress if possible. again, that would be a reaffirmation of his leadership, the direction he is taking the country, and i think it would strengthen the resolve of those democrats who are there and did not lose to say, hey, we're there, we have the majority, let's move forward, let's pressed the accelerator pedal down because we know that we can do that even with 10% unemployment. that would be a powerful message. i think if we wind up losing the house, republicans will have to make a key decision, sit there and say no for two years, or try to work in the way that gingrich and clinton did. and at the hole in question -- the whole question of

investigations will come up. the republicans will have subpoena power. they have not had it in 10 years. every time they get that subpoena power, we go back to a series of investigations. that may play out, that may backfire. sometimes it does, but i think that will be the big changes if the republicans win the house. >> i actually have republican friends who think if you're thinking about the presidential race, it is better if we do not win the house because that will set him up better for reelection. i do not agree with that. i think that we really cannot afford what is happening in washington and we need to take the house at the so that we can begin to chip away and change some of it -- these massive pieces of legislation that have been passed without much regard to the incredible consequences. i think we need to start beginning to chip away at those

and beginning to challenge at least president -- the president by proposing cuts in spending, cut in the deficit, changes to the health care bill. >> you can propose those without the house. >> there has been a lot of discontent with the two-party system, the republicans and democrats. some people say that the tea party is the answer to that. do you think that that is the case? if not, what do you think is out there that will go one way or the other? >> the way i look at it, we have seen the rise of two big populist movements in the last two years. the first one grows up to elect president obama because people were hungry for a change and he was able to inspire people. the second rose up in direct opposition to his policies, and that was the tea party. so i think by and large a movement that is basically trying to restore the republican party to corp core principles of

less government, lower spending, lower taxes -- i do not see it as a separate party. i see it as more of a reminder to republicans of what we really stand for. >> if you look back here from 1980, if you look back there have been a few at tents at independent movements -- anderson -- a few attempts at independent movements -- anderson, perot. but i think the tea party, just like move on, lives within the republican party. i do not think it's attracting a significant number of voters outside of that. for a third party to be successful, it has to draw almost equal numbers from democrats and republicans. if you go to the math, if it draws mostly from the republican party, it is republicans.

if it enhances -- it is a republican spoiler. it enhances a candidate like ralph nader, it is a democratic spoiler. either the two parties are going to have to do what they do each presidential cycle and move to cover the middle -- i mean, we really saw president clinton cover the middle in 1992. when he was not governing that way, he came back and govern that way, and we had some of the highest satisfaction, equal to the satisfaction that we had under president reagan. i think we saw president bush take the center, and then he lost the center by 2006, and ended 2008 with some of the lowest ratings of a president who did not face indictment for anything. then you saw obama take the center in the last election, now is losing a lot of independent voters and has two years to come

back. if you run up the various scenarios, if unemployment were to remain high and sarah palin got the republican nomination, i think you would see people come in with an independent movement. it is also interesting but happens to the economics of politics. despite the effort of campaign finance reform, money is flooding into politics like never before. i used to say that america runs its democracy on less than the advertising budget of a hamburger. that is no longer the case. on the low side of the internet is bringing in, giving us a tradition that never existed before. when i was originally working with the democratic party in 1996, i did a poll of democratic donors. first the list was pretty small. the median age was 74. there were no small donors. there was no tradition of being involved in politics to the extent of giving money. on the high side, i had lunch

with someone from the other side of the aisle, and they said corporate money was flooding in and they did not know what to do with it all. so what is going to happen here is either the parties are going to cover the middle, with new movements or someone who has $1 billion or more that will come in and, again, try to push the envelope the way ross perot did. this time you're seeing in the case of a sarah palin 10% unemployment scenario, conditions that would be difficult for both parties, the republicans too far to the right, conditions do not approimprove. the likelihood is that conditions will improve, obama will pick up as clinton did. but it is not guaranteed. >> a running theme of tonight's

discussion has been increased choice for the voters and putting more power back in their hands. in a few weeks californians are going to decide on a measure that would put the responsibility of redistricting back in their hands. i wonder if you have any comment on that system, the likelihood of producing a more fair and competitive district as opposed to a system that is controlled by the state legislature, paid for by the governor, like might happen in texas. >> is it a non-partisan panel? >> yes, it is a fairly complicated system drawn from a group of citizens that meet certain requirements like having never worked in government for, never held positions related to their seeded -- they're seated, six from each. >> from a republican perspective, i will say that the sense in our party is that for a long time redistricting was done to keep republicans break down. we have much more republican

strength in texas rather than congressional strength. if you look at voting patterns in the state of texas. obviously if you are a republican, as i am, you think the district ought to be drawn fairly to reflect your voting strength. on the other hand, i do worry that our are so many seats that are viewed as safe from one party or another. it is important that we have more competitive congressional elections. i am not sure i have thought enough about which -- it is sort of like the -- mark was talking about the voters, that there is not enough of a selection of judges. i worry about that because that means that liberal interests are viewed as nonpartisan. so it depends on what your definition of non-partisan is, too. is it truly fair at nonpartisan, or is it a ploy to let some special interest group make those decisions? so i always worry a little when

you take things out of the hands of elected representatives or out of the hands of voters, like the selection of judges. because whoever this committee that is formed, who controls the makeup of that committee, and it really fair or not? it fair or not? >> as said before, i think this system of redistricting has gotten to be to all political. that any legislature that has the advantage pushes its advantage to the maximum that it legally can. and that i think that this movement for more non partisan redistricting is a promising movement. if there were more competitive districts on each side, that means that in an election year, you are likely to get even more swings in the house than you are seeing now. instead of0-50-60 seats, you have something more like 120 seats, which would make for some elections that are more

subject to the wall of the people. this is an example, like the money discussion that we had, money flooding into the system from corporate interests. where were the people talking about money flooding in from labor and 2008? their record amounts of money, special interest money from the left, it used to elect president obama, undisclosed in 2008? i do not recall the president making comments about it as he has directed towards more pro- business in this election cycle. beauty is in the eye of the beholder. i think the same applies as to whether something is non- partisan or not. >> next question. >> thank you both for coming. i enjoy the back and forth. there was an article in "the hill" newspaper this afternoo that came out and talked about the president taking at 10 day trip to asia after the election while the congress focuses on what it will do during a lame-

duck and what the agenda is going for it. some of the democratic strategists have come out and said ts is goi to cede momentum to the republican party. i want to get a reaction from both of you. what kind of impact will that be? president clinton had done the same thing as well. >> i think that trip has been and the work for a very long time. as far as a lot of president oba's travel. his party takes -- if his party takes a big haircut on election day, his party would have an image problem. >> he answered that one. sometimes the calendar is not all politics. especially in the wrong political period, like we have had, along period that we had to focus on domestic issues, sometimes a trip has to be what it has to be,. sometimes trips like that, they get shortchanged or most likely

president obama will do more media appearances while on that trip to have in communicating back home. and that is most likely what he will do. >> when the president is traveling overseas, you to look less relevant to the debate in america or you could look more presidentiala, as you do b events and things occurred in this case, particularly if you take big losses inhe election, it is probably not an ideal time and wouldat far away give an advantage to republicans to set the agenda and talk about their vision and what it will accomplish. sometimes you cannot control that. as president, you have obligations, and i am not familiar with the obligations of this trip. clearly, our relationships with countries in asia are very important to our country. >> sometimes hundreds of thousands of people screaming for the president oversees can

also be a pretty good picture for the president. >> next question. >> i know that a couple of the themes that were menoned tonight had to do with a motor discontent, increasing polarization of the parties in congress. and the sense that government is dysfunctional. one of the biggest issues is the dead and how we address spending and reform entitlements -- and the debt. what is the likelihood that the deficit commission will produce something that the president can support and that will actually pass through congress, given the trajectory of the partisanship that is taking place? >> well, it's obviously difficult, because it has been tried for a number of years. i think that is one of the things that has caused some rest and about health care is the idea that we have at added a new entitlement when we have not been able to figure out how to pay for the entitlements we

already have. plus we have this mounting deficit. they have their work cut out for them. i do not know what they will come forward wit we have seen in the election cycle that somcandidates who stuck their necks out and made specific proposals b criticized for a, when they tried to make some suggestions. in france right now, you are seeing what happens when he was suggesting raising the retirement age to reduce some of the structural deficit in their programs occurred and so, you know, it is difficult. but i do think that perhaps we have arrived at a time when people truly believe that the path we are on is not sustainable. we have to do something about it. i did work for the speaker of the texas house, and he wrote a column that he sent out. we got a lot of people listen -- talked about my daughter's debt. he talked about it as a parent, about how he is worried as a fiscal conservative about the kind of debt we are piling onto

our children. people are really, truly worried. it feels different to me this time, as though people may reward someone who comes forward with a plan that sounds like reasonable ideas to begin to try to address this. i guess i am optimistic in terms of my hopes that that could happen. i am realistic that the political realities are very challenging. >> let's remember what happened, and i was there in 1996 in the budget balance accord, which erskine bowles, who is heading this commission, helped to spearhead. no one would it predicted that newt gingrich and president clinton would make a grand bargain. here is where of bipartisanship can work at its finest. to be successful, these things have to give the republicans of

what they want and the democrats what they really want. you cannot just take the democrat idea and water it down to get two votes. has to be a grand bargain. it has to be a grand bargain on the deficit, one on taxes, one on entitlements. the commission reports going to be a springboard to exactly that kind of hard bargaining or is going to go on the schultze. i do not think, based on history, you should prejudge that. just when you prejudge it tha nothing is going to happen, and you have to partisan people like clinton and newt gingrich, you wind up with a balanced budget accord. the same thin could have been. we should be rooting for it. ultimately, it is what the vors are looking for. they are not looking for one side of cutting taxes and cutting spending without the other side of keeping and vitamins -- entitlements whole, how to keep the costs

down on health care. they are looking for a grand bargain. that is wt the last one was. what happened last time, is that we ran into a surplus and only a couple of years. they did not expect that to happen. if you get to a much bogged down in the conventional wisdom, i think you lose sight in what the american system produces at moments at least -- you least expected to. >> i think both parties have to be able to hold their nose at a little something in the other. it is not just watering down. it has to include something that the republicans really want and the democrats do not like and something the democrats want and the republicans really do not like. that is where you can generally find consensus. i do think that people are very practical. the time may be right for something like that. >> next question? >> company i would like to direct this question to mr. penn. you mentioned that the re-

election of senator harry reid would be a rallying point for democrats and be a morale booster a, a but in the house, among democrats that are up in tight reelection races, there have been a lot of discord with house speaker dance it posi and what she has been doing -- nancy pelosi. bobby bright for one. that dynamic in the house, how does that affect what you for see going on after the elections with morale among house democrats? >> begin, morrell with house democrats is really going to depend on the -- loral with ouse democrats is really going to depend on how the house does. after the 1994 election, there was health care, there was a tax increase, there was a gun legislation. there were a lot of votes -- for good bills, but they took a lot

of hits iwhen it came to 1994. that made a lot of democrats gun shy for or what appeared in this case, if the republicans fall a little short here, and the democrats did the house, that will be a big morale booster for the house. then democrats will say, we can take the tough votes for the president and we can still afford and to stay in the hse. that will be a tremendous position. those are the two boosters -- the house goes down, i think you're right, there will be a lot of resumes out here in washington, d.c., and a lot of people looking for jobs and a lot of people moving into offices and did not have them. i think on the senate side, i think the harry reid thing, and i think the fact that it looked like the republicans could take the senate until some of these tea party nominees came into place, i think that holding the

senate and holding harry reid will be good morale boosters. the president will have t assess with his advisers after the mid terms of what it looks like. president clinton in 1994 felt walloped by the midterms. he did not expect the losses. he realized that he had two years to move hi administration to the center and win the trust of the american people that he did not have. he had much lower numbers then president obama has, and he was facing a much more united republican party in new can return right now, i think -- right now, i think neither of those conditions is severe. the elections.st >> we will see what happens. i do remember. it is a very dim -- it is a very divisive after a loss. i remember the republicans, in

2006, are remember going to the senate dining room, and there was a lot of bitterness there. nobody likes to lose in the political process. and when it involves something like your committee assignments and whether you are the chairman or not. so control is a big deal to people in congress and so i do think that if the democrats lose the house that there will be a lot of consternation with the speaker nancy policy for se votes that she forced the house to take on climate change. it was meaningless, going nowhere, but it put democrats in industrial and coal states, it forced them to take a tough vote that could cost them their reelection for no meaning. i think there will be a lot of consternation if that happens. >> if we have no more final questions, we will have the final remarks. >> thank you. first, i would like to ask you

to give enhanced to our guest for their comments tonight. -- to give a hand to our guests for their comments tonight. i would to thank all of us tonight.joining and i do hope that we will see you again on the fourth when we talk about what just happened . we'll see you again in a couple of weeks. thank you, and good night. >> a number of news organizations are reporting that republicans are poised to make significant midterm gains across the country voters preferring a

republican controlled congress. politico reports that if the elections were held today, the republicans would pick up enough seats to control the house but would fall short of controlling the senate. the midterm elections are less than two weeks away, and we are showing debates from key races around the country. tonight will start at 8 eastern -- 8:00 eastern with the illinois governor's debate. between pat quinn and bill bradley. the florida governor's debate, the pennsylvania senate debate, and the connecticut governor's today. >> voters head to the polls and less than two weeks, following the key races -- follow the key races and debates on c-span. archived debates on line at the c-span video library and at our politics stage of the candidates twitter feeds, and other helpful resources.

follow election coverage on c- span right through election day. >> secretary of state hillary clinton is addressing the american tax for -- task force on palestine this evening. she will discuss peace talks between israel and palestinian leaders you can see live coverage starting at 7:00 2.stern on c-spa the fund's financial institutions received two years ago, kenneth feinberg, overseen compensation, will testify. live coverage will start at 11:00 a.m. eastern. on to a debate now between massachusetts fourth district democratic congressman barney frank and his republican challenger, shot the appeared on a cable news public affairs program -- sean bielat.

this race is rated as likely democratic. it is about 20 minutes. >> i would be concerned about what government did not do, but who is kidding who? >> pay attention. >> special "broadside" presentation, one half hour debate for the context of congress. the district is massachusetts 4th, and now please meet the candidates. representative barney frank has been reelected continuously since winning back in 1980. sean bielat, a republican, is a businessman, a major in the marine reserve corporate he is making his first bid for congress.

the candidates will take it from here. gentlemen, thank you for being here. i would like to start with you, sean bielat voters have sent barney frank to congress 15 times. he is the chair of a very powerful committee. give me two reasons why the voters of this district should fire him and hire you, concrete reasons. >> absolutely. thanks, first of all, for having me here. >> a pleasure. >> what we have right now is where people in this country are upset, disappointed in the leadership they have seen over the past decade. what they want are people who are not lifelong politicians but people who will bring everyday skills, business skills -- military leadership -- to congress. leadership to congress. in particular, with the bad economy we need people who have actually created jobs, people who've kept people employed, growing companies, i've done those things. >> is the major concern of barney frank he's been in for a long time and isn't in private

business, is that when you are running? >> i think barney frank is one of the main leaders of the economic disaster we find ourselves. >> what is your greatest concern, what is the top of the list according to speed? >> bye pushing homeownership even among those who couldn't afford them, barney frank for this country out of the perilous splitting we've seen the result of the real-estate bubble and how the financial eclipse into the paladino called it right there. barney frank, response please. >> i have been leading the fight. unfortunately when we were in a minority it wasn't successful to stop homeownership for low-income people. i've been pushing affordable rental housing. finally in 2007 when i became the chairman of the committee we passed the bill to restrict the low-income people. the wall street attacked us. a major part of the bill that the republicans in conagra's voted for that mr. bielat opposes, the financial reform bill come out loss was loans, and in fact earliest as 2004,

june 17th, 2004, an article in which i'm critical of the bush administration because they push fannie mae and freddie mac to increase the number of low-income homeownership things they did. so yes i have been for rental housing but i've been on the opposite beginning in 2004 we started to change it. i was admitting i was in effect in congress, and yes, to try to get regulation under tom delay i wasn't successful. when we began the majority in 2007 we put a stop to predatory lending -- >> he read back to the quote in 2003 about 3,000 times. i want to roll the dice a little bit more on the situation toward subsidized housing. you said that -- >> rental housing. what people mistake is the difference between rental housing -- by the way fannie mae and freddie mac didn't lose on rental housing. here's the article -- in 2004 we filed a bill to stop low-income housing that would be owned by people who couldn't afford it -- >> on the dodd-frank bill you for your the other night and

criticized by said scott brown voted for it and i asked you if you knew more about this than scott primm. your quote was that doesn't mean scott brown is wrong or that i am right. does that mean you're willing to admit that maybe the financial service reform was the correct solution for the problem or what are we trying to say? >> the 2300 page bill there's a lot in their but let me return to a moment some the congressman just said. after 2003 he changed his mind on fannie and freddie. well, we had close to, jan 27, 2,005, those on the committee will continue to push for home ownership. in october of 2005 he voted against reform on the house floor. we've seen repeated examples of that. yes, he pushed for rentals, but through the device of pushing for the multi family homes of which there was a two-time -- >> another part of a job if i can, congressman frank, the stimulus to $800 billion out public skeptical that only 33% of the public said they thought that it would help in the job.

