basis to the public of its investment in these firms? is that an adequate description of the public interest? >> k.i.a. spiryes. >> are you aware of the finding that we underpaid significantly for the securities repurchase? >> not the details, but the findings. . .

>> but not an interest to get full value for their money when they made the investment? >> this should have received full value for their investment. >> you said earlier in the testimony that you thought folks -- the executives involved in the firms have been adequately punished -- i forget the quote but exactly. clearly they were punished for their actions. that was the quote from your earlier testimony. you made abroa broad path state.

let's take care stearns. is any executive homelessness? is any drawing unemployment? >> not to my knowledge. >> has anyone had to take their children out of college and put them to work to support their family? >> not to my knowledge. >> has any executive went te lot their health care? >> not to my knowledge. >> has any executive suffered in comparison to the millions of americans' lives the industry? my time is expired. to cov>> i guess i will ask youa similar question that i asked

mr. feinberg. and do you think they scramble to get out of under his purview because they were concerned about the impact he was gone to have on their papey? >> i think it is a little bit more complex. from the moment anyone became of tarp participants, and this is part of the unknown aspects of it. paul pimm were being looked at his death they were -- they were being looked at is if they were severely underpaid. you have a number of companies the relief valve the work turned on. it was not even the conversation -- compensation,

but they became very negative, so i think they acted -- and number of them paid back in the first big group. they did it more for that initially. tacoma i want to ask about a recent article. -- >> i want to ask about a recent article. the impimplication seems to be that executives are overpaid and the value they bring is less than the competition they have received. cao is that your opinion? taco -- is that your opinion? >> there are definitely some actors and actresses.

unfortunately companies do not do a cut in that job of determining that people are really worth contribution, not just on a market basis, but if i am quite to pay someone several million dollars, there really aren't very good. i do not think they do a good job. >> mr. white, i would like your response to that. >> i agree that is a complicated issue in determining the value from an investor's standpoint. the problem is that companies do not view that with the return on investment type of perspective. it comes up and a number of fawcett's of our discussion with them. for example, when they asked the market for equity, there question is always raised in what is your limit? in other words, how much can we get? instead of, this is the amount of investment we need to make.

this is the return we expect and this is how we will measure it over time and adjust of our approach to this is incorrect. in the philosophy of how that pay does not lend itself well to making that a valuation. >> let me ask you another question. his pay on play something meaningful? is that non-binding vote? has that had any impact? >> i think it has tremendous potential to bring equity owners, long-term equity owners, more into the discussion and more into our role of oversight. it there is anything that i would have to say that has been missing in the issue of executive compensation is greater certainty from long-term owners. we care about the issue, but we have not done enough. i think that is one vehicle that will facilitate the issue. >> most of the focus and

discussion so far has been on the composition of sales and revenue generators within our large firms, but what about their risk in control functions. and while i have seen instances of senior risk and credit folks being attracted away with big compensation packages, overall the service will show they are compensated at significantly less levels. i am interested on your views on the level of compensation and the incentives, and it does relate to the independents as well with respect to a brisk in control and compliance. who would like to start? >> it is an excellent point. another area where we would look to what went wrong, a project early within the wall street-

type firms you tended to report within the business unit, which meant you are really not going to criticize to a large degree what was going on, and maybe you had a product line relationship -- had a dootteotted line police relationship. it is part of the treasury regulations to determine how best to do that. typically they would have something to say about how they have done their role. the determination will be done by the head of rest, and more corporate-style payout. it is in a very higprofessional-

type position. tinto i want to ship on to some international global competitive issues. -- >> i want to shift onto some international/global competitive issues. you'd hear the feedback if we are the first areas in movers of compensation, what impact will that have on -- will the individual ship to jurisdictions with less constructive compensation schedules? we heard mr. feinberg said that 85% were still there and year after. any thoughts on these issues? should there be anything restraining the u.s. from proceeding with the stringent regime? >> the united states is still

the place you want to be if you are in executive, it th even wie constrictions. >> i think we are having pressure from europe to adopt similar type programs the u.k. is in the middle also. >> after the london bank tax what they feared was a big ship. i do not think there was any impact on movement of employees outside at -- >> it was a 1-year event. the u.as the coronation is impo,

but i think the u.s. -- i think coordination is important, but the u.s. should keep to the principles. again, it is a one-size fits all. assuming everyone in the world is exactly the same kind of company, and they are not. i think it makes sense for competition. we do not want to lose those kinds of jobs. >> i want to thank you for coming. i want to thank you for what you had to say. with that, at the hearing is adjourned. -- the hearing is adjourned.

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

>> c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning is "washington journal." watch live coverage of the u.s. house approved and as of represg the week. newsmakers on sunday, and "q&a" on sunday night. through november, coverage of campaign 2010 as the political parties battle for political control of congress. c-span, created by cable, provided as a public service. >> "the daily beast" pose a forum on economic, environmental and political

issues. among the speakers spike lee. friday includes a fashion designer, and stanley mcchrystal. live coverage begins tonight at 8:30 eastern on c-span2. online at c-span.org. here on c-span tonight, live coverage of the campaign debates. each night we showed debates from key races across the country at 8:00 eastern the massachusetts governor's debate. at 9:00 the new mexico governor's debate with democratic lt. gov. dipane rhenish. >> our live coverage continues tomorrow with the pennsylvania

senate debate. it is the second and final debate between current congressman, joe sestak and pat toomey. this race has been rated a toss up. although new polls show representative sestak has closed the gap. sharon angle is criticizing harry reid for living at the ritz carlton in washington, wall according to a new advertisement, thousands of the battens blues their home. and-- thousands of nevadans are losing their homes. >> members of congress, activist, and reporters participated in the discussion yesterday on the potential impact of the tea party

movements on the upcoming election. panelists include a former adviser during the mitt romney presidential campaign, roscoe bartlett, and congressman tom davis. >>the tea party has risen as important political movement in our nation. the primary concerns cutting the size of government, reducing government spending, lowering taxes and strictly adhering to the u.s. constitution. in listing two years, it has evolved and from small rallies to groups able to accomplish the typical in rare task of competing incumbent members of

congress. with the general election less than two weeks away we will soon know is the tea party can succeed in electing candidates to congress and other offices. today's conference will feature is distinguished panelists include a national tea party leaders and renowned political analysts and journalists. the conference will explore what the tea party is, and how it came to be, and how it may evolve in the future. the first panel will explore what the party is, how it came to be, and their role in the election and tell it plans to influence politics once the election is over. it will also ask the question how it has affected moderate republicans and democrats. the second panel will explore the role in the upcoming elections and their presence in the media.

both panels will be moderated by university of maryland faculty members who are research fellows at the american politics and to the ship's center. you are all welcome to join us for a reception in the lobby immediately following the panel. and now, i would like to introduce dr. john townsend. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, paul. my name is john townsend. i would like to begin by sinking our panelists and everyone in the audience for participating in today's panel and the 2010

elections. -- begin by thanking our panelists and everyone in the audience for participating in today's panel in the 2010 elections. we are made up of nine departments, including the outstanding department of governmental politics, which houses the center sponsoring today's events. the center for american politics and citizenship provide citizens and politics to makers with research, education, and our reached on critical issues. they're cutting-edge research is often published and disseminated through the media.

during today's panel discussions, each panelist will have the human is to get an opening overdue and analysis of the tea party movement from their perspective. and they will then discuss among the panelists asking a series of questions. finally, audience members will have time to ask the panel is their own questions, but it will not have time to give speeches. we would ask the audience to ask questions and not give speeches and possible. now i would like to introduce the moderator for the first panel, dr. irwin morris. he is a senior research fellow at the center for american politics to and citizenship. it will introduce the first panelist and get the person panel under way. -- first panel under way.

[applause] >> thank you. i want to thank paul and the staff for organizing this event. and certainly we want to thank the panelists for participating today. let me move forward with the introduction of panelists. mr. david keene is the current chairman of the american conservative union. it is the oldest and largest grass-roots organization. he is recognized as one of the chief spokesperson for politics and radio and is widely quoted. he has written for publication such as "the national review" and an"the washington times." next is tom davis. he is president and ceo of the republican mainstream partnership.

congressman davis served seven terms in the u.s. house of representatives or representing virginia's 11th congressional district. and next on our panel is congressman roscoe bartlett. he is a republican from maryland and represent the cystic from maryland in the u.s. house of representatives since he was first elected in 1992. a member of the congressional tea party caucus. he currently serves on the senate armed services committee. prior to his election to congress, he worked for more than 20 years as a scientist and engineer on research and development programs for the military and nasa. >thomas mcmillen is chairman and ceo of the american politics

center. he currently serves on the university of maryland board. we will just go down the line with any introductory comments the gentleman would like to make. we will start with mr. keene. >> thank you. i will not spend a lot of time on this on all set. part of the problem without understanding the growth of the tea party movement tis the member to not understand it at all. there have been even less

understanding since then. as i was preparing to come up here today, the reaction to the tea party activists and people that are becoming active in politics for the first time on the part of the establishment is one of the their consternation, fear, or total disdain, because as the president put it, those who are right and understand science find it hard to relate to people who act out of fear. democrats hurt by voters unwilling to accept reality. that would be their reality. or on ms nbc last week a panel, including michael r. nikole of the globe, -- mike barnahan was asked to have you explain at the tea party rallies setup looks

like most of the attendees are women? they went down the panel and each of them said i do not understand this. of course, they do not. that is the problem. at the very beginning of the administration you will remember the nobel prize committee voted to get barack obama of the nobel peace prize, although they were not able to say what he had turned to deserdone to deserve that. he has done something that in 40 years conservatives have not been able to do. he has managed to convince the people of this country that the constitution matters, that you cannot defend yourself into prosperity. for the first time in my lifetime, and tom is former chairman of the republican congressional campaign committee, but in the first time in my lifetime spending is not

an issue that is talk about around tables, but as an issue that concerns people. this year what happened is a lot of people are scared. they are afraid the direction the country is going in. they think no one listens to them, and they are getting active in politics for the first time. many of these people, as many as 30% of the people that attend rallies, have not been to a political rally before. one of my good friends, ken bode th, said last summer that he and his wife decided to go to one of the rallies and the town they lived in. he said three things had him. one comment he had never seen a political meeting in that town anywhere near that size. the other thing that impressed him was he did not recognize any

of the people there. he and his wife had been active in that town for a long time. these are new people getting involved, and that always scarce establishment politicians, because they do not understand it and because there is always a sense that we would like new people to vote for candidates, but we wish it would not get involved because that threatens us. hiking to washington to work in the nixon white house. -- i came to washington to work and thin the nixon white house. one day in my office, lou appeared screaming at the top of our lonhis long that we do not t any of those people in our office. he was be several years later in a primary by a former democrat.

he had the establishment view of the way it is. the former, person to commit master that he went to a partner -- a former congressman people coming last year that it went to a party meeting and ron paul was there and we have to do something to keep those people out. their job is to bring people in and socialize them into their movement and strengthen it. the two-party has given energy to republicans this time because they are on the right side of the issues. -- the tea party has given energy to republicans this time, because they are on the right side of the issues. and >> thank you. political parties are

coalitions, private clubs. and they are open and constantly evolving and changing in terms of their ideological complexion and coalition partners. what is the political establishment in this country? -- what has the political establishment delivered in this country? petrina and a failed economic system -- katrina and a failed economic system. that is what the establishment has produced, despite everything about knowing better and everything else. as a result of that, american people are in revolt, and the tea party is a manifestation of that. when they take a look at the fact that 47% of american households are not paying federal income taxes, 41 cents

of every dollar spent the share was our roahis year was barrorre scared by this. this as as much centered against the bush regime as it is against obama. but it is a revolt against the political establishment. the republican party is the only vehicle that they have to try to make their point known. the establishment is really not producing a work product. average american is not ideological. they are not policy people, they just know when things are not working. things have not been working right for along time. the american people are

basically registering a protest. the midterm elections will be a bath for the democrats, simply because they hold all of the levers of power. americans are not enamored with either party. some polling shows the democratic party pulling higher end of republican. some showed the tea party pulling higher than the republican party. the midterm elections will be tendered against the powers that hole. after that, it will determine how things move. we're seeing an increased polarization between the parties for three reasons. it is made a lot of people a little anxious.

38 of the past 60 years they have balance government between the parties because the really do not trust either party. in the last two midterms, they have balanced its. having said that, you are seeing an increased polarization between the parties. it is a concern for a lot of us who think of ourselves as barely center but not happy with the way things are going. -- as fairly centered, but not happy with the way things are going. today if you are a conservative, you are republican. if you aren't liberal, you are a democrat. -- if you are a liberal, you are a democrat.

you have an ideological sorting of the parties. you have a new media that basically helps that along by turning on msnbc or fox where people are trying to get their own ideas and force by what they see or hear. ithere is a lot of that going o. and of course, campaign finance reform is a major cause of this because it moved money away from political parties, which tend to be centered around winning parties and has moved now to third-party groups that tend to be on the extremes. all of these factors have led to a polarization. this will be reflected this year. i think it will be a plus for the republicans this year. it will cost them a couple of senate seats in delaware and other areas. we will talk more about that

during the discussion. thank you. >> i attended my first tea party on tax day. it was a cold, rainy day. i was amazed by the number of people that came out, standing under the umbrella as they had been standing in the rain if they did not. and i was amazed at how long they stayed there. we moved from one place to another and it all came along. -- and they call came along. i was also surprised and pleased about two of the things they seem most concerned about. they were concerned about spending. they were concerned about the constitution. i always carry a copy of the constitution, because a lot of what we do in washington is unconstitutional. some of the things we spend most of our money are

unconstitutional things. i was pleased to see that the tea party were concerned about that. when i ask my colleagues why are we spending things on that are unconstitutional, like our involvement in education? all of our involvement in philanthropy, agrees speech by davy crockett. all of the money we're spending on health care, except health care from military people. not even enhance an article 1 we should be doing that. -- not even a hint in article one we should be doing that. they say we cross that bridge a long time ago. that is like you plouffe through

a stop sign and you tell the judge i have been blowing that's stopping in for a long time. -- blowing that stop sign for a long time. none of them came out thinking they were involved in a movement that would spread across america. they just came out because they were frightened and angry and did not see the leadership in the country going the way they wanted to go. i am personally very pleased they are out there. i hope their goal is to bring the republican party back to its roots. i hope they will not splinter the boat and destroy the chances for more conservatives to come to the congress. i am really pleased that they are out there saying this is not the kind of government, republican or democrat, that our founding fathers envisioned, and we want to get back to where we started because we think that is just what we have to do for america is a real risk. my hope is that the two-party is going to bring us back to our

roots. -- my hope is that the tea party is going to bring us back to our roots. i think the two-party voters will be a big element in this election. >> thank you. i would like to say as a chair, i really appreciate that paul and his organization had done. thank you for coming out. as the only democrat on this panel, i hope i can hold my own. i guess we will see. in 1992, i was running for reelection. i was amazed by the amount of new faces i saw that year. they were followers of ross perot.

