be held accountable and you need to go to prison. i will not allow any lobbyist to hold positions two years after leaving state government. while they hold government positions, they cannot make decisions that will affect their lives. . .

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. its fishing pole but they have not passed an independent ethics commission. 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. it will not be independent. 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. he received a $4 million contract from the richardson administration. 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. i cannot imagine making a serious complaint that there was such a conflict of interest. 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.

>> mrs. denish, you have a minute to respond. >> 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. 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. 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. you can make those choices now by going to the polls and voting early. 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,

"maybe you are right, but they are not being created here in new mexico." you have had eight years to help create those jobs. 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. -- the backbone of those who create jobs in new mexico. 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. bring their families here. what to develop their jobs and

invest in their companies. 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. i want to think -- i want you to think over the next 12 days. 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 wants to cut public education. she wants to let out of state corporations pay less so we pay more. she wants to roll back the rules so the water and our land are polluted. that is not the kind that new mexico we want for our children.

my grandparents came here almost 100 years ago. one became a teacher. the other a small business owner. they worked hard to raise their families and they wanted their children to have a better opportunity than they had. today, that is what new mexico families are thinking. to is going to give my children a better opportunity? 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 new mexico's future. i am not the flashiest candidate. i am not a show horse. i am a work horse. i will be a work horse for new mexico families. i love new mexico -- our people,

our culture, and our traditions. it is my home. 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 you 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. >> be sure to join us at 10:00 tonight for a full analysis of tonight's debate. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> policies and's election coverage right through election day. -- follows c-span's election coverage right through election day. a poll of more than 400 likely voters say the democratic representative, joe says that, leads by 41%. this race is rated a toss up. on saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, a live debate between the senate candidates in colorado. this race is also rated a toss up. kara roland, what impact is president obama had been on the campaign? >> as we are entering the final

stretch, his big objective is to rally the base and get the core democratic voters out. the white house is counting big crowds that are turning up at these rallies. there were 35,000 at this one rally in ohio. it is more to focus on these core groups of voters, particularly young people, then it is the regular voters and independence. that is the big focus. >> how is president obama picking the states to campaign in? >> it is interesting. if you look at the states he is going to, they are pretty much limited to traditional democratic strongholds. it is pretty much north and west. he is not going below the mason- dixon line. it is striking. it is a contrast from 2008 when

one of the big reasons heat when it was by expanding the plainfield for democrats. take indiana and virginia for example. he won on the presidential campaign trail, but we have not seen him going to either of those states recently. by contrast, his approval ratings in some of these states are well above 80%. that is much higher than the national ratings. >> what other options are there for democratic states? >> i just mentioned indiana. other ones that come to mind are west virginia. the governor is pretty popular, but he is in a tight race for a senate seat. he and other candidates have had people like bill clinton, on the campaign trail and stop for

them. joe biden has done that as well. it is interesting that he is part of the white house is getting hammered over these policies, but i think what people find is the object of having obama there. it is personalized. it is a referendum on him personally. some -- >> are there certain things for the obama focus on -- focuses on? >> his message has been evolving. this summer we heard a lot of talk about bush era policies. he was bringing out his predecessor and then tied the shifted gears to john boehner. we have heard a lot of this and will continue to hear a lot more of this. he has been focusing on campaign finance. he describes the outside groups as shady, shall we types that do not disclose their donors.

he has been accusing them of stealing the election and things like that. that is one prime example of one of the things he is trying to toss out to left wing voters. >> thank you so much. >> my pleasure. >> in a few moments, interviews with the candidates for governor of texas -- incumbent governor rick perry and bill white. after that, a discussion on the integrity of next month's elections. >> pcs and networks provide cover -- the c-span networks provide coverage on television, radio, on line, and on social immediate networking sites.