the president of the united states said if we don't pass, unemployment with 9%. in retrospect, was it the right bill and if it wasn't should there be a second stimulus? >> people are wrong to make that prediction. i don't know why they did. i will tell you i was in fall river on sunday with senator flanagan. there were police officers and firefighters. today wouldn't have been there without that bill. there is a project for cleaning up the store that came because of that bill, and the cleanup sped up because of the bill. by the way, it wasn't in spending it was 200 billion of tax cuts, 500 some odd is still alive but we have to have a balance. i wanted to be bigger than. i will tell you my view is we ought to bring 50,000 so-called non-combat troops and cost tens of billions of dollars, we are rebuilding iraq and we ought to take the money home, put some and homeland security, some of

it in the deficit and some into job creation at home. i think we are making a mistake by the massive military spending all over the world so nobody's purpose -- >> i will get to the military and as a kid. if that doesn't happen, it would appear it would not, would you support a second stimulus? >> i have supported one and i talked to every major that is in the district that i've not represented and the local officials, and they saidy need help with projects and local -- >> you would have voted against the stimulus would you not, speed? what is the alternative? >> the alternative is to get people back their money through the instantaneous reductions of income tax withholding. >> i'm sorry, go ahead. >> part two is in the regulatory landscape of the businesses know what's coming so they can invest in jobs over the district yet small business owners say i could actually put down one or two more jobs like to grow a little bit here. i don't know what is coming. i don't know in the tax break is going to be, what i health care costs are going to be -- >> any will for the direct spending? >> there is a will for

infrastructure projects to unnecessary. there is a role for the investment in community colleges, the sort of things but it is more limited than we've seen in the bill. >> let me ask a question if i may for one second, you support extending all of the bush tax cuts, including such as the wealthiest 2%. he also have on your web site to our regularly against the deficits that have been built up as you say by the democrats. $700 billion over ten years by the wealthiest 2%. how do you reconcile the deficits and say that we should spend tax cuts on the wealthiest americans? too let's start by admitting both sides have been wrong on the deficit, so i wouldn't clear the lam from the republicans on that front. but, what we need right now is to stimulate this economy and turned around. raising tax cuts and a down economy is fundamentally bad idea. it now is not the time to raise taxes. it's as simple as that. >> how about the notion, barney frank, a lot of people say bielat won't raise taxes on anybody in recession.

not even a one-year or two-year extension of tax cuts for everybody? >> that is not what the republicans are advocating. that's not what mr. bielat is advocating. i've read what you've said. >> why don't you let barney frank , frank -- you are entitled to respond to that. >> i know that when i see something he doesn't like he interrupts me. i read what mr. bielat said, and he is making the permanent as i've read it, he says in fact he wants to go beyond that. mr. bielat is talking about some drastic changes in social security. one dimension is means testing and he said why should bill gates get social security but he would give bill gates a much bigger present than social security by giving to a flat tax or national sales tax, both of which he says are preferable to what we now have. i do not think in the point about the economy i voted to raise the tax rate at the top level of income from 36 to 39% when bill clinton was president. in the following years we had a good economy. i don't think people making

four, five, six, $700,000 a year and more are going to stop their economic activity because the rate on the top amount of their income goes up by 3% -- secure against the stimulus and i also read you were against the bank bailout. are you against the bailout for the gm as well? >> absolutely. >> what is the appropriate role for government -- one, when will we have the bank and auto companies fail and if the answer is yes, fine, but if the answer is no -- >> to be clear, with t.a.r.p. there were necessary aspects of it. however, it was too large, too fast, it wasn't sufficiently transparent and covered timoney entities. >> what is the alternative? >> a much clearer, smaller bill that is much more transparent and is done more deliberately. >> what would you have done with car companies? >> i will let them go. >> how about that, barney frank? a lot of people agree with sean bielat. >> [inaudible] >> that is a fact. >> well, first of all, on the t.a.r.p., you say do it in a longer period of time.

the bush and administration officials were in a panic. we took a couple of weeks to add restrictions on the compensation and requirements for paybacks, so the bank part of the t.a.r.p. made money for the federal government. as the automobiles, we have a lot of the service paid to sitting in this doctrine in america which is important to read the single most important thing we did to save manufacturing in america was to get money went to general motors and chrysler. by the way, one of the biggest advocates of that was ford. ford didn't get money from there they were afraid the general motors and chrysler went under the supply chain would be defeated and lost. so no single action taken by the federal government shared by president bush carried out by obama and the contras did more than keep manufacturing at a better level -- >> final word before the break, sean bielat. >> government propping up industry doesn't work. we need industry to survive on its own merit. competition is a good thing. markets will push the best companies for a. >> sean bielat is republican, barney frank is the incumbent democrat. when we come back, health care,

social security, and to wars. ♪ >> back on the debate of the fourth district democratic barney frank and challenger sean bielat. he wrote a letter -- too a couple letters -- >> do you continue to believe the retirement age for social security should be increased, do you advocate full or partial privatization of social security's? what are the answers? >> yes and yes. we have to be mature about the subject. we can't pretend we can give out free stuff forever. we want social security issue last. i want it for myself and my kids to go forward, and in order to get there we have to reform the system and that means making tough decisions. islamic you didn't stop there. there are more reforms about what else? >> what did recover, raising the cap on income that is addressed by the social security tax. >> and he wrote back to you,

thing the will guarantee social security's final insolvency is to continue on the path you advocate, which is ever. semidey use support these reforms? which one. >> a diprete effect you want to raise taxes. i'm serious because a lot of republicans say no to raise the base is levied is a very important one, absolutely. i also voted -- i didn't like the bill ronald reagan and tip o'neill put together in '93 but they did something that is a form of means testing. it taxes social security as you go up. that's a more efficient way to do it in the flat means tax but i disagree on raising the retirement age and he still will tell me to what age but here is the irony on the military spending. all of the european allies have to retirement ages partly because they don't spend anything on the military so our military spending subsidizes them and he wants to raise the retirement age me to 70. he talks about paul ryan. i don't think if you've been doing physical were all your life you want to keep going.

>> i don't know 20 doherty was on social security from greece or france. we've seen how that turns out. i think what we need to do is look at these options. maybe it's 70, maybe it's 68 to read for to make it 42 erbe happy. the question is what is viable and what barney frank is saying is let's not change anything because i might lose both. it's not my problem now we will kick the can down the road and hopefully it works out for the best in 20 or 30 years and i'm not going to deal with it. but that is the wrong approach. >> that is the kind of distortion i just said i agree with increasing. i said i think you can increase -- >> let him finish and he will get an opportunity -- >> second, i believe you can increase the taxation of a level which is a more effective way. but more importantly, no, i'm not trying to take my cue from the other countries. what i am saying is if you work hard all your life you shouldn't have to work hard until you get to 70.

what can you do about it? i tell you when you do about it, and they're interlinked. you stop subsidizing japan, england, germany, denmark and military budgets and make more money to help americans to retire at a reasonable age. >> of to get to that in a second. i want to talk of another domestic program with the the military budget. a recent posting, 35% strongly oppose what you did on health care. only 26% strongly support. is it not possible that congress only misread the american people? overreached, and ultimately the reactions with the numbers mean is they are too cynical about government to allow the government to restructure something so important in their lives. is it possible this is a big mistake? >> it's possible it might be a political mistake. you sometimes do things that are politically unpopular. by the way in massachusetts, that made much less than elsewhere because we got a mandate to buy insurance from yes ago and had married.

but i don't know what parts people want to get rid of, protecting children with pre-existing conditions or reducing the doughnut hole in medicare which was a george bush legacy. i would be willing to look. there is a piece in there requiring people to report on their 1099s it shouldn't have been in there and i voted to repeal and i'm confident we will repeal if we go piece by piece. spinet you said the vote to repeal the president's health care vote. >> yeah spirit >> the reality is if republicans took over congress the president be voting a veto whatever is the majority. so what passes three guthie test? what what sean bielat reform change in the health care bill that might have a possibility of becoming a lot, not theory but reality. >> it is certainly possible there is the need for the fixer bill. there is a lot of junk like the irs to 99 requirement, any time spent on an -- >> how about the one a couple of weeks ago you can keep your kid on your insurance until you are 26. before that? >> we would have to look at it.

i can't see -- >> how about the dumping of the ban on it not covering people with pre-existing conditions. >> i think we let the market forces work and insurers provide coverage that the market demands. >> to be okay if those two provisions didn't go into effect? >> it to be okay if we had a less distorted system -- >> [inaudible] >> mr. bielat likes to the questions to be we don't know what he's talking about keeping children of there. he's more political than a politician criticizes. >> all right let's start on the foreign policy for a second. congressman frank, you voted against the $37 billion appropriation for afghanistan operations. what to do in afghanistan as you mentioned the 50,000 combat or non-combat troops in iraq, how fast can you bring them home? unfortunately, you're going to have to. >> i wish you wouldn't ask complicated questions in a short period of time. i would bring back the troops from iraq and afghanistan first

place the notion of non-combat troops is a terrible idea. that means political mediation, religious mediation and the bad guys don't owns a non-combat troops to keep shooting at them and there's tens of billions of dollars. in afghanistan i voted for that war, voted against iraq. a george bush mr. up by going into iraq instead of focusing on afghanistan and at this point i do not see a viable way to make afghanistan the kind of a thriving democracy people talk about. and i would also a in an orderly way bring troops home. >> obama is making the mistake in afghanistan, too debate sean bielat, what should happen in afghanistan, on the obama plan? >> obama needs to get a clear define what winning is. without knowing what you are trying to achieve your never going to get it right. he's saying we should bring the troops come next summer? why? there is no military reason, there is no rationale for that. so what we need is a presence there that limits the taliban and al qaeda's ability to strike on u.s. soil or u.s. national interest from afghanistan, or

ideally from waziristan. >> and two decades, is that correct? what kind of presence for two decades? >> if you assume that the petraeus pursuit of the war, counterinsurgency, the all encompassing counter in sergey v is the way we want to go, then yes it is a multi ticket approach. spec one related topics the sixth >> by the way i don't necessarily assume that. i assume we should be there with a footprint large enough to kill the terrorists we need to and prevent attacks on american soil. >> we have a minute, don't ask don't tell, i heard you say you think the system is working. let me put it in context for you. a handful of gay teens of the crap beat out of them in the bronx. we have remarks from the republican candidate you heard before, carvel paladino to read you not worried about supporting don't ask don't tell. you are basically sending a message to people around -- not you, but anybody, that essentially there is something wrong with being openly gay in this country? >> i don't worry about that at all. it's too easy of a tactic to say that you are bigoted, racist,

i'm not going to listen to your ideas, and that is the don't ask don't tell the date has become. it's either you support it or i'm going to insinuate somehow that you are beginning. there is a lot of good reasons for questioning why we want to change the policy. i made the arguments before and had to make them now if i have a minute. >> we don't have the time right now. would you support don't ask don't tell? >> not necessarily but in new york, again, his name is paladino. when i heard it at first i thought that it was palamino and only part of him was talking. no, i could disagree on people on that real think it is a good policy, colin powell who originally supported this is no we've outgrown it is originally right. and turning away thousands of patriotic young american men and women who want to serve the country with every other nato ally with the other work is a terrible mistake. but people can be mistaken -- speed the only 15 seconds. admiral mike mahlon said lynn sweet. we are serving 400,000 in the military, 100 feet of the

families. he supports the repeal three he said let's get the battle. why not wait? >> people are being discriminated against. it's been in effect since 93. i don't know what data you need to get and if you took that position and told harry truman he never would have done away with racial segregation. those are different issues, but the process is the same come at some point you decide discrimination is no longer tolerable. >> barney frank sean bielat, one more round after this. stick around. ♪ >> very little time left. barney frank, sean bielat come users to -- in b.c.. how are you voting? >> i think that alcohol causes issues -- >> how about you? >> yes. >> repeal of the affordable housing law. how would you vote? >> i would have to look. >> how about you? i think rental housing is important and this is a way to get rental housing. >> number three but the sales tax from six a quarter to 3%,

yes or no? >> some people said we would vote for it and put it up again. i think that is a terrible idea. if it is vote for something if you have to stick with it so i would rather see no in the first place and if you make a change to without defining the voters. >> sean bielat? >> yes. >> we only have a minute left. i promised 30 seconds to say goodbye to the voters and you can see that to the camera. you go first barney frank. >> we have to reduce the deficit and stimulate the economy and there is one way and that is by substantial rethinking america's over extensive military capacity. mr. bielat says we have to pretend the arms race among china, japan and south korea. we've got to be the filler of the power vacuum. we have to defend ourselves. but the cold war has long since been over a. of time has come to tell the wealthy allies to have to pull their own weight so we can bring money home over the long term reducing the deficit. in the short term to some of the things to help create jobs with a tax reduction and by sensible spending. >> thank you congressman barney frank. sean bielat. >> well, i guess taxing and

spending is anti-nafta did not want to add to the mix hurting the national defense, reducing security. that is and what we need in congress. what we need in congress is new thinking. we need people who are going to focus on the deficit, focus on sustainable solutions, market based solutions and who are going to bring real common sense and business experience to washington. so november 2nd i ask for your vote. thank you. >> sean bielat is a republican, barney frank is the incumbent democrat. thank you very much. thank you triet i love you vote november 2nd, wednesday night, right here. another race, the tenth congressional district, the democrat and jeff is the republican. they will be debating here as well. thanks so much for being with us. we will see you tomorrow. ♪

>> congressman barney frank's district is rated as likely democrat. the washington post pac called america's first family action fund has put money into congressman take in's district and others. we count down, and each night here on c-span we are showing you debates of key races across the country. tonight we will start at 8:00 eastern with live coverage of the illinois governor's debate. democrat incumbent pat quinn and republican state senator bill bradley florida's governors' debate. pennsylvania's u.s. senate debate, and the connecticut

governors today. >> the c-span2 library is a great resource for boaters. hear from the candidates -- for the voters. here for the candidates. >> pakistan's civilian and military leaders will be in washington for three days of high-level talks. on the table, a multi-year security -- the brookings institution will be holding a discussion with richard holbrooke and will have live coverage at 6:30 eastern. at 7:00, secretary of state hillary clinton addresses the american task force on palestine, talking peace talks with israeli and palestinian leaders. live coverage on c-span tonight. forsylvania's candidate

governor, republican tom corbett and republican dan of toronto held their third and final debate monday night in philadelphia. tom corbett is the state attorney general, and dan onorato is serving as his second term as the allegheny county executive. the debate lasts about an hour. >> live in philadelphia, the pennsylvania gubernatorial debate. deba's debate is brought to you by the league of women voters. our panelists are abc news reporter vernon odom. moderate to bypass debate is anchorman jim gardner.