fig as you recall, -- as you recall, he ended up getting 18% of the election and was probably responsible for bill clinton being elected president. this is not new in america. the reaction against government and against immigration, reaction against deficits, and now today the tea party, which is a reaction against the size of government and the bigness of government. this is not new in america. i do think if you look at the primary, 9.8% of the voters voted republican primary, and it

was 8.2 of the electorate voted in the democratic primary. for the first time in 70 years that the republican turnout was higher than the democratic turnout. they have had a very important factor in motivating the base of the party. i think they're real determinant will come on election day when we see whether the democratic organizational advantages -- they have spent a lot of money on the early balloting. a lot of money on getting out the vote. i think most pundits would recognize that the democrats have a little better get out the vote operation -- whether that can offset the enthusiasm cap that exists for the enthusiasm support the republicans have going for them right now. those are the issues to be

determined. i agree with tom, overall i think this will be a net plus for the republicans on the electoral site, but clearly a lot of tea party will fight the both off. there are 10 to 20 seats in the house were that is the case. they will lose seats that they probably should have won. delaware. there is a more indirect influence. for example, a state like maryland where we had a republican government candidates their real question, will those tea party candidates, those 25% that voted for brian murphy, not show up and vote for ehrlich and their star -- and therefore helping

o'malley in his bid for reelection? that is the indirect side of things that is hard to determine. we have a lot to talk about here. let me say one real point. i think bringing a new normal and the politics region i used to be on the banking committee. to talk about auditing the federal reserve was an arcane policy as anything you have ever heard. today that as much more of the mainstream view. i sing, with the two-party has evolved from is it is really a reaction. americans have gone through hard chip. their credit-card debt. they see government that is spending 60 percent of our gross national product -- we have a national debt equal to 60% of our gross national product going

to 100% sen. this is a reaction that says we have to do something about it. the hope is we will not end up in gridlock. but we will end up was something like what great britain has come forward with. david cameron and a littthe libl party coming forth with a austerity plan that hopefully will restore the british economy. that is the hope. time will tell. we all hope this will all work out for the better for everyone. >> thank you. each of the panelists has mentioned that the tea party's response to frustration and anger over the current state of affairs.

what are the characteristics of policy agenda moving forward after 2010? >> to go back to a couple of the other remarks, it is a reaction, a reaction to the reality of thethe world that these folks se themselves living in. anin the country in which the hp of the society is often reflected by the fact that everyone is as obsessed with politics as the folks on this panel are, and perhaps some of you an audience may be, the first thing that happens when people out there that are not assessing a real problem is they try to fix it, they try to raise heck with their elected officials, and when that does not happen, there is a reaction, and depending on the seriousness of the problem, it

might be a minor reaction or a major reaction. the democrats and the liberals in the late 1960's en 1970's had a reaction to all war that was not popular and they had a reaction, which had no solution many of the people protesting said what they were for was nonsensical but it resulted in a change in the people that were in charge. the tea party has said you guys are not listening so fix it or we will find new people to fix it. it is not there john to reform fannie mae. it is not their job to pay off the national debt. it is their job to save the people we vote for intend to washington to deal with these things should listen to our concerns and govern in a way that we send them there to govern.

their concern is that is not happening. a few weeks ago we had at -- i am part of the old conservative movement, but we had a 50 of anniversary at the drafting of what was called the, sharon's statement. it was drafted at bill buckley's , 50 years ago. jim buckley, a former senator and judged came to speak. he said we congratulate ourselves on all that we have done in the 1960's. he said let me give you one example, title 42 of the united states code that maintains many of the things that people do not like. it consisted of 400 pages. today it consists of over 3000 pages.

in fact, what is happening right now is people out there are sent these parties talk about jobs and limited government and freedom and prosperity and lower taxes and the like, and things are not working. that is their job. >> i think it is a manifestation of the great frustration in the electorate, and we do not expect that to party = = = = tea partye elecpolicymakers. one of the problems has been is there is some need disconnects. they actually see the sausage macon of lawmaking that

alienates them even more. -- they actually see the sausage making of lawmaking and that alienates them even more. and what kind of work products to produce and hold other elements of the coalition together? and that is to be determined. that will take a flexible leadership, but it will take leadership. these people will not go away over the short-term. divided government has produced some very good things. under bill clinton yet four years of balanced government. -- under bill clinton, we had four years of balanced government. both parties had skin in the game and were invested. we were able to get some things done. it was not smooth sailing. we had government shutdowns and impeachments along the way as we learn to work with each other. we are in a time where we will see coalitions in washington and

the parties will be severely tested over the next couple of years, but issing said tea party vigilance will watch to see what is delivered and it is a real test for the republicans to pull that together. >-- i think the tea party vigilance will watch to see what is delivered and it is a real test for the republicans to pull that together. >> most of my colleagues do not know the difference between the public debt and national debt. the debt that was going down was a public debt. for every dollar the debt went down, there was another dollar increase in the trust fund debt. the national debt is the sum of those two. this post started with playback when johnson had embarrassing

deficits and put social security on budget. of course this does not offset the budget. we owe that money to the people we have taken it from. we simply issued a non- negotiable u.s. security and spend the money. they're not telling you you're screwing up, did it right. they are telling us what kidding it right means. in rea-- they are telling us wht getting it right means. if we think times have changed and we need to do that, which need to debate and change the constitution. we had done it 27 times.

i think we do that at our rest, because it is one person out of 22 that has a fourth of the good things and although world. we have an enormous respect for civil liberties. there is no other competition in the world that respects them like ours. so i really hope that the tea party stays there. i hope that the tea party rose so they represent the majority of americans and we go back to our roots, because i think we're at risk as a country if we do not do that. >> america democracy is a very self-correcting governments. there is a lot of truth to that.

because what we see happening right now is this grass-roots direction in america. i am sure if you sit down with the president he will say i wish someone would have said to me i know you have a lot of things you're trying to do, really economy is number one and jobs are number one, and what happens of the stimulus is not work? it was the product of two administrations. no one really asked him what happens if it does not work? should we be going after health care and cap and trade and all the things we're trying to do? i think even the president ford admitwould admit that through te efforts he has been labeled. that is the democratic challenge. the republican challenge is equally as great. are the republicans going to have a circular firing squad,

which often times they do in these things, or are they going to put together an effective coalition to lead? i think that will really be the real task. looking at the two-party, is it going to understand that america is becoming a diverse nation? whites will be the minority in this nation in a few years. while we have a government that understands -- will we have a government that understands or will we be very segmented and not really look at the overall country as it is? is it is what it is. we will have to have an effective leadership to govern it. those are some of the great challenges we face. i am a tremendous optimists, because i believe we have one of

the most self-correcting governments in the world, and we will get it right, i strongly believe that. >> if there is a need for an effective leadership coalition, who will be representing the tea party in that coalition, assuming that group will have to be represented? >> one of the things about the whole tea party movement that is extraordinary is it does not have any leaders. and there are people that have tried to attach onto it, but the fact is it is leaderless. that is, in fact, unusual in this kind of situation. i could name 15 or 20 people who claim they had some major role in getting it going in claim they have some leadership role in keeping it going, but in fact it is a very spontaneous kind of thing that breaks down into

various groups, but it does it all by internet and e-mails and does not have much of a budget. while we have to recognize is both reaction to realities that roscoe talk about a little bit, and the result of the technology that we have today. when the health-care bill finally passed, barack obama's said that in this country he assured fellow democrats will be fine, because he said in this country people do not care about the process, they care about the product. and it turned out they cared about both. 10 years ago, people cannot know a lot about the process. when i was young and work on the hill, the typical congressman would have three letters.

if you did like it, she will talk about how he did let the bill. if you were undecided, so was he. that does not happen anymore, because of the internet and communication and because of what we goin have going on in te country. when you talk about transparency, it is there. the kinds of the things that could go on in the previous time -- things have changed. the public reaction has changed. consider the reaction in nebraska during the health-care debate to senator nelson's deal which would have exempted nebraska business in the spring. in the 1970 profit would have had parades' in the streets for him. -- in the 1970's people would

have had parades' in the street for him. he is a pretty good politician, and i think when he got home expected parade in the street. his approval rating dropped and could not go out in public, because they were saying this is unconscionable. what is going on in new jersey now? three years ago no one would have proposed reforms that are being proposed by the governor of new jersey, and he would not have proposed an three years ago but when the public senses there is a real problem and when the elected officials respond to that concern about real problems and recognizes that there are real, then what has just been talked about, the american ability to reset things and look at things in a different way, comes into play. what all of this reflects is something that could not have happened 30 years ago, 20 years ago. it is happening now, and politicians have to come to grips with it.

they have proven themselves, and in spite of the fact that they are neophytes, to be a lot more sophisticated than many people have given them credit for. many people have said this will be a somsalvation for democrats. i can only think of two where there are actual tea party candidates. that person was put on the ballot fight a harry reid financial contributor. sometimes you have to choose things between tubings to do not particularly like. is given the issues that

concern them, the share that is working with the republicans. it is the republicans challenged to meet expectations within the context of the political coalition they have and to bring them in the. if that happens, the republicans will be stronger and the country will be stronger. if it does not happen, and lord knows what will happen when you have millions of citizens that thinks they're government is not working and that something drastic has to be done to make it work. >> let me make three quick points. midterm elections are all about who shows up. the obama search voters are asleep. they are not out there. that is true it throughout. the democratic voter base is not aroused. there is disappointment with an element of the coalition that the president has not delivered. some of the elements of the coalition were just there to get

rid of bush, and once they did that, they went back. in the meantime, we have people that were not enchanted with bush and kaine and are anchored. the republicans will control the turnout. although obama keri virginia by 230,000 votes, the polls showed that the voters who showed up, the majority voted for mccain. do they have answers? these are tough, tough issues. you have to get at the entitlements. then you'll get elements that are asleep and not aroused. there is a reason neither party has tackled the entitlement question over the past couple of decades, because they have very strong constituents that can be aroused. . .

we are on autopilot unless

someone does something the size of. one of the positive messages from the tea party is there is a group of citizens who understand that -- unless we do something decisive. >> tom is correct. about two-thirds of the money spent in the government we do not vote on in congress. we use unfortunate words -- we call them and thomas, and you say it is mandatory spending. if you recall them entitlements. you are not entitled to that -- you are entitled to life, liberty, --back to the debt a moment. if you're watching the clock, there is never a moment in time that it went backwards. that is the national debt. we keep in ron-type of books in the congress.

if we kept them -- we have enron -type of books. the debt that we admit to is $42,000 for every person, every crack cocaine baby and every senior in a nursing home. this is unmanageable, unsustainable. the tea party people know that. i'm glad that they do not have a leader because they are not followers. this is spontaneous. they have focused, but are not unified. i have been invited several times. when i speak, they do not boo me. a very simple question i asked myself -- i have 10 children, 17 grandkids, and two great-grand kids. is the temporary good that we may get to solve the problem we created the with further burdening the future

generations? my answer every time was no. so i voted no on these. i do not always intend to notno. i really hope the tea party people stay there. i applaud with them on the first they not to make it toa one-day thing. i am pleased they have no leader. i am pleased is spontaneous. there are probably a million different definitions for the tea party. but the one thing that they are clear on -- it ain't going right, tom. and they will raise hell until we change it. >> as a businessman i can sympathize with a lot of what the tea party says. we have this serious issues in this country. no one denies that. people are looking for a leadership.

one of the problems of the tea party is, who can be the leadership of that? they do have credible candidates. marco rubio, pat toomey are running good races. there are candidates who are credible leaders, but when we wake up in the morning we see china in ascendancy. most americans believe the american dream is no longer possible. we see mounting debt and america bogged down with war. this is a correct reaction. but the challenge of how you move forward as a national not just be done by protest. it will take leadership. you have to find people who can lead. for example, mitch daniels, former omb under bush and

governor of indian give a speech last week of in front of the heritage foundation. he said we need spending cuts as we did in indiana. we may have to consider that may be coupled with a lower income rate. and maybe even some taxes on energy to get off the persian gulf energy dependence. the typical reaction was he was lying bested by many in the republican party. we are going to have to deal with this -- was lambasted by many within the republican party. we will have to deal with this as great britain is. they said we will do $3 of spending cuts for every $1 of taxes. but we will have to have some type of leadership. hopefully, the deficit commission will come from it. the question is whether over the next two years the tea party

will be reasonable and willing to work together to solve problems, or will we have to wait until 2012 to have a presidential referendum? i am hopeful that we can begin dealing with these issues tomorrow. like great britain which will cut 9% of their debt relative to the gdp, brought down of the next couple of years -- they are taking the correct steps. if we do not, we will have a referendum in 2012. >> what about the tea party's impact on set-national politics? are there issues they want to address at the stable, policy transformation you see there? or is this a response against the national government with those types of constitutional issues, and the state issues are

subsidiary of? >> most focus has been on the national government and congress. it does not mean these people like everyone else, if you talk to them, are very concerned about education and other issues that are state and local issues, but the energy has come as a reaction to what they see as an out of control central government in washington. if new people come into the system, get involved -- one of the problems, going to what tom was saying -- the common wisdom is these problems do not get solved because of all these constituencies. it is too difficult. occasionally, you learn something. about a year ago i was talking to one of the candidates for governor in california. toaid, wahat fool are you

want to be governor of this state? he said at some time a window opens because the people realize it is happening. when that opens, you have a chance to really change things and make reform proposals you could not make any other time, and that he would not have even considered. if you make them later, it will not matter. i thought about that when chris christie became governor of new jersey. you have thought california would go first, but new jersey would be right there with them. no one made the proposals he has made to try to get the fiscal house of new jersey in order. three years ago, chris christie would not have made those three years ago. he is a moderate republican. but he got in and saw things were a mess and decided to do something. to the surprise of people in the

washington, it has popular support even though it means sacrifice. when i talked about nebraska, i think the public sees the country in a crisis it has not seen previously. therefore, if you have a new group of people involved in politics, and new candidates -- part of the problem everywhere is most people know exactly what cannot be done. what you really need to solve problems are people who do not know what cannot be done. oftentimes they go out and do it. if we get new people in, there may be some people who do not accept that you cannot solve some of these problems. they may actually help to solve them. >> rahm emanuel be your friend. -- may be your friend.

