governor patrick has said to stay the course. he created 60,000 new jobs. cahill has tried to straddle the line, a defendant in some cases the pensions of public employees, and another times joint baker in his attack on patrick to try him as a tax and spend ther. beyond that, there's been no galvanizing issue that has jumped up here. the health-care issue was front and center in january. it was still in play on capitol hill when scott brown won the senate race. many people were upset about that. massachusetts has had its own mini version of obama care for some time now. there are issues surrounding that. it has not gained traction as an issue. i expect the focus to be on the

economy because the debate is geared toward a western massachusetts audience. the part of the state has really struggled. ho: jon keller, thank you 4 previewing tonight's debate. live coverage here run c-span. for me information, go to our >> the debate started a moment ago. >> i will be the moderator this evening. the candidates are deval patrick, jill stein, charlie baker, and tim cahill.

the names were drawn in order. >> thank you and thanks to the panelists and to the viewers. thank you for participating. i promised to serve as governor of the whole state and i have kept that promise. i have been a friend to western massachusetts. i have been here in the schools and businesses, have been here on the farms and in the streets. [unintelligible] massachusetts has man included. you and i know that is how we're going to build a stronger and better commonwealth. to lift ourselves out of the hole we're in but also to leave a better common welfare. we're growing faster than 48 other states.

we're first in the nation in student achievement. i want to finish what we started. i hope tonight we have an opportunity to talk about how we do that together. >> thank you to all of you in the viewing audience. as the only kendig who is not a beacon hill insider, i am here to give you a choice for change. business as usual is not working. it has given us foreclosures and struggling schools. all the insider candidates want to cut the critical services we need to stay afloat. i will go after the real waste and the sweetheart deals that will not touch with a 10 foot pole. the massive health insurance bureaucracy and the tax giveaways for the well- connected. we could turn those billions into secure green jobs, 15,000

jobs around the commonwealth. in remanufacturing and healthy food production. this saves us money and will provide a secure jobs that westerners accuse it -- western massachusetts needs. i can advance the win-win solutions that business as usual takes off the table. i have been fighting for you and i will continue to do that. >> mr. baker. >> thank you. i got into this race and left my job 15 months ago because i was worried about the direction of massachusetts was in. 300,000 people are of work in a matter how positive the spent the government might try to put on a, september saw the single largest job losses in massachusetts in 20 years. over 20,000 lost their jobs last

month. i do not believe we are doing near enough to get our economy going again. [unintelligible] and over $1 billion in new taxes, massachusetts faces a deficit that this governor is having to the next governor to clean up. as someone who has been through to turnarounds' and knows something about making the tough decisions required to restore the fiscal health of the commonwealth, i look forward to the opportunity to discuss the issues tonight. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. it is an honor to be here and i look forward to a spirited debate. i am in this race to give the state independent leadership. we need to go in a new direction and to get different results, we need different direction. we need independent leadership to solve all fiscal crisis. western massachusetts has been left behind in this recession.

despite what is happening the stand within the 128 mckelway, unemployment is at record highs twice the national average. we need a jobs plan for the future and for western massachusetts. i believe we need to and the partisanship and bickering and we need to go in a different direction with independent leadership so we can bring down the barriers that have held us back here. especially in western massachusetts. invest in the government structures it needs like the university and health-care systems and make sure the government does not waste money. enough of it to go around. >> will move to questions from our panel. and dan ring.n andn our first goes from laura

hutchison. >> you signed a no new taxes pledge. how will you keep it and would you veto new increases? >> it is important we send a loud and clear message to the people of massachusetts. bacon hill will not come looking for them to build -- build the state out. we have huge economic issues. if we truly want to get those 300 people -- 300,000 people back to work, we have to [unintelligible] i'm the only candidate who proposed a $1 billion worth of

savings. specific proposals because i want to send a largloud and cler message. we have to change the way we do business and send a loud and clear message to taxpayers and small businesses and families the state will balance its books and live within its means the same way everybody else does. the biggest problem we face now is people do not know what will happen on beacon hill and they presume it will be bad and cost them money. >> i would add that i do have proposed at least 1 billion in savings from cutting the waste will health insurance bureaucracy instead of cutting health care. when not cut the red tape and paper pushing? it detracts from health care. i agree. facing the crisis we have coming up, there are enormous ways we could be prtrimming the budget. health care was 35% of the

budget. this year, it is 50%. it is the one thing that has been growing. everything else has been shrinking. why not go after the waste and red tape that is costing us billions. it takes to under 75 people to file paperwork at mass general. at toronto general, it takes three people to file. there is enormous savings and we need to go after the tax giveaways for the well- connected. $300 million every year for jobs that were never -- accept and enact the proposals and tolls go up and assistance goes away, we can talk about slogans and gimmicks but they do not solve problems.

the difference between us is not tax policy. charlie has shown he is willing to raise taxes when he thinks the as appropriate. he has done it as a selectmen when he voted to raise property taxes. i'm willing to cut taxes when i think it is wise as we have done by cutting the business tax. what is the right balance? the choice that charlie is advocating is to cut education so we can do loopholes for big businesses. we should be investing in education. that is a better choice for the people of the commonwealth for the right now in the future. >> i have not signed a pledge as mr. baker has. even former governor romney said it was a gimmick. i am pledging not to raise taxes because our small businessmen and women and middle class cannot afford it. we have to make government work better. make it work cheaper and less expensively. if we have to make cuts, we have to make cuts will live with

within our means. small businesses and individuals who are struggling to keep their money -- it cannot keep going to boston and beacon hill. it must stay with the taxpayer and with the honor. i believe in that. i do not think we can continue to go back to individuals, to small businesses every time we cannot get a budget right. we have to be better at protecting our numbers, be more conservative. we do not have to go back to the taxpayers. raising the sales tax was the wrong thing. we cannot go back to those days. as mr. baker mentioned, there is a labor market report showing a 20,000 jobs lost in the stake between august and september. it shows the unemployment rate dropped from 8.8% so it is a mixed report. we're not feeling it so much. the unemployment rate getting

better. it is getting worse here than anyplace in the state. other towns have problems. you talk about a green jobs economy. what specifically do you have for creating jobs out in western massachusetts? how would you pay for it? >> the wonderful thing about green jobs as they tend to pay for themselves. it is true that the recovery to the extent it has been a recovery is in the boston area. it is mostly high tech. probably dependent on the stimulus package. that recovery which is occurring at a snail's pace is not adequate. green jobs can apply all over the commonwealth where the healthy food economy and the agricultural economy is thriving even without support. i would like to take some of the support which are being given to the unproductive areas

of the economy. $200 million spent for shopping malls and office parks not exactly a way to jump-start the economy. i would like to redirect that into is your interest loan so we can start these small businesses in clean energy and active [unintelligible] and free this jobs. >> you cannot grow jobs without a strategy. our strategy has emphasized infrastructure and innovation. that is a strategy to the commonwealth which we have tailored to be specific for different regions including out here. we have invested in education at the highest of all evil when the bottom was falling out. so much else of the state budget. in innovation, companies in the space are an area where we agree.

the projects go on. the investment in the data center in springfield. the high-performance computing center in holyoke. the jobs that have come into springfield because of liberty mutual moving facilities here and progress of coming in here because we're expanding the market for auto insurance because we introduced competition which has brought rates down. we have cooperated with the uniroyal site. >> one minute from mr. cahill. >> how can we this 20,000 jobs and unemployment go down? the reason although i'm not 100% sure is people are dropping out. they're leaving and quitting. we cannot allow people to quit. we have to give them something to hope for. i am calling for entrepreneurial tax relief.

incentivize people to start their own businesses and give them relief when they are starting out on sales tax, on unemployment tax. when they're starting so they can become part of our society. they do not need to rely on this -- big business or tax credits or beacon hill billing amount. they can start businesses in their home community as i did in 1982. that is the key to that success. i believe that is the key to giving people hope and bring them back into the marketplace. >> i agree with the treasurer. i do not think that news is mixed. i think the news is bad. we lost 20,000 in september and 3000 in august. the reason the rate fell as more people were discouraged and stop looking. in western massachusetts, we 284,000

to 277,000. the computing center which is a major development is a good idea. it will work because of low-cost hydroelectric power. we're going to be paying a pretty penny. hundreds of millions of dollars to support them instead of pursuing a more aggressive strategy with hydroquebec. there is a lot of manufacturing and we should help figure out strategies. the thing i hear from many of them is that is cost and cost. >> we will go to mr. patrick. >> reducing the state tax, you

have been asked if he would enact question 3. would you go on the record tonight and tell us if you would implement the will of the people if that is what the majority decides? >> i have been clear about that and i've been clear that any responsible candidate and leader needs to be clear with the voters about what a calamity it would be if question 3 past. we're talking about the same kind of impact as a fiscal policy as i propose. increases in property taxes and tolls and fares on the commuter rail. we're talking about the school building assistance program disappearing and local service is getting worse. going away. we have got to be candid. what has been fascinating is we talked about -- everyone has agreed that question 3 is drastic but the plan proposed by charlie would have the same impact. let's choose and be honest. people are hungry for us to be

candid with them about the consequences of the choices before us. if it passes, i will implement it. it seems to me we ought to be clear in advocating to the public about the comedy if it did. >> thank you. now to mr. cahill. >> thank you for the question. i will not vote for question 3. it moves too quickly to fast and ties the hands and has an impact on local government. especially when they fall down to local aid, police, fire, and teachers. if it passes we will do the best to implement it and we will have to implemented quickly and fairly. i cannot say there is one thing in our budget that would not be impacted if question three passes and i want to be straight with people. everything would suffer. everything in government would suffer. people would get a tax break and

they would go out and spend money. it would be a long time to catch up and that is why it did not think we should do it that drastically. i'm not going to vote for it. hopefully it will not pass but we can bring in tax relief over time and grow jobs and make up the revenue. question three goes too far too fast. >> mr. baker. >> question 3 goes too far too fast but let's make one playethg clear. he cut locally because he did not pursue the kinds of reforms he should have to preserve local aid. property taxes went up by 11% while property values fell in massachusetts. that happens to be a fact. the next governor will inherit a $2 billion budget deficit from this governor. that happens to be a fact. question 3 would add $2 billion to that problem and that does go too far. if we're serious about creating a climate in massachusetts that is competitive, we need to

reduce or tax burden. i propose getting 5% on the business tax which many manufacturers have told me would be a boon to their ability to grow and create jobs. voters voted on it 10 years ago. it is overdue. >> question 3 does go too far too fast. if it passes, i will respect the will of the voters and implement it. i have long advocated for an adjustment in our tax structure because when you step back and look at how state and local taxes add up, middle income and working families are paying twice the rate that millionaires are. cutting the sales tax will go a long way to rectify the burden on lower income taxpayers but i

would not implement that by itself. if it comes to pass i think i will work hard to compensate for it by increasing the tax contribution at the high end. millionaires and so on. there are many ways to do that. it will be one more reason to pull back on the tax giveaways, the 300 million for [unintelligible] so we have a tax base. >> thank you. on monday, the district attorney revealed that convicted murderer alfred gainer killed nine women in springfield. massachusetts does not have capital punishment. under what circumstances would you support the death penalty?