>> good evening. first things first. that me tell you the rules the candidates have agreed to, tonight. format for this debate will feature questions to the candidates from me and our panelists. both candidates will have a opportunity to respond to each question. the responses can be up to 90 seconds. there may be occasional need for rebuttal. those will be limited to 30 seconds. finally, we have closing statements from the candidates at the end of our broadcast. to ensure fairness, the responses will be tied to. the order of questioning was determined by a coin toss, and let us begin with mr. corbett. my first question to your, sir. most people in this panel would agree that more voters feel disaffected from their political leaders and perhaps from the political process and then at any time in recent memory. acknowledging your thoughts on

this and your honesty, can you say that at no time have you been part of the problem and, as governor, what would you do to be very much a part of the solution? >> as governor, the first thing you have to do is become the leader. the leader of the commonwealth of pennsylvania and you have to make difficult decisions. the next governor of pennsylvania will have to make decisions that are not necessarily in their political best interests, that are going to have tremendous political consequences but have to be in the best interests of the people, and particularly, the future of pennsylvania -- our children and grandchildren. i have been campaigning all over the commonwealth exactly on that point. i am not in this race for me personally. i am in this race for my children, my grandchildren that i do not have yet and their grandchildren, because i believe that kids of any need to be, a shining example, a standard that other states want to measure

themselves by. we have fallen back further and further and the packard a lot of that has to do with what has been happening in the past and a lot of rancor out there. i do not believe i am part of that ring preparancor. and my leadership as attorney general, my leadership as united states attorney has a demonstrated that what i'd do, the decisions i make, are in the best interests of pennsylvania. i promise the people that if elected governor, i will continue to operate in the best interests of pennsylvania. >> mr. onorato? >> thank you. there is no doubt that people are not worried and upset. they are medicare's . and washington. the unemployment rate in this country in the state -- i spent the last several years governing the second-largest county in pennsylvania. i am the elected executive. i have to make hundreds of decisions on how to move the region for. i was able to reform government

and taken on members of my own reparty. i consolidated and saved $6 million per year, downsize the payroll, clean up old industrial sites. we got control of our property taxes. we are the only county in pennsylvania that has not raise property taxes in seven years. one of the reasons why unemployment in my county is below the state and federal number. as governor, i am prepared to bring those talents to reform the harrisburg. we have the most expensive legislator and united states. i want to reduce debt by 20%. we have to create an environment for the private sector to bring jobs to pennsylvania. we need to make sure that our regulatory agencies are responding to our companies in a timely basis. if a company asks for a permit, it needs to happen in four years and not two years.

training our people for the jobs of tomorrow. >> i want to use a bottle time not to ask the question again but to ask it in a way that i feel you have not addressed, and that is if you go through the streets of southeastern pennsylvania, and the report on action news at 6:00 highlighted the problem, there is a lack of engagement among the voters. why are the voters of this part of the state seemingly not oblivious to, although many are, but not just in -- just not engaged in their state government to the extent that they care about what is going on here tonight? mr. corbett? >> that is a very difficult question because i am sure vern was trying to determine what was causing that lack of interest in the state white race. i believe that these races, if you look -- interest in the statewide race.

if you go back a years ago, you had the former mayor of philadelphia running in that race. i think the people obviously knew governor rendell very well. they are wondering who we are. it is up to convince them to vote for a. >> there are a lot of races going on. there is the senate race and a governor's race. there are a lot of crazy attack ads on tv. some people are probably disgusted and they are trying to weigh the information out there. i have been spending a lot of time in the southeast over the last two years and have been talking about what i want to do to reform harrisburg and how will affect south eastern pennsylvania. we have 60 more days. we will be campaigning, getting our message out. it is a field operation. >> thank you. not your question to mr. onorato. >> i want to shift things to

social policy. two men were convicted last week in a hate crime cases. they beat a latino. gay teenagers are bullied, leading some to commit suicide. my question is, what specific steps would you take to promote tolerance and increase diversity and with that extend to signing an amendment to the state's relations act that would outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity? >> mr. onorato? >> i havve already done it. as the executives of allegheny county, we pushed an anti- discrimination bill. we did not discriminate based on orientation or gender identity. as governor, i would sign it into law and push for that amendment because we should not

discriminate against anybody, including people with sexual orientation or gender identity. we talk about anti-bullying legislation. no one should have to be intimidated at school or at work. no one should lose their jobs or their apartment or their house because of their sexual orientation. as county executive, we have done at the local level and as governor, yes, i would sign the amendment to make sure that we do not discriminate against anybody in the commonwealth. >> mr. corbett? >> the question is an interesting one. it is one i have been dealing with myself. as you know, as the attorney general, we have already taken an active participation in going into the schools of pennsylvania into dealing with the issue of cyber bullying. it's one that has developed in the course of the last six years as the growth of the internet and computers in the house have

taken over and become a forum where children can talk to each other on a regular basis. you add to that the electronics that are used now with cell phones and facebook pages and so forth, and it is one that concerns me. and i think education, and the governor should participate in education. we need to include that more in the education system, in the schools, and teach about diversity, to teach more about tolerance with each other. we have within my office at the attorney general of civil rights division that participates along with other agencies in the human relations commission with the investigations that have been going on across the commonwealth of pennsylvania. so we have been very active in that respect. and i think it is very important we continue there. although, i will tell you that i do not know that an amendment is what would make enforcement any better. it is just we already have laws on the books. adding more laws on the books

does not equal enforcement. we need to actually enforced. >> crime, violence, and guns and pennsylvania. last year, many deaths and the commonwealth, 3000 wounded. what changes would you make to gun laws and pennsylvania, specifically the city of philadelphia? the right to legislate against the sale of handguns and philadelphia, separate from hunting anin outer stretches of the state? >> the supreme court of the united states ruled on whether cities can set up their own ordinances a separate from that which the second amendment allows for. that was clear in a recent case from chicago and from washington, d.c. it is clear you cannot. no, i would not be creating or passing a new gun laws. as you also know, here in in

philadelphia at the request of the legislature, my office created a task force as partnered with the philadelphia district attorney's office with the police department. we are the agency that is going in and taking the guns off the street. recently, we issued a report where we have a 1300 active investigations. we have a 500 active all rest, 300 convictions. we've taken nearly 1000 guns off the street. it is enforcement of existing laws. also, the courts have to help. when we get these individuals across pennsylvania it using firearms in the active commission of a crime and harming people, we see, in some court systems, a lack of full enforcement on that. i think philadelphia is a prime example. >> what about the florida gun laws were people can go on line from pennsylvania who had been rejected for licenses and

pennsylvania, they can go get one online out of the state of florida? your critics say you have the power to change that with a penny. >> the critics are wrong the restrictions -- the restrictions in florida are greater, because your demonstrate that you've taken a gun safety course with 12 hours. i do not remember the exact number. yet to provide a fingerprint. they do a background check. they see if you have any convictions and see is if you have ever been committed for mental defects -- 302's in pennsylvania. at that point in time, we of reciprocity with florida. i have inherited that reciprocity agreement from my prior attorney-general. >> mr. onorato? >> i totally disagree with it, and i think he is wrong. the supreme court made it very clear that we have an individual right to own guns. they also made it very clear

that we have the right to have reasonable regulation. as governor, i support reasonable regulation, such as mandatory reporting of lost or stolen guns. if someone steals your gun, you should be required to report it. if you want legislation that puts a child safety locks on guns, that is reasonable. if you look of the florida loophole, we could not disagree more. i believe the attorney general has the right to close that loophole tomorrow. if he thinks he does not, i would ask him to stand with me to lobby legislation to close that. there is no reason why the department of agriculture in florida is getting permits to carry concealed weapons and pennsylvania. i think it is wrong. i will close that loophole immediately as governor. >> i have one comment, because dan said this on saturday -- he said the department of agriculture. it is not just the department of agriculture. it is an agency that licenses many other activities in florida. florida made a decision to place

that there. it is not like a bunch of farmers are going out and making that decision. >> first of all, i, from a part of a state that understands hunting. i respect the sportsmen and women. i will respect your right to have a gun in your home to defend yourself. that is what the second amendment allows. i will make sure that we honor that. as regards the department of agriculture and licensing, does it make a difference? should florida's departments dictate to florida who carries a concealed weapon? i do not think so. >> i think it is probably time to talk about the economy. both of you have spent a lot of money and time attacking each other in the area of job creation, but i think this would be a good opportunity for you both to detailed specifically what you would do to create jobs. and i think most would agree that it would take more than lowering the state's business tax and to accomplish that.

how many jobs will your administration's create in four years, and it would be very instructive for me anyway, if you would give me a number. and specifically, how will you go about achieving that? and i ask the question first to mr. onorato. >> well, i cannot give you a number, because we do not know the future. i will tell you what we have done an elegant the county. we are in the worst recession since the great depression. by upon a distorted my record on television. we have lost jobs like every other county has done because of the bush administration. allegheny weathered the storm much better. our unemployment rate is well below the federal and state levels. as governor, we have to create a better business? anbar mccrary i will lower the corporate net income tax -- i will lower the corporate net

income tax. i will look at the corporate loopholes occurred i will look at our regulatory agencies. we need to make sure there deate ep is more business friendly. we need to train our workers for the jobs of the future. we need to use our community colleges and using our curriculum to match the needs of companies. we can focus on the jobs that are here today and going for. -- goigng forward. that is a potential of 80,000 new jobs. in the industry understands that we want them to hire pennsylvanians. >> mr. corbett? >> if we can predict how many jobs we are going to create, we should be in another business speaking who will win the world series, but we know it will be the phillies. the difficult part about this is

>> so that agencies of state government understand that they're to work with business to have to regulate them, to have to participate in making sure that they follow the rules but they do not have to be

adversarial. and they can produce those permits in a much more timely fashion than they do. i'm the only one that's ever worked in a regulated industry. and i certainly understand what it's like when the regulators continue to harass you when they're not helping you. they're more of an adversary than they are trying to assist you in growing the businesses. so i'm not going to give you a number, but i do know what we have, the potential we have in this state that the citizens and the people we have potential for hundreds of thousands of jobs in the future of pennsylvania. >> if you won't give me a number, how about giving me a date? how long will it take for you to lower the series of business taxes to create a climate that is more conducive to creating jobs? mr. on rate toe? >> it would be very difficult for me to give you an exact timeline. >> why is that difficult? >> because it would all depend what's on the table. i will push to lower the taxes so that we're competitive with the state and other states.

the question is are some of the corporate loop hops on the table? not elected kick or dictator. you have a popular republican senate. we don't know what the house is going to be. but you have to work with the legislature. and i'm going to put my proposals forward to do the things we just talked about and push hard and try to use the bully pulpit of the governor's office to get done what i want to do. if we're willing to look at -- i'm sorry, the loopholes you can lower them a lot faster. >> mr. corbett, can you give me a date? >> jim, no. we would be a fool to viewers if we were to give anybody a date. the first thing we have to do is cut the spending. the commonwealth of pennsylvania has increased its budget -- we cannot sustain that. we will start cutting spending as soon as we get into office. we'll work with the legislature to go in and cut the size of state government, to cut the costs of state government, to cut the spending of state government, to be accountable for the money that people pay into harrisburg and to make sure that money is used the way it was supposed to be used. >> now your question goes first

to mr. corbett. >> all right. as you knee i'm here from witf tv in harrisburg. it's close to declaring bankruptcy. 19 cities and towns across the state are in distressed status, which is the bureaucratic way of saying they're broke. mayors are asking for more taxing authority. but so far the general asimply has shut them down. do you favor mow taxing options for pennsylvania's municipals and if so exactly which ones? if not what do you say tonight to those cities that are broke? >> well, first off, no, i think we have to take a look at what we call act 47. you're familiar with that. we have many cities unfortunately that have been in fact 47 status for a very, very long time. i think we've made some mistakes here. first off, we haven't been responsible with them as a state -- state agencies overseeing to make sure they are developing their plan that they can come out of that with really a form of bankruptcy, the municipal

form of bankruptcy that they can come out of that. some cities have been for 20 years. their state has a responsibility to ensure that those municipalities will work to reduce debt. there's many different ways that we can do that. but secondly, we need to work with those municipalities who are about to go into it to try and help them at that point in time. so am i looking to taxes? no, i'm not looking to taxes right now. i think we need to work with those cities for cost reductions, for efficiencies of economist and how they're purchasing, what they're purchasing, and help them manage their businesses much better, manage thundershower state government or their local government than they have. keeping in mind, though, that one of the things we to do from state government from the legislature is send down unfunded mandates. maybe we need to go back and take a look at those mandates and say, you know what, since it's unfunded you don't have to do that. we could take a thorough review of that entire area. >> mr. on rate toe. >> being the county executive i watch those unfunded mandates

come down and i won't do that is go. but i also work with a lot of municipalities. as governor i'm going to provide incentives towards distressed municipalities, city thinking outside the box. encourage them to start thinking about consolidated services. we're consolidating police department volunteer fire departments in alleghany county right now. if the municipalities want help from the state i think we have to be honest with ourself and say we have way too much government. we have to look at how we provide services. it doesn't work anymore. we have to be more efficient. we have to share services. we have to consolidate services. and we should incentivize it so that local municipalities have options in front of them. if they want different options for how they fund their local government, i'm prepared to give them different options they could pick from but they have to give efficiencies in return. this way it allows every area to decide their own unique way to move forward.

i'm glad we were able to be create any alleghany county. i'm glad we have held the level of property taxes for nine years that row while every county around us is up over 30%. we did that because we were efficient, we cut government and we reformed. >> i just want to be clear. are you saying you would be in favor of more taxes options but it must be done on a county level? for instance the county sales tax. counties wanted that. governor rendell supported that. it didn't go anywhere in the legislature. could you be clear about it? >> i don't want to use the word more. you say more taxes. not more tax. are there other options out there. i will sit down with the league of cities, the county commission associations and i will say what's the best way to run these areas. but before i do anything, and before the state taxpayers get involved, we're going to demand efficiencies. we're going to demand the way they provide service, start sharing services, consolidate them and lower the cost. that's what we did. the way we were able to avoid raising taxes, raising the property tax for that long is because we consolidated

municipal function. if they want to have some state money they've got to give us some efficiencies and we'll get those we need but they decide. it won't be man dated on them. >> mr. corbett, do you want 30 seconds on this? >> that's all right. >> mr. odom, can you give -- mr. onorato, you said specifically you want to reduce the size of legislature, ask them to vote themselves out of office. that sounds a lot like don key yo tee. but those are curby gigs up there with big benefits and things like that. it seems almost impossible, sir. >> well, i do understand why people are cynical. we talk about downsizing the legislature. because it's never happened. now the most expensive legislation in the united states based on how many people work for it and how much we spend. well over $300 million. they told me the same thing seven years ago when i said i was going to consolidate 10 of the county row offices down to

four. all held by democrats, my own party. they said i would never do it. we did within 18 months. i got it through my county coins, eight democrats, seven republicans. got a 15-0 vote. then we took it to the voters. voters 72% approval decided to consolidate and streamline government. times are different. people know they're hurting, unemployment's high. they want to see harrisburg reformed. they don't want to see new taxes. i'm going to cut and save in the legislature. my benchmark is 20% savings to what we currently spend. other areas i'd move money. the legislature is sitting on $200 million of leadership account money. and hundreds of thousands of walking around money. that goes back to the general fund before we cut any more programs. i'm willing to look at turnpike commission. those two agencies necessary? can we do something together, be more efficient? i'm going to find ways to be more efficient just like i did for the last seven years running the second largest county. >> school funding? >> school funding? where i do stand on it? >> would you cut it? >> absolutely not.

the one area i will not cut is school funding. and i will continue to fund the basic funding formula, make sure we expand early childhood and that will pay for it self. if we get more kid into early childhood, all the studies show they have a better chance of succeeding. if we get them before kindergarten they succeed academically. i would much rather invest taxpayers dollars on the front end prekindergarten as opposed to paying 10 times more than building jails when they're 167 and 17. we got it backwards right now in pennsylvania. let's invest on the front end not the back end. >> mr. corbett. >> is this rebuttal? >> no, this is full question. >> ok. first off i think we need to take a look at the budget and work with the agencies where there is basically waste and abuse going on. i always use my friend jack wagner, the auditor general of pennsylvania's example of the ineligible payments being made to the department of welfare for

medicaid. he indicated 14% of the people that were receiving benefits were ineligible. the secretary of welfare indicated it was only 4% but that was $300 million. i tend to believe that auditor general understands it a little bit better and is a little more independent so we're going to take a look at all of those different areas. i've indicated in my reform plan that going to work with the legislature, we're going to cut their per diems, going to cut the spending money without having receipts for it. we are going to cut the -- reduce the size of the fleet of pennsylvania. but also i'm going to institute zero-based budgeting. look at the various agencies of state government to have them report to us what they need to do and what they don't need to do. there's a lot of waste going on in pennsylvania. i'll give you an example of the office, the community of economic development. 300 separate programs. 300. in my mind, that can't be a number that is appropriate in this day and age. >> school funding? >> school funding?