politicians are generally not rewarded for getting in front of the problem. but if the state and local government -- the tea party is possible to apply -- many state governments are going over with legacy costs' and unfunded mandates pushing their budgets. you pass the health bill, it cost virginia another $2 billion per year. they take it from higher education. is the only place to take it from. as you look at all of this, i think the tea party has some resonance in the state races. it is the same set of principles that will vary by state in how bad it appears to be. did it these things change, but in a recent, and that all of a the tea party nominees -- it was

chris christie. that can change many times, but they recognize the need for people who will stand up and do something. much of it is being done in states for the reasons tom sites. >> the tea party has a two agendas. first, return to constitutional government. that is purely federal. the state can do anything they wish, as dumb as it could be. the two focuses our constitution and spending. they are as concerned with spending locally as federally. this will foot taller -- filter down to your county commissioners. but what started them was the federal government. >> i think there's a lot of

application on the state level. . would echo of tom's comments with all costs being pushed down to the state level, states are forced because of their constitutional requirements to balance budgets to oftentimes bounce it on the backs of higher education, and education in general. in this state we have a major pension problem as across the nation. it must be dealt with. is an unfunded liability that will have serious consequences for every state in the country. the university of maryland has been fortunate not to have suffered anywhere near what other states across the country -- reason is because we as a university had such a large reserve answer + the we could draw from to mitigate -- reserve

surplus that we could draw from. it is very important that our states get their fiscal acts together, particularly on the pension issue. it will have impact on our long- term growth. and the achievement gap. if we don't do something, america will be last in the graduating its citizens, of any industrialized nation in the world. we're close to it right now. >> while we are talking about money, we have -- and paul can correct me -- the most expensive midterm elections have in american history this year, and the advent of the tea party. is this just a coincidence?

or is there a connection between a leaderless movement and extraordinarily expensive alexians? >> let me go back to what i said initially. campaign finance. i was proud to have voted against the john mccain-feingold bill. and limited the ability of parties and candidates to raise money. it put limitations on their ability to take in soft money, and put limits on what individuals could give to parties. it did not limit with the could give to third parties. to interest groups. where the bill went wrong is it operated under the theory that if we could drive this money away from parties and candidates, we could drive away from the system. instead, it has gone out to the strings. in many races you have seen more spent by interest groups then on the parties and candidates, and -- instead, it has gone out

to be a extremes. the right has spent more money than a lot. after we pass the bill we saw on the republican side that we were getting hurt. we decided to regulate these third-party groups. democrats said that it was working fine. regimes tend to legislate to their political advantage. that is what happens. that has driven this money out to the sdie. ide. it also increased in grass-roots contributions by the internet, so obama raised a lot of money across the country from small donors. but now the energy is with the opposition. the small donors are coming through the tea party, money bonds, the internet.

you see it all coming together at this year when things are very polarized. you see record amounts. the tea party is a complement to that. what the establishment is saying is that big money like bigcoke brothers are trying to call up this -- big money like that coke brothers. but the guy on the ground is not care about this. the amount that sharon angle or christie o'donnell -- a totally dysfunctional candid it to raise money if it were not for the tea party and a network. yet she has raised millions and a short time. >> the way some of this is changing -- remember when hording ran for president, joe trippey made his own reputation on the fact that he could raise money over the internet. his victory was that he raised

$600,000 in one day. ron paul -- well, raised $6 million in one day. but he told a colleague and a congress that he had never sent an e-mail after his campaign began the did not return more than $600,000 to go that is how it changed. two weeks ago the president and all of his surrogates attacked karl rove and a crossroads group. over the internet they got $13.50 million, which they decided to dump behind the democratic fire wall in house races. the fact is, there are many ways independent of parties for good or bad that money can be raised. i think that the party should be free, but the people should be free to speak. they should be free to promote these things. in other countries, as a

percentage -- our elections are not that expensive. but is a lot of money, more every cycle, more expensive to communicate every cycle. but when both sides are free to compete -- and now the sure we are pretty close to a level playing field in terms of the money because all the republican/independent money is up. that is a result of the leadership, not the law. with the union money and the rest, the two sides are on a fairly even playing field for the first time in some decades. even though each cycle the democrats complain the republicans are spending all this money -- in note recent cycle have the republicans outspent democrats. >> this real made worse the problem they wanna to court. when the money went to candidates, it was reported. now it goes to 527 groups and

you have very little idea who was getting it. money is poisoning the system. but this treatment was much worse than the disease. i voted against that stupid bill. it turned out to be more hurtful than helpful. we need to do something. that was not the correct remedy to this disease. >> i agree with the congressman and want to commend the research in this area of campaign finance. a very corrosive influence on the american political system. when you get to the bottom line -- and if you are a senator, they spend about 50% of their time raising money. i think that is crazy that we are asking our elected

officials -- to be a good official these days is similar to been a cold-calling stockbroker. you are on the phone all the time. we need to deal with this problem. a shortenedin has a campaign cycle. used to run for the house of delegates in maryland for about $40,000. today is a quarter of a million dollars or more. where is this going? it is out of control. >> what sort of timetable do think the tea party voters have? do they want to seize solutions, problems of between now and 2012? did they want to see solutions? ,et's say they are successful

what are the implications for president obama? >> one of the things that complements the tea party is that you have fox, news media, web sites. it is a spontaneous group, not in concert. to some extent that sets the agenda, and timetable for how quickly people get fed up. right away we have a confrontation brewing after the election. what to do with the bush tax cuts? and do we extend them for everyone, for part of it? i think you will see an immediate reaction that will set the tone of the relationship between everyone for the next two years. my thought is if it does not get extended, january 1 you start withholding on their rates. on everybody. right way people will begin to get impatient, and that is my gut.

[laughter] >> i think the tea party people want to see changes start now. they're probably great differences in how quickly they think we can get to where they want. >> you don't have to change the world overnight. >> how do we deal with the extension of tax cuts if we stalemate? >> i hope we do extend the tax cuts. kennedy recognized cutting taxes produce jobs. they keep talking about no tax cuts for those over $250,000. fully half of the people reporting that much money are business people. sub-chapter s. you destroy jobs. if you want more jobs to good timing, and don't extend those

tax cuts. >> they will be extended. >> all of them, i hope. they have all this rhetoric. if you don't do this, these are small business people reporting their payroll --in that test category, if you don't do it, you have moved more people to welfare and the unemployment lists. >> i think that there will be extended for one year. but in hopes that the deficit commission which must report early next year -- the real fear i have is that the deficit commission, because they need a super majority to come out with the recommendation -- my fear is they are not able to come out with the recommendation. then we are really in uncharted waters. he would rather do this through government. you know one atom smith or the

bond market -- adam smith or the bond market to legislation. i just returned from the country of greece. we don't that. a lot will come out of this deficit commission. many people hope there will come out of it with reasonable recommendations. >> tom, in my pocket i have -- >> that is a $50 billion bill from zimbabwe. my wife and i went to italy in 1953. the new currencies to which we're going, your $10 bill is worth only a penny. that is called monetizing the debt. that means hyper-inflation.

that is where we're going if we don't behave. that is what the tea party people are ticked about. [laughter] [laughter] >> will there be a tea party candidate in 2012? >> i think there is some confusion. the tea party is not a party. we talk about the candidates and teaion rubio, isa tea partihe a party canada. some of the candidates won because they attracted the support, but were not sponsored by the tea party. the folks who are for this will look it candidates and support some of them. -- marco rubio is not a the tea

party candidate. we hope among conservatives to unite behind one candidate in the primary. yes, there will be a favor. who will be? we do not know. just as they have become a major segment and a primary electorate so that every candidate who runs will have some appeal to them -- and my view is that voters tend to be smaller than politicians and their managers and will be about to tell which appeals mean something, and which do not. >> i think the tea party will play with the republican party for the nomination. you have many candidates running for the tea party support. ends.not know how this se

an alternative scenario as the republicans nominate someone who is like a tea party can do. with someone like bloomberg, moderate runs nationally with financial backing. you get the parties pricking up and reconstituting. i do not know how this ins. -- you get the parties breaking up. candy produce a work credit? at the end of the day, understand the voters will react to what is on the ground. if you still have high unemployment rates, a war in afghanistan that appears to be going nowhere, or people perceive there is corruption -- people will react to that. someone will fill the void. today more than ever in the not be within that two-party framer.

how that ends up constituting is too early to determine. two years is an attorney. that time ago obama was sweeping the area. people like us were dead on arrival, dinosaurs. [laughter] [laughter] >> we will open for questions from the audience and a second. i had one thing from the post this month. former gov. -- sarah palin began the tea party express on monday. at a meeting in reno she said "the bigwigs within the machine are driving me crazy. they are to chicken to come out and support the tea party

candidates. some of you need to man up and spend some political capital to support the tea party candidates." for the big waves within the machine that she is talking about? the machine of the republican party? >> yes, i think she is talking about the bush wing of the republican establishment. you saw carl rove on primary night in the delaware basically the announcing the tea party winner. there is a lot of resentment. a lot of it concerns the spending in the bush white house. it goes back to no child left behind and win government grew bigger under that. it is part of the problem. but there are cultural underpinnings as well. you must remember the political alignments in this country over the last decade have been largely cultural. not economic. the wealthiest jurisdictions were voting for obama. some of the poorest, most appalachian regions were voting for john mccain.

it is about values. the tea party wing -- i want to over-generalized -- but it is not the country club. it is the more populist wing. they introduce an element other parts of the party are not comfortable with. when sarah palin and others are written against the establishment and asking people to man up, that talks to the blue-collar and middle income base, not to hire some of business-oriented base. you have that rift between the party that will play out. you asked who runs the tea party -- i don't know who runs the republican party -- there are many pretenders seeming to run it right now. we do not know how this story will end. >> part of what sarah palin and others are reacting to is the way in which the party establishment, as i said earlier

-- it is not unusual. the party establishment never likes to people. but the way they have reacted to the so-called tea party victories -- and the charges has always been that they have not supported us, and they ought to go along with us. you have apart to race in new hampshire where of the establishment candidate defeated the tea party candidate in a close race. within 20 minutes he had endorsed her and was out campaigning with her. the other two races were delaware for everyone to announce the winner, and the other candidate from the establishment said there was no way he could support that candidate. or alaska where sarah palin dispersal involved, where a guild graduate defeated the

candid it -- was called in india and said she would have to run an independent campaign. the tea party people are saying to wait a minute. if these rules apply, why should we support your candidates, if you do not support the winner when you lose? that has been a problem for a long time. as a conservative and ball for four years, you could name races where it has happened time after time -- as a conservative involved for four years. >> but we could also go to new york for the conservatives ran their own candidate -- >> this year that one loss and is doing phone calls to everyone in the district same to vote for the republicans. >> but he is on another line. >> rick klazio, a moderate like

you is on another line, too. >> in colorado we have rallied around the party nominee. it is mixed. frankly, the delaware candidate -- that is asking a lot of people. she is a little off the mainstream. >> frankly, it in delaware the voters expect a little fantasy from the candidates. the state was held by men who made up his entire life story. [laughter] wrong.ain't going if you look at her background -- her history, you have some problems with it. i have not heard her say anything i would not say from the stump. >> that is a different issue. >> we are not collecting prima donnas, but people who will take us and the right direction.

-- we're not electing prima donnas. i hope the citizens of new jersey listen to her and said of things about her. i have not disagreed with anything that i have heard her say. >> the woman is clearly not which or she would have turned drove into a fraud. did and she clearly did not go to yale. >> will take the rest of the time for questions from the ovens. i asked the be brief and factual questions. >> do we have to give actual answers? >> that is totally up to. >> from fox tv. "the tea party groups have given , thetform to an anti-

gets, and racists." is this fair criticism? >> is not. many of the most of the members of the tea party are minority members. the naacp is speaking as a liberal, a democrat a group, not as a group representing its historic mission. >> these are charges of the radical left to discredit the tea party. i have been to a number of these. i don't even see the hint of this in any of these people. every group has some fringe elements. you may find here and there a few punksters out of bounds. i have not seen even a hint of this for the vast majority of the tea party people. >> i would say it is largely economic. their purchase.

but because of their lack of diversity they fall into that criticism -- there protests. to the person looking from the outside, it does not look like america. they become susceptible to those types of criticisms. >> john, i don't think there's any rationale to it. it is just the political season. athi, i'm an undergraduate the university. i am wondering if the republicans take the house this november, how do see the tea party candid it's working with congressman john boehner and the republican leadership? >> roscoe? >> i hope the republican leadership notes that the tea party voters are a huge factor

in the election, and they pay attention to the course. i think it is the correct course. we need to go back to constitutional government, stops putting ourselves into debt that is not manageable. i do not know what republican leadership will do. but i hope they will recognize that they are in leadership largely because the tea party is out there. this is the energized part of our electorate. if they did not come to the polls, the republicans would not be elected in the numbers i think they will be. >> 12 of the 14 years i was in the house we governed with a pretty diverse caucus. the leaders must sit down. it is a lot of cajoling to hold your coalition together. i believe john boehner will have a lot of the tea party people in his leadership. i think it will figure it out. they're not responsible for running the government. the need to produce a work

product coming out of the house. but you know what happens when it gets to the senate. neither party controls of. the senate will be basically the least common denominator in terms of what can transpire. the leadership must choose their fights of what they choose to send to the senate. >> and they both the house and senate, one thing about party leaders is the know how to count votes within their own caucus. both republican caucuses in the senate and house will be far more conservative in january next year regardless of the total numbers, then in october this year. as a party they have made specific promises in this era. regardless of who the leaders are, there will be very different than two years ago or more.