find our content any time on c- span's video library. we are bringing our resources to your community. it is washington your way, the c-span network. now available in more than 1 million homes. provided by cable as a public service. >> no debates are scheduled between the candidates for governor of texas. each of them, incumbent republican rick perry and challenger bill white set out for interviews. interviewperry's begins in a few minutes. >>

texas added more than 850,000 new jobs. more texans pat new jobs today than the entire population of fort worth. >> texas is on the right path. as your governor, job creation is my top priority. >> after 10 years under rick perry, texas is not open for business to everyone. it is for sale. texans are paying the price. >> help me take down the for sale sign. i will work hard for the young people in texas, not the insiders. that means preparing them for the critical thinking they need in college. that is texas' future. >> those are the latest ads by

the candidates for texas governor. the incumbent, rick perry, has refused to debate his challenger until he releases his tax records. recently both candidates sat down for wind-on-one interviews. evan smith is joining us this morning. has there been any backlash with voters? >> it is interesting. a lot of people in austin are the ones paying attention to this. i do not think a lot of people in texas care about the debate. he has also reduced to meet with the editorial board. i am not sure people care about that either. his campaign is being run in a nontraditional way. do not deal with the media. do not deal with the newspaper.

just talk to voters directly and sent it will all be well. understand that the issue is that bill white released his tax returns for some years. they are asking for the tax returns while he was serving under bill clinton and as the chairman of the texas democratic party. these are years when he was in public life. they think they deserve to know where his sources of income were and are for those years in public life. bill white refused to believe them. his answer is something along the lines of we do not negotiate with terrorists. we do not accept whatever demands are put on us. we have been more transparent than governor perry. in that respect, the fact that anybody has been out talking

about debates distract from talking about the things that will not be decided in this election, which are the issues that matter every day. >> are the candidates bringing up the other issues? what is driving this race? >> the reason we did the interviews on friday of last week was to try to get them off of the campaign means and get them to actually answer questions about energy, public education, and immigration. we have a budget shortfall projected for texas. we are a lower tax, low service base. there are no options except to cut programs. there is a standard campaign stop that is going on. perry says white is an obama column.

-- obama clone. he was not terribly popular here in 2008. he is less popular now. perry is try to tight white to obama. -- trying to tie white to obama. we have all come to expect this. >> you mentioned this about the shortfall -- $21 million dollars. had the texas get into this situation and tell had the candidates responded? >> if you ask the governor, he was a the national economy has visited itself in a bad way on texas. it is a culture of overspending in washington that has least down to texas brigid's he signed five budgets of the last 10 years. he has a veto pen he has not

.een willing to use bid he says the problem is the national economy. even the texas is the head of the rest of the country, we created more jobs in texas than any other state combined in the past 10 years -- he says the problem is the national economy. white has refused to commit to not raising taxes. he says it would be irresponsible to do that. you got to get inside the office, attended the hood of the car and see what the problem is, and maybe you can come back and say we need attack -- we need new tax increases. he ultimately lowered taxes five or six times while he was mayor. the problem is there or not a

lot of places to go to look for this money. nobody has the stomach for raising taxes. we have a rainy day fund. it is pouring right now. they drained the rainy day fund. you might be able to do some tricks -- pay the state payroll a day into the next cycle, the kind of accounting staff people do in situations like this, but you are still looking for a $8 billion or $9 billion. there is nowhere else to go except to cut education and health and human services. people think we do not pay enough on that now. it is a mess. white to say we have to investigate every option possible to get this down. perry says we have to cut and we will not raise taxes. >> we are going to be airing your interviews with both of them tonight starting at 10:00

p.m. eastern time. we'll start with governor perry and move on to bill white. the latest poll shows that governor perry is leading by 82% to 42%. we see this race going in the next couple of weeks? >> if you go out and ask people here in austin, they would say the race is in the height single digits right now. the republicans say that obama lost taxes by 11 points in 2008. it is a republican state. it was a republican state when george bush was a governor. it is a republican year. for any democratic nominee in the state in this year, the

trouble is baked into the cake going in. you need some game changer. you need something to get you over the hurdle. white has been as competitive as and richards, but it is a huge rock to project -- to push up a huge hill. >> has white gotten any help from democratic leaders in washington? >> yes, but understand it is a double edged stork -- double edged sword. he relies heavily on washington to help his campaign, he gives the perry campaign the ability to say he is and obama cologne. lone. is an obama colum >> thank you so much.