we're going to take a look at the school funding. i'm not committed to the costing out study. i do think that we need to invest in early childhood. i've been a long time proponent of that. i came to harrisburg along with the salvation army who was leading the battle will back in the mid to late 1990's trying to get money for the early childhood initiative in ail gain any county. i agree with dan. in the long-term this is what i call generational change. if we invest in pre-k, invest in 3-year-olds, 4-year-olds, 5-year-olds, give them the foundation when they get to school to grow and to live and to educate themselves along with the school system, we're going to save ourselves money over a generation. >> you talk about school funding and of course that raises the whole notion of property taxes. and i think it's probably fair to say that for so many homeowners across the state of pennsylvania the most onerous tax is the property tax if for no other reason it tends to go

up every two years. and so many older people have long disconnected their personal tie to the school district. and so they may feel that it's inappropriate for them to have to fund the school district on a yearly basis. for so many years we have heard people running for public office say they're going to reduce property taxes. and unsurprisingly, it virtually never happens. i want to ask you why or what is wrong with pennsylvania house bill 1275, which would eliminate property taxes and pass that funding responsibility into a sales tax but with exemption for such things as food, clothing, residential utilities, home heating fuels, doctors bills and prescription drugs. what is wrong with 1275? and i ask you first, mr. corbett. >> well, first off, jim, you're absolutely right. this issue of property tax reform has been going on since

the eisenhower administration. it's one that appears to give unfairness to some individuals and benefits to other individuals. and it's one that has to be addressed. in regard to the bill that you're speaking about, we've taken a look at that bill. and we have concerns that the amount of revenue that would be raised by that bill is insufficient to meet the needs of the school district as they exist right now today. to meet the needs of the counties as it exists right now today. we have talked to many different people during the course of this campaign in preparation for governing. i believe that we can take a look again to see what revenues we would have to allow that kind of system to come into place. but it's a very difficult one with the exemption that you include. and then it would also become what's the size of the sales tax. i agree an idea of the sales tax

appears to be fairer because it reaches to more people. but we need to have -- if we're going to continue at the levels we are right now and the schools are going to continue at the levels they are right now. the problem is, we have a spending problem. we have a spending problem in the schools are spending a lot of money, in the counties we're spending a lot of money, in the state we're spending a lot of money. we've got to get the spending under control first. >> mr. onorato? >> tom has an attack against me on tv about the property taxes in my county. the other thing he doesn't tell you is the largest tax increase came from my republican president sayser who now chairs tom's campaign in ail gain any county. we've delivered seven years in a row without raising property taxes and i froze assessments because i have one of the oldest counties in the state. and i was going make it clear to the seniors and people on fixed income we were not going to allow county property taxes to run out of control.

we're the only county in western pennsylvania this has not seen an increase in seven years. the only one. that's been zero. we take a lot of pride in that. we delivered on our campaign promise. we talk about funding of schools. my first debate my opponent criticized me for saying i was going to continue to fund education. now he agrees with me on early chield hood and today. that first debate -- i'm not sure why he's changing if it's the audience or just the issue. here's' what i know. for schools if you want to get serious about property tax reform that house bill has to have serious consideration. because if you're going to remove property tax for funding of schools you have to have a honest replacement of revenue. what i would ask, though, if we do anything like that we take it to the voters through referendum and have a honest debate and discussion about it. if the voters approve it would make sense. but i've been dealing with property reform for seven years and we've debeing the lowest of anybody over that seven-year period. >> but you are saying that you

would sincerely investigate the idea of eliminating property taxes. >> absolutely. only if it's a real proposal. that if you're truly going to eliminate it for funding of schools and have a real replacement revenue and do it through referendum. in the short-term if that doesn't happen you have to fix the assessment system and got to make sure that schools are properly funded. because if my opponent doesn't fund the costing outside of the basic funding formula he's just pushing it down to school districts and we're going to raise your property tax. i won't do that. >> mr. corbett, i saw you shaking your head. >> i agree. we will take a look at this. it would be nice if we could find a source that would continue to pay for that. i think it's very important that we do. we have to give that bill legitimate consideration. but you have to be sure that you are replacing revenue that is revenue-neutral in that respect. so i agree with that. i do know that my opponent says that my ads are incorrect. he made a promise that he would cut his property tax by 10%. he has not cut property tax by 10%. i also know that alleghany

county where i live still one of the highest in the state, particularly in the region. >> nell? >> still staying on the topic of education because at the heart of this dollars and cents conversation is the fate of our children. tonight nearly half a million pennsylvania child cannot make grade level in riding and math. and they are con signed simply by geography where they live, their zip code, to attend those failing public schools. you both indicated some degree of support for the idea of school choice. i want to narrow down exactly what you're talking about. for those kids who are in those failing schools, would that include allowing their parents to spend state tax dollars, take their basic education subsidy over to any school, including religious and any private school? >> well, i've got to correct a statement and i'll giveout answer. tom would knowal alleghany has higher taxes because he voted for that. i did not raise property tax. to answer your question about choice, i made it very clear my

educational policy. in addition to the basic funding formula, in addition to early childhood i think we should continue to reform and fix charters. they are a great option. i support them in my city when they first came out. i don't pit one school against another school so we're going to make sure we have good schools. hold them both accountable financially and academically. i also improve the education improvement tax credit. it used to be $75 million where a private company could give private money and get a tax credit but go to any school, public, private, religious schools. i also support a grant program. a grant program for children that are low income and stuck in an academically challenged school. they are the choices that i would put into place. i would also be committed no matter what we do we're going to have to have good public schools where the majority of our kids go and make sure we fund them properly and hold them accountable. >> let me just clarify. charter schools are public schools. they're not private schools. the educational investment tax

credit that you're talking about, yes, that's by a company can invest. i'm talking about allowing taxpayers in those failing schools to take the money and go anywhere. >> i thought i answered it but i'll do it again. i thought i answered the question. in addition to the educational improvement tax credit which goes to private schools, the grant program could be used in private schools and parochial schools, religious schools and they would take this grant and it would be limited to children of low income stuck in an academically challenged school. >> that's still not the subsidy, though. >> no. >> that's not a subsidy dollar. that's what i'm asking. would you allow them to take their subsidy dollar and take it to another school? >> no. i would do it with the limited grant program. >> mr. corbett? >> now, the problem that we have is a school system across the state that is failing, that is broken. we have 30,000 students a year drop out of the public school system of pennsylvania. that's the size of the city of williamsport. we have to fix it. i've put in my education plan which is again on the web at tom

corbett for governor.com. a very detailed plan starting out with the early childhood initiative where we wanted to put money into that, the earned education income tax credit for the businesses, so that they can help provide funding to various schools. vouchers are yes with me. i have been somebody who supports vouchers for the failing schools. and we need to let the students and the teachers and particularly the parents know what schools are failing. we need to put a letter grade on them so we would talk about that. if a student is attending a failing school, the parent that school and take a percent of that similar to the charter schools where i think it's about 80% go from the public district to the charter school, you would be able to take that same money along with you for whatever school it is. i believe we need to take a look at the education system from the perspective of the child, the parent, and the teacher in the

classroom. not the organizations, not the unions but the teacher in the classroom. we have very good teachers out there. we need to empower everybody to work together on that. >> let's proceed. vernon? >> your question would be to mr. corbett. >> mr. corbett, you've been accused constantly of double talk about taxes versus fees. and jumping back and forth on that. and also let's play another one here. your infamous statement about people would prefer to stay unemployed and therefore because if unemployment benefits are extended. could you comment on both of those? and let's give you an opportunity -- >> let me answer your second question first. i know that people of pennsylvania, and i've been saying this ever since this statement, that people of pennsylvania are out there looking for jobs. the first thing we have to do, though, is work much better on our workforce development, work much better with the schools to help to develop their skills to the jobs that are available.

there are some jobs available that we need to do that to, ok? but we need to develop the workforce for the future from our schools and for those who have lost their jobs. i recently was in a career center up in the northwestern part of the state where i observed pleasantly a 65-year-old man who lost his job who is now back learning the schools that you need to run a computer, to run a lathe in a factory. that's exactly what we need to be doing. we need to encourage that. the statement that i made was part of reporting two ant dotes that have been reported to me by individuals. i understand that people are working. we're moving forward. we've got to get them the jobs that i believe we should develop. those jobs i look to [inaudible] that's an industry that's going to grow i believe hundreds of thousands of jobs direct and indirect. we need to see that grow. >> when you said that, do you

really believe people prefer to stay on the dole as opposed to having jobs? i was repeating what was told to me. >> about how many people? >> i was repeating -- i repeated a couple anti-dotes. you asked me a second question. >> you've been accused of double talk on taxes. >> let me make it clear. i'm the only person here that has signed the pledge not to increase taxes. i've also made a promise we will not increase any fees, not now, not ever. >> mr. onorato. >> again i take exception with what tom's saying because we have in the public record several times saying that he doesn't support extending the unemployment compensation because the jobs are there. jobs are there. and people wouldn't look for them. that's number one. as it relates to taxes, i don't have to sign a no-tax pledge. because i've governed for seven years. i've reformed government.

i downsized the payroll. i've held the line on property taxes. i stood at the first debate and i heard as clear as day tom said he would help the payback of $3 billion debt to the federal government by putting a tax on the workers. the last debate he said he wouldn't. i find it ironic that first debate was in front of a chamber audience, second debate wasn't. you can't change your answer depending on what audience you're talking. to i have a track record of how i will govern. it gets attacked or gets applauded depending on who you talk. to it gets distorted depending on who you're running against. i'll defend my track record. i'll prepare to reform harrisburg, create jobs. that's what we did in alleghany county. that's why we've been rated the best place to live two years in a row, the lowest foreclosure in the state. i can go on and go on by independent magazines and newspapers even in these tough economic times. i have the experience working with the private sector and creating jobs and i will do that as governor. >> i'm concerned that our

timetable here is running short. and so i want to bring up the whole issue of marcellus shale if you don't mind. most voters wouldn't know what marcellus shale is. but it is one of the largest deposits of natural gas in the world. and pennsylvania is sitting on top of it. the question is, how do we extract it. do we tax it with a severance tax or do we let business and developers do it without a severance tax? and they will pay taxes at some later point in time. basically it's pay me now or pay me later, i guess you could put it in those terms. do we as a state ask for developers and energy companies to pay a severance tax on the extraction of natural gas from marcellus shale now, or do we let them go about their development processes without

that severance tax and pay the state later through different kinds of taxes? will the severance tax inhibit the potential business activity at marcellus shale or will it not? and mr. onorato i ask you first. >> well, we should do what every state that has natural gas is doing. we need a competitive severance tax. here's how we should use the money. we should replace all the cuts that were made in the department of environmental protection. because right now it took a 28% cut in the last two budgets. we need to make sure that department of environmental protection is up an running to watch the environmental quality. we need to make sure we have money set aside for roads and water lines and sewer lines. i would preserve farmland and open space. if we did that we could actually grow this industry, this great opportunity, in an environmentally smart way. there's a fourth component. the 80,000 jobs they're predicting are going to come from the industry, we have to make sure before we give out all the permits the industry understands they're going to hire pennsylvania, not texas,

not oklahoma, not louisiana, our people. this is no time to take an extreme position like tom's take and make pennsylvania the only state that doesn't have a severance tax. these are real issues. when you take minerals out of the ground you have some environmental issues. why don't we mitigate them by using the competitive severance tax as opposed to making the taxpayers pick up that bill? >> mr. corbett. >> i'm not quite sure where to start on this one. first off we have to understand you're right. we are the saudi arabia of natural gas if we develop it and develop it now. we need to develop this industry right now because it's going to provide hundreds of thousands of jobs from every study that i have seen. tax right now i don't believe is appropriate. in fact, i don't see a tax in this. these companies right now are already paying taxes. and the money that they create and their spending in pennsylvania turns into tax through income, through royalty payments and many other ways. you're seeing businesses in

areas that have gone out of business in bradford county, green county, growing again because of this industry. the permit fees secretary hanger of d.e.p. has already indicated that permit fees have enabled him to hire enough people to make sure that these people are drilling the proper way and to make sure that they are not violating the environment. we do need to make sure that we protect the environment. and i will never put the profit of any company ahead of protecting the environment. i'm the only one here that has united states attorney i brought cases against even municipalities who violated our streams. and as attorney general i have worked with the legislature to increase the penalties against people who violate our clean streams. and gone after people who have violated the environment on a regular basis. i believe we would chase away these companies at this point in time. >> mr. onorato? >> well first of all, tom's not

the only person that's protected the environment. i have a strong record on the environment. just the opposite, tom. you should tell them the rest of the story. you know you took more money than any elected official in pennsylvania from the gas and oil companies. that's why you're not pushing for the tax. every republican governor, every democratic governor has this tax. this is an extreme position for pennsylvania and you're jeopardizing the taxpayers and you're jeopardizing the environment. and when you talk about your experience in going after people, in the private sector you also represented the largest landfill company, too, when they were coming and being charged with violations. so that works both side and both ways. i would argue if you look at where we stand right now, your position is very extreme compared to where the other states are, and there is no reason. these c.e.o.'s know they're going to pay the tax, they want to pay the tax, they want to make sure they get the permits. let's do this time right way. let's grow the industry the right way so it's environmentally safe, we get the jobs and we don't jeopardize the taxpayers to pick up this bill. >> one rebuttal, sir. >> there's about four areas. >> you've got about 30 seconds.

>> ok. first off when it comes to protecting the environment my record is absolutely clear. and in working with the company that i worked with it was to make them compliant with the environmental laws. secondly, if we're going to talk about taxes then i think we should talk about the taxes for instance of texas because we've always been compared to texas. we can't compare apples and oranges. if we're going to talk about a severance tax that texas has or other states have, if we want to change our entire tax system into what they have in texas then that's what we should do. let's look at the entire tax package of a state. >> nell? >> all right. let's talk good government here. governor rendell is taking criticism from both good government groups and the business community and a lot of other folks out there for the number of no-bid contracts, sourcing that he's done under his watch. let's me give you two recent examples. he gave an outgoing cabinet member a $5,000 a month no-bid state consulting contract. that was just recently. last year he created $95,000 a

year state job for democratic state lawmaker who lost his re-elections. will you promise the voters tonight that you will not reward your cabinet members, political donors and out of work legislators with no-bid contracts or state government jobs? >> that's for me? >> take it. >> yes. i think it's very important that whoever comes into state government understands in the governor's office, understands that they there to serve the people of pennsylvania. and i believe that there is in the governor's code of conduct or there was under governor rich a bar from having any contact with the governor's office on any kind of lobbying. i'm not sure -- >> are you saying he's breaking the law by giving this contract to -- >> no. it was a rule of the governor's not a law, it's a rule of the governor's office. but i would certainly go back to that. and we'd have to look at the number of years. but i think it's totally inappropriate for the governor to create a $5,000 a month contract like that or

particularly to hire some other individual -- this was a legislator -- into a job in order that he can continue on and gain more of his pension. >> so you promise tonight you will not do that? >> that's right. >> mr. mr. onorato? >> first of all i will start by promising ier out since the primary that talks about this issue along with a lot of other reforms. i say that as governor everything will be competitively bid. everything. lowest responsible bid contracts have to be but even professional service contracts. we will competitive bid everything. no sole sourcing of contracts. i also put a two-year maybe even longer on the moratorium that anybody leaving my administration cannot lobby or come back to the administration on the outside. >> vernon. >> both of you are practicing catholics. it's my understanding. how will your faith affect your governance especial i'm a product of catholic school and that's a big part who i am.