>> the key is that the leadership in the house decides what boats are in order. amendments can only come up if the leadership abroad. the republicans have been shut out of offering amendments. i think you'll see the republican leadership allowing the tea party a number of votes that may not pass, but will give them of what the input on the telly and take back to constituents. -- but will give them of vote to take back. >> hello, i am like a drunken of the u.s. senator from the district of columbia, and have a comment -- i am michael brown. my comment to congressman bartlett is the people of columbia are not so enamored with the founding fathers who forgot women, african-americans, native americans, and the people of the district of columbia. we love the constitution, but understand that sometimes it is not the end all and be all.

my question is, you have courted -- quoted "the washington post" several times, but did anyone read the article that says that the tea party supports establishment candidates alike are linda mcmahon in connecticut, ron johnson in wisconsin, meg whitman --all these people who are super-rich, made it in very traditional ways through the american corporate structure. if it is really grass roots as a movement, where they in support of so many establishment candidates? and, isn't glenn beck and sarah palin -- i was out on the mall with 300,000 of these people that plan back brought together -- are the leaders of the movement. >> the deficiencies in our past

national behavior that you mention have all been corrected by constitutional amendments. did so we should think our founding fathers of the prescription of how you correct those deficiencies. my 600,000 constituents still pay taxes and fight in wars and are not represented. >> and we can change that. but the constitution says you must be a resident of the state. the district is not a state. we can create a federal enclave and return the rest of it to maryland, and then you can vote. >> we understand. let me say something. the appeal of a political candidate is based on what he or she has to say, not on the background. this year and initially the democrat said it would win because their ideas would be popular. when that did not have been,

they said we don't have to be -- it does not depend on us. it is a contest. ultimately, it came down to a political strategy based on the story about how do have to run faster than a the just faster than you. they have discovered they cannot run faster than republicans, and that the is approaching. entrepreneurs understand the pre-market. that is why they're running. are tight because they have been successful, others have been attacked because they have not been. -- entrepreneurs understand the market. what binds them together is that they're talking about the very same concerns and problems on the minds of american people. that is why they're running so well. >> the language says representatives shall be

elected from the people of several states. many detractors of the district say that it is not a state so you don't get a house member. the income tax amendments those the congress will have the power to get tax on incomes -- the have applied the income tax by statute. i think they can do the vote by statute. and the first 12 years of the republic the citizens did vote for congress. if we're fighting to bring democracy to the new law to have it there. the fact that it is a 1-party type of city makes my party reluctant to do it. now my feeling on that. >> yes, thanks for your help, congressman.

good afternoon. i'm a graduate student here. i want to thank you for coming in sharing your views. my question is mostly for congressman you rightly show that this year we have a record federal deficit, and a record that it -- but the last time we had that was under george w. bush, and before that he was under george h. w. bush, and before that it was under ronald reagan. the only president who has gotten even a balanced budget in the public debt sector is bill clinton. congressman, you voted for the bush tax cuts of both 2001 and 2003 that have added significantly to the public debt. you voted against the deficit reduction package in 1993.

suggest getting the deficit down and budget down -- you said you think medicare and medicaid and unemployment benefits are not constitutional -- so what programs would you cut, and what spending would you cut to get at the constitutionality question and to reduce the deficit? >> my republican colleagues talk about cutting spending and then stumbled when your question is asked as to what he would cut. i have no problem. i would begin with of federal the part of education. it is not constitutional. no hint we ought to have it. not a shred of evidence that it has done anything to improve education. if coalitions mean anything, from the four years at the beginning of that department, our [unintelligible] dropped repeatedly. no matter how much money we pour

into it, those statistics do not come up. the federal mandates cost the local school boards more than the measly 6% of the budget that we supply. it would be better off -- they would be better off to tell us to keep our mandates and shove our money. if you think we should be involved in education, then amend the constitution. i'd be happy to debate that. but i won't ignore the constitution. >> fair enough, but the education part is a tiny component of the federal budget. my question is, if you're try to get at the overall spending levels, the must be other programs -- >> how many of you have a good, warm feeling on april 15? i don't see any hands. a lot of the money they take from the goes to philanthropy.

the bible says it is more blessed to give than to receive. not one of you thought so on april 15. move it to the private sector. [unintelligible] >> first of all, i love roscoe because he is sincere. many members only fudge this. they are all for tax cuts but when you ask them where to cut they are free to say anything for fear of offending anyone. where is the money going? whenever we barr 41 cents for every dollar we spend. but where is it going? -- we borrow 41 cents for every dollar that we spend. most of it is for hospital beds for seniors in certain states. we are investing in retirees. this administration even in years when the cola says nothing -- and sends out checks to buy of senior citizens.

it cannot go for education, research and development, in infrastructure. our global competitors are not acting away. this country is using the general motors model. you need to understand it means we're not investing in the future. we will have to look at those programs over time. either deliver the more efficiently, or find something else. i'm out of office, but i also said it when i was in. i'm from the wealthiest districts in the country and can probably get away with it. >> by the way, he also opposed the war -- a lot of the money goes that way. >> both of them. i think that the iraq war is a done more, and so is the afghanistan war. alexander the great killed in

afghanistan. so did another empire. so did the soviet empire. even if we are successful, and we could be -- even if we do, we will have accomplished nothing. the bad guys will simply go to pakistan. how many more billions, dead kids, boys and girls without arms and legs? it was simply go to pocketbook yemen and somalia. you cannot deny them sanctuary. it is the ultimate exercise in futility. now obama does not know what to do with it. >> i apologize. this is all the time that call gave me. we have another panel after this. i appreciate the painless audience participation. i'm sorry we could not get to

more questions. we will have a short break, then start again in 15 minutes. thank you. [applause] >> house speaker nancy pelosi says she is confident democrats will maintain a majority in the congress, and she will maintain her position as speaker. she made the comments yesterday on the charlie rose show after several democrats said they would not support her for speaker next year. the house republican leader john bennett is getting a similar response. the south dakota republican candidate christie told the newspaper that if there is another republican running for the leadership position, she

would support that one over mr. john boehner. the midterm elections are less than two weeks away, and each night we show debate from key races across the nation. "the daily beast" is hosting a forum in new orleans on economic, environmental, and political issues. among the speakers -- film director spike lee, and a bob schaefer. friday includes the fashion designer diane von first bird and a former afghanistan leader, general stanley and the

crystal. buy coverage tonight on c-span [applause] and online at c-span.org. >> this week, two former parliamentarians, one british, one american the compare and contrast the house of representatives and the house of commons. sunday night. >> in the pennsylvania senate race the republican candidate is running against the current congressman. the cook political report rates this race a tossup while cq politics claims it leans republican. the new polls show that sestak has closed the gap behind toomey. ♪ >> now live from philadelphia's

national constitution center on independence mall. the senate debate of pennsylvania. it is brought by the league of women voters of pennsylvania and abc. the candidates are the democrats joe sestak, and the republican pat toomey. moderating tonight's debate are theabc news anger george stephanopoulos, and jim gardner. >> hello. welcome to the national constitution center. this is the debate many people have been waiting for. >> we are broadcasting across pennsylvania. there are opportunities to watch online. >> we have a few simple nuts to share before we get started.

the format will include questions to the candidates from me and from george, and from panelists. the candidates will have 90 seconds to respond to each question. >> a 60-second response, then a 30-second rebuttal, if the candid it changes. >> the order of questioning was determined by a coin toss. mr. sestak will give the first response. the discussion about jobs in the employment crisis in this country has focused on small business. that is appropriate. but in the pennsylvania big business has been the problem as well. automobile assembly plants have shut down, and defense contractors have pulled up stakes. some of those jobs are lost for good, some have gone to other countries, and some to other states where the business climate is "friendlier."

you really have a three-headed monster in the pennsylvania. how will you bring jobs back to pennsylvania the? >> thank you. it is still about small business. pennsylvania has had half the growth in the past 30 years of the nation's average. washington really must give tax credits like 15% to a small business for every new peril job they create. that would create 5 million jobs in only two years. zero devil gains tax for small businesses. you are correct, corporations have gone overseas. my opponent voted that if a corporation shuts down its factory here in the pennsylvania, fires its employees, and then invest in a factory in china, and then cheap goods arrive, often illegally subsidized by china, then not tax is given to the profit of

the large corporation were jobs have moved overseas. it takes another step. the corporation should have zero taxes. that is the difference. he believes it is about corporations and open them to create jobs elsewhere. has'm the candidate who created jobs, started a small business from scratch with my brothers. we owned and operated some restaurants an employed hundreds. i can tell you, the biggest factor that has prevented job growth is at large, medium, and small companies -- is this out of control attendant in the washington. we have been witnessing is a real bailouts, nationalizing industries, spending money on a scale i did not imagine possible, corresponding deficits. government-run health care, cap and trade -- this agenda is preventing economic growth we badly need. >> he will talk a lot about

accountability on the campaign trip, but does not seem to want to hold himself accountable. he voted for every item he mentioned, and is on the criticism was they did not go far enough. this agenda, the over reach of government, is having a chilling effect on the ability to create jobs. i know because i have created jobs. >> let's set aside the fact that when you invested in a small business in pennsylvania and you were working in china for chinese billionaire. he testified under oath that he never had hands on operation of the small business that your brothers ran. you have no credibility or track record of creating jobs. during the bush era the zero jobs were created compared to the eight years from the clinton administration were 23 million jobs were. that is a fact. that is where we have to level

with citizens of pennsylvania. >> this is almost amusing that joe is willing to mis- characterize my small business. my brothers and die and the hundreds we have employed know i was actively involved. that is why i understand the policies he is advocating are killing jobs. he wants much higher taxes on businesses and individuals, labor, and all kinds of things he has already voted for and advocated even further. we just disagree. we need to get spending under control, lower taxes, increase the kind of incentives to get the job growth we badly need. >> this question is for you -- sarah palin has stepped up her activity this year. yesterday she put out a notice an endorsement on facebook asking pennsylvania voters to get behind you. the democratic party put up a

statement that says you have more in common with the republican extremists than citizens of pennsylvania. what gimmick of her role, and you think she is qualified to be president of? >> i am very grateful for the support i have from people across the political spectrum -- republicans, independents, democrats. i welcome endorsement from high- profile candidates, and ordinary folks i need every day. right now we are at an inflection point. sestak and the liberal democrats who have dominated the agenda in washington have attempted to dramatically expand the power and cost of our government. my concern, and you know -- a lot of that is driven by the free kids we have it -- i'm concerned for their future.

. . one of the most out-of-sorts

ideas is congressman toomey's belief that corporations should have zero tax. if congressman tomb -- toomey is consistent in anything -- that's the difference in this election. >> mr. toomey? >> it's very clear. the person who is the extreme candidate and so far out of touch with pennsylvania is joe sestak. look at the agenda. not only did he vote for every item on the agenda, every single bailout, while many members of the pennsylvania delegation, including democrats, voted against elements, not joe sestak, he voted for all the bale outs and introduced a new bill to create a new bailout. that stimulus bill, joe might have been the only person in the united states who thinks that should have been a trillion dollars because $800 billion of money we didn't have was not

enough. joe voted for cap and trade which devastated our economy. he voted for the healthcare bill and in committee voted for a version of the bill that would have allowed states to ban all independent insurance companies altogether. that's an extreme agenda, out of step with pennsylvania. >> that's not true. my daughter, with brain cancer, if that bill had passed that way, would have lost her health insurance. you know i voted against that. but we did say that health insurance companies that were defrauding the government of 20%, actually charging us more, we stopped that. we don't breed liberals, we don't breed conservatives on the ground in afghanistan. that is there is problem-solvers. i went to congress and my first job was a warship in the vietnam war era, damage control.

>> wendy davis, your first question to mr. sestak. >> turning to social security. for a lot of pennsylvanians, the dream of a secure retirement is becoming increasingly vulnerable. what is your stance on privatizing social security? >> i'm so opposed to privatizing social security like my opponent has written in his book, we should do it. we have to preserve for our seniors social security. if it had been privatized in the last year, 20 million seniors would have moved into poverty. 2/3 of our seniors rely on social security. my opponent wants to take investment to where he made his fortune on wall street and invest it there. what broker is going to come

forward during recession and say, hey, don't worry, i'll back it up. he says in his book, maybe we'll only invest in the youth. his book says, so disheartingly, we'll have to borrow from china up to $4.9 trillion, just borrow it. look, he thinks all the answers are found on wall street. i want to keep our social security solvent and safe. >> mr. toomey? >> let me be very clear. joe has been doing a pretty good job of grossly misrepresenting what i stood for and what i said. my parents rely on social security and have since they retired. i would never do anything that would jeopardize the benefits of people who are retired or close

to retirement. in the house, i spoke out against congress considering the legislation that would create that situation. i also looked at the reality we face as a nation, the fiscal challenges we face and demographic reality we face and i want this program to last for future generation. to do it, we need to offer changes and offer young people reforms within social security so this program can be viable. the real jeopardy for social security is the reckless spending of joe sestak, $3.3 trillion of new debt. the interest on this debt alone will jeopardize our ability to honor our commitment. >> mr. sestak? >> in an election, truth is the first casualty. i've sponsored legislation to put social security in a lock box.

second, in his book, when you look it up, and you go through it where he says privatize social security, what he says is, if then the market goes down and people are wiped out of their savings, that's the risk they take, billions of dollars, however, of wealthy cumulation will be given to those brokers that invest social security. congressman toomey, what i don't understand is why are you advocating taking the social network for our seniors and risking it on the market where we just had an example of where when the soft market goes down, seniors lose their social security, whether it's today or in the future. that's the difference between us. you be with the corporations on wall street, i'll be with the people. >> joe's demagogueraphy knows no

limits. vanguard is not a for-profit company. but they manage hundreds of billions of dollars with a properly regulated and diversified portfolio, and i think a lot of young people would choose that option. joe has no solution for the big problems we face. instead it's mischaracterized, dishonest attacks and if he's close to a solution, it's always the same -- raise taxes and in the case of social security, cut benefits. there are no other options. the kind of spending he's engaged in and advocated is the single biggest threat to all of our retirement programs and the health of the country. i think there's a better way to go. >> mr. toomey, abortion, is row v wade decisive or would you work to further undermine it or knock it out completely?

in terms of affirming judicial nominations to the supreme court, would you vote to affirm anybody who was not on -- in your camp on that issue. >> abortion is a tough issue and there's good people on both sides of this. my views are consistent with that of a majority of the congressional delegation and the other senator from pennsylvania. i'm pro life. and i would accept the ban on abortions with the exception of rape and incest and the life of the mother. i think roe versus wade was mistakenly determined and i would support its repeal but i have never advocated that we have a litmus test for judges. i think we ought to examine a judge's qualifications. when justice sodermeyer was

nominated, i advocating endorsing her. joe sestak is in the fringe of members who believe in taxpayer funded abortion on demand without restrictions, outside the mainstream of pennsylvania. >> palin, toomey, o'donnell, they all would like to overturn roe versus wade. i believe those life decisions of a family should be made within the family. i don't think government should intervene. and i respect precedent on the supreme court. i think there's even more of an extreme taken by congressman toomey on such social issues and others. congressman toomey actually opposes protecting a victim of hate crime. congressman toomey's idea of gun control, he said, is a steady --