we will air those white-on and that's one interviews with the candidates tonight starting at 10:00 p.m. eastern time. good to c-span.org/politics for more information. >> i think it is very important to be transparent with the people of the state of texas. it has been pretty demanding of me. i worked my way through the agriculture commission post. i was open and honest about how i made my money. it is a question that still

comes to me. we are very transparent and very open. if you want to be the governor of the greatest day in the nation and you want to stand up in front of all these people and say, "i want to serve you. i want to lead you pre "yet to be honest with them. yet to say this is how you make your money. that is very important. he refused to do that. that speaks volumes to meet. -- that speaks volumes to me. >> what dg do that caused such restraint on your side? is that not an issue for the voters? you are punishing the voters for mayor white's unwillingness to release his tax returns. >> i have done to under 50 plus interviews. i have done dozens of press conferences. the people of the state of texas are not being cheated by

seeing me. i had been out there. the reporters on the beat that i am talking to are intellectually engaged. they do not pull any punches from the standpoint of where we have been. the people of the state of texas have had ample opportunity to see us. this is about inconsistencies. if you want to be the governor of the state, you know the people of this state to be transparent and honest. he decided he did not want to do that. >> why did you not make the -- what to do not make a similar demand before debating the other candidates? >> they laid out their records as far as i know. the fact is this is an issue that we thought was very important. there is something going on there. you look at the business practices that he has been involved in at all of the

rumors of the middle eastern and the far eastern companies he has done business with, people need to know if he was doing business with people who are counter to the united states' interests. when you will not show something, things run rampant. senator hutchison, we pretty much know what she has been doing all of her life. the other candidates were minor candidates. >> let me move on to some substance. you had been governor for nearly 10 years. what is left to do that you could not accomplish over the last two terms? >> the most dynamic state in the nation, ever-changing, always moving and morphing into -- you think about taxes in the 1980's when we were flat on our back and we had a very narrow economy.

then we started diversifying. over the last decade we have had over 1000 people adding to the population of the state of texas. you have all of these demands, whether it is increased infrastructure, whether it is education, whether it is energy. all these things are happening in the state of texas. we needed to be really engaged in making the state more competitive. that is what we created the enterprise fund and the emerging technology fund. i see texas just beginning. our best days are ahead of us. >> there is no word you could not have done in these last two sessions. >> we passed the most sweeping tort reform in the nation. we have made great progress in this state. 60% more doctors. we have some doctors in the audience that would stand up and

cheer what has happened in the state of texas. i think there are more things we can do on the legal sign, like for instance, a concept that could help make texas the absolute epicenter of business growth as we go forward. transportation infrastructure -- we still have these challenges of how we are going to build more roads. we have built more rose in the last 10 years than any other state. but we are behind. we still need to see the state government stop diverting those funds away from our highways. we need washington, d.c., to give us our fair share back. whether it is creating a way to move our water resources around, developing our alternative energy sources. we are doing a good job with went. i want to see nuclear move forward. natural gas, particularly with the signs we have had here in the last couple of years --

those resources from the standpoint of transitioning our fleet to natural gas -- to natural gas, our had the balls to natural gas, building more natural gas power plants. we have more work to do in the state of texas. >> you mentioned a couple of things i want to come back to. you mentioned the emerging technology fund. one controversy that popped up is related to a donor whose company made application for a grant, but was turned away by a regional screening board and still got the money. your staff has said there was an appeal and that is how they got it. the members of the board say there is no appeal process. they say it is unprecedented for someone to be turned away and still get the money. tell me how this does not look like something funny is going

on. what happened? >> it is not out of the ordinary to get an appeal in the world that we live in. >> there is a process for appeal for this kind of a grant? >> i do not believe there is a written process for this kind of grant. it eager to one court and that court says no -- let me clear this up for folks. they were turned down was for 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, they kind of punted. they went to another one who turned them down. i knew this was a great product. that is the result that i am looking for. from time to time if the legislature says we are going to have a process that gets turned down by the first group, i can live with that.