how it will affect me on that particular issue i made it very clear. as governor i support pennsylvania's current law and would veto any attempt to change that law. >> mr. corbett. >> obviously my faith means a great deal to me. i'm a product of parochial grade school, a public high school, a methodist college and a catholic law school. so i've kind of been ecumenical when it comes to that. and obviously our faith really guides how we make decisions. not just when it comes to the issue of abortion but on many other issues. the one thing i've learned from my faith is you must do the right thing. and i promise the people of pennsylvania the decisions i make are going to be made in the best interests of pennsylvania and that are the right thing to do. when it comes to abortion, i support the present law if the legislature were to pass a stricter form of abortion law i would sign it. >> most people think of this whole area of healthcare reform

as a federal issue but it's really up to the states to implement the whole program. but i want to ask you specifically about medicaid, which comprises about 20% of the state of pennsylvania's budget and serves mostly children and the disabled and the elderly. will you pledge not to cut the medicaid budget in pennsylvania for a four-year term? mr. corbett. >> the first thing that we need to do is go in and find the waste in medicaid. i believe we can do that. if i go back to what i said about auditor general jack wagner, who indicated there was a 14% error rate that was due to ineligibility, i believe we will spend -- or save a great deal of money there. a 20% guarantee i think is a good number that we can reach. but to make a pledge on that right now without knowing the entire aspect of the budget and without knowing what money we're going to be getting from the federal government for those programs because we do get money from the federal government for

other programs, i will make a pledge that i will do my best to keep it at the 20%. >> mr.? >> i will -- mr. onorato? >> i will do everything i cannot to cut medicaid especially in these tough economics times. i will look at all other parts of the state budget before i would ever look at this department. and i also want to point out that healthcare it self is going to be a challenge for pennsylvania. as you all know, the federal healthcare bill was implementing in 2000 -- 2014. we have to implement it because i've watched healthcare costs go from 35 million to $65 million in my county. the status quo is killing us, killing small businesses. we also have a different problem, adult basic. at the end of this year, 45,000 people are being kicked off adult basic. tom and i disagree. that is a contract for six years with all the insurance companies. they actually provide the funding for that. that expires. i've called for the insurance companies to extend it for three years to get it to 2014. tom sided with the insurance

company and extend it for six months. they need to cover for the next three years with their reserves and other insurance companies that are part of that to make sure we don't throw 45,000 people off of medical coverage just because the clock's ticking before they get to the medical coverage. >> 15-seconds answers, is immigration policy exclusively the domain of the federal government? mr. onorato? >> yes, it is. we need a comprehensive federal immigration bill. >> so what mr. burlotta is doing in hazelton is unconstitutional, what he wants to do to have local immigration reform? >> yeah. i believe it should be done and legally it has to be done at the federal level. >> mr. corbett. >> i believe the federal government has a duty to enforce the federal immigration laws. i do believe the states have the ability to make sure that payments that they're making are not going to illegal immigrants and to protect their state's rights when it comments to that. >> we are at the end of our time for questions and it is time for closing statements right now.

a coins to decided the order of the closing statements. and mr. corbett, you're first. >> ladies and gentlemen, it's been a pleasure to be here with you. jim, nell, vernon, thank you for being here tonight and participating in this. the next governor of pennsylvania has a number of serious decisions and serious challenges ahead of them. i view these challenges as opportunities. opportunities to take pennsylvania back in a direction where it becomes a state that other states want to model themselves after. we're not there right now. but in order to do that, the next governor of pennsylvania is going to have to make tough decisions. i've made tough decisions throughout my entire career. my opponent has belittled during the course of this campaign, my pros cue tore yal background. but i look at governors like governor christy and governor mcdonalds of virginia, governor ridge and governor

thornberg all prosecutor the. and i promise you so too will i. we have a very disticket choice between the two candidates. if you want four more years of spending, if you want four more years of increased spending, or taxes, if you want four more years of unemployment, if you want four more years of trying to be all things to all people, if you want four more years of tees policies i would select my opponent. if you want somebody who's going to bring change, who's going to have the courage to make the tough decisions, who's going to bring job creation to pennsylvania, i would ask on november 2 that you vote for me. thank you. >> thank you. and again i thank everybody for pulling together the debate tonight. as you can hear my opponent he wishes he was running against ed rendell. tom, i'm not ed rendell. you're running against me. i'm going to runt state differently. i'm definitely going to run it differently than you. i have the experience of running

government, downsizing government, consolidating government, holding the line on property taxes for seven years in a row and freezing assessments. ace run for governor i'm going to bring to harrisburg an outsider's point of view. you're hearing the harrisburg rhetoric tonight. i have no interest in harrisburg or no personal gain. i'm going to go there and make the reforms like i did in the second largest county. i've worked with the private sector to create jobs. i'm going to do it as governor the same way. we reformed government so we were more business friendly. i'll do that as governor. if you're looking for somebody that's willing to go to harrisburg and take on yes, even the legislature, i'm your guy. i'm willing to do it. because times are tough out there. i know people are hurting out there. tom doesn't. i reform government. tom hasn't. i did work with that private sector to create jobs in western pennsylvania. tom hasn't. i appreciate you giving me this opportunity tonight. i respectfully ask for your vote. and on november 3 the day after the election i'm going to work

to put pennsylvaniaens back to work. thank you. >> mr., mr. corbett i want to -- mr. onorato and mr. corbett, thanks for giving our viewers an opportunity to learn more about your viewer views and your visions. thanks also to vernon odom and nell mccormack from wits tv. now we want to give an opportunity for some final words from the league of women voters. >> i'm olivia thorn, chair of the league of women voters of pennsylvania citizen education fund. we want to thank the candidates for participating in this debate. and wpbi for its partnership and commitment to the citizens of pennsylvania. active and informed citizens are a keystone to a strong democracy. for 90 years the league has been helping voters learn about the candidates and their positions. the league encourages all pennsylvania, to learn more about the candidates by going to palwv.org and smart voter.org, our online voter's guide. please vote on tuesday,

november 2 and make democracy work. thank you for watching [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [caption >> democratic spending is being stepped up less than two weeks before the mid-term elections. the service employees union plans a $2 million elections push for pennsylvania's senate seat. the supporting democratic congressman joe sestak as well as the democrat in pennsylvania governor's race. each night on c-span we're showing debates from key races across the country. tonight we begin at 8:00 eastern with live coverage of the illinois governor's debate, with democratic incumbent pat quinn and republican state senator bilbraydy. then florida's governor's debate, pennsylvania's senate debate, and connecticut's governor's debate.

>> it's time to get your camera rolling for this year's student cam. c-span's video documentary competition. make a five to eight minute video on this year's theme, washington, d.c. through my lens. tell us about an issue event or topic that helps you better understand the role of the federal government in your life or community. be sure to include more than one point of view along with c-span programming. the deadline's january 20th and you'll have a chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. there's $50,000 in total prizes. c-span's student cam video documentary competition is open to middle and high school students grades 6-12. for complete details go to student cam.org. >> pakistan civilian and military leaders are in washington, d.c. today. three days of high-level talks. on the table a multiyear security agreement. we'll have live coverage of that

meeting at the brookings institution at 6:30 eastern. tomorrow we'll be live at the -- as the congressional oversight panel looks into executive compensation for companies that receive tarp funds. those are the funds financial institutions received about two years ago. kenneth fineberg, the special master overseeing compensation, testifies. our live coverage begins at 11:00 a.m. eastern. >> now for discussion on the 2010 mid-term elections with senior reporters from politico. this hour-long discussion took place this morning. >> good morning and welcome. i'm john harris. i'm the editor in chief of politico and thank you for joining us here today. we're 13 days away from what we all recognize is likely to be one of the most consequential mid-term elections in many years. the campaign trail in recent days has revealed a nation that

is more polarized than ever. we've seen candidates in both parties staking out extreme positions, tearing down their opponents often in the most brutal and personal way, in many cases while doing so shredding their own reputation and even making fools of themselves for students of government and of washington this raises a profound question, is this nation going to become even more ungovernable after the mid-term elections for people who run political web sites it raises a different question, which is how rocky can we get? we here are all political junkies. we love this stuff. presumably you all are political junkies or you wouldn't be here. i suspect many of the people joining us on our c-span audience are also political junkies. welcome to all. for people who love campaigns, this is a great moment.

we're having a blast. and there's a ton to talk about today. i want to introduce my politico colleagues who are going to be joining us today in giving their insights and direction. all the way down at the end is a name and a face that's familiar to many people. roger simon, our chief political columnist. next to roger carrie brown who covers politics and also policy on capitol hill for politico, mike allen, our chief white house correspond dent, jonathan martin, senior political reporter, and another senior political reporter who has just joined politico this year, a new addition, she brings you'll be happy to know an outside the beltway perspective. she represents the real america, maggie lives in new york city. [laughter] >> anyway, before i go on i want to recognize and thank very much our sponsor for today's events, the national cable and

telecommunications association. i don't think anybody or any organization is doing more to help cable television than politico. particularly roger and mike, who are on all the time, although the rest of these guys are all pretty familiar faces. you know, i like to work behind the scenes. anyway, thank you very much. we're really glad that you could help us sponsor this event and be here with us today. ok. let's start out. jonathan we have news this morning in the form of a nbc news-wall street journal poll that shows that there continues to be a 7 point margin between people of the so-called generic question whether people prefer a republican or democrat in these congressional elections. that suggests that the basic trajectory of this year which is favoring republicans is maintaining -- is staying pretty stable. but in other recent days we've

heard news and proclamations from the white house that this race is tightening, that things are still very unpredictable. what's your sense? is this race fundamentally stable in its trajectory or are things still very fluid? >> somewhere in between. what was so striking, john, about that poll we saw out today was that yes, there was a 7-point advantage for the g.o.p. in the generic. but among registered voters, that 7-point advantage was among likely voters. but among registered voters, democrats actually had a two-point advantage, 46-44. that underscores the central theme of the cycle, and that is that republicans have not fixed all their problems, john, but they're just a heck of a lot more enthusiastic about going out to vote. and that's why you see president obama and democrats doing everything that they can to rally their own base. those so-called surge voters. african-americans, hispanics, college kids who hadn't been active in the past, who came out to vote for the president in 2008. the concern is that if those folks don't show up this is

going to be a really bad night for democrats. that's why you've had the president in places like columbus, ohio, madison, wisconsin, two big college towns, two states with important senate and gubernatorial elections. the president was in philadelphia working on african-americans in pennsylvania, going to las vegas this week, focusing there on hispanic voters. so the president is doing everything he can to sort of rally those voters. but it's still an open question if those folks do come out. historically as folks here in this audience know, it's very difficult to get a presidential year voters out from mid-term elections. the coverage is different. so that's the challenge they have in front of you. now yesterday talking to the president's top aids in the white house, they are making the case that yes, there are signs that the races are tightening, that democrats are coming home. but here's the problem. for every poll that comes out that shows a democrat starting to make the race more

competitive, in pennsylvania for example you've got more data that shows g.o.p. candidates and the houses pegsly broadening the playing field. so for every sort of good news democrats have there's a better news for the g.o.p. ..

>> a d think the actual result is higher? lower than 47 seats, where debt on? >> slightly lower. >> slightly higher. >> [inaudible]

[inaudible] >> higher, lower or spot on? >> spot on. all of these races are really in flux. it's going to depend on the least stupid thing and it will go up into the last weekend. >> i'm not pulling this out of a computer projection, but just out of my head -- that's -- >> that's a better part of your anatomy than i was thinking. >> 50. that is a floor, not a ceiling. i think it's going to get worse. i think this is going to be a

bloodbath election. i do not say that with any joy. one point about what jonathan said, president obama is going out, addressing his base very strongly in these last few weeks, but you could say it is a sign of weakness that you have to address your base in the last few weeks and not the persuade abels outside your base. barack obama is nailing down african-american votes, young voters, college kids, in these last few days, that's a sign that those people are not nailed down yet, and that's not a good sign. >> do you see a republican senate? >> i have the republicans today picking up eight seats. i think it could get worse. i think it could be tied. i think it could be a republican senate. >> we have a least four people

who say unambiguously that republicans take the house. you say it is slightly lower than 47. do you think there's a possibility republicans would fall short, just a little short of the end zone and not take control of the house? >> its possible, but very unlikely. you have all of the energy on the republican side and obama has come under criticism for not doing this earlier, more aggressively and being more involved. the caveat here is some of the races, like on the expanded map in new york, these are not all equal. new york for, or carolyn mccarthy is a target, she's not in that much trouble. she's facing an opponent with about $25,000 and there's no outside funding coming in. things are very specific to local factors like the new york gop being in disarray.

i'm going to hedge a bit and say it's going to be a little closer than people think. >> roger, you have been on this for a good, long time now. does this year, when you are seeing and feeling, seemed similar to you from other big turnover years like 1980, 1994 or the circumstances this year, are the unique? >> i went back and looked at both years. 1980 is hard to compare because that was a presidential election year. it was a huge win for ronald reagan who got a landslide election. the republicans picked up 12 seats in the senate, the largest swing since 1958. they gained control of the senate, 53-46. it was the first time since 54 that republicans controlled one of the houses of congress. the republicans gained 35 seats

in the house, but the democrats still held on to control. because of the southern conservatives, the boll weevils, ronald reagan had a working majority in the house of representatives even though he did not control what. but this was reagan's year. that's my first campaign, so i was partying at the century plaza in los angeles. i was not worried about the house and the senate. the turnout is higher in presidential election years. the turnout in midterms is about 40%. ronald reagan brought out not only people enthusiastic for him, but what became known as the reagan democrats. it threw things off. 1994 is a better example. this was the so-called republican revolution. the republicans had a rally

around newt gingrich, had their contract with america, even though there is a debate on how many americans actually knew about it. and bill clinton's approval rating was 44% heading into election day. gallup has point out that even though the white house pollsters disagree this is meaningful, that every president in the history of polling that has gone into an election in the midterms under 50% in their approval rating has suffered a serious loss in congress. two other things worth noting -- three pillars of democrat party -- lower-income voter, young voters, and african american voters do not -- did not come out in the numbers easily due in 1994. as the committee for the study of the american electorate concluded, this is a bipartisan

group, they noticed that the democrats did poorly in part because "the failure to offer any seam or message around which the voters could rally." does that sound familiar? so i think in that we have some guidance for what might happen this year. >> the people in the white house who you talk to, in private moments, what would they say about roger's analysis? is there anything they can do in the next two weeks to change the trajectory of the election? >> we will -- you are already seeing hints of november 3rd -- [inaudible]

[inaudible] they are not moping around. if you are thinking about barack obama and not the democratic party, this may settle up pretty well. he will have [inaudible] he is going to be able to 0.2 house republicans and it will free him of the burden from everything going on or not going on. he's not going to be able to run as an outsider, but he does not want to run as reform. >> colorful is sometimes a

euphemism for downright monday. we have seen a lot of strange things happening but the campaign trail this year. give me your sense of some of the highlights and tell me what's going on. it feels like some people have gone off the rails, candidates and voters alike. >> it sort of has spun off the edge and we have been approaching the precipices for months now. in new york, carl polity no being the most eccentric example -- carl paladino -- he is very entertaining and very interesting and you don't usually see a phenomenon like him in new york where it's usually a little more scripted. you see the same thing elsewhere in the country with tea party- fielded candidates coming out of primaries, they're not ready for prime time, elected by a very small group of people. it's hardly a mandate and they are not ready for the big stage.

carl paladino the other night literally got up and went to go to the bathroom five minutes before the debate was over. his campaign manager said when you got to go, you got to go, which is true but i've never seen anything like that before. we are not going to duplicate it here. >> a reminder to candidates that they should always have a pair of depends. >> exactly. a few weeks ago, he got into gear fisticuffs with a "new york post" bureau chief and threatened to take him out. that video went viral very quickly. yet the 18-year incumbent in new york telling reporter to shut up. when the reporters cameras were off, they went and lay hands on him. you're seeing wacky things like this all over the country. part of it is this not ready for prime time phenomenon. but part of it is there is a

climate of a circus out there with anything can go and nobody knows what voters want. the things that turn off voters are necessarily doing that this year. >> when you have a scenario like we had in alaska where a few nights ago, joe miller, the senate canadair had his private security force, drop zone, handcuff a local reporter and do a citizen's arrest, which i have not seen since "dukes of hazzard." and we may have heard about that days later, but nowadays we have pictures, video, overnight accounts and we see it in "morning score" and we know about it then. >> another example -- christine o'donnell is dominating cable news coverage because she is a

colorful, provocative, interesting character. but she is far behind and there's no real prospect she will win in a state as one of the smallest in the union. ordinarily, she would not garner any coverage but in the hyper- politicized environment with so much media covering politics, she has become one of the major characters and has even had some influence nationally, as the democrats are invoking her, saying their opponent is another version of christine o'donnell. >> it's like what has happened to journalism. anyone who wants to can become a journalist. i'm not saying that's a bad thing. but in politics, we're close to anyone being able to become a candidate. there has always been wackos, to use an unkind term, in american politics. but they used to be in the audience.