20% increase in murders of our law enforcement officers are due because they happen to have a military assault weapon. i don't think our law enforcement officers should have to go up against what we in the military had to, what the army and marine corps did in iraq. i think those views with o'donnell and others are too extreme for mainstream pennsylvania. >> mr. toomey, do you want to rebut? >> the extreme view is held by a tiny minority in american society that believe there should be no restrictions whatsoever, taxpayers should fund abortions, partial birth abortions should be allowed. he doesn't respect the rights of law-abiding citizens selling firearms in many ways. it's joe sestak that has views

that are well outside the mainstream. >> i voted against mr. taxpayers funding it and you know it, congressman. >> you did not, joe. when you're being dishonest, i'm going to call you on it. >> may i have my time back? >> go ahead. >> congressman toomey, i voted against it. i still respect the second amendment. i lived my entire life, 31 years, in the u.s. military with weapons. i respect the pennsylvanians that go hunting. but i do believe that there is community safety that has to be considered. you voted against an increase for a law enforcement officer, but i voted against that amendment. >> the record is very clear and everybody can look this up and you will see that joe is seriously misrecommending or simply being dishonest. i'm pleased i have the endorsement of the state troopers association of pennsylvania, the f.o.p., the

philadelphia f.o.p. that makes it clear about my support for law enforcement. >> mr. sestak, another 10, 12 seconds of rebuttal. >> let me talk about spending. when congressman toomey went to congress, he voted against programs. because of that, he left behind the largest deficit in the history of america. now he wants to fingerpoint as we had to vote to get that requirement back into law. which we did. >> i want to pick up on your conversation about the second amendment and gun control. under current u.s. law, people on the terrorist watch list are barred from getting on airplanes but can buy guns or explosives and the government accounting office found that in the last six years, a thousand people on the terrorist watch list have

been able to buy guns and explosives. given the fact that we know al qaeda seems to be changing tactics and moving towards small-scale urban attacks using guns and explosives, should the law be changed so that people on the terrorist watch list cannot by weapons? >> yes. i was on the ground in afghanistan for a short mission when i was head of it. we were hunting terrorists. since 9/11, we no longer have away games, wars overseas. we also know after 9/11 that our first responders have to take care of efforts here at home also. i do believe about reasonable law that ensure criminals, including the worst of criminals, terrorists, cannot gain access to weapons. government should be reasonable. it shouldn't intervene in private-life decisions.

but when you know someone is on a watch list to be a terrorist, yes, we should ensure they do not get access to weapons. >> i think we should make sure we have a sophisticated and adequate background check mechanism to make sure terrorists certainly and other dangerous people and criminals don't have access to guns. i would not support restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens, however, and i think that's an important distinction. we talked about terrorists and this raises another big distinction between joe and i, an example of how extreme joe sestak is, my view, when we capture an enemy combatant, a foreign terrorist on foreign soil trying to kill americans, we should give that person a military trial and military tribunal on a military base. joe sestak is alone among any elected official in pennsylvania who believes that the admitted

mastermind of 9/11 should be given a civilian trial. joe's been adamant about that. i think that is extremely irresponsible, it's dangerous, and it's a compromise to our security. >> george, i am unique among those elected to congress. i walked out of the pentagon on 9/11 and 25 minutes later a plane slammed into that building, men and women who worked for me never came out. i went on the ground in afghanistan heading a short mission. and the fact that those criminals are still sitting down there, if the supreme court said, we could not bring them to justice. i want them brought to justice in washington, d.c. where they killed my friends. george bush brought in 200 terrorists to be tried in america. i defended the laws that are strong enough to do it. i want them put to death for what they did. >> except that what joe sestak

is advocating is a huge risk in the united states, a security risk wherever the trial were to be conducted. who knows what terrorists would try do to disrupt the proceedings, how much it would cost certainly in money but perhaps in lives. even bigger than that, in a civilian trial, the prosecution is required to disclose to the defense its methods, information, what it knows. we're not under obligation to help our enemies kill americans to disclose the information to the mastermind of 9/11 would be incredibly imprudent. >> i'd like my rebuttal. >> you've had your rebuttal. >> you had the question and had the rebuttal. >> my apologies. i'm getting another message. >> i did not have 30 seconds. >> i apologize. you do have rebuttal.

>> trying to be persistent. that's not true. courts do not, civilian courts, have to reveal that. george bush tried 200 terrorists here and never spoke up. we have to get these terrorists tried. if george bush could have 200, why didn't you speak up then? why now during the election. i'm a public servant to knows to do what i believe is right, to get them to be tried here and put to death. i know producers are almost never wrong, but they were this time. >> i get a >> you do get another 30 seconds. >> i think this is clear, it's a huge security risk, this has been exhaustively explained. i think it's part of the reason that the law enforcement community of pennsylvania is

endorsing my candidacy after hearing both joe sestak and myself present our arguments to them and i'm grateful for their support. >> would the american economy be in better shape today had there been no bailout of wall street and the automobile industry? clearly the deficit wouldn't be as high as it is today, but are there companies and industries that are simply too big to be allowed to fail? i ask that question first to mr. toomey. >> as you know, if you've watched any tv and have seen any of joe's ads, i worked on wall street. i left wall street 20 years ago. one of the things i learned then is that's the last place taxpayers should have to bail out. when i got to congress, one of the things i did early on is i started to raise a red flag about my concerns with the imprudent management of fannie

mae and freddie mac. i raised the question about the implicit government guarantee, whether they would grow too big and taxpayers would have to bail them out. i sponsored legislation that would have meant reform so that 15 may and freddie mac would not have grown out of control. if that legislation was passed, i think it's unlikely they would have reached the scale that was so disastrous. in 2007, when joe sestak got to congress, he stood there with barney frank and voted against measures that would have restricted fannie mae and freddie mac. >> i arrived in congress the year the recession began. economists said we were headed for a depression.

we had doubled our national debt under the toomey-bush era from $4.5 billion to $11 billion. trillion. we lost three million jobs. we were sinking. i had to control the damage of the bush-toomey era. those were tough votes. we had been torpedoed, the ship was sinking. in the last nine months we created almost a million jobs. is it perfect? no, but sometimes you have to take care of other people's messes and just clean them up. what we can't do is have congressman toomey who left congress and became a lobbyist for wall street-founded special interest groups, when on television, said, deficits aren't important. wants to take social security and put it into wall street where he came from and fights for them and borrow the money to

keep social security solvent from the chinese. that's the difference. >> joe has voted for every single bailout that has come down the pike. there are no exceptions. even after he voted for fanny and freddy's bailouts and wall street's bailouts and car company bailouts, after 99% of congress wanted to stop the bale outs, not joe. joe's the only sponsor of a bailout bill that would require taxpayers to bail out underwater mortgages. there is no end to bailouts for joe. i think this happens to people who have no experience in business and don't realize this is a total misallocation of resources, unfair to taxpayers and not good for our economy. >> congressman toomey said if we hadn't done what we had to do, it would have been a slightly harder down.

john mccain's economist told us another eight million people unemployed. you're right, there were democrats that didn't have the courage of their convictions to do what was necessary. that's why i'll always stand up for doing what's right, not to the consequences of my job, but to save jobs of americans. congressman toomey, explain to us why you believe corporations should have zero taxes, no taxes to a.i.g., whom you said they should keep their bonuses after they ripped us off, and yet you voted against bonuses for veterans fighting in iraq. tell me why the $300 billion you want to give to big corporations -- >> pentagon spending, you fought a few wars overseas about budgets. are you satisfied with where the

pentagon is spending-wise and that the fat is cut out of there. and what would you change if you were elected? >> no, vernon, not at all. as a previous chief of naval operations said had, when i was placed in charge of the navy's spending program, only 6% of corporations in america had a larger value. i said the navy is doing things wrong. it's saying we need 55 submarines. the soviet union is gone. we don't have any in the indian ocean where our submarines were. so the change of our military to be more efficient and cost effective has to be done. i stood up in the navy and did that against opposition of the rumsfeld administration. they had 60 ships with

knowledge-based systems. there's about 270 now. take, for example, the f-22. we had to stop that program. if we have the knowledge of where osama bin laden is, another ship at sea that in that case isn't going to help us. i want to bring the change in military into the congress to do things right and understand warfare and what the budget needs to be to have a more cost-effective, efficient military. >> my dad's a veteran of the korean war era. my brother-in-law served 20 years in the navy. one of the things that's very, very important to me is that we make sure that when we ask men and women to go into harp's way, they have all the resources they need to get the job done. the fact is, there is waste pretty much everywhere in

government and that includes the pentagon. part of the problem is congress voting for systems that the pentagon doesn't even want. congress has a real serious spending problem and it manifests itself in many ways. certainly wasteful defensive programs occasionally are on that list. but a more egregious example is the practice of ear-marks. earmarks are a terrible abuse of the system and waste of taxpayer dollars. joe sestak voted against over 100 consecutive efforts to strip out some of the most egregiously abusive earmarks. we're never going to get budgets under control when members of congress pile on pork like that. >> i'm the only congressman up here who has a piece of legislation to end earmarks. let me talk about veterans, those we sunday in harm's way.

what i'm most upset about toomey about is not just voting against bonuses for veterans, he called the v.a. waste. one million veterans were kicked out under your watch. they cut it so much, we have a backlog when i arrived in congress of 600,000 cases for our vets. look, it isn't just about cutting. we all want to cut. it's where you cut. and that's what's important. >> there are too many dishonest charges for me to refute them all. my web site will give you a chance to see this afterwards of but for joe to pretend that he has any interest in getting spending under control is laughable.

$11 million for laughable to build a bridge and joe sestak argued that it should have been bigger, should have been a trillion dollars. the list goes on and on and he voted for all of these earmarks because he got a little pork in it and violated the pledge he it taken. he had taken a pledge that he wouldn't accept campaign contributions from those for whom he was seeking earmarks. in fact, the "philadelphia inquirer" showed that he violated that pledge. >> the new documentary, "waiting for superman," it argues pretty convincingly that the current school system is failing our children and that to compete on the global stage, something is going to have to change. my question is, what should the federal government do, if anything, about this issue?

>> my first thought goes to my kids. my 10-year-old daughter is just -- she's a great student and works really hard. my 9-year-old son prefers playing outside but he's a good student and i have a 5-month-old and have great hopes for him, too. we're very fortunate. we can afford the modest tuition of the parochial school we send our kids to and we're thrilled with the school that meets the needs of our kids. what i think is absolutely tragic is that other parents who can't afford a private school tuition are trapped so often in schools that are failing their kids and they have no option. we have a staggering number of kids in schools in philadelphia and pittsburgh and in between who don't have much of a chance in life because they're not getting the education they need. i really think that the money for funding education should follow the child and parents should have a choice of any

school, public or private, religious or nonreligious. a child with a choice can't be worse off than a child with no choice. congressman sestak voted to cut off money are kids in the district of columbia. they were sent back to the public school they tried to get outgof. i think it's very important that we headache this change for our kids. >> my mom, a high school math teacher. i can always remember my pop, an immigrant, sitting there at the dinner table, penny for college, penny for food. i fought to get on the education committee because in the military i saw sailors come across this nation. we gave them remedial training coming from broken school systems. i believe we have to invest in our youth, pel grants we have

doubled by reducing the national debt, early start for kids in disenfranchised areas can actually have an opportunity. congressman toomey tuesday well, he could afford it. in his book he says, let's take all schools and make it like you're shopping for groceries. what you can afford, that's where you go. we don't distribute brains accordingly to wealth or zip code. i got those youth into our military, didn't matter their ethnicity, didn't matter their race, you give them a fair opportunity and they're all they can be. let's fix it. let's not do everything once more on the marketplace. >> you hear joe sestak opposes giving poor kids a choice of a private school. the teachers union won't let him go there. i've seen how powerful it is when a poor child gets a chance to go to a great school.

the christian academy in pittsburgh is doing wonderful work with kids that come from some of the most difficult circumstances and right now there's too many kids who don't have a chance to go to that school, don't have a chance to go to any working school and i think it's unconscionable that we are allowing a generation of americans to have a substandard education. if we gave these kids a choice, if their parents had the opportunity to send them to a school of their choice, competition would elevate the quality of all schools and kids would do better. >> i do support choice, charter schools. people should have a choice. but this is what you're getting with the extreme views of congressman toomey. he voted four times against pel grants so lower-income youth might go to college. he voted against reducing the classroom size and teacher training and he voted against head start.

when youth are hungry when they come in as a young kid, i think someone who says, a large government bonanza is covering lower income children, i don't get it. it's "we the people," not "we the marketplace" or the "corporation." that's the difference in the election. >> we're falling way behind so i have a deal for all of you so that we can make up some ground. would you be willing to have 45-second responses and 15-second rebuttals so we can cover more ground? would you be all right with that? >> it's okay with me. >> you, sir. >> okay. >> thank you very much. we're going to talk about foreign policy. should the united states either participate in a military action or approve either overtly or tacitly a military action by another country, for instance, israel, against iran before that

country develops the ability to use a nuclear weapon. that question goes to mr. sestak. >> yes, i patrolled those lanes out there in the military. i operated with them pre-shah era as well as after the ayatollah took over. the military option should never be taken off the table but it should be on the back of the table. before we put men and women into harm's way, we should try diplomatically by making it hurt, as i voted for sanctions on gasoline and others, to cut off to make sure iran does not, because it cannot be permitted to have a nuclear weapon. >> but if it comes down to military action, would you do that to prevent iran? >> it is the last option i would support but i would not be against what is necessary in order to do it. but we are far from that period right now. >> mr. toomey? >> i think it's unacceptable for

the united states to tolerate a nuclear-arm iran. this is a very, very dangerous regime. it's a serious security threat to the united states and existential risk to our good friend and ally, israel. i urge the toughest possible economic sanctions on iran early on. joe refused toco sponsor the legislation. voted for it in the end but wouldn't put the pressure on that we needed. instead, he aligned himself with the strong, extreme element of the house that is least friendly to israel, in some ways hostile to israel, and urged the administration to pressure the israeli government to ease the blockade of gaza. we should not pressure the israel government to make security concessions. they'll make the concessions as they see fit for their own security. >> truth is the first casualty. i arrived in congress and for all that period of time they never placed the iranian

revolutionary guard on the terrorist list. my efforts of shaping that legislation finally convinced the bush administration to place the iranian revolutionary guard to the terrorist list so we could cut off their finances, where they were funding hamas and hezbollah. >> i think joe has allied himself with an extremist element in the house. speaking as he did to an organization that embraces hamas, i think was extremely imprudent. putting pressure on the israeli government when you consider the enormous security risks that israel incurs. >> thank you, sir. >> it's a big mistake. >> if you feel like you don't need to take your rebuttal, you can help us by letting it go. >> george? >> let me ask you a question about afghanistan. the ground seems to be shifting there. we've learned that nato ships are allowing passage to taliban

vessels. one of the ironies is, they're keeping it secret from pakistani intelligence. would it be safe for u.s. forces to withdraw from afghanistan if the taliban is in power and would you consider that a victory? >> i supported president obama's position to increase our troop level and counter intelligence operations in afghanistan. but it's extremely dangerous for us to leave precipitously the danger that the taliban would take over, perhaps host al qaeda once again, destabilize pakistan, which is a nuclear power. >> what if it was a negotiated agreement that included the taliban? >> if the taliban is willing to renounce violence, if they're willing to accept a peaceful government in kabul, then i

think this could be the beginnings of a negotiated surrender and if so, it would be worth pursuing that. >> i was on the ground in afghanistan early in that conflict. we were doing that war right. then we went to the tragic misadventure in iraq congressman toomey voted for that tore our fabric apart. we're not longer there in southwest asia, heavier, for afghanistan. one reason we're there, to eradicate that safe haven for al qaeda in pakistan because if that fails, that nation, there are nuclear weapons and 2,000 trained scientists at the most radical islamic universities that built those weapons. even if we get the weapons out, they'll remain in al qaeda. while we have firn pointing, it's always about if we have a

practical solution by measuring whether it's successful. we don't have those metrics. >> the thing joe missed on this is the danger of imposing an arbitrary deadline that's too soon. it encourages the indigenous population, the people we need to win over if we're going to win a classic counter insurgency battle, to wait it out. i think we need to pursue this in the approach governor patraeus has advocated. >> i have not supported a deadline at all. in fact, much as i supported president clinton with district policy, we said every conflict must have measurements and benchmarks to see if the costs are worth the gains. that's what we need to measure

the strategy. >> john bolton, ambassador under president bush, says he may run for president to bring more attention to national security issues, saying he doesn't think the current administration is really serious about the threats that we do face. so what would you say is the nature of those threats and what approach should the u.s. take? >> the number one danger is the head of the intelligence community said to us actually, setting aside our concerns with al qaeda, is our economic security. china holds so much of our reserve. if they dumped them on the stock market, imagine what would happen. remember, it really is a strong economy that undergirds our military, undergirds our education and health system.