we do not have that in place. what we do have in place is a 17-member a advisory board. there are a lot of democrats on that. one is a big supporter of public television, for instance. he is a big democrat in waco, texas. he served on the board of one of these companies that received one of these. the idea that somehow or another ditzes some kind of insider deal that is all republicans, that may make for some good reading, but the fact of the matter is these are 17 highly technical people to look at a projects that is -- that has the potential to cure cancer. that is the result we are looking for. i will be the first to say at the legislature wants to change this process and this program, i will do it. if bill white is interested in

tearing down a program we had used in the state to create jobs and wealth, i disagree with them greatly. >> i am not asking the question with respect to bill white. i am try to understand what happened. the people on the board thought it was a great project. 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. they said they turned it down. >> i disagree with you. there have been people come forward and say this is a great process. the 17-member board that oversaw its think it is a great process. we have been doing this now since 2007. this is a good process. i hope you and your listeners and readers out there will go to

the site and take a look at what they are doing. this is a really good process. i am learning more about its over the last few days myself. this is a good company that is going to make, hopefully, a product that cures cancer. i thought that was what we are all about. what we got was an aha moment where they did not follow exactly what we say is how you are supposed to do it. people were using a process to get results. frankly i think the state and advisory board was looking for it to. -- for it, too. thes revisit it during legislative session. but i am a whole lot more interested in getting these

highly innovative, cutting-edge commercialization set out creating jobs and wealth in the state of texas than i am em -- then i am in -- >> another thing that came up was the accidental release of eight schedule that contained political events, breathing with lobbyists and other functions that are not on your schedule. what people are paying attention to was not a o'clock p.m. watching "glee." it was more political stuff. you have said that you work

harder than is reflected on that schedule. it that is the case, why not put everything you do on the taxpayer's diane into one schedule -- the taxpayer's dime into one schedule. >> that is not how we do our schedule. i do not think it is your business when i get to the hospital or who i meet on my time. we keep two schedules. there is nothing funny going on. it is a matter of here are the rules. we followed the rules. there is a public schedule and a private schedule. what i do on my private time is my business. >> what about the political work you do? >> it is on the schedule. >> it is not all the first schedule, governor. >> all the governor's work is on

the schedule. >> the tribune did an open records request and in the schedules from other governors. you do not believe that the governor should be providing more information of the governor's activities? >> i believe we give so much information already that it is boring. >> if we want to be board will you give us more? [laughter] >> we are going to follow the rules as they are written in the state of texas. that is the reason we pass laws. we decide how to deal with them. we do that every day, whether it is ethics laws -- used to could take cash money in the 1960's. they changed that. we change our statues all the time. if 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 goodbye, that is what we will do. i think we have a nice process in place today that tells the people of the state of texas, "here is what he is doing on his official dime and what he does after that you probably do not care about." >> there was a realization that there were 11 state employees paid by the campaign. the state. is there somethin wrong with that? >> not at all. if i had somebody go over to the campaign office and grab my briefcase that i left over there and we did not have that individual being paid, they would be screaming bloody murder.

we do that with an abundance of caution. you have people that work at the state office. you have people to do part-time over at the campaign office. clint hart is with me more of the time then anita. if we go from a state event to something that might be questionable whether it is a state event, the need to be paid out of campaign funds. that is the crazy system we have put in place. that is will it is and that is what we work with. if you tell me what the rules are, we are going to play by them. >> since you mentioned it a couple of times, there is no set rule on the destruction of the

males. why not have them stay around longer? >> it is 7 days. >> how about a month? do i get to date? >> no, you do not get too big. [laughter] >> you asked me. 30 days. i think it ought to be 30 days. >> ok, i do not. [laughter] that is the end of the conversation. >> i know who i work for. if they want to come in and say this is going to be the state policy on these records, that is what we will live with. it seems to work well at this point in time. evan, one of the things i hope we do not get into is keeping records for incredibly long