would you support the death penalty for someone who killed nine people? >> yes. i would support the death penalty for a case like that one. i do not think we have to go that far. there are certain cases of premeditated murder that i think we do need the death penalty here. i would sign it it comes before us. we have to be careful about putting innocent people to death. that will challenge over the years -- has been a challenge. we have to progress in terms of defending those people. once convicted and decided by a jury that these people should be put to death, i would support it here in massachusetts. it will be high time to bring it back so people do not get away with what he got away with. >> i would support the death penalty but i am a big believer that the district attorney has the decision to make about

whether to pursue the death penalty. this issue has been debated often on. i thought the solution previously would have been acceptable with the right kinds of protections and constraints. there are crimes that justify the ultimate punishment. in addition, there is one thing i would make sure that is included. anyone who kills or murders a law enforcement official. one of the things we need to do, not just to do with looks like this but lawbreakers and criminals generally is reinvest in our district attorneys and law enforcement. the days budget is down and we need to start reinvesting everyone to keep our streets safe. >> thank you for the question. this is the kind of case where one would want to apply the death penalty because it is so

horrendous. we know from looking at where the death penalty is used is it is not a deterrent. i think we do not want our justice system to be about revenge. it should be about effective deterrents and rehabilitation when that is possible. in this case, i think it is clear that while it would be satisfying in some ways, to have the death penalty, we know that it does not function as a deterrent. i would not support the death penalty under any circumstances. we also know mistakes occur and you do not know until after the fact. i cannot support it and it is important for us to be going upstream and think about a wave of crime and violence and murders taking place now, especially among youth where poverty and hopelessness have come together. >> thanks for the question. this is a horrible crime and there are instances of real

animals out there committing crimes like this. for them, i believe death by incarceration is the right outcome. i think i'm the only one here who has had experience with all aspects of this as a prosecutor. i had to make decisions about the use of the death penalty. i have defended against the death penalty. i am persuaded that this is one of a handful of areas where government cannot be relied upon to make a wise decision every time. i do not support the death penalty. i do support life without the possibility of parole for the most heinous crimes like the one you referred to. >> the question from red to mr. baker. >> there has been a debate over whether the states should stick with the federal testing regime. what do you think about 10 -- standardized testing? the candy teaching to the test.

in springfield, it led to cheating on the test. >> that is probably not a good deal. >> what are your thoughts on the strengths and weaknesses of the test on a -- as a means of improving education? >> it was supported in a bipartisan manner to raise the standards and create some standard in massachusetts to measure performance. you could wrap development around it. it proved to be enormously successful. if you look at the track record over 16 years, we took a good system and made it the number one system in the country. we have a long way to go. that is the next frontier. i think the governor's decision to join in this national consortium and move this debate with 20 other states was a bad

idea. our calling card is the quality of our education system. we're high costs and heavily regulated. the thing that separates us and makes us competitive is the quality of our schools and kids. we will lose our performance over time. >> thank you. >> the record is pretty clear. if you look at the studies of what standardized tests accomplish, they pretty much improved performance on that very of standardized test. in terms of changing the real world out comes, improving learning by students, including the ability to go to college and stay in college, reducing the need for remedial education, it fails the test. the reality test. it has not held. for many at is a big deterrent to staying in school and to be

defeating for students who are trying hard. that does not mean we should not use it to have one standard by which we can compare cross schools. it is useful. to he views it as a high-stakes test is unjustified by the data. coming from the area of madison -- medicine, i am accustomed to looking at evidence based material and this does not meet the test. >> as someone who stinks' that standardized tests, i believe in the test and have supported it and strengthen it. i can -- continue to think that it is the right appropriate measure with high standards. it is a reason why we're schools. what has helped as we continue to invest in public schools at the highest level even when

there have been enormous challenges across the budget because of a global economic collapse. i think it is completely a false premise to suggest that leading the nation in a review of common core standards is a retreat of what we have been doing here and there is no evidence it is. i am proud of our leadership role. i am proud of the fact we live standards -- a lift standards for the commonwealth than the country. >> a good question and one that will be debated as we go forward. i am a firm believer we need tests, we need to raise the bar. that test has not done all lot for people in the inner city. part of the reason is as we spent all this time and testing and refining the test, we're not spending as much money. we're not spending as much time.

we're focused -- or focused on teachers. trying to lift these children who come from broken homes and different circumstances and we can give those kids especially those inner-city kids the tools they need. there is a big achievement gap. the wealthy suburbs are doing fine but the inner cities are not working as well. we need to give the teachers the tools and give them support. we cannot justify them or throw the kids at them. >> we will take a brief pause and we will be back in one minute. >> voters head to the polls in less than two weeks. follow the races and cabinets. with debates up to election day. archives and our politics page.

follow election coverage through election day. >> a short break in the debate. up next at 9 eastern, live from albuquerque, new mexico with the debate between the candidates for governor. no debates have been scheduled for texas. we will have interviews. more from the candidates in massachusetts. >> welcome back. we continue with our debate. we will go first to jill stein. >> massachusetts is involved in

promoting and growing renewable energy resources. there are residents expressing concerns for a wind farm in their town. viewers have asked us to ask you if you favor large wind power project and where would you put them and, to you favor would burning biomass plans? >> would burning biomass is unjustified by the data on several counts. it is polluting in terms of its current footprint. the studies have been comparing it to call and using that as a standard. the studies make it look better than it is. it is a problem. it is bad in terms of the traditional air pollutants and impact on respiratory disease. the pioneer valley has enough air pollution. we do not need more. we need our forests and the by a

bass will promote successful use and wasting of those forests. we need wind. community should have role in deciding where and when. when the wind has been established by the municipal utilities, communities have been able to find workable sites themselves. we do need offshore wind and shoreline but i would like to see it proceeding through municipal utilities. >> on biomass, small scale co- generation makes sense and there is a process under way of making sense of what's works for us -- what works for us. in this respect, we may agree. one of the things i know this is in western massachusetts, a great idea. on the cape, they think wind

turbines in the berkshires is a great idea. we have to be about is a lot of local involvement. the sort of thing that happened with the project. not seven years of litigation and multiple appeals. deferring to local choices. the host community and the surrounding communities in water to levels is what the bill is about. that is where we get this part of our clean tech future under way. >> i hope it does not pass and i would not sign the bill. i do not believe we should take local control from communities when it comes to building 400-ft turbines. he will need to have some control over their lives, over their livelihood. it is costly. it may work in some ways, because of the subsidies the federal and state governments are giving it. it is not a path to energy independence. when will not solve our

problems. we need to be committed to nuclear power. we have a plan that needs to be reconditioned and licensed. we need to look at natural gas and an out-of-state sources for cheaper electricity. one of the reasons our jobs are not growing. we have the highest electricity rates in the country. there will not go down. if you tried to put-put manufacturing jobs on the table you cannot do with higher costs. it will not help this grow jobs. >> i agree with the governor on small-scale biomass. i would not sign that bill. we will have to go through natural habitat to build in and the mechanism to get the wind out. one of the highest costs of electricity and it does affect your ability to grow jobs.

that is wide enough support keep wind. pe wind.wu we ought to be chasing less expensive alternatives. that is a good deal for jobs and reducing our carbon footprint. >> the massachusetts taxpayers foundation estimates the budget deficit for the next fiscal years that begins july 1 is a approximately $2 billion. how would you close the deficit? please be specific. >> thanks for the question. it gives me a great opportunity to clear up that

misunderstanding. our budget has been balanced in way that -- ways that my opposition has criticized. in addition to the investment we made to grow jobs and make cuts we have made to make those investments, we have used rainy day funds and federal stimulus. there were there to be used for this way. in order to maintain essential services at a time when revenue dropped a we had the steepest decline in revenue in the history of the commonwealth. because we made those investments -- we are seeing the benefit in revenue. we had to moderate million dollars in september alone. october is trading in that direction. part of this solves will be the use of new revenue from growth. part of it is because with the support we got from the federal government, we were able to back out and put it back in the band

-- the bank. >> we have had a structurally unbalanced budget. we paper over those imbalances with one tie money. the problem keeps occurring. we have to restructure how we deliver health care in massachusetts. we're is ending an extra $4.10 billion. prior to the law passing. to subsidize insurance companies that subsidized -- we're spending $1 billion over the next five years borrowing money to pay for our highway and transportation employees. it started in the mid-1990s's. it has grown to epic proportions. it is not a good budgeting. it adds 30% to 50% of the cost

of each employee. those have to stop before we get hold of this budget. >> it is an important question. the next governor will face a deficit delivered to them by this government. onlythe only -- we're the to can it's -- candidates who are opposed to some reforms. i want to make sure that people know i am serious about restructuring or forming stake are rents and the governor is answering the question. he will raise taxes to solve this problem if he is reelected. that is what will happen the next four years. i will not do that because the family's cannot afford it. the businesses cannot afford it. if we're serious about getting people back to work and creating an affordable and competitive business climate, we

can i go back to the taxpayers. i of place $1 billion -- that is where we need to go to correct the balance. >> it is pretty simple. if you look at the big picture. in the big picture, what has been growing while everything else has been shrinking for the past 10 years as health care. which is now 50% of the budget. one out of to taxpayers is paying for the system. there is enormous waste in the system, but suitably in the administration section. we can save by moving to a single payer system. a report that estimates it would save $1 billion. basically apply at 10% to 15% savings per you apply that here. in health care. we would gain $1 billion there and the other billion from the

tax expenditures which do not benefit, have not delivered the jobs and have not created a healthy and viable economy. we need to put that money where we can use it. that is where we should be providing support. >> thank you. >> continuing with state spending. several states have opted to terms set -- spending. do you think forcing unpaid for loews is a good idea for massachusetts? >> no. is that an ok idea. these people are still on the books for next year. i did not supported as a treasure. we made our budgets work by cutting our costs by living jobs unfilled over the last year. we have a 14% lower budget that our water -- they left open in order to meet our budgetary

needs. those are short-term solutions. all -- if we have too many employees would have to find out who was essential and who was not. we have to get the essential employees to work and the non- essential ones, if everyone thinks that nonessential still not come to work, if my people to not come to work, they are defining themselves as non- essential. because i hold that rule, everyone comes to work no matter how much snow we have. >> i agree with the treasure of creative furloughs are temporary solution, they're not permanent. way to do is deal with our fiscal crisis so the middle of people -- they do not think the state will come back to them looking for more money. i talked about a lot of reforms and pension reform. i talked about agency consolidation.