so congressman toomey, when he says "buy american" is an unfortunate tendency and when he says it's a gift to american consumers that china is illegally exporting its imports on us and has a tariff that he's opposed to that would stop them from doing it, we have to get our economy going and that's the number one issue for us. >> joe thinks you do that by huge new tax increases, including taxes on consumer goods, all kinds of taxes he's voted for. joe's voted for all the bailouts, the staggering spending, stimulus cap and trade. in each instance, joe distanced himself from the mainstream of congress and said these things should have gone further. i agree with joe that the most important national security issue long-term is the economic viability of our country. we cannot have a recovery with the incredibly reckless policies

that joe sestak is pursuing and advocating that we go further. the deficits that he has voted for, $1.5 trillion a year, $3 trillion of new debt. when i was in the house, i was offering alternative budgets, i was trying to cut spending, fight earmarks, trying to bring spending under control. joe sestak is going in the opposite direction. >> would you be willing to forego rebuttals to this question? >> sounds like my parrot at home, again and again, but offering no solution except the corporation he voted for invests in a factory in china, the profits are no longer taxed. he opposed closing loopholes for oil companies in bermuda. >> mr. toomey? >> it's so clear that joe doesn't understand this at all. pennsylvania has many great

companies that operate overseas. i have friends at a company named air product and overseas they have facilities where they develop industrial gases which they sell to local consumers. joe wants to raise their taxes because they have a prosperous overseas business. we have jobs in pennsylvania that depend on that overseas business, managerial, supervision, and joe wants to take the second highest tax rate in the world and raise it higher. this is why we're having trouble in the economy. >> you've railed against the obama healthcare plan that has been passed. what do you oppose and what would you change? >> i mentioned that my dad is 80 years old. my mom is of that same generation. fortunately, they're both healthy, sharp as a tack, but they have serious ongoing health issues. the thing that worries me the

most about that bill, 2,000 pages of all kinds of mandates, huge control of government healthcare, is that in time, and it won't be much time, the government will intervene between patients and their doctors. >> is there anything that you like? >> let me finish my point because this is a serious concern. and i've been approached by physicians every day throughout that campaign who share this concern. doctors, and i'm grateful to have the endorsement of the biggest medical association in pennsylvania, because they understand that it's very important that they preserve that flexibility to exercise the discretion that they've been trained to exercise. this bill endangers that. it's one of its biggest flaws. >> the u.s. military, everybody has healthcare. we don't do it because of any other reason it gives great dividends for productive warriors. when my daughter got her brain cancer at 4 years old, we were fortunate and i was indebted to

this nation. i felt that here in pennsylvania we had a problem. up to 700 pennsylvania yans losing their healthcare every day while congressman toomey was in congress. health premiums doubled almost 100% but he didn't legislate any bill on it. lawyers, doctors, nurses, hospitals all supported the bill except the insurance companies. now, seniors, medicare was going bankrupt and we saved it. and seniors don't even have to do co-pays any longer for preventive screenings. >> mr. toomey? >> $2 trillion of spending, 500 billion. but now people are actually threatened with losing their coverage. this is exactly what many

predicted, rising costs causing employers to drop coverage. we see big companies saying they need exemption. small companies -- >> let's look at the facts. we decreased the national debt. it is about affordability. over one trillion dollars and decreased the cost of healthcare for individuals up to 10% while he did nothing. 700 pennsylvanians losing healthcare every day. >> thank you, mr. sestak. we are at a time for questions. it is time for closing statements. a coin toss decided the order of statements. mr. sestak will go first. >> thank you all and everyone here, particularly in this wonderful hallowed hall for this debate this evening. i joined up in the military during the vietnam war era. i led men and women into war, into conflict. i served president clinton in the white house. at the one moment that i needed

this nation, it gave us the healthcare that saved my daughter. it is "we the people," not "we the corporation," "we wall street." i've gone everywhere throughout pennsylvania. this is a very serious election. my opponent will do things such as saying buy american is an unfortunate tendency. he wants to eliminate all corporation taxes and hold the middle class tax cuts of the bush era hostage unless the top 1% of the wealthiest get it. i served with republicans, democrats and independents alike in my district. i've been throughout pennsylvania and see the people are suffering. i want to be not a politician, but a public servant. i would ask you to come out to vote and i would like your vote. but most important of all, i would ask you to remember the men and women serving overseas

who every day defend that right for you to come out and vote. come out and vote for them. thank you. >> mr. toomey? >> thank you all very much for being here and all of you for participating and hosting this. i think we're at an inflection point for our country. we have seen a government taken over by the most liberal wing for the democratic party, who has been in complete control. joe sestak clearly to the left of even the democratic consensus, advocating and supporting the most expansive agenda that we've ever seen in our lifetime, serial bailouts, nationalizing industries. unsustainable deficits and debt, the restrictions of cap and trade and government-run healthcare. these are policies having a chilling effect on our economy, preventing entrepreneurs from launching new businesses, small and medium businesses from growing. joe sestak voted for every item on that agenda list and his only

criticism of it was it didn't go far enough. we're in a bad spot but i'm optimistic about our future. i think we can have strong economic growth again. i think we can restore prosperity. we have to remember the source of that prosperity. it didn't come from big government, but from the private enterprise system, from men and women who get up and go to work every day. if we clear away the excess from the out-of-control government agenda, if we provide steady, low taxes for everybody, if we get spending under control, i'm confident that the 21st century can be another great century. i would appreciate your vote. >> you are offering the voters a clear choice. we thank you. >> thank you, george stephanopoulos, and i thank the candidates for participating today and to george, vernon, wendy and the audience here and for those of you watching at

home and online across the world. now, these final words from the league of women voters of pennsylvania. >> i'm olivia thorn, chair of the league of women voters pennsylvania education fund. we want to thank the candidates for participating in this debate as well as the national constitution center and wpvi. active and informed citizens are a keystone to democracy. for 90 years, the league has been helping voters learn about the candidates and their positions. go to palwv.org for more information. please vote on tuesday, november 2, and make democracy work. [captions performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> these candidates for the pennsylvania senate seat will meet again tomorrow for their second and final debate. we'll have live coverage of that at 7:00 eastern. after yesterday's debate, the polling gap closed between former congressman, republican pat toomey, and current congressman, democrat joe sestak. senate democrats are bracing for the loss of two of their leaders and a diminished majority. "politco" reports that losses by harry reid and murray would set off a race between dick durbin and charles schumer for the democratic leadership.

the midterm elections are less than two weeks away. each night on c-span we're showing debates in key races across the country -- >> the c-span network provides coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books and american history. it's available on television, radio, online and social media networking sites. find our content any time through c-span's video library. we take c-span on the road with our local content vehicle. it's washington your way, the c-span networks, available in more than 100 million homes, created by cable, provided as a public service.

>> the daily beast, a news and opinion weapons, is hosting a forum in new orleans on economic, environmental and political issues. friday includes fashion designer dine von furstenberg and former afghanistan commander. live coverage gynes tonight and online. >> this weekend, c-span tv's american history tv looks at precivil war virginia and how the most popular slave state in the south struggled with the abolition of slavery. we'll learn the motive behind buying and selling historical items. we also will take a unique look at the 1955 montgomery bus

boycott. >> the cook political report rates the connecticut governor's race a toss-up. dan milloy is running against republican tom foley, former u.s. ambassador to ireland. they debated earlier this week for about an hour. >> welcome to the gubernatorial debate. let's meet the candidates. first, republican tom foley, and democrat dan malloy. nice to see you back here. let's begin with the rules with john. >> the rules are simple. each candidate will have two minutes to answer each question and then each candidate will have 30 seconds to respond. at the end of the debate, we were going to leave two minutes for closing statements from each. the first question goes to dan

malloy. >> unemployment is at record highs, the deficit is also at record levels. if elected, what will you do in your first 100 days of office to get the state headed in the right direction. >> we're going to change direction by changing the rules. we're going to go to gaap finance rules, generally accepted accounting principles, which will tell the state that we're going to play it straight on the budget, we're going to be transparent, they'll know how deep the hole is and what level of investment needs to be made. they'll also know there's a plan to get out of and overcome the tough economic times we're in which have produced record deficits in connecticut. if you examine what's wrong with connecticut, we haven't grown jobs for 22 years. we've been hurting for a long time because we had governors that took their eye off the ball. when electric rates were going through the roof and we were

paying 76% more than the national average, our governor didn't speak up and do things necessary to lower energy costs. right now, we're paying 20% more than any other state in new england. it's one of the reasons that we've lost more manufacturing jobs than any other state in new england or the mid atlantic on a per capita adjusted basis. we're going to change electric rates. we're also going to get off the backs of small businesses. we charge small businesses the same amount to register their business as a big business. we need a different system. we need small businesses, those businesses that are most likely to grow over the next two years, grow jobs, we need them tond they have a partner in the governor's office. we're going to reorganize government, including consolidating three separate agencies that work on economic development. those three agencies have landed us a loss of job growth. we couldn't do any worse. we would do better under a

malloy administration with a unified approach to job creation. >> mr. foley? >> we've been pursuing policies for 25 years in connecticut that have made connecticut almost toxic to employers. it's driven jobs out of the state. we need to change direction. we are considered one of the most business unfriendly states in our nation. we have a legislature that's putting mandates on businesses to drive up costs and an unresponsive state government. i can change that. employers will breathe a sigh of relief if i am elected governor because they can have confidence they have a governor listening to their needs and will support job growth and job creation. we need to solve our looming budget deficit. no employer will move here and nobody in connecticut will invest in human capital or property, plant and equipment, until we get our economic house in order and they want to see

government spending reduced. they do not want to see taxes increased. i have committed to solving our budget deficit by reducing spending and not increasing taxes. i will provide a tremendous amount of relief to the business community. we also need to make our government more responsive. i hear tales of woe traveling around connecticut about employers trying to expand and they need a permit, for example, from the department of environmental protection. in some cases those permits take two years to obtain. one employer told me he was trying to expand his plant and needed a permit and it was going to create 115 jobs. it took 19 months to get the approval. that is unacceptable. if i'm governor, i will make our government bureaucracy more responsive to the needs of employers and citizens. we have strong special interests in hartford not the least of

which are unions. they've had too much influence on economic policies. if i'm governor, i'll change it. we'll get the policies right. >> for 16 years, we've had republican governors supported by my opponent who got us absolutely nowhere, dead last in job growth, highest electric rates in the nation, some of the highest taxes in the nation, no benchmarking of those taxes or those regulations. isn't it time we actually go in a different direction, that we try a new course? that we build a new state? that we concentrate on our competitive advantages and addressing our competitive disadvantages? that's what i propose to do. >> the laws in connecticut are made by the legislature. they pass the laws and they pass these mandates aldpolicies on our employers that have killed jobs. so it's not true to say that the governor has done this. we need to get a better balance in the legislature. i think that's likely to happen given the way we're expecting

november 2, democracy will be improved in connecticut if we have a better balance in our legislature and we have a check-and-balance on that legislature with a republican governor. >> mr. foley, according to numbers from the state department of social services, three managed care companies in the state's program recorded profits of nearly $20 million last year and some spent less than 72% of revenues on medical care, that's less than federal mandate. what would you do to ensure that insurance companies comply with law? >> we have a new law that's a substantive change in what we've had in the past. for anybody who's had a healthcare issue in the last few years, you know that our healthcare system is not responding to the needs of the people being served by it. the new federal healthcare plan is going to put tremendous burdens on states, including

connecticut and constitutes a lot of change. ... if we can bring down the cost of delivering health care, we can save a significant amount of

money in our state budgets. the premiums are going up. one reason is because of the uncertainty in the new federal health care plan and the cost shifting. those in the health plan and an amicus system that do not compensate hospitals and medical professionals for their costs. >> premiums have gone up routinely. it went up over 20% last year, as well as going of this year. that is why we need to change directions. i think we need to renegotiate contracts with the people who oversee our husky program and limit the amount of money or profit they take out of the system that is designed to

protect children and make sure they have access to health care. as i walked into it, a gentleman handed me a note. i hope it does not mind. he said, "i thought you should know, as one of your supporters, i got notice that i had health insurance again. i lost it because it was too costly. i just learned that i will have -- that only covered hospitalization -- now have full coverage because of health care reform at $785 monthly. i will let you his name. this is a big difference between my opponent and myself. i do not believe you make health care a message by cutting health care. i think you need to root out excess profits. i think you need to limit the profits of people make when they are providing a service. i think we need electronic

record-keeping. i think we need to embrace change in the system. one thing i will never do that my opponent has already done is neyou any policy that does not cover health costs. if you had a child with a hearing impairment, he would not or she would not get a hearing aid. if you were a gentleman and told you might have prostate cancer, you would not give the screening. that would make health care cheaper, but it would not make it better. >> you have 30 seconds. >> as you know, i have not proposed to remove any health care coverage to anyone in connecticut who still has it. you need to stick to the truth. we can reduce health care costs in connecticut. we spend more than any other state and we can improve the services we provide and lower the cost to the benefit of everyone.