periods of time and having people use of our state employees' time for no other reason to go on a fishing escapade. >> of course, you have an attorney general working for you. i do not think he would describe an open records request as a fishing expedition. the negev back a couple of weeks. you were on bluebird television. you're asked about a shortfall. he said it would be $18 million. some leaders in the house said it could be as much as $21 million. you told bloomberg it would be more like 18 million. >> you left out steve on them. the is the senate finance

chairman. here is what i suggest to you. if i have to pick between someone -- the person with the most experience in the house with the most appropriations time in service, it is steve ogden. i think he has a better handle on what the appropriations and the budget shortfall will be. here is a more important issue. whoever is out there trying to put a fine point on it at this particular point in time is either being irresponsible or premature. >> what you said about senator watson was bizarre. >> i was being nice. i did not call him an amateur. [laughter] we have a process in place.

that process is for the comptroller to tell us what the budget shortfall will be in january. with all due respect, everybody wants to be engaged in the process and get their name in the paper. we have seen everything from $10 billion to $25 billion. i think it is irresponsible to be out there pitching numbers when you do not know. the comptroller just got another report end where we were 6% above our sales tax revenues from a year ago. that is six months in a row that we have had those increases. there are a lot of nuances going on out there about maybe people want a bigger budget crisis so they can work to programs. here is where i come down. we have a process in place. we knew there would be a budget shortfall. that is why we ask for a 5% reduction in current programs.

we have already cut 11% of the budget. we asked for a 10% reduction going forward on our two year budget. we are working towards that. i have been doing this for 25 years. i am not a stranger at how this process works. i have been on the appropriations committee twice. all was the lieutenant governor and have been the governor. this budgeting process in a rather well. we have a process in place that has worked well. will we get the budget estimates, the legislature will sit down and we will go to a thoughtful process of prioritization and we will spend the dollars on things that are important. we will reduce the spending in other areas without raising

taxes and we will have a balanced budget at the end of may because we have a constitutional amendment. >> where you asked to show your work when you're given that math? did he tell you how he arrived at that conclusion? >> he did not. >> your taking the word of someone you trust. >> you're just asking me to take the word -- >> i am try to find out if it is the center's version. >> center on been -- senator ogden, i have seen his work. i have known him since i was 16. we have a long, personal relationship. >> let me read you back another ". -- another quote.

you said, "no tax increases. we do not have a revenue problem in the state." your appointed chair of the transportation commission told me earlier this year that we have a whole of as much as $315 billion just to maintain current projections between now and 2013. you said we do not have the revenue problem in the state. >> we do not have a revenue problem in this state on the upcoming budget. >> do we have a revenue problem going forward? >> sure, we have the revenue problem going forward. you do not have a crystal ball. i do 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 are not going to have enough dollars flowing in to do all of the highway projects that the local entities are going to want to do over the course of the next few years. you know what? there are a lot of texans out there that will not be able to do some things that they want to do because the economy is turned down. they have spent money like it was the candy at the parade, killing it out beside 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 or their small businesses does not compete with

me. you better believe we all have to act the same way. in 2003 reduced spending. we filled our budget gap. we did not raise taxes. the economy turned round in a very short period of time. we went from a shortfall in 2003 to an $8 million budget short blasts -- $8 million budget surplus in 2005. i pray and hope that can happen again. the idea that we have used these in this state, yes we do. i do not run away from that. but i think people want a proven fiscal conservatives that will stand up and say, "the worst time we can be raising taxes on these individuals is an al while there is a recession going on." >> is there ever a time to raise taxes? >> i am not a big fan of it. the fact is, this is the worst

time. that is what this is all about. every legislative session is tough whether you have a budget surplus or a short ball. -- budget surplus or a shortfall. >> we have enough revenue for this next cycle. let's look ahead 25 or 30 years. the state is going to change. >> i will not be governor in 25 years. [laughter] >> less look ahead. the state will change in a lot of ways. population would grow up -- population will grow dramatically. does the current way that we structured financing in state programs work looking out 25 or 30 years? the they will be ok that without changes? >> no, because we change always. the idea that texas has been a