we have 100 operating agencies that the structure was designed in the 1970's. a lot have -- has happened. we you should be able to come up with a set -- a leader an bureaucracy. we're one of four states that does not have a time limit for public assistance. we have issues with regard to our health care system. i have made specific reforms to what we should do. we spend $3 million on parking spaces. 6 million on pr people. there is lots of places we can go. paid agree that unoai furloughs are not a good idea. we have been cutting workers by the thousands. i am not convinced myself there is a lot more room to cut. there is the occasional

patronage or wasteful job. we should be vigilant. i do not think there is a lot of fat to cut. sending people way for unpaid furloughs does not meet our needs. i think it adds a burden to state workers that are underpaid. recent studies documented while they are much maligned, state workers when you consider their experience and age, they are being underpaid. there are good ways we can go under ways. >> we have had to do furloughs and we have had pay freezes and gungot a contract recessions. wheat reduced headcount and all those measures are part of $4.30 billion in cuts. we have closed and balance the budget with -- not with tax

increases that represent 9 cents of every dollar in has taken to close these gaps, mostly with the use of rainy day fund. the sort of thing that is criticized by my opponents but what has maintained services to vulnerable people. you will hear candidates talk about pension reform. you hear folks talk about consolidating agencies. we eliminated over 20 different agencies and shut down the turnpike authority. a lot of folks talk, we do. we earned aa ratings from independent agencies. >> all we heard about was casino and it went silent. the governor and speaker of the house could not come to terms. would you try to revive the casino gambling in massachusetts? what is your vision for expanded

gambling and what would you do to work for the speaker to make it happen? >> i am not a big believer they are of fundamental solution to our true economic problems. we have hundreds of thousands of businesses. if we create a more affordable climate for them in terms of tax and regulatory policy and business costs, those folks will grow and expand. if you can get half the businesses to start thinking they can grow and expand, you will solve your job problem more quickly. i think a lot of people go to connecticut and rhode island and they have massachusetts license plates. one resort would give them a place to go. i could see doing that. doing any more than that and you run the risk of doing damage to the existing businesses that compete for that entertainment dollar. i worry we're focusing too much

on one solution when the real solution here is to cut spending, fix our fiscal problems, and get serious about regulation and business costs. >> thank you for the question. i strongly believe that expanded gaming is not a good thing for massachusetts. one needs to look no further than nevada. the poster child for the casino economy to see where it leads. this is not a productive economy. it is a scavenger economy and it tends to draw discretionary income from other areas of the economy. when you create a job with casinos you have killed other jobs, usually in small businesses and entertainment establishes -- establishments. they have the highest rate of bankruptcies and unemployment. other states with high gambling casino rates or numbers of casinos have had similar problems. it is not the direction you want

to go in. you think you will only open one. when the industry comes in, they tend to get their way. massachusetts does not need it. we need green jobs that strengthen our community and create real goods. >> thanks for the question. you know my position on expanded gaming. if we do it in the form of destination resort casinos and we had few, it can be good for us in terms of job creation but it is not the centerpiece of our strategy. that bill was stuck, things that were stuck behind it included the economic development bill. enables them to get in the ground and not have them expire because of difficulty getting financing. we did import measures to make working capital available for small businesses, to permit small businesses to aggravate and get the buying power for their health insurance and big

businesses. we did the autism bill and the fourth straight budget that was balanced, responsible, and on time. there is an awful lot of good work we have done. the second session that was the most productive in 30 years. we could not get together on that. we may yet. there is a lot of important work. >> thanks for the question. i would sign the bill. it would be the first i signed in january. to create 15,000 jobs, we all needed. when there is a proposal, we get a little scrimmage. jobs are jobs. all jobs have value. we also bring $100 million back in local aid. i would like to fight for more money. we can talk about bringing money back but you get a proposal on the table that will do it. that is important. it will bring billions of dollars of investment. it is a great way to start and

my commitment to you is one would be here. palmer seems to be a site people agreed to. it is locally approved, they will get a casino. that is the only way we can compete and allow people who want to gamble but do not have to go to connecticut to do it. >> you will have 30 seconds to respond to our last question. >> this is a question from two readers of masslive.com. in 1996, gov. weld abolished tolls for passenger vehicles between exits 1-6 on the massachusetts turnpike. between west stockbridge and

chickadbee. they want to know if you would support restoring those tolls. it would raise $12 million and putting the back into the western end of the turnpike for operation and maintenance. >> that sounds reasonable. i would have to look into the particular is to now. we need to fund our public highway system and transportation system which has enormous problems with its operating budget and maintenance. the problems applied to western massachusetts but throughout the commonwealth. we need to free up resources to properly --

>> no. >> no as well. i would not support increasing tolls or bringing them back. we know we still have a turnpike and are paying tolls. we can put the money back without raising tolls. >> now. i made a commitment not to raise the tolls. we should seek other efficiencies to generate additional revenue to support the link of the roadway. >> closing statements. >> thanks for tuning in and things to our studio audience and everybody else for being here. this is an important election. it will take place in the next 12 days. people have a clear choice.

the governor thinks we're heading in the right direction, but the fact is there more people out of work now than at any time in recent history. we have the biggest budget deficit going forward that we have had in any time in recent history and we have had eight tax hikes. we have a $2 billion budget deficit. massachusetts can do better. i do not think we're heading in the right direction but boutrote choice is clear. you gewe can do better. state government needs to live its means and we need to create a business climate of affordability that can compete. we will not get people back to work and that needs to be the fundamental focus of the next administration. people are not working. time. >> if you are happy for the

things -- way things are commode for the insider candidates. -- things are, vote for the insider. you can put massachusetts on the path for teachers and cutting tax giveaways. if you want change, you have to vote for it and did not vote for the political machines that have got us into this mess. some people worry if they vote their values it might help the candidates do not like. all three are supporting the same failing policies. this is massachusetts where the huge democratic majority can pass any law and override any veto even if there is a republican in the governor's office. if you cannot bring your values into the booth, everything you do outside will not count for much. the common wealth needs revision to get us back on track. i ask for your throat.

we can start taking back the government. >> thank you. i hope you get a sense of who we are and our commitment beyond 128 and beyond beacon hill. almost 400 million have been invested here and all across the state but specifically here in western massachusetts. we opened an office to deal with [unintelligible] not by adding employees but taking them here and you do not have to go to beacon hill every time i have a problem. we invested state pension fund money here. in our community health center that created 300 jobs. you're looking at a leader not

to talk about the leader of the state but someone who has been the treasurer and wants to be the governor. >> thank you. >> thanks to the panelists and everyone for turning in. i did not cause the economic collapse but nobody is working harder to get out of it. we're investing in in education and innovation. that is what the high performance computing center is about and that is why we're in vesting in university campuses and bringing liberty mutual and other companies to western massachusetts. it is what the road, rail, and by projects are about. government is about people. not about us but about you. we have a plan. that is why we are getting progress and making progress. they have slogans and cliches and empty promises. i know western massachusetts,

they down. if you want us to finish what we started and you want western massachusetts to be part of it, i ask for your support and prayers and your votes. thank you and good evening. [applause] >> hold your applause for one minute. everyone has been so well behaved we have extra time but egos to me. we want to thank our audience. we really do appreciate it. we want to thank the members of the consortium but especially wwld22 news. we thank them and our panelists for their questions and for those of you who sent in questions. we thank all of their candidates and wish them well in their travels. thank you for watching and investing time. make it count and it out on

november 2. be sure to vote. thank you and goodbye. -- good night. [applause] >> next, a debate between the

candidates for governor of new mexico. this campaign is the fourth time that these two women have faced each other for the governor's office. no debate is scheduled between the candidates for the governor of texas. we will have hour-long interviews with both candidates. governor rate. 's interview is at 10:00. mr. white is on at 11:00. some campaign news from the political waters. a new poll of 18 to 21 year olds say they will definitely vote in the midterm elections and next month according to a survey. that is a job of nine points. the harvard institute of politics will be on "washington

journal" to talk about the results. >> new mexico's candidates for governor or democrat diane denish and republican susana martinez. mrs. martinez is a district attorney for dona ana and is the first hispanic woman to be nominated by a major party for governor. you're watching coverage on c- span.

>> we are having some technical difficulties with our feed. in the meantime, here is a more polling information. a roll call of -- he will have to overcome a double-digit deficit. a university poll says the republican senator, andy harris, is leading with 53%. some more information, democratic incumbent representative earl pomeroy is trailing his opponent by 10 points in the race to serve in

the house as a north dakota's rep. if you want to watch more debates from the house, senate, and governor races, you can check our web site at c- span.org/politics. you can find campaign ads and twitter feeds. >> this race is historic and one thing is certain. one of these candidates will make history by becoming the first woman governor of new mexico. >> now for the candidates. democrat diane denish is currently the lieutenant governor. she has had that job since 2002. republican susana martinez is district attorney for dona ana county. >> each county will have an

opening statement. each candidate will also have two minutes for closing statements. >> you also have two minutes to answer each question. you will be given a one minute rebuttal if you feel it is necessary. >> we do names and have witnesses present. mrs. martinez, you'll have the opening statement and the first question. >> you may begin with your opening statement. >> thank you to all of you for allowing us to share our visions for the state of new mexico. going up as a young girl, my family struggled paycheck to paycheck. we grew up in a community that was very simple. however, my mother worked in an office all of her life. she had to work to make ends meet. my father was a deputy sheriff. one day my prince decided to start a business.

i knew just what -- how little we had in the bank. my mom was in the kitchen during the evenings and my father worked on contracts during the daytime. we extended that business. we grew that business to over 125 employees. when i graduated from law school, i had a decision to make. that decision was whether to not i was going to become a corporate attorney or a prosecutor. i chose to be a prosecutor because i wanted to be the voice of the most vulnerable around us -- our children. that was important to me. i became a public servant. i worked very hard on delivering results. my opponent has asked use to look at the last eight years of her record. i want you to focus in on that record. what is important is what you

have done in the last eight years is predictive of what you will do as governor. i hope he will listen carefully and joining me and vote for me on november 2. >> mrs. denish, it is returned to give the opening statement. >> thank you. these elections are a lot more fun when times are good. they are a lot more important when times are tough like they are now. those of you watching this debate tonight, you are worried about your family. i am right there with you. frequently, my granddaughter says to me that she wants to grow up and be an artist. i hope she is. her masterpieces are on my refrigerator and all over my house. but every child has a dream and it is up to us to help them get there. sometimes that simple point gets lost in these elections.