those savings will enable us to provide coverage, as i have proposed, to people who do not currently have coverage here in connecticut, which is a goal that i aspire to here as governor. >> you may have forgotten your health care plan, but i have not. it says it allows small companies and any company whose health insurance costs exceed a defined percentage of parole -- of payroll to elect court coverage to be set by the insurance commissioner, which is focused on basic care needs and is exempt -- let me say again -- and is exempt from mandates." >> the next question is for you, mr. malloy. and do you support changes for binding arbitration for municipal workers? >> i do not. i do not want to be the governor of a state were policemen and firemen and teachers and nurses go out on strike because they are not able to reach a reasonable settlement with their

employer. a binding arbitration was designed to avoid that. there used to be 55 strikes, a teacher strikes, kids out of school. in bridgeport, two hundred 70 teachers were put in jail because they remained on strike for a time. we have gotten policemen doing their jobs, firemen doing their jobs, teachers doing their jobs, and nurses doing their jobs. that is the kind of system i actually support. i do not support allowing these folks going out on strike and tearing the fabric of the community apart. i also want to say another thing. this sometimes becomes a hot- button issue for some people do not understand the system fully. it is designed to bring about settlements. what it has done, if you examine some settlements reached under binding arbitration, is that they come in less than those that do not go into binding arbitration. the system is also designed to

reflect economic conditions. if you look at most of the decisions by binding arbitration over the last 18 months, many, many of them have come in with zero. in fact, the teachers' contract in stanford came in at 00. so what we have is a system that reflects our values of keeping people safe and in school, reflects fairness and reaching agreement, and it also reflects a spirit of cooperation. most contracts are actually settled at the negotiating table, not in arbitration. the few they go to arbitration, those settlements tend to be less. >> than is starting to sound like a union representative -- dan is starting to sound like a union representative. [applause] we have are stepping mandates on towns and cities. everybody suffers all this with higher property-tax is. it also requires our cities and towns to mostly seek their

revenues from property tax. it is an unfair tax on many people. seniors could get thrown out of their homes. binding arbitration, where it avoids strikes, is certainly a good thing. but for the state to be telling cities and towns that they must enter into binding arbitration, i think, is overreaching. it is good for a city or town to enter binding arbitration willingly. i have not met a union leader -- i have met a lot of them on the campaign trail -- who wants binding arbitration as it stands today change. i have not met one mayor who does not want it changed. that tells me that it is not a level playing field. binding arbitration should provide a level playing field. one of them includes that the arbitrators should be members of the american association of arbitrators.

that would take away from a hartford insider group and some of the local conflicts they may have. i think that would make it fair, along with other recommendations. i think the people who are suffering from mandatory arbitration of the citizens of connecticut. it drives up the cost of the budgets in your cities and towns. as governor, i will be working with our cities and towns to bring down their costs, too. we normally have a very serious budget challenge in hartford, but we do so in also various settings in town. >> it does not like mandates to make sure that people do not go on strike. as a guy who eats out at restaurants from town to town, i am glad that local communities are mandated to inspect the preparation of food. as a person who visited people in nursing homes, i am certainly happy that people

serving their needs have the proper licenses. and when i go to a doctor, i am certainly happy that they have a mandate to have a degree is a doctor to practice. >> he mentioned in the last question that i said i would take away mandated health care. people have complained in the past about his truthfulness. i would like to ask him to prove to him that he said something thntruthful. we do apologize to the people of connecticut for your country on this? >> it is an interesting question your last one i just read you language that you are actually discounting and refusing to acknowledge they. for instance, in your medical plan, you in fact said that people should be allowed to issue policies free of mandates. >> it was a simple question. >> i am answering a simple question. would you would knowledge that that is -- >> gentlemen, we have to break-

in and ask the next question. [applause] >> connecticut has had several disasters in the past year, natural, accidental, and man- made. as governor, you will be in charge of a statewide disaster. how will you prepare for this role? >> a lot of the disaster relief is provided by the federal government. but, as we saw in hurricane katrina, they're oftentimes is not good coordination between the state government and local government and the federal government. i think the federal government has done a lot to resolve what happened in katrina, to make sure that the coronation is better. our state give it has its own agency for responding to disasters such as that. we need to make sure that it is well-founded, first of all, so that, when we meet the fiscal challenges that are ahead of us, we do not pull back on the

absolutely critical need to provide for public safety and disaster relief when they occur. we need to make sure that those agencies are staffed with true professionals and people who know what they're doing and have the right experience and can provide the right leadership that is needed at that time. the governor, though, is the one who provides the leadership from the top during emergencies. with my experience in the business world, leaving large organizations, and what that means. that means the governor needs to be -- need to take charge and needs to be a governor who knows how to make executive decisions and get the organizations under them to respond appropriately and quickly. i have made a commitment to make sure that we follow good government models when i am governor and i will point very highly qualified people to all positions in government, particularly ones that involve

public safety. >> this points out another difference between my opponent and myself. the federal government is not a major respond to emergencies like hurricanes and floods. local officials are. local firemen, local policeman, local hospitals -- the fast majority of services provided in any incident are provided by people who live in your community. if you're lucky enough to have a police of mr. living down the street, he responds, or a fireman. as the mayor of stamford, i responded to a fire at a nursing home where somebody died. i've ever responded to flooding conditions. i responded to drought conditions. i responded to hurricane wind in the summer that actually knocked down power to a portion of our community for over seven days. i also met with homeowners and business owners when their power was out for five days.

busey, there is a difference between confidence in the federal government and what i think about local government. this is what i will do as governor. i will understand that local government is my partner. i need to work with them. i need to change the direction that this state has gone down for so long. that is to ignore the local fire chief and the police chief and the help the poor and executives, to not reach out to hospitals and make sure they have the resources necessary to respond. what we need is a governor who actually understand who they're partners are and i do. >> of course, that is not typically handled by a single community. some of those things need to be coordinated. our federal government under fema has primary responsibility for national disasters of the scale. i presume you're talking about

that. it is important that big of an accord with the federal army to respond and inappropriate way -- it is important for a governor to coordinate with the federal government to respond in an appropriate way. >> just this last summer, when we ripped roofs off and trees fell apart in bridgeport, they were denied fema coverage. in my own community, we were denied fema coverage. we need a governor who will argue the case, not make excuses. >> indiana has leased its toll roads 4 $4 billion to the city of chicago with parking meters as well. do you think that privatization of some state services can work here in connecticut? if so, what could we privatize on such a large scale? >> with respect to privatization, as mayor, id

protest services that had been privatized by a former mayor. -- i deprivatized services that had been privatized by a former mayor. we have certain licensure requirements for nursing homes. but u.s. is serious question. communities -- but you ask a serious question. communities interstate are hurting. -- communities in our state are hurting. in connecticut, what we have done for far too long is held up the truth about our budget. we will adopt generally accepted accounting principles and use a system that will allow us to dig out of this whole, by cutting costs, by creating efficiencies, by purchasing products differently, by going

after loopholes that exist for some rich individuals and large corporations. there is $3 billion worth of those loopholes. if we eliminated just 5%, that would lead us in the recovery of $750 million that we are literally giving away. our state has lost jobs for 22 years in a row. is it not time we go in a different direction? is it not time that we test ourselves and benchmark what we charge businesses against our competition -- our regional competition, and understand what we're doing by not growing jobs? we will change directions. >> privatizing services is a significant opportunity to help close are very serious budget deficit. when i go to hartford, i will represent the taxpayers and the voters and make sure you're getting the best deal for your

money. it does not make sense to use our state work force to perform a service, for example, if it can be done less expensive way by a private contractor. let me give an example. riverview hospital is serving about 80 young people with serious mental health challenges. it cost the state $922,000 a year for each one of those patients. outside contractors have said that they can provide equivalent services, in some cases better services, for less than half of that amount. we could save $25 million. that is a lot of money. why should the citizens of connecticut, if we will pave the roads, for example, pay more to have them paid by one person than another? we have long manuals that, if we will farm out a piece of business to a private contractor that can ensure the protection to our taxpayers and our voters, we can get the best

deal for the state. why should we not also require that, if the state is providing a service, that they have to provided at the same cost less than a private contractor? i will make sure, in hartford, that the taxpayers are well represented and that we are getting the best deal we can for our money. there are places all over this government where the opportunities exist to use private contractors and save money. it is an important part of how i will reduce government spending and solve this budget deficit without raising your taxes. he has no significant proposals for reducing spending. he will raise your taxes. that will be a lot of new taxes on connecticut families. it is not good economic policy. it will hurt our economy and it will kill for their jobs. >> let's be very clear. many of the services this state already renders, such as construction, are already performed by private contractors. tomkins say i will raise taxes,

but it acknowledges that there is a deficit and then he says he will cut the deficit by eliminating two billion dollars in expenditures. you know what his plan is? it is to raise your property taxes. >> i have not heard him talk about how much he will reduce government spending. if we did, we could talk about how much he will raise taxes. if you will solve the budget deficit by raising taxes, it will go up a lot. it will result in taking the marginal income-tax rate above 9% or doubling the sales tax. those are the only significant sources of revenue that can solve this budget deficit available to the government. i think you owed to the listeners tonight and to the people of connecticut to tell them which taxes you will raise and by how much? >> a panel of business leaders selected by gov. jodi rell came

up with recommendations to close the achievement gap in public schools. excellence in teaching is the most important thing to closing the achievement gap. what would you to make sure that connecticut has the best teachers possible? >> i am well aware of the commission report. i have a plan for education, k- 12 education. i released it six weeks ago. the recommendations of the commission and my plan are virtually the same. i support virtually following the child, assessments of teachers and principals and schools to make sure that they are all good. i agree completely with the findings of this commission, that excellent schools and in doing the right thing for the young children here in connecticut depends on having excellent teachers. here, in connecticut, thankfully, we have mostly excellent teachers. but we need to make sure that people who are not meeting

minimum levels of performance are provided opportunities for professional development. if they counted up to the standard that we need for a classroom, particularly in our failing schools in our inner cities, we need to find ways to remove them from the system. i agree entirely with the findings of this commission. they also agree that we need to greater schools. we need to greater schools -- we need to grade our schools. we need to set goals. we do not have, for example, a final exam for high-school students to pass before they graduate. in massachusetts, which went from six in any peace gore's six years ago have gone to -- went from six in nape scores six years ago have gone to first.

i would support this commission's findings. they're similar to what i have for my plan. >> i want to thank the commission for their work. i want to thank them for allowing me to testify before them and bring to them what eventually they adopted as many of their recommendations. but this commission should have taken place eight years ago when stanford put together its commission on closing the achievement gap. when the first commission was appointed, i look at the recommendations and many of these are very ported changes. universal pre-k is recommended. we did it in stamford three years ago. we put out in june how to change education in connecticut. it is 9 k-12. it is pre-k through college.

we need a system where no child is denied early childhood learning experience because of their parents' financial circumstances. we also said that we believe that the age and school years should be lengthened. we also think that individualized curriculum should be designed for children falling behind. one of the things i want to see is more time spent in the classroom on early reading skills and early math skills, in kindergarten, first grade, second grade, and third grade. note child should leave third grade already one year or two years behind in reading and math skills. we can do it. we have seen it work. we have had charter schools. but what we have not done as a state is take the lesson we have learned in those schools and apply them to the 90% of the public schools that are not charter schools. we need a governor that will lead in this.

education reformation only works in a state where the governor supports it. that is why i stand with teachers and with parents and with principles. let's not put the interest of one group against the other. let's stand in connecticut for our children. >> he lays out an important fact, which is that stanford has the largest achievement gap of any other city in the state. despite having testified to the commission, he did not testify supporting the things that the commission recommended -- school choice, monday following the job, and amending tenure for teachers to make sure that the best performing teachers are the ones to be promoted and get performance pay. for him to say that he agrees with most of the things that this commission recommended is simply not true. >> you have 30 seconds. >> he made more mistakes in 30 seconds about my record and then

what i have done. i want to be very clear. we began a process of changing education in stamford many years ago. i believe that, as governor, i can bring those changes to the rest of the state. we cannot tolerate some of our urban areas failing their high school students. we need to make real changes and i am prepared to do it. >> much has been made this year in the media, newspapers, television, and so forth, about the expenses and high salaries of the university of connecticut and the state university system now has. as governor, what would you do to change that system to make it more efficient. >> i think leadership begins at the governor's office. i read the stars over the summer about paying two presidents of a campus and giving people 10% raise at a time when most people are taking furlough days or cuts in their pay. it makes no sense.

if they are tone deaf and do not understand how hard are working- class and middle-class individuals in this state are working just to keep their neck above water -- what we need an education and higher education is people with practical sense and understand when it is time to make additional investments and when it is time to cut back a little bit, to save some money, to reduce the administrative staff. the idea that we pay two presidents at the same time, at the same university, makes no sense. so this is my promise. i will play a role in selecting who will be the trusties and ecosystem. i will make sure that people have conn common sense, that they know when to move forward and they know when to stand still, they know what to make new investments and know when people are really hurting. finally, i want to say that i support the universities. we need to keep them all working and strong and direct more money into teaching and more money

into making sure that are middle-class and working-class students can receive the education that those -- at those institutions. and we need to recheck to our community colleges. they have long been denied. we need to understand the said- portion of our population in connecticut will receive at least a portion if not all a college education at the community college. i recently met with a number presidents at those colleges and stand with them to make sure they can properly prepare a work force, well-educated, well- trained, and ready to win jobs back. >> the problem is not just that uconn. we need to change the way the retirement benefits are calculated in connecticut so there is not abuse. in stamford, where he was mayor, their own fire chief retired last year with a $254,000 per year pension.