static state, it never has been. in the '60s they added a sales tax. we changed our tax structure in 2006 when i asked john shaw to come and help us to restructure debt business tax. we saved over $16 billion in property taxes will we make the swap. -- when we made that swap. we are always looking at ways to and maken the c-- ourselves more efficient. we have trouble looking two years down the road. >> i am try to understand that if you believe we have enough revenue in the next cycle, the you think this works? >> it is a philosophical

position. i believe that if you give texans and freedom from taxation, regulation, give them accountable public schools that will develop a skilled work force -- our system will work better than anybody's in the country. the people who want to say that we have to lead the personal income tax and we have to raise taxes, i do not believe in that. if you free to access to do risk their capital and let them know they have a great opportunity to get a return on their investment, that this shall we will be successful. people will continue to move to the state. we will create mountains of resources that will then pay for the government that the texans say that they want. that has worked well in the last decade. i will suggest to you that you do not have to tweak on that a whole bunch in the next decade or even 25 years from now.

>> you have made a big point of saying you turned it down $555 million of federal stimulus money that would have extended unemployment benefits. the state took almost $17 billion in federal stimulus money to go back retroactively and balance the budget. >> it is the strain's that are attached -- it is the stran ings that are attached that get you. i hope that one of the byproducts of the election when the republicans take over the house of representatives and they talk about how all the stimulus programs work, i hope we go back and say there are better ways to do this.

the have a better way to educate your children? here is the block grant. i think the block grant process works well. what does not work well is the one size fits all mentality that is coming out of washington, d.c. obama care is a great example. here is the way you're going to deliver health care. we know it is going to cost us $27 billion more in the next 10 years. the positions -- the physicians in the audience to date, they are not going to practice medicine. we will see a shortage in physicians. to answer your question, the unemployment insurance dollars and the race to the top dollars that i turndown had strings attached. you have to have national standards for teachers. i said, "never appear "-- i

said, "no." they tried to blackmail us with our own money. >> the state sends dollars down to school districts. there are no strings attached? this did in a big bag with a dollar sign on it? why is it ok for states to impose a freeze is but the federal government not to impose strings on you? >> it is about the process. will we meet in our legislature, the school board superintendents are here. the teacher groups are coming in and we work with them. by and large, the restrictions that get put on dollars as been approved. they do 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 2011 to 2003. can you guarantee school districts and hospital districts that we will not because -- that we will not be doing cost shifting? if there are cuts in services to get here is what we tell any state agency or local government. as we get to this process -- as we go through this process, we are going to prioritize what is important. there is not a program out there that will not go through scrutiny. if anybody stands up and says white a minute, my program is so important that it is not going to get looked at -- they are in

for a shock. we will look at every program. if there are ways to make things more efficient, if there are ways to consolidate, we are going to do it. the idea of standing up and saying, "i guarantee we are not going to shift any dollars into this place," we just shifted a huge amount of money to the state from the local districts in 2006 when we did the property-tax reduction in exchange for business taxes. >> if you are leaving open the possibility of offloading the cost. >> i am leaving open every possibility. >> i just want to be clear. you're not willing to say categorically -- >> for anybody to say categorically there is not going to be this or there is not going to be that -- i have a track

record of that. we do not raise taxes. sayhere are some people twho there is a net tax increase. >> there is a net tax decrease. >> nobody can identify where a tax went up in the last 10 years? i have heard you actually say this. if you do not believe we should drain the entire ready date find but you are willing to look at the rainy day fund to pay for a onetime dole. that will be your position going forward? >> if yes. that is trying to get me to throw in the dark at that board over there on the budget. >> why? >> because we do not know what the budget shortfall is. >> it would depend on the size of the shortfall. >> i think it will be something.

but if there is the real possibility that we use some of the rainy day fund for 81-time expenditure out there. that is why it was put in place. again, try to make any concrete statements year before we have that projection of what the revenue is, i am not going to do it. >> you had an attack advertisement on bill white this week. you have the endorsement of a number of houston police officers who were unhappy with the fact that they were working in a sanctuary city. >> with regard to this issue, the department of public safety policy is a no different than the policies of the city of houston. why is texas not a sanctuary state it houston is a sanctuary city? >> i believe those police

officers have a very good handle on the directives given to them from the chief of police working in conjunction with the mayor. it was a sanctuary city. >> the policies -- i will quote you the language -- that is from the department of public safety. why is that differ from houston? >> i think the houston statute is different. . .