you see the negative advertisements and you hear all the noise. it is easy to forget what this election is really about. it is about you, your family, and who will help you get ahead. the choice is very clear on that point. i have spent a lifetime fighting for new mexico families. first as a single mother with my own small business and then as lieutenant governor. my opponent has a different agenda. listen very carefully. she says she will cut money from public schools. she will let corporations roll over our families and pollute our water and lands. that is not what we need in new mexico. i will put mexico families first every single day. i will fight predatory lenders. i will fight insurance companies and anyone who takes advantage of our families. you know why? times are tough in new mexico

deserves a governor who will be on their side. i have to earn your vote tonight. thank you. >> tied for the questions. each of you just spoke about yourself in your opening statement. let's face it, most constituents only know you to be your commercials which are often negative attacks. i do not want to know what your opponent cannot do. i want to know what you as governor will do. without attacking your opponent, tell us why you are the best candidate for governor and how you would lead. mrs. martinez, you have two minutes. >> i have always focused my career on results. i make sure that everything i worked toward produces results. i have handled some of the worst cases this state has ever seen. i work hard for those who cannot speak for themselves in the courtroom.

a woman was murdered and raped by people in her own family. it was important to not only be successful in that case, but to go forward with loss that would protect -- with laws that would protect children in the state. i deliver results. i fight hard for those who cannot fight for themselves. i want to make a difference in people's lives as i have for the past 44 years of my career. i want to fight for you. i want to fight for your families. i want to turn mexico around and make sure -- turned in mexico around -- turn new mexico around. i want to keep the businesses we have and bring back the ones that we lost.

together we can take back our state. it is our state and together we can make differences and be competitive within our own region and nationally. >> you have two minutes to answer the question without attacking your opponent. why are you the best candidate for governor? >> i am a job creator. i grew up in a family of small business owners. i learned how to open my own business and did it. for 12 years i ran my own small businesses. you can always take a few things with you when you run for office. i take with me my experience as a small-business owner. as a lieutenant governor, i traveled around the state, community after community talking to people and asking what they need. they say they need access to capital. we need credit and collateral.

we need money to get our businesses started and live our dreams. i worked across the aisle with republicans and democrats to create a loan program that today has 2000 success stories all around new mexico. you can go to albuquerque and talked to carl who owns a all parts business. he would not even be in business today without our program. we can do more than that. i propose that we have the $2,500 tax credit for small businesses so they can go out and hire somebody in their community. what does that mean? that means more money circulating in your community. let's give community banks some of new mexico's money. that way they can help small businesses. there is only one job creator in this room. i am the job creator.

i am the best candidate to be governor. >> without the candidates attacking each other, you have one minute for rebuttal. >> we have had a crisis in new mexico that cost us a lot of jobs. we have lost over 65,000 jobs. we cannot afford to lose any more jobs. we have extended the growth of state government by over $2 billion. we cannot continue on this path. it is all about attitude and making sure we are making differences everyday in state government -- cutting back on spending, bringing it down to where the population justifies it, and making our state more competitive by getting rid of taxes. we have lost jobs to texas, colorado, oklahoma -- i am committed to creating an

environment in new mexico for jobs to be created. government does not create jobs. we can do this together. we can cut back spending. >> mrs. denish, you have another minute to tell us why he would be great governor. >> the government does not create jobs, the private sector creates jobs. my family has been in new mexico for 80 years creating jobs, hiring people in our communities. some have worked for us for 40 or 50 years. we took care of our employees. we made it possible for them to have a good life in their community. i am a job creator. i know how to do it. let's get tax incentives to small businesses. let's put money into this community banks. let's do one more thing. let's make sure we are cutting the red tape.

let's have a one-stop shop to get licenses and permits. i want to get out there and create more jobs for new mexico. thank you. >> in mexico has some serious money problems right now. big ones. the latest projections that came out yesterday show 8 $260 million shortfall for the next fiscal year that he will have to deal with. both of you have said that he would not raise taxes and you will not cut education or medicaid if elected. how are you going to pay the bills? mrs. dennis, we'll start with you. >> new mexico is part of a global, economic crisis. families are tightening their belts. a few months ago, i put out a 36-point plan that says we can't put 450 -- we can save $450,000

a year. we can cut the paid political employees -- the high paid political appointees. we can have a better technologies, better use of technology, we can put in a wellness plan to keep our health premiums level. we can reorganize state government and get rid of some cabinet secretaries. we do not need a personal chef at the mansion. in my office, every single year i came in under budget. i retired $300,000 to the state budget. mike velocity is this -- spend what you need, give back what you do not need -- my velo philosophy is this -- spend what you need, give back what you do

not need. my opponent has never given any money back. in fact, she spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on luxury cars. she jogs want to and from work. you pay for the gas. one other thing you can do, we can close that tax loophole on out-of-state operations -- corporations to pay their taxes on their profits. they have an unfair advantage in new mexico. the cost us $70 million. let's close that corporate tax loopholes. my opponent has said she will not do that. >> if you now have two minutes to answer could be the most pressing questions in the state. hell are you going to pay the bills if you're not going to pay taxes -- how are you going to pay the bills if you are not going to raise taxes or cut education? >> we cannot continue to grow

the state budget as we have. we have to determine where there are -- where there is waste and fraud and cut back on that spending. when we talk about closing tax loopholes for out-of-state corporations, that is another word for increasing taxes. we have made a commitment not to raise taxes. to close the loophole, that is exactly what you're doing. you are raising taxes. we cannot afford to do that if we are going to improve economically in the state of new mexico. if we cut back on positions close to what we had during the johnson administration, which can save $10 million. that should have been done long ago. you talk about the economy being a global economy, it has been

made it worse in new mexico by the deficit spending this administration has taken in because of the taxes that have been imposed. $170 million additional taxes have been imposed on new mexico families. that is unacceptable. if we have to make sure that we take care of business. my priority is keeping people in my community safe. that is why my budget has grown. i have to make sure i have the law enforcement that is available to investigate cases. i have to have prosecutors in the courtroom. murders in our community went up 1/3 to 30%. -- went up one budget 30%. -- went up 130%.

>> just today we were told 5175 jobs were going to come back. that is going to help that community. my opponent, her numbers do not add up. she has been going around telling everybody she's going to cut new mexico's budget by 60%. medicaid is -- medicaid and education is 60% of our budget. those numbers do not add up. she cannot cut the budget 60% and not cut money to our public schools and cut critical services to new mexico families. the real solution to our budget problems is to put a job creator in the governor's office. i am the job creator. >> i am not sure what commercial or what form you have been washing -- you have been

watching this as i will cut government by 60%. the richardson administration actually grew government by 60%. i have said that there needs to be cuts. we have gone way beyond what is necessary. i have never said we would cut government spending by 60%. that is irrational. i would never take money from the public schools. i have a full commitment. let me be very clear with the viewers, that is not my intent. my intent is to make sure that we have a full commitment to public schools and those children going to school. they need a world-class education. that is my focus. >> we will have more time later to talk about education. we want to get back to jobs. it is easy to talk about creating jobs. as we all have seen, it is a lot

harder to do that. what is your plan to get new mexico residents back to work? mrs. martinez, you have two minutes. >> my focus has always been on small businesses. the government does not create jobs. the fact that diane denish has been a job creator a decade or more ago is not the focus. the focus is this. what government does is create a positive environment for jobs to be created. corruption kills jobs. nothing more than a big and corrupt government will impact the ability to bring jobs here. we have to tackle corruption and we have to do it quickly. we have no time to waste. the richardson administration said they would take it on. they would tackle it. businesses do not want to come to new mexico because it is unpredictable. people are shaken down port

$5,000 here, $10,000 there in order to bring their business to new mexico. that is unacceptable. we have wondered 68 services in the state of new mexico that are taxed. -- we have 168 services in the state of new mexico that are taxed. we have to get rid of the taxes that are killing our jobs. we cannot afford that anymore. we have to cut back on spending -- such as on that $5.50 million jet. we cannot go around spending money. when johnson left this administration, the budget was $3.80 billion. today, it was six $5.80 billion. we have actually overspent what is necessary. there are $360 million in surplus. that is gone.

there is another $360 million in deficit. having a job creator as second in command has not done us any good. >> mrs. denish, you have talked about jobs. how would you put the mexicans back to work? >> -- how would you put me mexico residents back to work -- how would you put new mexico residents back to work? >> give them a tax credit for hiring one person -- 2005 a dollars. cut the red tape so they can get their licenses and permits. that is what i would do. i will continue to invest. the new green energy economy -- in new mexico we are on the

process of being able to have a green energy economy. wind, biomass, geothermal -- they can get trained and retrained. we have money for training and retraining so people can go and get those jobs. there is something else we can do to make our families economically said -- economically secure. my opponent will not do it. we can say no to predatory lenders, the people taking advantage of our families in new mexico. those people are hard at work in new mexico taking advantage of somebody who needs a mortgage payment and ends up paying five times the cost a bit. here is how i did that. predatory lender lobbyist yesterday hosted by opponent. here is what they said. diane denish is out to into

predatory lending. susana martinez has said she will not limit predatory lending in new mexico. she will be on the side of predatory lenders. i will be on the side of mexico families. >> i would like to respond and say that i think the private sector is what creates jobs. if we let the private sector do what they do best and the government get out of the way, they can start to expand and invest in their businesses and make sure they can develop more jobs. the jobs they create, those people go out and buy groceries, they buy homes, they buy cars. people in new mexico want to work. they want to work hard. we are not supposed to bring anything to this table from the outside. obviously the rules do not apply

to you. he brought something here to the table that was not allowed. instead, he wanted to make a point and about something that was not fair. that is what i want the people at home to understand. you're not willing to follow the rules. i want to make it a point that i am going to fight for you every day. i will take up the corruption as necessary. >> mrs. denish, you have an opportunity to respond. >> i am glad they got my message. i am going to put them out of business. she is to let them continue to take advantage of new mexico families. she is going to roll back all of those rules that let them take the advantage of new mexico families so they can continue wo get a second mortgage on her house. if she borrows $1,000, she pays $10,000 back. she loses her home anyway.

susana martinez has made it very clear. she is on the side of the big, out-of-state organizations. i am going to continue to fight for you, for new mexico families. >> we would take a quick timeout. but campaigns ask for a break to collect their thoughts. >> we will be back in three minutes for more of their answers that are key to the election. stay with us. >> we will have more per -- from the candidates for the governor of new mexico i get a few minutes. here are a couple of campaign advertisements running in the state. >> susana martinez has a lot to lose. our homes, taken by predatory mortgage lenders. martina's would even let them

put veterans on the street. our jobs? martina's will hand over control to big corporations. the same failed republican plan that ripped our economy. if she gets her way, what will you lose? >> by are out of touch. diane denish used the state luxury jet like an air attacks, wasting state dollars. we need a change. >> i know what it is like to struggle. that is why i will fight hard to help small businesses create good jobs. i have a plan to get us back on track. a level playing field, a business friendly state, less taxes, and more jobs. that is what i will do for new mexico. >> if the midterm elections on november 2. each night, we are showing debates from key races around the country. we will be back with the debate for the candidates of the governor of new mexico.

the debates are scheduled between the candidates for governor of texas. tonight we will have an hour- long interview with both of them. governor rick perry is at 10:00 p.m. >> voters head to the polls in less than two weeks. all the candidates on the c-span network. archived debase our on line at the c-span video library and on our politics page, candidates twitter feeds. policies and's election coverage right to election day. -- follow c-span's election coverage right through election day. >> a poll of more than 400 likely voters released yesterday said the democratic rep is leading the republican.