this happened during his administration. at uconn, we have people retiring with retirement benefits that are too large. i think it does refer them and their families, but we can afford it. let me tell you why it has a particularly negative impact. we have an obligation in connecticut to provide good education for all of our young people. we need to be able to train and provide the skills and experience that people need all through our educational system, to be able to have them into the work force and be prepared to fulfill the jobs that i hope to attract year as governor. the cost of an education in connecticut is very high. last year, for the first time, the amount of tuition at uconn went over 50% of the cost of educating each student there. so we need to control very

carefully the cost at all of our higher education institutions so that we can keep tuition low and not too high for people to be able to pursue a college education if they want to add to make sure that we're providing quality education in the classroom. a lot of times, the control of the budget at uconn is not under any single person or entity. we need to restructure the way uconn is organized and make sure that the governor's office has enough control of the budget to avoid abuses, such as what we have heard in the last year on retirement levels. >> actually, i am dumbfounded. i do not know which fire chief my opponent is talking about. how we ranry clear stamford. we fully funded our pensions. when they fell below, we stepped up their funding of those pensions. during that time i was mayor, many of our pensions were funded

at 125% of obligation. as opposed to republican governors, gentleman that this gentleman has supported, have done to conn. >> we definitely need to look at the full university system and how we are incurring costs there. first and foremost, the next governor needs to make sure that we can provide quality education in our higher education system for residents of connecticut and those who choose to come here from out of state. as governor, i will make sure that that is the first priority within our education system. second would be reducing expense and making sure that it is an efficient delivery of services. >> i'd probably do not have to tell you this, but fairfield county is one of the most congested areas in the state. so what is your plan to approve the bill flow of commuter traffic and goods? >> i have talked on the campaign

trail about the disadvantage we have in connecticut of not having a comprehensive transportation strategy. i am told that the transportation strategy board has come up with a plan and and and it is over 200 pages long. i come from the business world. a plan of two hundred pages is not a plan. we need to be able to bounce the priorities, both for funding -- we need to be able to balance the priorities, both for finding and choosing projects. it costs commuters time. most importantly, it costs jobs. many employers complain that their employees and trucks providing goods and other transportation providing services are held up and adds to their cost. it makes conn. a less attractive place to employ people. we certainly need to address

this issue, among other transportation issues, across our state. we need high-speed rail access to hartford, for example, and to new london. if the new haven train service were more regular, we could get people to new york more quickly. it would provide all of those committees a benefit and a more attractive place for people to locate companies. specifically with related to traffic in fairfield county, there have been many proposals. there are proposals to eliminate exits and trying to discourage local traffic from jumping on, which i understand contributes to the traffic. maybe there is a way to divert some of the truck through traffic and take other routes to their final destinations that do not require route 95 to get there. but we need an overall strategy

and congestion in fairfield county is part of that. >> what we need to do in connecticut is dead serious about resolving this problem. -- is get serious about resolving this problem. we do not invest a lot of our money in transportation. we have also failed miserably in bringing federal dollars back to the state for profits. we rank near the bottom for getting competitive grants. interestingly enough, as the mayor of the city of stanford, i was able to bring back well over $70 million to construct the urban transit which, i system to get in and out of the train station. that traffic no longer has to go through the downtown stamford. this is what we have to do on a statewide basis. i do not want to read the newspaper that another young

driver dies on the parkway because they were not able to maneuver those exits that were designed 70 years ago. we need to see traffic run more rapidly. we need to invest in real. we need a subway system during peak commutations. we need more stations and more parking along the stations. we need to build the transportation system that delivers people from the train station from where they got to their jobs. we need to invest in new haven to hartford to vermont line. we need more trains going to new london. having one or two in the morning and one or two in the afternoon does not make sense. we need to help those people in connecticut who desire to use

the system and we absolutely need more parking spaces to get people off all i-95. >> we do not have the right amount of funding for transportation projects. the assembly diverted funds that were meant to go to transportation for the sorts of projects. as governor, i will reestablish the integrity of the gas tax and several other fees and expenses that were meant to go to transportation projects so we can find things like this. >> everyone of those deductions were allowed by a republican governor. i also want to touch on another thing. we want to invest in bridgeport, new haven, and new london. right now, over 1 million trucks equivalency a trade can be taken

off of i-95. if we could -- 9 >> we started by asking you what you would do in your first 100 days. give us three very specific as you would make to the state government. >> i think we need to look at our medicaid system and go to generic drugs. it would save $21 million. i think we need to change how we purchase electricity. we were overpaying for electricity. my system would save somewhere in the vicinity of $60 million. i think we need to look at how we approve the building projects in this state and streamline that so that -- and make sure that new schools are built in a cost-effective way. that would save hundreds of millions of dollars when you compare the cost of a school in connecticut to the cost of a

school in another state. those are just a few. we have 75 pages of policy on our website and there are so many other things that we need to do. i have already said that we want to combine state department agencies and commissions by a third. i have already said of the 600 or so positions that i or my commissioners would appoint would reduce that right off the bat, at a minimum of 50% and maybe more. we need to look at how we procure services from outside agencies. when we have a big privatization push, they pushed inspection services out to private people. now we're paying more than we ever pay for inspection services and we're living through the nightmare of i-84 of systems that were not even connected for drainage. we will change how we procure services. here's another idea that before in the past. right now, we have something in

america called the day. when it comes to the state of connecticut purchasing commodities, we do it once or twice a year. i want a system that updates prices every day and brings about millions and millions of dollars in savings to the people of connecticut. those are 80. -- those are a few. >> i think what you are really talking about is what governor would do to reduce spending in fiscal july 1. $600 million of new spending -- the first thing i would do is say we will keep spending at the level of last year, which is the current year we are in. that would save 600 million autos. i will put on a hiring freeze which should result in a hundred million dollars in savings. i talked about the need to reduce the size of the state work force. if we do a hiring freeze and

people, as they retire or move out of state, we are downsizing and we will save money. we will eliminate waste and duplication. there were two commissions that have long recommendations for how our state government to be streamlined and eliminate waste and duplication. very few of those were ever and lamented. i will polo's off the shelf and implement them. we will use outside -- i will pull them off the shelf and implement them. we will use outside contractors. i mentioned riverview hospital. by moving it to private contractors, we could save as much as $25 million a year. there are many more opportunities like that. i will begin moving more of our early medicaid patients from nursing-home care to community- based care. there is up to $600 million to be saved if we can transition early medic kit -- elderly

medicaid patients the way oregon has done a. it is also more humane because it and leave some closer to their families and, in some cases, they may stay in their homes. $7 billion of our budget is healthcare. if we could lowered by 10%, we would save $700 million. >> the vast majority of increased spending plan for next year is in medicaid. if you will cut that out, what people will you put on the street? what people in mental treatment facilities will be living on the streets of new haven and bridgeport or stamp ford or norwalk? what people are trying to -- or stamford or what? i say we will cut everything but the safety net. the same thing will be preserved under my administration. after all, the safety net has been under attack and wealthy people have not. we need to change the balance. >> i just said i would keep the

level of spending at the same level. if medicaid expenses are going up and they cannot be brought down, we will remove the expense somewhere else. we will solve the budget deficit we have hearing can get, which is a very challenging problem. but we will do it without hurting our most needing citizens, including our medicaid patients. >> this is a sports question. you have two minutes each, but no rebuttal. when the university of notre dame indicted uconn, they insisted the games be played -- invited to come, they insisted the games be played out of state. do you agree with that? >> i actually was not familiar with that decision. i assume it was done for a

reason of the size of the audience. it can be handled at rancho field. >> we were told that they wanted to be in a different market. >> listen, i think that connecticut is a great state and we have a lot to offer. i do not know why they would rather be in new jersey than in connecticut. [laughter] i just had chris christi appear supporting my campaign and he talked about what he has done in new jersey. new jersey is a great state, but i am in connecticut for a reason. listen, we talked in the past about providing stadiums and press essentially bringing a professional sports team to conn. that may be an opportunity to create jobs and stimulate our economy, particularly in certain parts of our cities. but i am well aware that, to support a professional sports team, you do need a certain size market. it is not clear to me that we have that here in connecticut.

i do not agree that a professional sports team ought to be brought to conn and subsidized by our state government or any municipal government unless it is self supporting eventually. if we do not have the market, and maybe this issue in motor dame was an indication of that, i do not think our state governments to be promoting a sports team coming here or providing incentives for building a stadium. >> i love you, football -- i love uconn football. when it came to reaching an agreement with notre dame to play those games out of state, i rejected it. had been governor at the time, i would have pulled the folks at uconn aside and said let's find somebody else to play. we diminish ourselves when we

agree to play a tame not on our home field. would diminish ourselves as a state when we take all that money that would be spent in and around hartford on a saturday or thursday and retake it from hartford and east hartford in connecticut and we put it in new jersey. we diminish ourselves because we have a governor who put forward a budget for tourism of $1. and we do not attempt to coordinate the activities of sports organizations in this country. it is a multi-billion dollar business and we are not actively going after n.c.a.a. quarterfinals or finals games for women's basketball or basketball or hockey or other sports. we have let other people take those opportunities away from us. that is why my great running mate and i have put forward proposals with respect to what to do to make connecticut and more attractive venue for sports events, sporting events, and competition.

it is money in the bank. if you do not understand that, then you are going to make bad decisions, like having a $1 tourism budget. if we spent more money promoting the grid attractions of our state, we could expect to get a return on our investment. let me assure you that we need money coming into our state. >> it is time for final statements. >> thank you for joining us. connecticut's future is at stake in the next election. connecticut should be doing well, but we're not. across the country, people have lost confidence in politics and politicians that have gone as where we are. they're looking for outsiders and strong new leadership to take as in a different direction. on election day, you'll have a clear choice between me and my opponent. i am an outsider, a problem solver. i have been facing businesses and turning around large

organizations for 25 years. these are skills that connecticut needs right now. i am also a business person and i know what it will take and i have a plan for restoring jobs in connecticut. i believe that i can get employers to start hiring again. we have a very serious spending problem here in connecticut. i have a plan for cutting back the size of state government enclosing our budget deficit by reducing spending. i will not raise your taxes. my opponent has no plan to reduce spending and he has said he will raise your taxes. closing the budget deficit by raising taxes will mean the average household in connecticut will have their tax bill go up by over $2,000. that will hurt working families and it is bad for our economy and it will further kill jobs. i will come to hartford with no commitments to anybody other

than you, the voters. my opponent has made commitments to the unions that are very powerful in hartford. it will be a very good both for him to negotiate hard to do what is right for our state. i have a plan to fix our failing schools. i want to be known as the jobs and education governor. i am someone you can trust. i am not a career politician who will say anything to get elected. i believe i can provide the leadership that is needed for connecticut's future and i hope you will let me your next governor. >> i will not dissect all of the things that tom said that was wrong about my record or what i have said when it comes to taxes. i do fear that tom wants to raise your property taxes and that is his plan. in hartford, that may mean two thousand dollars more in property taxes. in new haven, it may be a doubling of your taxes. but let me talk about something else. i went away to college in 1973

to a jesuit university, boston college. i have overcome learning disabilities and physical disabilities. it be used to do that. in the fall of 1973, i was listening to recorded books for the blind. i stayed at boston college where i met my wife who runs a rape crisis center and has run it for the last 10 years. i stayed there and i graduated magna kum laude. i was the first person to be allowed to take the bar. the people i grew up with, my mother was a nurse and my father sold insurance. my mother used to say to me almost every day that we share this earth and she has been gone

for 26 years. she said, daniel, you have an obligation to leave this place a better place for having lived in it. i have tried 23 felony cases. as a volunteer on the board of finance and the board of education, i kept those words on my mind. and for 14 years as the mayor stamford, lowering crime, building housing, building education, maintaining or aaa bond rating, and keeping down our taxes, i kept my mother's words in my mind. i am asking you for your vote. i am asking you for your confidence. i am telling you that, together, we can create a better conn. >> gentlemen, thank you for your time. [applause] thank you very much to our crowd. i want to thank our candidates once again. thank you to our exuberant crowd which has been waiting to clap and applaud all day long. thank you to my colleague.

it is nice to see you again. do not forget to vote on nov. 2nd. [cheers and applause] >> we have campaign news from the political wire. the new poll of 18-29-year-old will definitely vote in the midterm elections. that is a drop of nine points from 11 months ago when 36% said they would likely vote i. the midterm elections are less than two weeks away. on each night on c-span, we are showing debates of key races around the country. we start off live at 8:00 p.m. eastern with the massachusetts governor's debate. following that, watch the new

mexico governor's debate live at 9:00 p.m. eastern. later at 10:00 p.m., more news with the democratic candidates for governor. voters head to the polls in less than two weeks. follow the key races and candidates on the c-span network with the debates every night right up to election day. archived debates online on the c-span video library. there's also upcoming coverage, campaign ads, and other resources. >> our coverage of the daily beast form in new orleans cut continues tonight. it will be live beginning about 10:00 p.m. eastern time on c- span 2 and online at c-span.org. members of congress, activists, and reporters participated in a discussion yesterday on the

potential impact of the tea party movement in the upcoming election. panelists include political reporters from "the washington times" and "politicao." >> good afternoon, everyone. we will do the same thing as we did with the first panel and

introduce our distinguished panelists. then they will make a brief opening statement and we will do some questions and then take some questions from the audience. first directly to my left, we have dr. ronald for shade -- dr. ronald foche. he is the author of "running for office." he was appointed by president bush to the records commission. he holds a ph.d. from the university of new orleans.

james hillman is a national political reporter. he previously wrote for the washington post, the los angeles times, the dallas morning news, and the mercury news. he served as editor in chief of the "stanford daily." you wrote an award winning thesis about the republican primaries and the presidency of ronald reagan. last, but not least, we have joseph weber. he is a congressional reporter with "the washington times." he joined the paper in 2002 as a metro desk editor and ran a section for several years, working on such stories as the virginia tech massacre, the supreme court case on the district's handle a gun law, the d.c. snipers, and the 2008

inaugural nomination. his written articles about the tea party -- he has written articles about the tea party movement. please help me welcome them all. [applause] i just want to technology for the work you have done -- i just want to acknowledge you for the work you have done in elections across the united states. you have made great contributions. i am always happy to work with you on that. in terms of looking at the tea party and figuring out what effect it has on the elections,

i think i can do a lot better job in a couple of weeks. i usually think that political analysts are more certain and clear after the results come in. but i think there are a few things to look at and some of the things you have found in polling over the last few months. the tea party is a classic protest movement, as protest movements go. they're people who are not happy with a lot of things. one of the things that we find is that there is an increasing sense among voters that nothing works, that they do not feel that government works, that major institutions work, that public policy works. so there's a tremendous amount of frustration as a result of that. in many ways, the democratic majority governing coalition

that franklin roosevelt put together in the 1930's completely collapsed in 1994 in a midterm election when the republicans picked up congress and governorships around the country. since 1994, i think we have really had two major parties and both have been minority parties. neither one of them have been able to capture a positive hold on a majority of the electorate in a way that they can govern over time. the democrats have had some opportunities in the 1990's to do that and they were not successful. and the republicans had opportunities to do that, particularly after 2000, 2002, and 2004 and they were not successful. so i think we are increasingly seeing swing voters and independent voters who are a part of everything. they will keep a loaded pistol

out until they fill some looking get in -- they will keep the voting people out until they feel someone can get in and -- there is pretty much a distinct constituency. one would represent about two- thirds of the people in the country who say they are supporters of the tea party. these voters would be strong conservatives who are very much within the republican camp but think that the republican leadership, in recent years, has been incompetent, corrupt, and overly compromise. so they it are revolting against their own party's leadership, just as they are revolting against obama and the democ