now they are on stage, running for congress and the senate. that may be a trend in american politics we will see increasing in the years ahead. >> mike said something provocative, which is even if republicans take power in the house and possibly both chambers, although that unlikely, the obama white house might find an opportunity in that to regain control of the agenda. give us your take on that the likely policy agenda that's going to be confronting washington next year. >> i think immediately after the election -- you are hearing this already, and at the white house will enjoy delivering this message, you now have a shared responsibility. republicans are going to have to share in the responsibility of governing and they are going to enjoy delivering that message after two years of having no

real recourse in getting them to govern with democrats. policy-wise, i don't think you see any realistic chance of having comprehensive immigration reform, -- >> and that is why? no party has an incentive to make it happen? >> i think both parties have an incentive to make it happen. but the makeup of a republican senate, even with the republican minority, the proponents of comprehensive immigration reform do not have the numbers. we have done numbers on this where they maybe have 30 votes in terms of people who are running, what they're running on, and just the makeup of the incumbents who are coming back. they don't have the numbers to pass a bill with a legalization component. i think the white house will be in a constant state of defense over health care, i believe republicans will face a lot of pressure in the house to try

their best to do something on repealing the health care reform bill. they will not be successful because they don't have the white house, but that does not mean -- they will face tremendous pressure from the base and the voters who put members of congress into office who ran on this platform. if they do not push hard, if the republican leaders are not seen as pushing hard enough, they will face trouble with their base. one thing you cannot predict is the affect of the 2012 primaries on the house. in 2007, you did not see much of an incentive for democrats to work with george bush because they were running, trying to create a contrast with george bush. you will see john boehner face the same thing with his can't it's. that will overshadow a lot of

policy-making. -- his candidates. they have a reauthorization bill, there is evidence that republicans can work with democrats. we saw in "morning score" there was a letter from the republican candidate for governor telling the president he would work with them on education reform. so that's a possibility. that's an area where you could see bipartisan compromise. but in terms of the big items we saw in the last two years, nothing close. >> "morning score" something we have cited a couple of times here -- i think most of you -- we have a spin-off of that. this is for the troop campaign junkies, if you want to note the latest of what is happening on the campaign trail. it comes out every morning at

6:00 by one of our writers who has been monitoring the news overnight. if you are really a junkie and you've really got bad, sign up for "morning score" in addition to "morning playbook." >> [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]

>> you will have this "hell no" component of the republican caucus. the antipathy toward president obama, the notion of working with this president will be i think reviled by some of the members of the house, but a lot of the folks who elected these new gop members. >> and that will make the country angrier going into the 2012 election. they will be mad at their own of folks. >> that's not why we made you speaker. >> we are talking about the contrast with 1994, and raises two big ones -- nickering bridge saw himself as a transformer --

newt gingrich saw himself as a transformative figure. mitch mcconnell are the figures of the structure. they're certainly more conservative than many republicans and opposed to the obama agenda. but they're not radical as newt gingrich in 1994 saw himself as radical. just a reminder that life is full of surprises and you should remember that when listening to anybody political analysis, including our own. on election night, 2008, i think we all would have said these results show the republican party has to fundamentally reinvent itself and come up with new ideas, put forth new personalities and new faces and find new voters and it could take a generation to find this new message with these new voters. it turns out that's not true. they stuck with their current

group of voters. they did not put forth an expensive new agenda, and they have the same faces as they have had. >> one small thing to keep in mind. we are going to get this year a group of legislators who are going to washington not to do things, but to prevent things from being done. the first thing that's going to be announced is that america is a center-right country. but more importantly, they will talk about the role of government, a smaller government, a less intrusive government, a government that cannot, and with minds of sun, it do things that is not written in the constitution. -- that cannot, in the minds of some, do things not written in the constitution. we are going to see a different type of mindset on a significant

group of legislators. >> that raises another good point. billy the consumer's guide for journalism, most of us have day -- have benediction in wanting to describe the elections and the electorate in geologic terms as though there are tectonic plates and there are big, long lasting shifts. we keep falling for this. after the 2002 victory, we said it's a center-right country. after 2006 and 2008, the plates has shifted and it's not a center-left country. and now they are shifting back. i think maybe they used to be true, but we should not think

elections in geologic terms, we should think of them in meteorological term. like the weather, constantly changing color radical solidity in which neither side keeps control is now and public for the press -- for the foreseeable future, our lot in life. i wanted to the audience questions. we have a bunch of good ones. there is a big wave this year. who got caught napping? what democrats are in trouble but you never would have thought should be and are surprised by how much peril they are in? >> the first one that comes to mind is russ feingold, a three term senator from wisconsin. sort of a maverick brand in the blast attrition of wisconsin.

i talk to him for a story in august about three numbers on that class of '92 who are facing tougher elections. i said this is going to be your toughest race and he said that 1998 was the toughest. he's now down in the polls and is fighting for his political life. he was somebody who saw his brand and thought it might insulate him from the national trend. he is now facing a self-thunder with no voting record to shoot at and there's no ammunition he can use against his gop opponent. it is more of a classic swing state that bush nearly lost twice. he is somebody that did not see this train coming. >> is the underdog now?

>> i think he is. in the house side, this always happens in waves years. you wake up and see house institutions that lost. it's always folks like that who get swept off. i think it's going to be interesting to see which house member, which house institution was caught napping. the one to keep an eye on is jim oberstar from minnesota. it's one of three watergate babies left in the house, the class of '74. there are three left and he's one of them. this summer, he said he did not have a race at all and he suddenly has one now. it could be one of those scenarios where they don't see

it coming and that it's too late. >> what have you seen on the campaign trail is surprisingly good and surprisingly bad. >> the democrat nominee for the senate, a race thought to be very competitive. the last financial report, he showed very little money on hand. on the republican side, she could still win, but meg whitman in california has spent $150 million. jerry brown, every poll right now, he is winning. so those have been a letdown. >> i think i would add dick

blumenthal to that despite the fact he's likely to win at the moment. he has surprised a lot of people. >> i'm going to go to you for an audience question. is it the mama grisly label a good thing? you will forgive me for noting that -- >> [laughter] >> i think it is politically potent and has been politically dangerous in the sense that a lot of the candidates sarah palin has endorsed, it's been a mixed bag. christine o'donnell is not going to go down in the annals of

great and it in a general alexian. in terms of how well as suits her in the future, there's a huge north republican to do not believe she is going to run. that label has helped her standout. she's hugely polarizing and a very unique figure in politics right now. i'm not sure what it translates to and it's hard to say. >> will democratic attack ads and president obama's speeches with accusations of foreign funding and an honest business groups support funding the independent ad on tv, but these attacks resonating with voters or rallying the base? >> it seems to be backfiring. it's built an incredible brand

for american action network, american crossroads, they were worried about whether they would exist after this cycle and now they're bigger than ever. if karl rove goes on to other projects, they are in a good position. i think what the white house was thinking was yes, this will rally our base, perhaps this will deter some companies or big donors thinking of giving, maybe they will think twice about it. you could also say it is delegitimizing some republican victories. >> but there will be able to look at this and say look at why they won. democrats can say this is working with their people but it is giving an unbelievable lift to these people, the u.s. chamber of commerce had its biggest on-line donation ever after glenn back went on the radio and said we have to come to the defense of the chamber of commerce and put a direct link on his page to give money to

them. the chamber of commerce, while and washington, we think of it as a building across from the white house, out in the real america, its the person whose sponsors your kids little league team. >> unless there is an october surprise, that the white house has some evidence, this attack was a tremendously weak attack. to have the president do it was a sign of weakness because they could not get any attention for it otherwise. if you would have the government of china giving the chamber of commerce $100,000,000,000.10000610 dollars of that ending up in some republicans campaign fund in california, that would be a whole story. -- if you have that the government of china giving the chamber of commerce 100 billion dollars and giving $100 million

in debt and some republicans campaign, it would be a different story. but it's such a weak attack, it did not reflect well on the white house. >> this message is not just before the election, but it's about after two. democrats can point to the avalanche of money that came into some of these races and we were drowned because of this secret money. but let's not forget, that may be a good message point, but money does not always drive election results. you don't have to go far. lookit 2006. democrats had less money -- places like virginia come to mind. jim webb had less money and was running against a candidate who would run for president and he wins. money does not always try these elections and usually the message and the environment of the cycle. >> 1.1 to make is not only has

this message backfired, but the democrats have unilaterally -- one point i want to make is this message has backfired. >> what role has social media played in helping republicans bring in what the questioner calls fringe candidates? >> a related question -- we are accustomed to thinking the energy of an ideological wing in either party, the more energy and more vociferous they are in their views, the more that turns off and dependents. there's a -- turns off

independence. one assertion that has been made this year is that those are not in tension as much as the usually are because the concerns of the independents are spending in the size of the government and the deficit and that's precisely what's motivating the republican base. to tackle the social media question, do it in the context of how the rally the base and keep independents in play? >> you do it in a year where the independence and fiscal conservatives are largely in consort. for all of the colorful mockery they get in some circles, when it comes to spending and taxes, if you look at the polling, the two-party and swing voters are actually lining up. as to social media, there is no more tired sought in politics than the tip o'neill maxim, all

politics is local. but in large part, all politics is special because of social media and technology. if you look at a place like alaska or delaware, smaller states in a primary with a very small electorate, youtube, cable news, talk radio, twitter, facebook, they are such now that the republican voters in those states who are going to take part in the primary, the most engaged voters in that electorate are not going to the polls and thinking about is that bridge over the highway going to be fixed? they are thinking about national issues -- is this going to be right on obama care or cap and tax, as they called on the republican side. is those facts that are increasingly animating conservative voters in some of these primaries. we have a candidate like mike

castle who is visibly -- you know me in delaware, i've been to your rotary, i've been to your little league ribbon cutting, my goodness, what has happened? what is happening is the voters going to the polls are not thinking about those local factors. they are thinking about national issues because they are not getting their news and information from the local paper. they are getting it from national sources. national trends. >> bill clinton in an interview recently made the point i have heard him make a number of times over the years. one of new cambridge's big innovations in national politics was he showed that midterm elections, which historically had been a collection of local races, could be nationalized. that is in fact the new norm. this is a nationalized election,

certain candidates are trying to counteract that by doing everything it can to localize the election, saying this election is not about barack obama. but this is a national is congressional election in assembly 2006 was and to have a degree, 2002 and 1998. >> you have seen a lot of the big ear markers go down in this cycle like arlen specter. he used to run on the projects he funded and what he is able to do. that doesn't work. >> we are seeing the leading edge in this campaign of how good this impact 2012. the manager of obama said even though they've got a lot of

credit for using social media, most of their money was made with e-mail and text messages. but one of the sides of the change in media is the obama campaign did not week. you start to -- did not tweet. the profound effect is how much easier it be used to talk to their own people and people to see events live on their website. you can tax them and they watched the events, click on it and this has been the dream of candidates. how do you keep people engaged? >> its more buyer beware about politics and remembering how fluid things are. after 2002, there were stories because the republicans had an impressive get out the vote effort. people said karl rove is building a permit republican

machine that will be powerful for generations. after 2008, that was all gone. >> micro targeting. huge trends. this would be a huge it vantage for the party masters it. in 2008, the obama voters, as would be a long-term structural advantage of bomb -- republicans cannot counter. with respect, it is all b.s.. every new election produces a new innovation in terms of using technology to mobilize voters. the product task of politics -- have to organize the message, organize voters, mobilize them. it it gets a new car -- a new incarnation. discount any analysis you read. even if it is on the "politico." this person has a lock on a

certain demographic for years to come. another policy question -- not that you are just seen as the policy person and we're just see as the crass journalists. but this group of republicans will be coming to power, motivated in primary ways by what they're not for, what they want to stop. this is a good question from the audience. if republicans gain control of the house, and/or the senate, what is our first legislative priority? what are they for? are there any chance of republicans can enact policy priorities? >> i do think one of their first bills will have to do with health care, in some form going after it. they will make a show of that in the new congress. the question how dedicated and

committed the republican leaders will be to follow through and push it. they may be able to get something through the house, certainly not through the senate, -- >> democratic candidates on the campaign trail, are not bolting from health care but not defending it out line. they say it needs changes and any big legislation needs to be modified. are democrats going to draw a line in the sand and say you're not going to dismantle obama's signature domestic achievement. upi think you're bringing point we're seeing more of in recent weeks where there are candidates who acknowledge that it needs to be worked on. i think republicans believe they will have a receptive audience

with some democrats in the house, maybe even in the senate, of folks who may join with them on some aspect of tweaking the bill. that would allow them to make good on their campaign promise. but again, we have seen attempts in the last few weeks in the set at, with the one provision dealing with small business, it did not go anywhere. the president thinks this endangers his signature legislative achievement, he won't sign it. i think this will build up to 2012 and continue to be a big issue. >> this is in your specialty, but open to others. can you talk about the best over ' -- n angle's

advertisement a got a rebuke from the canadian ambassador? >> it she makes it to the senate, it's going to be very interesting. >> you think she is colorful question mark >> i think she is colorful but she is emblematic of how difficult the problem is for democrats to deliver on the campaign promise. the president promised to do something on emigration and is facing trouble with hispanic voters because it is very specific about an emigration bill and he has not. >> earlier in the year, there was a lot of commentary that the republicans, because of the controversial areas of a lot were driving off the cliff on the immigration issue. has that turned out to be true or has immigration been a net positive for republicans? >> neither party wants to grapple with immigration.

it is a boon to democrats in that hispanics embraced the democratic party, even for the lip service they get over immigration. the party is reluctant to take up anything more than lip service. they're going to hide behind things like border security, a phrase that's absolutely meaningless, since we can't establish border security before we give citizenship to the millions of undocumented people alive as a country. the problem for obama is he made a very big deal during his campaign and said he was going to pass it in the first couple of years. he has obviously not done that. now he will be forced to deal with it in his first term and i don't think he wants to deal with that in his first term. >> are hispanic voters and constituency groups -- is their patients coming to an end with bob?

how impatient are they with democrats? >> i think they are extremely impatient. they have been told to wait for years. you have the president have to match hillary clinton's promised she would take up immigration in the first year. they believe to a man rallied for him and they're very upset with them. he will have a lot of repair work to do. >> i can only do so much policy before the start to get fidgety. we have a good question from a colleague from "u.s. news." on election night, when will we know whether or not the republican wave is real? what is the bellwether race? going to defer to jonathan. >> i will answer that question by urging everybody to keep their eyes on a kentucky.

kentucky historical the is a state where returns come in early. the polls close at 6:00 and we usually know what's going on pretty early in the evening. two races to watch for -- obviously the senate race. if paul is being cut away by 10 or 11 points, it's going to be a big night for republicans. if conway keeps a close or pulls out a win, you will know there's something going on out there and perhaps this wave is smaller than we thought. also, the house race in the lexington area. the son of the baseball commissioner, a big name in kentucky. a democrat, pretty well positioned but with a decent opponent. if he loses, we will know it will be a big night for the gop. >> i think we will know early because there are a number of house races that should be not -- that should be locked down for democrats. if you see a bunch of democrats

winning in -- at the end of 2008, there were 12 house races where we did not know the results. >> it won't be over until television says it's over. [laughter] >> that's a very smart point because the alaska could be going days. not only is it for time zones away -- it's a long way away. you have a three-way contest. that could be going on for days. maybe if -- maybe it could be one of those races were don't know the outcome and that is key to controls the senate. >> i've got -- >> i think pennsylvania is a

good one. that's a clear battleground state. >> do you by the suggestion that the race is tightening? >> now that i see those two poles, it is probably reflective of a lot of talk on the ground. democrats have increased their voter registration incredibly over the last 10 years, so you think he would be doing better than the seven or eight. deficit that he has. it depends on the philadelphia and the west. i think it's probably an accurate reflection. >> jonathan talk about some of the candidates getting caught

flatfooted this year. i wonder if you think it would be fair to say the obama white house got caught flatfooted this year? i remember one year ago in the off-year elections, republicans won big in virginia, a state barack obama had carried, amazing for a democrat given that spate of voting history. but one year later, the republicans blew it out and won. in new jersey, it amazingly went republican. on election night, they said those are an almost raises. look at new york 23. do you think the white house has been too slow to react to these big changes that seem to be happening or are they aware of them and there's nothing they can do? >> i think they were too slow and now they are aware of them and there's nothing they can do. i think new york 23 became the

holdup of this was not so bad after all. we captured a republican district, no democrat has had this district in 100 years. there was a lot of intraparty witness in new york. they took a lot of meaning out of it and so did the national press and everybody. it was not reflective. scott brown was much more reflective and i don't think acted fast. i think only in the last month yet seen the react and it's too late. >> i think they could have rationalized new jersey and virginia by saying the governor was very unpopular and property taxes were high. but there is no excuse after scott brown one. i was there for the final days of that campaign, but it's a race in massachusetts. a republican has not won a senate seat there since --

that should have sounded the alarm. the dam is going to burst. >> we do not have a representative from the white house here, but try to -- what would they say about this? >> that we saw this coming. we recognize our big victory was ephemeral and we had to cram a lot of this legislation through. we used to cram it through. we do we had a very narrow window and we might be in a better electoral position if we may have a label that these big problems. but instead we gulped at them, got to once in a century achievements within three months of each other. if you are going for about rushmore, he's in good position. if you're a boy for party strength and capitol hill, he's not in a good spot. >> i thought they thought once

they did these things, they would get more of a bump than they did. they miscalculated how bad the environment was with the did health care and financial reform, they thought to get some respect for that. >> and you cannot be remiss in skipping out on talking about the economy. they thought the economy better that it is now. -- it up the economy would be better than it is now. >> it started with president obama had probably started early. it probably started on the night of november 4th, 2008 when he won. he thought the campaign is over and now i switched to a legislative mode. the trouble is, in politics, it is not always be closing, it is always be selling. always be selling yourself. always be selling your image, always be selling your platform. always be selling your personality. there were many great quotes in the peter bakker article the sunday.

when that jumped out at me was he quotes a senior white house aide as saying of president obama, he is opaque, even to us. there are many things a president can be, but opaque is not one of them. it's hard for a white house and the political operation to function when they get no clear idea of what the president wants. especially, the president does. >> you make the point about the politics of defense in contrast with president clinton and president obama. >> i think to view a lot of politics to the clinton experience because i covered bill clinton through six of his eight years and i just spoke to him recently for an interview.