that is within a 5% mortgage -- margin of error. the race is rated a toss up. on saturday at 8:00 eastern, live coverage between the senate candidates from, rather. michael bennet and ken buck. that race is also rated a toss up. >> democratic candidate diane denish and republican challenger susana martinez. >> more e-mail's and comments about cuts to state funded day care. families in new mexico state in state funding is cut, they may have to quit their jobs to take care of their children. quite others argue that the state should not be subsidizing day care at all. what do you think the government's role should be?

mrs. denish, you have two minutes. >> i was one of the first to speak out when it was said we would cut day care in new mexico. we know if a family or single mother loses their day care, they cannot go to work. they lose their jobs. under the johnson administration, he cut day care subsidies to the bare bones. i have worked hard to get that back up so more families to go to work and take care of their families. the real solution is to make sure we resolve our budget crisis in mexico. how'd we do that? we tighten our belt. we change our priorities. we make sure that we are cutting back on those high paid political appointees, that we do the things we need to do. we have to give our families the services that they need. in new mexico, families are struggling. government has a role to help

them get out of that struggle. the first role they have is to make sure we are creating jobs, make sure that our families can actually go to work, and when they need help, make sure that they have access to child care subsidies so their children can be taken care of in a safe, warm environment. as a lieutenant governor, here is what i did. i made it possible for 7000 kids to go to school in new mexico. these children are being taken care of. i want families to be able to go to work in new mexico. we create jobs. that is that we do it. we give them quality education opportunities. >> mrs. martinez, you have two minutes. >> i think subsidizing child

care is a temporary solution. we have to get in mexico residents back to work. sometimes they cannot get a full-time job that allows them to pay for child care. it could be expensive for families. we have single mothers that do not get any support in need our assistance. it is meant to be a temporary fix. we need to get those children the best care that is possible. we also have to tighten the state budget in a way that allows us to create a better environment for jobs to be created. it was just a month or so ago that we purchased a wild horse rescue branch for almost $3 million. instead of giving that money and putting it towards the day care system, we do not want people out of work. we do not want them to become part of the welfare system that is a permanent way of life. we want to give them a handout, but not a way of life.

we have some solutions that are being provided by the richardson administration. it is too late. where were they when families were tightening their belts? that was two years ago, three years ago. for the first of we are talking about cutting back on positions. for the first that we're talking about tightening our belts my people have been doing for two or three years. we needed to talk about this long ago. this crisis took place because priorities were not being discussed by the richardson administration. money was being spent, the government was growing. when there is a surplus, it was being spent. we did not have our priorities in line. i think we can turn this around if we just tighten our belts and start doing it immediately and not only when we are running for office. that is important for new mexico families.

>> let's be clear. nobody bought a horse ranch. i spoke up. i said we had had other priorities. i have always given money back to my budget to make sure it could be spent on other priorities, unlike susana. she bought luxury cars to drive to and from work. here is the real issue. she wants to talk about the past. she was to cut new mexico's budget by 50%. guess what the first things to go will be? it will be critical services like child care for our families, like money to our public schools. that is what is going to happen under susana martinez. she will cut our budget by 50% and you will not have child care anymore. >> i am not sure where you are getting the 50% cut.

i am not sure what you're talking about with critical care for children. i will tell you this, i want to talk about the past because there is no greater predictor of the future than your past record. i have delivered results to the people in my community, to people who do not have a voice in the courtroom. i have fought for those families statewide in changing the laws. you want a promotion, diane, and you cannot get a promotion of she talked about the last eight years. if there is no greater predictor of how you will government except for the last eight years where you sat by silently. we had one of the most corrupt governments in the country. we have a beautiful state with great people. we deserve better. we can turn this around. we can make sure we change the reputation that the state has had recently. we can make a difference. >> it is time to get back to

education. in mexico ranks 49 in the nation when it comes to education. that is one spot away from the very bottom. you do not seem to have any more money to get at the situation, so if you cannot spend $1 more on education, what are your innovative ideas to turn this around? mrs. martinez, we will start with you. >> for too long we have measured success by how much money is being spent in the education system. that is not acceptable. that is not the way to measure success. i want to focus on results. we're not only 49 in the nation in education, most of our children do not read proficiently. a commitment that you may, diane, as part of your office, was that children in the third grade could read provincially. obviously you have failed. we cannot allow nearly 40% of our children to drop out.

look at it this way. children who are in the fifth grade when you took office are now seniors. we have lost 40% of those children because they dropped out. it is unacceptable. my plan is to move 4 cents of every education dollar into the classroom. currently 61 cents of every education delegates to the classroom. will remove those 4 cents, we increase the budget for the classroom by sending $4 million. that is without raising taxes one died. then we start measuring the progress of the children every year throughout the year and focus on those kids that are struggling. give merit increases to the teachers that are doing well. that is where we need to place our focus. we need to make sure we are giving kids the opportunity, a chance for teachers to fix the

curriculum, said the to be successful through the year. -- so that they can be successful through the year. it is very simple. money does not define the progress of our schools. we have to make sure we are holding everyone accountable so that we can educate our kids in the best way possible. >> mrs. denish, you have two minutes. >> if first of all, let me just say where i get that figure that she is going to cut the state budget by 50%. she thinks the lieutenant governor makes all the decisions, obviously. she is saying they are going to cut the budget by 50%. her plan is this. she will take money out of public schools and put it into wealthy private schools.

she will take money out of public schools and put it into a wealthy private schools. here is my plan. the truth is, we need to fully fund public education. we need to put money into quality teacher training, expand early childhood education. we need researchers in our classroom. we can make sure that we transform the middle school and high-school experience in a way that is meaningful to our students. how do we do that? we have a partnership with community schools why we do in northern new mexico where the construction industries and the school had a partnership. the finance committee bills affordable housing for their schools. what does that do? that gives those kids a meaningful, hands-on experience. they learn about working. they learn the finances of selling a house. they learn how to define a house

and they learn how to build a house. that is the kind of meaningful high-school education we need to be giving our young people. we need to give every child the best chance they can get. here is what i have done as lieutenant governor. i put a focus on early childhood education. 17,004-year olds all over the beautiful state of new mexico are performing 24% better than any other four-year olds that do not go to kindergarten. >> if you have one minute for rebuttal. >> we have increased the education budget by $728 million. we remain at 49th in education in the entire nation. it is unacceptable to continue to throw money into a program that is not working. however, let me be very clear. i have no intention of taking any money out of the public

education system and placing it in private schools. i think i have said that at least 100 different times. i am not sure if you were listening to what i had to say, diane. what i have said is that you have actually increased the budget by 50% when it was not justified. we have to focus on results. we have to keep people learning. we have to measure that throughout the year. that is my plan, but as the results of the children. if you are beholden to the special interest groups. our kids are the ones to lose out. >> mrs. dennis, you have one minute. >> you are darn right i am beholden to them. i will take care of our kids in new mexico. she likes to say that we put all that money in -- mexican put that money into public education. -- new mexico put that money

into public education. we want teacher salaries to be raised by 6%. there was somebody who did not vote in that election. it was susana martinez. the record shows that she did not vote for -- but she did not vote either way. she did not care enough in 2003 to vote on public school funding and what it would mean to mexico. you bet i will be beholden to their special interest groups -- children and their families. i would give them the education they deserve, invest in early childhood, in making high school and experience so they can go into the military are get a job. >> what is your opponent said that has bothered you the most? yet the chance to set the record straight. >> i think we all know that mrs.

martinez has spent some money on some severe advertising on my family. she has been called out by an independent fact-checked organization that says those advertisements are false. they are false. my husband and i have been job creators in new mexico. the reason she runs these ads is because she does not want you to know something. she is on the side of the big corporations. she wants to roll back the regulations that hold these corporations accountable. she is going to let those out- of-state corporations take advantage of their tax loopholes that our families and our businesses have to pay the difference -- $70 million. she is going to take money out of public education. she has been all over the state supporting vouchers. vouchers to take money out of new mexico's treasury and puts

it into public schools. they became tax credits. tax credits take money out of new mexico's treasury and puts it into a wealthy, private schools. there is a reason she runs those faults adds. i believe it is because she does not want you to know she is going to be on the side of the big corporations, and i will be on the side of new mexico. >> mrs. martinez, what has your opponent says that bothered you the most? >> there was -- i am very fluent in spanish. i understand that her as are being run in parts of the state. the albuquerque journal said they were in serious and possibly even race baiting. i do not believe that kind of advertisement has any place in

new mexico. for the first time i get a very long time, republicans, democrats, tea party candidates, and independents have to pull together so that we can get out of this mess that the rich and administration has gotten us into. i am in favor of small businesses. -- that the richardson administration has gotten us into. i am in favor of small business. it is proven that the money comes into your household. your administration is the administration that makes the decisions and has given out one of the largest tax deals in the state of new mexico -- $500 million. they did not say it was incorrect. they said it was not as scandalous.

and lobbyists working in your home -- that money going to your household is not a conflict of interest when it is your administration. >> mrs. dennis, you have one minute for rebuttal. >> i guess she objects to people getting paid for the jobs they do. othert's get back to that thing. my opponent injected texas into this race. she took the single largest contribution in new mexico history from bob perry -- the architect of this country's failed economy. we just found out that he has given $7 million to karl rove. he is the single largest contributor to susana martinez.

she was born in texas. i assume she is proud that she took texas of money. she has texas style politics. that is bad for new mexico. >> care to talk about texas? >> sure. i am very proud of where i was born. i have spent 25 years fighting for the people in my community. i love to do it every day. however, i do not have personal wealth. i am not able to put that kind of money into an account for me to run for governor. however, i am not beholden to anyone. let me be very clear, it is different than the richardson administration. they are nothing but political patronage positions. i have taken that their nation. i owe him nothing and he owes me nothing.

i will not make a single decision based on contributions because that is the way i have done business in dona ana. i have never made a political decision while running my office. i know the importance of making a decision fairly. >> our final question, smart leaders pay attention to history. if we can learn a lot from it. >> looking back, what do you both think the richardson administration has done right and what have they done wrong? mrs. martinez, will start with you. >> you have two minutes. >> probably to cut back the income tax -- the level of income tax on poor families in new mexico. however, he has raised taxes everywhere else to the point where we are ranked 13th in the nation in total taxes paid by individuals per capita in the state. that does not make this very competitive.

corruption is a common word in households due out this state. that is what he has done worse for the state. i have a plan. my plan is to tackle that corruption and make sure that we may get the crime that it is. let's create a commission where politicians are going to watch politicians that have been appointed by other politicians. what we have to do is treat it like the crime that it is to make sure it is mandatory -- make sure there is mandatory punishment. if you are going to violate the public trust, you need to be held accountable and you need to go to prison. i will not allow any lobbyist to hold positions two zero years after leaving state government. -- two years after leaving state government. while they hold government positions, they cannot make decisions that will affect their

lives. that is what is most important. the decision that is best for the people of new mexico. this administration forgot that long ago. it is embarrassing to see and hear because new mexico is a wonderful place. people do not deserve that kind of reputation. there is nothing worse than a big and corrupt government. we are going to turn that around. we are going to tackle it had on. we are going to make sure. >> what has the richardson administration done right and wrong? >> the richardson administration did this, we lowered income tax, capital gains tax, and took the tax off of food and medicine. that amounts to $400 million a year in lower taxes.

secondly, we put education first. 6% salary increases for teachers in new mexico. we fought hard to make sure our teachers are getting fairly paid. third, we began to but the building blocks in place for new, emerging industries in new mexico. solar, wind, biomass, geothermal -- new mexico has an opportunity to do it all in the energy industry. we can stand shoulder to shoulder with the new emerging industries in new mexico. we need to invest in those industries. we invested in the film industry. 10,000 people are employed full or part-time in the film industry. that is what matters. here is something that went wrong. three years ago, we said we

needed an independent ethics commission. if i am governor, i will not wait for the legislature. they dragged their feet. i am it will have an independent ethics commission that can request subpoenas from the district court so you, as a private citizen, can know that if you have a serious complaint that it will be investigated. it will be looked into. i do not think my opponent supports that. state police are under the control of the governor. but she wants to control the ethics commission. i do not. >> can you say one positive thing about the present administration? >> because we continue to see the corruption that is taking place, for example,brian colone

just received a $4 million contract after being elected as the nominee for lieutenant governor. the corruption is definitely a major. it impacts everything that we do in the state. from the economy, to education, to making a new mexico attractive to businesses who want to come and do business in new mexico. there was a conflict of entries. some commission is going to look at it the way they should. the best way for corruption to be taken out is by the attorney- general's office if we had a strong attorney-general. >> it is clear to me that my opponent does not think much of what happened in the richardson

administration. but we fought hard to lower your taxes and put more money in your pocket. her complaints -- i think she wants us to think you are hiring a prosecutor. you are hiring the governor. it's getting to corruption is important, here is what i will do. i will have an independent ethics commission and they will be able to investigate those serious complaints. let's be clear. you cannot prosecute your way to prosperity. this is a race about job creation. kicking rid of corruption is important, but this is a race -- getting rid of corruption is important, but this is a race about job creation. that is what i will concentrate on. after i put that commission to work investigating these things, i will be focused on you and your family. >> it is time to wrap things up. each of the candidates will now

have two minutes for closing statements. >> mel martinez, will start with you. >> thank you to all the viewers your giving us this opportunity to visit with you. you have a very big choice on november 2. we have to turn new mexico around and make it more prosperous than we have seen in the last eight years. we can either get a promotion to someone who does not want to talk about the last eight years and how we have failed, where someone who has delivered results to those in my community. i give you my word that i will fight long and hard to deliver those same results for the state of new mexico. i have always argued about job creation. i finally gave up and said, "mabel -- and maybe you are right, but they are not being created here in new mexico."

we have lost 55,000 jobs in new mexico. we cannot afford to lose another one. it is our state. we can take it back. we can turn things around for our kids and make sure we are not exporting our educated children. we can keep businesses the backbone. we focus on them. we make sure these out-of-state corporations are not being led by lobbyists who have an inside track to the administration. level the playing field for everyone so that at the end of the day, the winners are kids and our small businesses to come back and stay here. at the end of the day, i can deliver those results. i thank you very much for your time and attention. goodnight. >> mrs. denish, you have two minutes for your closing statement. >> the stakes are high.

i am not talking about for me or my opponent. the stakes are high for you and your families. nobody is satisfied with the status quo. we are mad. we are mad at washington, we are mad at wall street, we are mad at santa fe. think about what is truly best for you and your family. my opponent has a lot of flashy advertisements and cheap sayings about taking new mexican back. what is it really mean? she was to cut public education. she was to let out of state corporations pay less so we pay more. she was to roll back the rules of -- so the water and our land are polluted. that is not the guy that new mexico we want for our children. my grandparents came here almost 100 years ago. they worked hard to raise their families and they wanted their children to have a better

opportunity than they had. to date that is what mexico families are thinking. -- today, that is what new mexico families are thinking. susana martinez wants this race to be about the past, not about the future. she wants it to be about what has gone wrong, not what is going well in new mexico. she watched this campaign to be about the current governor, not the next governor. you are smarter than that. you know that this is a race about the mexico's future. i am not the flashiest candidate. i am not a show horse. i am a work force. i will be a work force for mexico families. -- for new mexico families. i would be honored to be your next governor. some of you may have already voted for me in early voting. i am grateful.

for the rest of you, i hope he will vote for me on november 2. thank you and god bless you. >> we want to thank our candidates and what to thank you for joining us for this debate. >> we will be live in our studios next thursday at 7:00 p.m. for the next debate. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] quite the midterm elections are on november 2. each night on c-span, which are showing the key races around the country. our lineup for tonight includes the candidates for the governor of texas. governor rate. and democrat bill white. in a little more than two hours, mass. candidates for governor.

the cook political report rates all of these races as tossups. >> this week on "q &a" compare and contrast the house of representatives and the house of congress. sunday night >> no debates are scheduled between the candidates for governor of texas, but each of them sat for an hourlong interview with texas tribune editor evan smith. >> the race for texas governor is one of the most competitive

and expensive races. rick perry is running for a fourth term. let's take a look at the latest ads from both of these candidates. >> obama promised more jobs, but bill alabama sent out of control spending have only made it worse. -- but bail outs and out of clothes -- out of control spending have only made it worse. more texans have more new jobs today than the entire population of fort worth. >> texas is on the right path. >> securing their future, gov. rick perry. >> after 10 years under rick perry, at texas is not open for business for everyone. texans are paying the price. skyrocketing tuition, which 1 million texans on dirt -- unemployed. >> i will work hard for the

young people in texas. preparing them with the critical thinking they will need for college and the skills for career. >> bill white, he is in it for texas. >> those are the latest ads by the candidate. rick perry has insisted -- has refused to debate bill white until mr. white releases his income taxes from when he served in the clinton administration. both candidates sat down for one on one interviews. kevin smith is joining us via skype this morning. -- evan s. smith is the voting -- is joining us via skype this morning. >> a lot of people in austin are the ones who are paying attention to this. but i am not sure that people care about the debate. rick perry has also refused to

meet with editorial boards. i am not sure that people care about that either. this may be the future. do not deal with the media. do not do debates. just talk to voters directly and assume that all will be well. >> has bill white responded at all? >> he released his tax returns for the years that he was mayor of houston. he as cost for the tax returns when he was in the clinton administration. the perry campaign says that this was -- these were years when he was in public life. we deserve to know what the sources of income or. mayor white refused to release them. his answer is something along the lines, we do not negotiate with terrorists. we will not accept any demands

that they will put on us. we have been more transparent. when you are talking about this stuff, you are not talking about the issues that affect taxes. the fact that anybody has been out talking about debates distracts from talking about the things that ought to be discussed in this election. the issues that matter to every texan. >> are these two candidates bringing up the other issues? what is driving this race? >> the reason we did the interviews on fridays last week was to try to get them off of the campaign means about name- calling and you did this and you did that. you have to answer questions about immigration, energy. we have a $21 billion shortfall projected. there are not a whole lot of options except to cut a few programs.

we have to get them talking about that stuff. there is standard campaign staff that is going on. obama lost texas during the election by 11 points. he is not terribly popular here and he is less popular now. puree is trying to tie white to obama. -- perry is trying to tie white to obama. that has been his biggest thing. none of that gets to the substance of what is going not in texas. it is unfortunate, but we have all come to expect that. >> $21 million. >> $21 billion with a "b." >> call did texas get into that situation? >> -- how did texas get into that situation?

>> this is the culture of overspending in washington. you signed five budgets over the last 10 years. if you hated the spending, and you think it contributed to the problem, and you could have vetoed. he said the problem is the national economy. we created more jobs and taxes over the last 10 years and every other states combined. he says the problem is the national economy. why it's issue is, this is interesting, he has refused to commit to not raising taxes. he says he would be irresponsible to do that. he says that you have to look under the hood of the prague -- of the car. he says that when he ran for mayor of houston, he would not

commit to not raising taxes or lowering taxes. he actually of ultimately lower the taxes of five or six times when he was mayor. problem is, there are not a lot of places to look for this money. no one has the stomach for raising taxes. we have about $9 million in the so-called rainy day fund. if they drain the rainy day fund, that will get you down to about $13 billion. you may be able to do some tricks. the kind of accounting stuff that people do in situations like that. you are still looking for a or $9 billion. there is no place to go except to cut education or health and human services. it is a mass. white is saying, look, we are in a terrible situation. we have to investigate every

option possible. perry says we're going to cut and not raise taxes. >> if viewers are interested in hearing these candidate, we will be airing your one-on-one interviews starting at 10:00. we will start with the governor. first. they did governor perry first. the latest poll says that gov. perry is leading. where do you see this race going in the next couple of weeks? >> if you went out to the street corner by the corner and you ask people what they believe, and they would save that the race is summer in the high single digits right now. -- that the race is somewhere in the high single digits right now. it is a republican state. obama lost texas by 11 points in 2008.

it is a republican state. it has been a republican state. it is a republican year. for any democratic nominee in this state in this year, the trouble is going in. you need some game changer. white has been as competitive as any democrat running for governor, but it is a huge rock to push up a huge hill. >> is seeking help then from democratic leaders? -- is he getting help from democratic leaders in washington? >> understand that there is a to edged sword there. right now, the villain is washington. if you relies too heavily on washington to help his campaign, he gives the perry campaign the opportunity to say that you are a clone of obama. white has always needed is --

and he still needs a game changer. it is possible to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. >> evan smith, thank you so much. to our viewers, we will air those interviews tonight starting at 10:00. but to our website, c-span.org. -- go to our website. >> governor, thank you so much for being here. what we began with a quick question about why we are here. -- let me begin with a quick question about why we are here. you made a point of saying that you would not debate mayor white. what does one thing have to do with the other? it is very important to be transparent with the people of the state of texas.

it has been pretty demanding of me. i have worked my threat -- my way through to be transparent, open and honest about how i made my money. it is still a question that comes to me. we are very transparent and very open. if you want to be governor of the greatest state in the nation and you want to stand up in front of all these people and say listen, i want to serve you. i want to leave you. you should be honest with them. you should say, this is how i made my money. that is very important. he refused to do that. that speaks volumes to me. what were you doing all your the deputy secretary of energy that caused such restraint on your side? >> is back an issue for the governors -- for the voters? you are punishing the voters.