>> [inaudible] >> one of the things that is striking when you talk to the obama crowd, at the beginning of the administration, they saw themselves reversing not just bush/cheney, but also reversing bill clinton. they did not want to have a bill clinton's style presidency. they were almost contemptuous of that. they saw themselves as much more reagan-like figures, except on the progressive side. what they have learned is bill clinton was on to something. clinton believes if you want to be a democrat in this country and eds a progressive agenda, you have to always play the politics of defense and constantly reassure voters, particularly in the middle, the places where the house democrats are all very vulnerable, you have to reassure those boaters on ideological terms. i'm not just a big government liberal. during concrete things to make

your life better. you also have to practice personal reassurance. my values are your values. i am not an exotic or alien character. i think we will see democrats in the white house looking very closely at bill clinton of example and his comeback after the 1994 rebuked he received that year. this has been a very good at all. we have had a great mix of horserace and substance. one thing that seems virtually certain, i have warned you to be wary of the elections, but this is when you can take to the bank. this city and the politics in this country are only going to keep getting more interesting. we're not going to settle in any time soon to a comfortable all. power is a jump ball and that always makes for a very interesting game. thank you very much for coming. thank you for the good questions

and thank you to the national cable and tele-communications association for sponsoring the day. enjoy the last two weeks of this great election. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> president obama is heading west today on a five-state, four-day campaign, the longest of the season. he will be raising money, rallying voters in washington state, california, and nevada for democratic senators, patty murray, barbara boxer, and harry

reid. he will also stun for governor candidates in california and minnesota at of the elections. the midterm elections are less than two weeks away. each night on c-span, we are showing debates from key races across the country. tonight, we begin at 8:00 eastern with live coverage of the illinois governor's debate. then the candidates for governor in florida, a pennsylvania senate debate, and the connecticut governor's debate. voters had to the polls in less than two weeks. all of the key races and can't it's on the c-span network, with debates every night right up to election day. archived debates are online at the c-span video library. there is also twitter feeds, campaign ads, and other coverage. policies and's election coverage right through election day.

an update on some campaign news in pennsylvania -- the democratic rep, joesestak has a slight lead there. and the service employees international union plans to announce a $2 million election pushed that would have a voter turnout program for rep sestak. pakistan's military and civilian leaders are in washington today for three days of high-level talks. on the table are a multi-level security agreement. there'll be a discussion with pakistan foreign minister. we will have live coverage at 6:30 eastern. the wisconsin gov. phrase is considered a tossup by the cook political report.

the democratic mayor is running against the milwaukee county executive. the 90-minute debate took place on friday at marquette university law school in milwaukee. theisconsin's future is on line in the race to governor. your vote will decide who leads the state. tonight, the democratic candidate, tom barrett, and republican candidate, scott walker, had a conversation with wisconsin. they will take questions from citizen groups in green bay, lacrosse, green bay, and milwaukee. it's all part of the up front challenge. now, from the new home of marquette university law school in milwaukee, tonight's moderator, the 12 news upfront anchor. [applause]

>> i am opposed to the statewide public affairs television program, "up front." this is the second in our series of conversations with the candidates for statewide office. wetonight, we host the nomineesn the race for governor. we have the democratic mayor from milwaukee and the republican candidate. gentlemen, thank you for joining us. i will be asking the candidates question some in the first 15 minutes or so in of free-flowing conversation. then we will take questions from citizen groups. they were recruited based on participation in local communities. they are republicans and

democrats, conservatives and liberals, and independent voters. they came up with questions they want answered, questions they all agreed on. we want to thank them for their time and participation. some of them are here with us tonight. they have questions for the candidates. we have a correspondent fielding questions from our internet yours at wisn.com. we have 90 minutes tonight, but the time will go by quickly. we will ask the candidates to answer questions as concisely as possible. at times, i will ask them to move on.

again, i will be playing the role of traffic cop. start, stop, that kind of thing. we will hear more how they would tackle some of the challenges in the state. each of the candidates will have a one-minute closing statement. we tossed a coin for the order of questioning tonight. tom barrett will go first. there are a number of young people with us tonight. we are at a college campus. i thought he could speak directly to the young people. why should they stay in wisconsin? why should they not go somewhere that is warmer, with lower taxes? >> thank you. i cannot do much about the weather. i am going to take a pass on that. i want my four kids to get a

good education. i want them to get jobs they can support their families. i think that is what most people in this state want. they want their kids to stay here. the reason is there are opportunities. we all recognize this is a tough time economically right now. but my message to the young people is we are going to get through this. we have gotten through this before. these are difficult times for americans and wisconsin. one of my major concerns -- i will cut to the chase -- education is a big priority in the state. there are a lot of young people in the state concerned about education. the next governor is going to inherit the $2.7 billion structural deficit. education is the key to success. i think we all recognize that. let's talk about tax cuts.

tax cuts that are not aimed at the working class, the middle class. if he is successful in getting those tax cuts through, it will be harder to fund education. the challenge we have right now -- it is like minnesota. they have of $400,000 difference with us. 32% of their residents have college degrees. here only 26% do. >> your message to the young folks working -- watching tonight? >> hopefully after this debate i will have a chance to see the second half of the football game. i have by junior and sophomore. in concerned about their education now and the cost and effectiveness of staying in the state of wisconsin. i wanted to get an education in the state of wisconsin. i possibly want them to stay. i have been all over this

campus. i have been to nearly every campus in the state. when i talk to people, i ask for a show of hands. how many are seniors? how many have a job lined up? almost all the hands go down. nearly every other campus, most of the juniors and seniors to not see jobs on the horizon. i tell them that is why they need to pay attention to the race for governor. it is not just about drinking age and many of the other issues we talked about on college campuses. it is talking about what governor is going to create more jobs when they are out of college two years down the road. unfortunately, tom barrett is talking about the same policies that have failed us over the last eight years. we have a great state. we have a great work force.

we have tremendous natural resources. most of the businesses i talk to, for most of the businesses the good news is a lot of businesses are ready to put people to work, but they are afraid of what the government is going to do next. if you get government out of the way, i think the economy will pick up right away that is what -- the economy will pick up right away. that is what the people in college need. >> you say you are the guy who can get us out there? you are the guy you can turn things around? >> absolutely. >> i understand. let me ask a question based on recent events and in the news. there is a new report that says milwaukee is the fourth -- you

want to be the guy who is going to bring in this era of prosperity? >> we are both from milwaukee. there is no question about that. i have tackled this issue from the day i became mayor of the city. i have worked with republicans, democrats to create the milwaukee 7, to create and retain jobs. scott would like to look at this like putting on lipstick on the uptake. -- lipstick on a pig. i thought we are supposed to be promoting this area. i did more than that. i created a summer jobs program, and i did that because i think we have a moral obligation to create hope in the lives of young people. i have put thousands of kids to work in the city. i know the racial achievement

gap grows over the summer months. i have announced of fatherhood initiative so fathers would be more involved in their kids' lives. we have a program to avoid teenage pregnancies. we have not avoided these issues. you cannot forget the city of milwaukee is the largest entity in milwaukee county. what has the county done? cut transportation. it has decimated the system for income maintenance to the extent that they cannot take it over. i need a partner. i do not feel like i have a partner, to be honest with you. >> you know, the question i guess for the county is, the milwaukee attorney general reported this week that the greater milwaukee committee, a longtime civic institution and in this area, will issue a report after the november election that says the milwaukee county is in dire financial

straits. they say that the future looks grim. families will not get the help they need. milwaukee county will grow smaller and smaller as people and companies leave. i asked about the poverty statistic. is that our red flag? why should i vote for you given the question of milwaukee county? >> that is the problem facing government to die. this report was based on something i initiated years ago. it actually got the attention of the governor of the state of wisconsin to hone in on this issue. public-sector employees, whether it is the city of milwaukee, any municipal public pension system -- whether it is the milwaukee public school system for the state of wisconsin, which had financial troubles beyond belief up there, one of the key

components is public sector employees have been the untouchables. we can no longer have a society where the public employees are the haves and the taxpayers are the have nots. >> do not look at the attack ads. look at the credit rating agencies for public employees, public institutions, like the city, like the county. since i have been in office, our meetings have been stabilizing. the general obligation debt will be down to 30% in 2000 12th. the size of government -- in 2012. the size of government is down 25%. what i have said is, what i say in the report that came out -- what they are saying is exactly what i have been saying for years.

you cannot tackle the challenges of the city, the county, the state while having the public sector employee benefits out there. >> he has been playing football. people have to understand we need reform. there is a pension crisis. i think people in the state would be shocked to know that we have had employees retire from the county with a yearly pension of $65,000. but they have also gotten a one time payout of $1 million. >> but that was established before -- >> but he came in and said he was going to reform. that is part one. where is the reform? there is another point. since 2001, every city of milwaukee employee has been paid a pension. scott came in under a mantle of reform. virtually no county employee

has lost their pension. in 2009, they will be paying even more his rhetoric is phenomenally good. he lowball -- lowballed his own pension scheme. 2006, 2008. part of that is because he did not put in the amount that his own pension board said he should put in. to me, that is kicking the can down the road. >> i want to give you a chance to respond to that. >> sure. i can refute every single one of those points. that is why his ad got a pants

on fire a lawyer breeding. we have inherited incredible challenges. week tapped those benefits. i am no lawyer. you know you cannot take away vested benefits. from that point forward, no one can take those. the only reason they talk about rearranging the finances of the county is so there are other ways you can get back, and legally there are no ways to do that. because of what we inherited, we did not borrow for a new debt. what we did was to be responsible reform that even the city of milwaukee said was a good idea. that was to use pension obligation funds not to issue new debt that take the debt that was already there to save the taxpayers $237 million over 25 years. last year, i made my full

pension contribution for 2010. fully funded. $49 million. the city of milwaukee raised taxes and fees by $21 million, or raise taxes and fees just as he has done throughout his tenure as governor -- >> 30 seconds. >> city of milwaukee, fully funded, and no debt. pretty clear. >> but, mike, do not take my word for it. look at the national bond rating agencies. the city of milwaukee. even when the state of wisconsin had to drop, our bond rating is stable. if that were not true, they would have downgraded it. >> people are wondering what you are going to do now. you have both issued plans that you say would lead to job

creation in the state. tens of thousands of jobs. what is the case here? correct me if i am wrong -- you believe in targeted tax incentives. you think we need to lower tax es for small businesses. make the case for why your approach is better for this moment in time? >> we have to deal with reality. the reality is the next governor is going to have a $2.7 billion structured deficit. he is going to add $1.8 billion to that deficit. if you care about education, property taxes, hold onto your hat. in his argument is going to be, well, that is going to stimulate the economy. this is not the federal government. this is a two-year budget. he is going to have to cut

education and public safety. i am not going to do that. this is about values. this is about job creation. that is how we got 1600 jobs in the state. we did it by being positive, aggressive, and proactive. in 2008, when the county was imploding, he disbanded his office of economic development, while the county was imploding. >> make the case for why your approach is better. >> you need the government of the way. i talk to employers all the time. they say that what is killing them is the government is in the way. the mayor has a 67-page plan that is filled with more government spending. that is what got us in trouble over the past eight years. >> more big government is not the answer. we have a simple but plan. it is cutting taxes across the board. we start out on day one.

the plan is to cut taxes on individuals, employers, property. it is cutting regulations. it is improving education in the state, which, the mayor can say this as much as he wants -- the same people attacking us would point this out about the county budget. we maintain our services for people with disabilities, for seniors, for transportation services, and we still cut back. we knew we needed to put more money back into the hands of people. >> the m7, let's talk about that. the founding member of the m7 is supporting my campaign for government. the people understand there is more to this and getting government out of the white. >> there is obviously a

difference here. scott, this is a whole issue of trust. he says he will cut his taxes. he does with the business people. i can agree with everyone, too. i think the people of this state want a street -- straight shooter. you cannot cut taxes. if you do that, you are decimating education. i am not going to say or do anything just to get elected. scott says he is going to cut our taxes. he just cannot -- it is not -- >> mayor, the difference is i have a track record to prove it. you can make promises when you deliver on promises. i said i would not raise the property taxes over the previous year. i have done in every consistent budget since i have been in

office. the last six years since you have been in milwaukee, you have raised the property taxes every single year, expect -- except this year. he ridiculed me last year. now before an election, you have done it. miracle of miracles, you had a conversion. i can make that promise because i have done it repeatedly, repeatedly. >> this has got to be fast. >> his core argument, and this is important, at his executive budget in 2003, not the county board budget, his executive budget in 2003 compared to his budget this year -- this is standing there naked. this is not blaming the county. this is your executive budget and my executive budget. your executive budget in 2010 has levied $39 million higher than 2003. you propose that. >> look at the promises -- do

you want me to answer? >> yes. >> i have kept the promise not to raise taxes every single year. when you first ran for mayor, he said he would not allow -- you did not qualify it. a billion gallons have gone into lake michigan. every promise i have made has been fulfilled. every single one. >> he did not answer the question. >> the promise was i would not raise over the previous -- >> let the record show. [laughter] >> we are going to begin an hour questions -- our questions. there are 207,000 people in the state on some form of badger care. >> we know health care is the

fastest rising cost for our taxpayers. specifically, what is your plan for badger care? there are 50,000 on a waiting list. they are uninsured. this is the state program paid for by state and federal funds. our understanding is time limits are not allowed under federal rules. that is a question from vicki in green bay. >> how would you budget for the ever-growing state human services program? >> thank you for your question. >> on a bipartisan basis, i worked with governor tommy thompson, and it is my intent to do everything i can to preserve badger care in our current form. this is a program that allows people to get off welfare. we had a problem where too many people could only get low-paying

jobs. it made more economic sense for them to get welfare. scott, at this very table in the last debate, said he would put a time limit on this program. apparently someone called in the next day and said that he could not. i would not put a time limit on this program, because if you do that, people will be forced out of jobs. i think it is important for people to have health care. it is very important to do everything you can. scott has talked about cutting hundreds of thousands of people. he is going to have to cut hundreds of thousands of people off the rolls if he continues to push tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the state. >> [unintelligible] >> i have not made any promises to any group -- contrary to

scott's style -- i have not made any promises to any group. >> do you want to address that? correct i support badger care. i support it. i want to make it more efficient and effective. much as we did in my community with family care. there were 2500 people on the waiting list in our county. today there are about 6400 seniors in our county that are not on the waiting list. we cannot run badger care directly. the state does. the one thing that is partially true is i did talk about term limits. what i qualified was there are a certain fraction of people on badger care. when tommy thompson created w2, he set time limits. there were be a safety net.

it would not become a permanent entitlement. i think that those entitlements have gone away under jim doyle's tenure. >> what i would do is reduce the number of people on the roles of public assistance by putting them into more jobs. the more people we get working who have coverage, the more money have left for the truly needy. that is where the support of badger care -- >> let me check and see if they are getting the information in what. tammy? >> we understand your viewpoints, but how will you find this? it is continuing to grow. >> how will it be funded? >> again, my response is we cannot afford the tax cuts scott walker is talking about right now. if we do that, if you are going

to see this department suffer as well. he talks about time limits. my wife is continuing working. she does not get health insurance. i do not want the woman working behind the counter at wal-mart to quit her job because her kid is sick. >> that is what we have done at the county as well. we added funding for family care. we added funding to help people with developmental and physical disabilities. if you have priorities, you can still cut taxes to stimulate the economy. the added funding. weekend -- the added funding. >> let me move on to the next question. you both touched on this.