>> evan, i have done it 250 + interviews. iodine dozens of press conferences. -- i have done dozens of press conferences. the reporters on the beat that i am talking to are intellectually engaged and they did not pull any punches from the standpoint of where we have then. the people of the state of texas have ample opportunity to see it. mine was about being consistent. if you really want to be the governor, you all the people of this state to be transparent and honest. he decided that he did not want to do it. >> why did you make a same the demand from senator hutcheson in the primaries? >> they laid out of their records as far as i know.

this was an issue that we thought was very important. there is something going on there. do you know what i mean? you look at the business practices that he has been involved in and all the rumors of the middle eastern and far eastern companies that he has done business with, and people need to know, were you doing business with people who are counter to the united states interests? when you won't show something, things run rampant. senator hutchison, we pretty much know what she has been doing all for life. the other candidates for minor candidates. >> let me move on to some substance. you have been governor for 10 years. what is left to do that you could not accomplish over the last terms? what is left to do? >> most dynamic state in the nation, ever-changing, always moving and morphing into -- you

think about taxes back in the 1980's and we were flat on our backs. we had a very narrow economy. then we started diversifying. over the last decade, we have had over 01 thousand people a day adding to the population. you have all these demands, whether it is an increased infrastructure, whether it is an education, energy. all of these things are happening in the state of texas. frankly, we needed to be really engaged and making the state be more competitive. that is the reason we created the emerging technology fund and the enterprise fund. i happen to see texas just beginning to really flourish. our best days are ahead of us. >> so there is more work? >> i do not know how we could have done any more work.

we've had the most sweeping tort reform in the nation. it has made great progress in this state. 60% more doctors. i know we have some physicians and a doctorate -- in the audience today. i think there are more things that we can do on the legal side. a concept that could help make texas a be absolute at the center of business growth. transportation infrastructure, we still have these challenges of how we will build roads. we have build more roads in the last 10 years than any other state in the nation, but we still need to see the state government quit diverting those funds away from our highways. we need to have washington d.c. giving us our fair share back. whether it is creating a way to move our water resources around, developing our alternative energy sources, some of them we

are doing a really good job. i want to see nuclear move forward. natural gas -- those resources from the standpoint of transitioning our fleets to natural gas, building more natural gas power plants. we have a lot of work to do in the state of texas. i'm still excited to be -- i am still excited to be engaged. >> i want to mention the emerging technology fund. one controversy that popped up is related to a donor named david nantes. he was turned away by the regional screening board and he's still got the money. your staff has said there was an

appeal. they say that it is unprecedented for a company to be turned away. and get the money. tell me how this looks. >> all i can tell you is what went on. it is not out of the ordinary to get an appeal in the world that we live in. >> there is a process to appeal? >> i do not think there is a written process for an appeal. when you think about the world that we live in, if you go to one court and that court says a note -- and let the kind of clear this up. what i got turned down was a highly technical reason that dealt with intellectual property. they had two different opinions that were counter to each other. instead of dealing with it, at the kind of punted. they knew this was a great product.

that is the result that i am looking for. from time to time, if the legislature says, we will have a process. if it gets turned down, and that is fine. i will live with that. but we do not have that in place. what we do have in place is a 17-member advisory board. there is a lot of democrats on that. key serves on the board of one of these companies. -- he serves on the board of one of these companies. the idea that this is some type of insider deal, that may make for some good reading, but the fact of the matter is that these are 17 highly technical people that looked at a project that has the potential to cure

cancer. that is the result that we're looking for. i will be the first to say, if the legislature wants to change this process and this program, i will do it. you know, if bill white is interested in tearing down a program that we have used in this state to create jobs and well, i disagree with him greatly. >> governor, i am not asking questions -- i would just like to understand better what happened. the people on the board that turned away the application thought it was a great project. not a single of the -- not a single member of the board has come forward and told that version of the story. they said, there is no process for appeal. >> i disagree. there have been people coming forward and said, this is a great process. the 17-member board of oversight -- they would not have

sent it forward, and then. we have been doing this since 2007. this is a good process. i hope you and the listeners and readers out there will go to the site and take a look at what they're doing. this is a really good process. i am learning more about myself. this is a good company that is going to make a product that cures cancer. i thought that was what we were all about. what we got was an taha moment -- aha moment. i saw it as people using a process in place to get a the result that they were looking for. frankly, i think the state advisory board was looking for, too. again, if the legislature wants

to change the way it is done, let's revisited during the legislative session. i'm a whole lot more interested and getting -- in getting these highly innovative, cutting edge commercialization out creating jobs and wealth in a state of texas than i am getting tied up around the hassle of process so somebody can have a fun story before the campaign finishes. >> since you mentioned transparency, let me take you at your word that your 4 transparency. the accident or release of a schedule that contained political events, other functions that are not on your schedule. what people were paying attention to on that schedule was not -- it was briefings.

it was more political stuff. the schedule is as spare enough that if a meeting had developed, you said i work harder than is reflected on that schedule. that is the case, why not done everything that you do on the taxpayer diamond in the name of open government in one schedule. >> that is not the way we have ever done are scheduled. i do not think it is your business when i go to the hospital or where i take my wife or do i need on my private dime. >> exactly. >> we keep to schedules. there is nothing funny going on here. it is a matter of a comment here it are the rules. we follow the rules. there is a private schedule and there is a public schedule.

what i do with my private time is my business. >> what about the political work that you do? >> it is on the schedule. >> is not on the first schedule. >> if it is the governor's words, it is on that schedule. >> but serbia and did an open record request and got beat -- the tribune and did an open record request. you do not believe that the governor should be providing more information? >> i think we give so much information already. >> if we want to be bored, will you give us more? >> we will follow the rules the way they are written in the state of texas. at this particular point in time, we're not doing anything that are outside the rules put in place. that is the reason we pass laws. we decide how to deal with them. we do that every day.

whether it is ethics laws. he used to be able to take cash money in the 1960's, they change that. we changed our statutes all the time. but the legislature thinks it is important to show every waking moment that the governor from the time he gets up in the morning and starts into his personal hygiene until he goes to bed at night and kisses his wife denied, that is what we will do. -- kisses his wife good night, that is what we do. i think we have a good process in place. here is what he is doing on his official dime. what he does after that, you probably do not care about. >> their work 11 state employees who were also paid by the campaign -- and there were 11 states employees who were also paid by the campaign. is there anything wrong with that? >> not at all.

if i had somebody go over to the campaign office and grab my briefcase and we did not have that individual being paid, they would be screaming bloody murder. we do that in an abundance of caution, obviously. you have people who worked at the state office. you have people who do part-time over at the campaign office. clint is with me more time than any yet, from the standpoint of traveling with me. we go from estate event -- from a state event, then he needs to be paid by the campaign. that is a crazy system that we have put in place. but that is what it is and that is what we work with. tell me what the rules are and we will play by them.

>> there is no such rules on the destruction of e-mails. e-mails are destroyed after seven days. why not have them stay around longer? >> how long? >> you tell me. >> i am asking you. [laughter] >> governor, do i get to pick? how about a month? >> no, you do not get to pick. >> well, you ask me. 30 days. i think it ought to be 30 days. >> well, i do not. [laughter] >> and that is the end of the conversation? >> i know who i work for. i work for the people i work for the legislature. if they come in and say here is going to be the state's policy on these records.

at this particular point in time, it seems to work well. one of the things that i hope we do not get into is keeping records incredibly long periods of time and then having folks use up our state employees time for no other reason than to going on a fishing escapades. >> you have an attorney general working with you with quite an open records had. -- ad. you were on bloomberg television and you were asked about the shortfall. the discussion out in the world is that the shortfall is going to be $18 billion. it might be as much as $21

billion. you said, it will be more like $10 billion. what do you know that we do not know? >> you left out a rather important person in the process. his name is steve ogden. here is what i will suggest to you. if i have to pick between someone, the person with the most experience in the house, in the senate, would be most appropriations time and service, it is steve ogden. i think steve austin has a better handle on what's the approach -- ogden has a better handle on what the budget shortfall will be. the lever is out there trying to put a fine point on its is either being irresponsible or premature. >> i think what you said about

senator watson was bizarre. you said it was bizarre. >> i was being nice. we have a process in place. the process is for the comptroller to tell us what the budget shortfall is going to be. with all due respect, everybody wants to be engaged in the process and get their name in the paper. we've seen everything from $10 billion to $25 billion. it is irresponsible to be out there pitching numbers when you do not know. the comptroller just got another report in and we are 6% above partial tax revenues from a year ago. -- 6% above our shalt tax revenues from a year ago. there are a lot of nuances going on about their about people wanting a bigger budget crisis so they can work different

programs. here is why -- we have a process in place. we knew there was going to be a budget shortfall. it is the reason we ask for a 5% reduction in current programs. we've already cut out 11% from the governor's budget. we ask for a 10% reduction -- we're working towards that. i had been doing this for 25 years. i been on the appropriations committee twice. i was a lieutenant governor. i know this process rather well. we have a process in place that has worked well. but we get this budget estimates, -- when we get this

budget estimate, we will go through a thoughtful process of prioritization and we will spend the dollars on the things that are important and we will reduce the spending in the other areas without raising taxes and we will have a balanced budget at the end of the day. that is the way the process will work. >> does senator ought to show his work when he gave you that particular piece of -- senator ogden show his work when he gave you that particular piece of math? >> no, he did not. >> i want to understand his position, which you have embraced. >> the senator is a very fiscally responsible bad guy. i trust it -- fiscally responsible guy. i trust him.

i've known him since he was 16. we have a long personal relationship and i trust him. >> you were asked, how will you cut it? you said, no tax increases. when your appointed chair in the transportation commission tells me earlier this year that we have a road funding hold up half as much as $315 billion just to maintain current contestants between now and 2030. response is that we do not have a revenue problem in the state. >> we do not have a revenue problem in the state on the upcoming budget. >> do we have a revenue problem going forward? >> sure, we had a revenue problem going forward, i think. you do not have a crystal ball.

i did not have a crystal ball. transportation infrastructure and the projections out over the decade is what she is talking about. we are talking about a really long period of time. i do not have a problem with our process of dealing with the budget. we will not have enough dollars flowing and it to do all the highway projects that the local entities are going to want to do over the course of the next two years. but you know what, there are a lot of texans out there that will not be able to do some things they want to do. the economy is turned down. they spent money like it was candy at the. , from the outside of the doors in washington d.c..