this is the severity of the budget deficit and in the state of wisconsin. we are going to join our colleagues at channel 27 in madison. are you there? >> we are going to release one of the elephants in the room tonight. i would like to point out quickly that not all of our group could be here tonight, but we had great debates of our own on this. we were wondering about the $2.7 billion budget deficit. peggy warner is one of the folks to talk about that. >> but i would like to know is what are the three specific things in the budget he would cut to alleviate the problem, and what would you hold harmless? >> scott walker? >> public safety, public health, education. those things we should protect. i looked at specifics -- we lay this out all summer.

we looked at things like state workers. the need to do what everybody in society does and make contributions to their pension. we think that is reasonable. there are 4000 positions that are not public safety related that are funded, but are not filled. vacant positions. we take that funding and use it for the budget. we talk about changes when it comes to health care for government employees, making changes to make it more efficient. those are not about specifically cutting services to the public, the changes we can make to lower our budget deficit. is that along with the growth that we need, -- do that along with the growth that we need, and we can balance the budget and still provide core services. >> certainly one of the things

we proposed, and i have a plan people can find on my website. people have talked about a wide range of things. running state employees get into the same purchasing -- letting state employees get into the same purchasing pool. i certainly want to get more money into medicaid so we can lower the fraud we see in programs like that. that need make some constitutional offices like the secretary of state and the treasurer. i think we can have some savings there. i do not think anyone believes this is going to be easy. you cannot cut $2.7 billion without making difficult decisions. that is why we have got to be honest. look, we cannot have these tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest people. i have four kids. i would be the happiest guy in

the world if my kids could support me in the manner in which i have become accustomed. but this is about making the right decisions. >> [unintelligible] >> we talked about this in our group. it came back again and again. with that big of a deficit, there will have to be major cuts. we are looking for the obvious major cuts that will have to be made or would seem to have to be made. peggy, what did you hear today? >> i guess what i heard, particularly from mr. walker, it is basically what you are going to do is cut the employees. but which specific programs are you going to cut with state employees? for example, the food stamp program is administered to the state, and if those people are cut, then people will not be able to get their food stamps. >> the positions we are talking

about our 4000 positions that are vacant today. they have not been filled in the past year. we are not talking about cutting existing positions. we're talking about cutting positions that cannot have bodies in them. we are asking me employees to make pension contributions. i would do that on day one. i would do that even before the budget. the county executive before me was making more money. i said that was wrong. if you are going to leave, you have to set an example. -- if you are going to lead, you have to set an example. we can do that by being more efficient, more effective, and really having the public sector not be the untouchables, but do the things that employers are doing all across the state trust -- -- >> you are shaking your head.

>> this is all about trust. scott walker talks about unfilled positions. and on unfilled position is there, the money is not spent. you've got to be honest with people. >> used to serve in the legislature, and you know the money is in the budget. that is precisely why you want to take that. you continue to leave that money in state agencies that they can use it for other purposes. those two things -- the pension contribution, along with the simple fact of not filling those they can positions -- there are plenty of other issues. the other fact is when you look at cutting taxes, cutting litigation, those are the states

that have seen not only job growth, but revenue growth. >> disney and example. >> tennessee. the carolinas. he looked at tennessee and in particular, the carolinas, the dakotas. those are states where they have had a lower tax rate. they have put more people to work. two years ago, texas had more jobs created in one year than all 49 states combined. we can emulate those things and still protect core services. we do not need to go down the path jim doyle has taken us down the past two years. that is what happened to the city of milwaukee. we do not mean more of that to get this done. >> you raise your tax levied between 2003 and 2010. >> all right, guys. let's go back to my old stomping

grounds. we havewaow tv. ann, go ahead. >> mike, our group is smaller than the group that came up with these questions and originally. >> central wisconsin's public service waters are threatened by conflicting land uses. do you support an independent appointment for the wisconsin dnr secretary? please explain your answers. >> i do support the independent selection. i have for many years. it allows conservationists to be involved. i think it is probably democracy at its finest and we have individuals to care about our environment. i think it is important to

recognize this is not the 1970's anymore. you are opposed to the environment. if you were in favor of the environment, that make you were anti-business. i resent that. we have a sustainability practice and in milwaukee. >> i do not. i think you need to hold someone accountable. the only way you hold someone accountable is if you have an elected official responsible. we make sure be protect our resources. if we were to have an appointed natural resources position, they would control the decisions of the next several years, even my the members of the state have elected a new governor. republican and democrat, it is going to be a new governor. when you talk about water, i

think that is an important issue. you have 15,000 inland lakes, 5000 more than minnesota. we want to make sure our waterways are protected. that is one of the things i talk about. not just roads and bridges, but clean water. that is a big difference. the mayor in milwaukee specifically gave a nice big plan, just like the 67-page plan he has right now. he did not equivocate. he said he would stop dumping sewage into lake michigan. he has not done it. six years later, at 8 billion gallons from the sewer system has dumped more than 8 billion gallons into lake michigan. you talk about water, we have an example in lake michigan, in the city of milwaukee, that he has not done a good job of protecting. >> when i came into the capacity

of the -- when i came in, the capacity of the system was 400 million gallons. it has grown 28%. we have increased the capacity by 28%. we would have doubled the capacity, but there was an opponent. he is sitting to my left. if he had not been in any way, we would have doubled the size of the system. he has also said he understands this is not a problem that will be self overnight. he has specifically said the way you deal with this is you look at it over time. it is a $6 billion public works project. he is saying we should separate the sewers right now. if he does not like government spending, $6 billion is a lot of money. we have addressed it tries there is no question.

>> this goes to the heart of the problem. he did not say he would try. he said he would stop the dumping of the raw sewage. you have not done this in six years. you did not say "try." the bottom line is people are going to look at the promises he made when you were running for mayor of the city of milwaukee and the promises you are making today. people need to look at the past. >> thank you for your help in wausau today. jerry, go ahead. >> yes, mike, we have talked a lot about government regulation and the impact on businesses in western wisconsin. we had a great panel.

unfortunately, the citizen who came up with the question tonight could not be here, so i will read it for him. the new phosphorus discharge will will cost more than $1 billion. our group is concerned this will drive more manufacturers out of the state to state with less regulation. what is your position on this new rule. would you do anything to modify attacks >> they are did it do anything to a modify it? >> they are trying to reduce the algae blooms. >> we talked about this a little bit. this comes up with a lot of local officials, particular talent and municipal officials who are scared of the overwhelming price. you have a dnr secretary, he has

to be accountable to the governor. the current administration is out of control. there is no remedy to balance the process. for local governments, there has got to be a balance. as governor, i want to try to modify it so we can coordinate state resources, water being one. do it in a way that is acceptable. the dnr is out of control. >> this is something we should examine. we should examine it with local governments, because they are affected by it. as mayor, i can tell you i am affected by a. i am going to work with local elected officials. that is something i have done, work with local elected officials. i know that water literally runs

downhill. we need the input from them. that is why i met with different elected officials to see what their input was. that is why i met with the county. they know i will respect them and work with them. >> all right. let's move on to our milwaukee group. my colleague is right off my shoulder here, and she has a question. cathy? >> you touched on this earlier with your discussion with the candidates. milwaukee is the fourth poorest county in the nation. >> this is for both candidates. what do you specifically see as causes for the statistics of the milwaukee being the fourth poorest in the nation? what responsibility do you take for them? >> i think the biggest problem

is the lack of jobs. all across the state. he looked at the north side of milwaukee, the unemployment rate is about 50%. that is unacceptable. you need to put more people to work and get government out of the way. the businesses have been the lifeblood of the city of milwaukee. we have to have a plan to get government out of the light. the other parts that ties in to that bill is the school system. we have to put a focal point on that. for me, when it comes to education, i think it is a moral imperative that every kid in the state has access to a good education. it should not matter what neighborhood you live band. every kid should have access. we would empower local school

districts that have failing schools to shut the schools down or reopen them in an emergency setting and say we have got to take control of this. we have to take control. we do not need to shift it from the school board to the mayor, and be in bed with the political machine out there. we have to give them the power to make dramatic changes. that is my plan to get the school district going so we can empower more people to get those jobs. >> i recognize that 50 years ago what he needed to succeed were a strong back and -- but we have a lot of factory jobs. those jobs have gone to mexico and to china. that is our real shift. the people that have been disproportionately affected have

been on the lower end of the socio-economic scale. it is cheaper to build a widget in china, so it is going to be built in china. we are going to challenge ourselves as we have never challenge yourself before in education. that is what i have done and what i will continue to do. we have to make sure our kids can compete in the world economy. that cannot happen if you have a governor that is going to decimate education funding. it just cannot happen. you have to have the ability to get the resources of you can have them get the education. all you have to do -- i mention this before -- look at minnesota. minnesota has of $400,000 per capita standard, and 32% of their residents have gone to college.

26% of our residents. >> yes? >> seriously, what specifically will you do to bring those jobs into the state of wisconsin? that goes to both the year. >> let me tell you a story. this goes to the milwaukee 7. american airlines purchased midwest. the ico said a decision would be made -- ceo said the decision would be made as to where the headquarters would be located. so we put together a proposal. it included worker training. we were in competition. we were in competition with denver and indianapolis. we got all 1600 jobs. that happened because i was proactive, i was aggressive. and we worked with the m7.

i did not sit on the sidelines and say it was like putting on lipstick on of pay. we have to have a governor, just like we have on the air, that is willing to do it. i went in there, worked with others, and we got thousands of jobs. under his county control, not a single job. >> two specific things out there -- the bottom line is we are going to aggressively promote the state. i have talked about any company that wants to come in and add jobs, they will have a direct line to the governor's office and we will have that turned round within 24 hours. we talk about having local government around the state of wisconsin identified development-ready sites. if you want to bring your

corporation to the state of wisconsin, we will give you three years free without paying taxes, because you are not paying them now here anyway. if you look at people who sell commercial real estate, they do that all the time. it aggressively brings folks here. >> one of the things we have looked at is the state tax incentive. our airport, run by the county, was a much less than denver. we made significant investments in at the airport. we are now -- we brought southwest, airtran into the hub. since i've been county executive, we have added jobs. we're going to bring more jobs

to wisconsin. >> all right. i guess we will move on to the next question. thank you for the question from the milwaukee group. let's move on to lacrosse. scott had a question. scott, go ahead. >> of course, lacrosse is the home of uw lacrosse, so a higher education is a major interest among our area and our group. nats? -- matt? >> thank you. the university of wisconsin system has been facing cuts for years. this is making it hard for working families to come up with tuition. in addition, students are often straddled with pretty high student loans.

what are you going to do to make it available to wisconsin's working families? >> first off, i was just at the campus talking about this with folks. i have got to tell you, as i mentioned before, i have two sons who are just a couple years away from going off to college. education is a priority for me. i have two kids who are preparing. to me, it is about making it a priority. i have talked on campus about this. we need to give greater autonomy to each of our individual campuses. we have -- i talked to mr. nader's all over the state -- administrators all over the state who want to get out of the thumb of government.

in the same way, you lower the cost of operating our public schools, you can put more dollars in the system, you can lower or maintain the cost of tuition so it remains affordable. as governor, i am going to make a priority -- make it a priority. >> if there are any increases in tuition, we should be looking at the way that it stacks up financially. if tuition is going to go up, we should find ways to adjust that so those with the greatest need can find affordable. >> in 56 years old. i have four kids. none of them are in college debt. i am not going to say or do anything to try to get elected governor. i am not going to have different answers depending on which audience i talk to. i am going to be a street as i

can with the people of the state. -- as street as i can with the people of the state. -- as straight as i can. you're talking about priorities. there is no way you can continue to fund higher education at the level we have now if scott walker is elected governor. that is not his priority. his priority is having his tax cuts. i do not think we should be raising taxes. my answer to you is i am going to try. i cannot promise to anyone that we are not going to have some changes. because these issues are too important. >> can you promise that taxes will not be raised to address

this issue? >> that was in my first question. >> remember, jim doyle made that first -- that seem promise when he ran for governor. think about the proposals i have given. you can promise anything you want. in our case, i actually delivered on it. when it comes back to this issue, the bottom line is you have to fund priorities. that is what we talked about. we are talking about the same thing. when i talk about our six points, it is the same message i get no matter what group ibm in front of. -- i am in front of. >> for those not keeping track at home, scott has mentioned jim doyle six times. you are not running against jim doyle. there are a lot of differences, scott. there are a lot of differences.

you have to stand up for your record. >> i am standing by my record. i am not running away from jim doyle's. >> i will answer the questions that refuses to answer. i take responsibility for my own actions. the budget that scott walker introduced is $39 million higher than the tax budget he introduced in 2003. he will not take responsibility for that. i would love for him to say that, that he takes responsibility for the fact that he proposed -- not the county board -- that he proposed a $39 million higher tax levy for 2010. >> the tax levy did not go up one penny in the budget i proposed. the pledge i made was not what

is going to be 10 years ago. it was whether it would go up one year to the next. that is the promise by me. >> you cannot do that with this one. >> your taxes have gone up every year. >> again, i am going to take responsibility. the budget i introduced today has attacks levy that is $45 million higher. i take responsibility for that. the budget he introduced in 2010 as a tax levy of $30 million -- $39 million higher, and he has consistently refused to take responsibility for that. let's talk about leadership. >> the bottom line is it went to the county board. >> no, no. >> there have been numerous

times when i had not vetoed the budget back down to zero. the budgets have gone up in the city of milwaukee because the mayor of milwaukee proposed budget there raised the tax levy. if you want to have a debate, i will have that for the next two hours. >> this has nothing to do with his executive budget. if the county board had approved the budget i approved and approved every budget, the levy would be less than it was before i took office. he would be more than $1 million less today. >> and johnson has been waiting patiently in milwaukee -- dan johnson has been waiting patiently. >> thousands of county workers have been watching. i think this question came from

one of them. state of wisconsin workers have been cuts and no pay increases in this itanium. what could state workers expect other than contributing to their pensions in terms of their pay, their compensation, under your administration? >> i can promise them, just as i have said to every group -- i cannot promise them their status will remain. i understand we have difficult issues in the city of milwaukee. we have had a pay freeze. we have had furloughs. i did that because i wanted to preserve services. i am not going to demonize people who work for the state government though, because i think they are people who are trying to support their families. >> what i propose is having an analysis done and compare it to the private workplace.

and let's do a benchmark and have people from the private sector to the public sector. let's get some analysis. people do have to know we have a $2.7 billion budget deficit. i do not try to demonize it. i am a person who likes to solve problems. they will have to be part of the solution, just as every other entity in the state will have to be part of the solution. >> i have not demonize anybody either. the bottom line is there are people -- we cannot have public employees continue to have these pensions. that is why i talked about changes in health care, things like i proposed in my county budget again this year. you cannot have that in balance out there. they say, we bargained for that. i understand that. go ask the guys at mercury

marina. one of the biggest problems we have had under jim doyle the past couple of months is kicking the can into the future. he has rated the funds. -- raided the funds. he is using funds to balance an ongoing consumer budget. we have to provide structural budget so we do not have these problems in the future. when it comes to furloughs, that is one of the last things you should do. but you have to be smart about it. you furlough people in the uw system, even though they have a non-governmental reading, that does not make sense to me. deputies, direct patient care, other things like that aptly cost the -- things

like that actually cost the government money to furlough. >> let me go back to green bay. the citizens of wfrv have a question. >> in 1998, there was a lot of that involves treating a variety of medical conditions. we now know other states and institutions are investing substantial amounts in this area. without questions regarding this research, we have howard representing our group. >> what would you do as governor to encourage private and public investment in this field, and what would you do to prevent the brain drain of scientific talent being recruited by other states? >> this is obviously an area

where we are very different. i support stem cell research. i support in rihanna and stem cell research. that is where the difference lies. i believe this research is breathtaking in its potential. i met a woman doing research on chromosomal damage to infants, even before they are born, and the impact it has particularly for little boys. i thought, this woman is doing the lord's work. she is using its embryonic stem cells and she is going to improve the quality of life for these kids. i went to the next doctor and there was another scientist and he was using its embryonic stem cells. and i thought, you are doing exactly what i would want as a parent, as a parent, if my child was suffering from this. i