people understand what is going on in this country right now. the idea that state government does not do the same thing that these people have to do in their personal lives does not compete with me. you better believe that we have to at the same way. the good news is that we have historically. in 2003, we reduced that spending. we feel that budget gap and we did not raise taxes. the economy turned around in a short period of time. i pray and hope that can happen again. yes, we do have huge needs in this state. i did not run away from that. people want a proven a fiscal conservative who will stand up and say, the worst time we can be raising taxes on these

individuals is now wall there is a recession going on. i truly believe -- the worst time. that is what this is all about. every legislative session is tough. our wants are always more than our needs. it has always been that way. >> let me ask you to look ahead. we have enough revenue for this next cycle. let's look ahead 25 years. >> i will probably not the governor in 25 years. >> the white campaign thinks you will be. [laughter] the state is going to change in a lot of ways. the population is going to grow dramatically. does the current way that

restructure financing of state programs and state agencies work looking out 25 or 30 years? t think we will be ok without changes? >> note -- do you think will be ok without changes? >> you go back and be -- we changed our tax structure in 2006. we asked john sharp to, and ask us to restructure that business tax and we saved over $16 billion of property tax when we made that to swap out. there was a net tax cut. we have always been looking at ways to change and make ourselves more efficient. the idea to sit here and try to project out 25 years and said, -- and said, it here is the way

it is going to be. we have trouble looking two years down the road. >> if you believe the notion of having -- do you think this works going forward? >> i believe that if you will give texans freedom, freedom from taxation, freedom from over litigation, give them accountable public schools that will develop a skilled workforce, our system will work better than anybody in the country. i will tell you that the folks who want to stand up and say, we need to have a personal income tax or raise taxes, i do not believe in that. if you free texans to go risk their capital and let them know they have a great opportunity to get a return on that investment, that is how they will be successful. people continue to work -- move to this state and we will create amount of resources that will then pay for the government

that the texans say that they want. that has worked well in the last decade. you do not have to tweak on that a whole bunch. >> let me ask you about something that happened the last session. you turn down stimulus monday -- stimulus money. the state took almost $17 million in federal stimulus money. not all federal stimulus money is bad. >> no. it is the strings attached that get you. >> doesn't all federal money have strings? >> no, it does not. look back historically. i hope that one of the byproducts of november the second when the republicans take over the house of representatives and they really talk about how all these

stimulus programs work, i hope they will talk about better ways to do this. gov. perry, i think we have a better way to deliver health care. here are the dollars that are coming to texas. did you have a better way to educate your children? i think the block grant process works well. here is what does not work well. this one size fits all mentality that is coming out of washington. obama care is a great example. here is the way you're going to deliver health care. we knew it was going to cost us $27 billion more in the next 10 years. i promise you that the physicians that are in the audience today, they are not going to practice medicine. we will see a shortage of physicians. to enter your question, the unemployment insurance dollars -- to answer your question, the

unemployment insurance dollars had strings attached. if you take the money, you are signing off. and i said, no. we had voted down those changes in the texas legislature and tried to blackmail us with their own money. >> when the state sense dollars down to local jurisdictions, and there is an knelt strings attached? >> -- there are not strings attached? >> they are generally good strings. >> it is not about strings. >> it is also about the process. when we meet in texas in our legislature, the school boards are here. the superintendents are here.

the teacher groups are coming in and we work with them. by and large, the restrictions been approved. they did not ask us about that in washington d.c. trying to compare texas with washington is a stretch. >> you cannot do it. let me compare to the bells and 11 -- 2011 to 2003. you are going to send the bill to the local jurisdictions. make them bear the cost. >> here is what we tell them. as we go through this process, we are going to prioritize what is important. there is on a program out there that does not need to go through

scrutiny. not a one. if anyone says, my program is so important that it will not be looked at, they are in for a shock. we are going to look at every program. but there are ways to make more -- make it more efficient, consolidate, we will do it. the idea of standing up and sang, i guarantee you we are not going to shift any dollars to this place, but we should a huge amount of money to the state from the local districts in 06 when we did the property tax reduction. >> you are leaving open the possibility? >> i am leaving open every possibility.

for anybody to stand up here and say there is not gone to be this or that -- >> you said it would taxes. >> but i have a track record with that. >> the franchise tax was a tax increase. >> there was a net tax decrease. >> you think u.s. had a consistent record? what about the rainy day fund? you do not believe that we should drain the entire rainy day fund, but you are looking -- willing to look at the possibility? >> you did a very good job of repeating what i have said. >> that will be your position going forward? >> yes.

that is like trying to get me to throw the start over at the board. we do not know what the budget for -- shortfall is. i think it will be some. i think there is a real possibility that we use some of the rainy day fund for a one- time expenditure out there. that is what it was put in place for. again, trying to make any concrete statements before we have that projection -- it's fun, but i am not going to do that. >> let me ask you about an attack ad. you had some endorsement from the law enforcement, his former employees. i looked at the policies of the department of safety. with regards to this issue, the

department of public safety policies are no different than the policies of the city of houston. why is tax is not a sanctuary state if houston is a sanctuary city? >> i consider those police officers having a very good handle on the directives that were given to them from the chief of police. it was a sanctuary city. >> but the policies -- they will not engage in enforcement of federal immigration statutes. that is from the department of public safety. why is that different? >> the houston statute is different. >> it says the same thing. >> i think the houston law is different. >> does that not sound like a sanctuary city agency? >> here is what i think. if anybody tried to paint texas

as a sanctuary state, they're walking onto some pretty thin ice. >> i am trying to understand the difference. >> no state has had a more engaged effort to secure the border in this country than texas has. $230 million that we approved for the creation of vicomte teams. the fact is, this should not even be an issue. it's the federal government had done its work of securing borders. you can pass all the immigration laws that you want for as many years as you want, there is a revolving door at the border. jocelyn johnson, whose husband

was killed by an illegal, thinks sanctuary lothas a in place. i will stand up with those men and women in houston, police officers' union, that think that houston had a sanctuary city, regardless of what the wording that somebody has. >> as we get down to the end of the 40 minutes, why should latino texans picky over bill white? -- pick you over bill white? >> this is not about hispanics or african-americans, we all want the same thing. we want to live in a state or the economy is as good as it can be. there is nothing more powerful of them having -- it is the best

state in the nation as far as job creation. taking care of my family with a good job. i want to be able to live in a safe community. i want to be able to take my family out and feels safe. people want an educational opportunity for their children, better than what they have. after that, it gets off the radar screen in a hurry. in the state of texas, back to the specific ethnic group of hispanics, we have seen an amazing increase of hispanic students going to college. we increased our financial aid in 2001-2009 by 900 + %.

if there was ever a -- if you want to take care of your family's needs, if you want to be living in safe neighborhoods, and if you want to have a better educational opportunity, there is no better state in america. that is the message to the hispanic community. that is the message to the african-american community. that is the message to all texans. that is the great thing about this. you are not catering to some ethnic group. you are giving people great opportunities to equitably enjoy the benefits of living in this great state. >> let me move over to my questions from questions that were submitted by facebook and twitter and other web sites.

i will dive right and. state spending, the governor, has increased by 80% since 2001. do you consider this fiscally respect -- conservative? >> when your family grows and you get married and you have children, your budget grows. our state budget grew less than the population and inflation. i think it is an educated question from the standpoint of not under siege -- it isn't on uneducated question. of course, your budget is going to grow. the question that you should have asked is how did texas to

-- house are -- has are dead ground per-capita? 1.4% in 1998 was the percentage of per-capita debt. in 2009, it is 1.4%. >> when you look at that $21 billion, who gets the blame? who is to blame? you have claimed credit for creating more jobs. who gets the credit are the people in the audience and all over the state to get up every morning and risk their capital. that is to gets the credit for creating jobs. government never creates jobs. have we work together to create a climate where they would go out and risk their capital? absolutely.

>> that is the had you have on. -- ad. who gets the blame porgies state of the budget right now? -- a new gets the blame for the state of the budget right now? >> there was a technology bubble bust in 2003. the resources quit coming in. there are a lot of different reasons that are brought -- that our revenues are down, the least of which is not that we have a federal government that is scared small-business owners to death. they do not know what the capital gains rate is going to be. if you are a -- if you are going to go out and build a substantial structure and you do not know what the capital gains tax is going to be because washington d.c. has failed to give you that information, you are sitting on that. that is what has happened too

often across this country. people are afraid to go invest, go put that money out there and put it to work and have people employed. i will suggest to you that one of the main reasons that we have a turndown in the economy is because of the out-of-control spending that started in washington d.c. way back before this current administration got there. budget deficit has created a mentality in people of, we will just pull back until we figure al will happen. >> governor, you signed five the budgets. you'll have not hesitated -- a lot of the spending that you were complaining about this stuff that you could have vetoed.

>> i love your theory. >> it is a theory. i would like to hear your response. >> you are saying that i have that crystal ball some are back in the car. i do not have a crystal ball. we sat here and we work together and we project as well as we can about what the needs are for the people of the state of texas. i do not think -- a lot people how dare say we do not spend enough. -- a lot of people out there say we do not spend enough. i have some folks in different places to say, you are met -- you are not even getting close to spending enough. i think we found a good balance. economies and and flow. and we have the greatest economy in the country right now. the idea that that the governor or the lieutenant governor, members of the legislature, it

is your fault that we have got a national recession on our hands. that is a bit of a stretch. we will get back in here and we will prioritize what is important. we will know what our revenues are. we will balance our budget without raising taxes. >> here is another question. you spend much of your campaign talking about -- you have spent nearly $600,000 of taxpayer dollars on your house. >> we would be the first to tell you that we wished the mansion had never been brought. that project was supposed to be in nine months to a year. would be tragic event of arson, it has gone from one year to four years. every agency that has oversight

and engagement with the governor's residence, they are being reduced just like every other state agency. we clearly sent them reductions and they're making the reductions. at the end of the day, when the legislature comes back in, and we met once. we met after the fire. if the legislature wants us to move somewhere else, i will pull the you hold up and we will go live somewhere else. -- u-haul up and we will go live somewhere else. again, i wish we were back in the beautiful old mansion. >> comes decision was it? >> it was a lot of people. the biggest consideration that you have is on security.

i wish we did not live in that kind of world. when you have a gubernatorial candidate who was assassinated less than six months ago and some of the types of individuals -- you have the mansion burned down. the biggest concern on the the residence is security. to find a place that has the ability to be secure and to do that on the cheap, i would suggest that it is pretty hard to do. i think they found as cheap a place as they could find, considering what dps said for the security requirements. >> i would like the governor to

tell us if the state has exhausted all of its available resources to help texans in need. is there more that we can do as a state? have to send a dime to the federal government, we can have this conversation. we spend billions of dollars to washington d.c. i am tired of being a donor states. we have spent -- we have spent billions of dollars to washington d.c. for years now. we get back 70 cents for every dollar. please do not tell me washington, that is our responsibility to take care of these issues and that we have

the resources what you are still sucking tax money out of this state at unprecedented levels. fortified jobs were created in the decade of tip -- four out of five jobs that were created in this decade were created in texas. i'm a little offended that the federal government would say, you have plenty of resources. it is not the first time that we have heard that from them. think about when hurricane katrina and then ike came, we got treated completely differently. if you were on the louisiana lines, you got some resources that were not made available. you get frustrated with the federal government' that thinks federal government' that thinks that