. "washington journal" continues. host: on your screen is larry noden, the voting technology project director at the brain and center for justice. i want to start with two maps produced this week by usa today. the first one looks at how america voted in the year 2000. and all these different colors on the screen are the various ways, 10 years ago, that states

allow their citizens to vote. punch card, data, lever machines, paper, optical scanners, or a mix. below that is the map of the year 2010. anif you can see, it is much less an eclectic. the majority are using optical scanner. that is the green. the second largest popular method is the electronic voting. what got us here? guest: well, what really got us here is the 2000 election and all the problems that we had, particularly in florida, that exposed an antiquated system of voting in most of the country. as a result of the chaos of the 2000 election, congress in 2002 passed the help america vote act, which authorized billions of dollars for the states to purchase new voting equipment. initially after the help america

vote act was passed, a lot of juriictions went to touch screen machines, what are technically known as direct recording electronic machines. those are like atm's. and i think in the couple of years after the passage of the help america vote act in 2002, most people in the country thought that that is what everybody would be voting on by now, by 2010. there were a lot of controversies aund and that technology in the ensuing years. so we still have a number of jurisdictions in the cntry using this touchscreen machines, but many more went to optical scanning machines. those are electronic machines. you fill out a paper ballot by hand and then scan that pap ballot into an electronic machine that unts the votes. so we got rid of the punch card machines used in florida, the ler machines used here in new york and elsewhere. and we w have primarily two

systems that we use around the country. when people are voting in the polling place, and obviously, there have been oer developments since 2002. we have lots more people voting, for instance, by mail than they used to. host: we would like to invite u.s. would do closer to the november 2 election to join in our conversation about the mechanics of voting and house secure and accurate your polling place will be on such a hotly contested election ahead of us. what is your essential message about those two questions? we have spent billions of dollars as a nation investing in new voting technology. how well are you anticipating it will work in most places on november 2? guest: look, for the most part, i think that we have learned a lot about these machines in the past several years, and for most people, voting will be hopefully a relatively simple process. and i do not think that we're going to have nearly as many

breakdowns and other problems that we saw certainly in 2000 and then again in 2004 when many jurisdictions were using these systems for the first tim i think whenever you change a voting system, as we're doing right now inew york -- we're the last da in the country to move to new systems. you tend to have difficulties the first time around. a poll workers are not as familiar with the machines. voters are not as familiar with the machines. that could mean more problems. i will say that we will have some problems somewhere with machines breaking down. that happens. these machines are machines. they're not perfect. unfortunately, and this is something the brennans center has written about recently, although we have made a lot of progress in understanding these machines in developing better procedures for these machines, have not done as much as we should to make sure that these

machines are as accurate and reliable as possible. we still have a lot to learn, and there's still more that we can do going forward so that the kinds of problems that we have seen in the past withoting systems decline as much as possible. host: from your research at the print center, are there any particular states where you are castina more wary eye? guest: well, new york is the most obvious candidate for casting a wary eye. because as i said, this is the first time we're going to be using a new voting machines in major general election. and whener that happens, you're going to have voters who may not even know that they're voting on new systems for the first time, poll workers or not as familiar. we had some issues with these machines in the prima in new york, in large part because poll workers were not as familiar with the machines as they should

have been in the right procedures were not in place. so new york is certainly a place i will be looking to. but the last several years of elections shows but you just never know where problems can pop up. and the key thing is, do jurisdictions have in place the right procedures so that when something does go wrong, the machines stopped working, for instance, in long lines or wer machines droing votes when counting, they do whatever they can to insure everybody gets to vote and to make sure that they are recovering all the votes that may have been lost or ms. recorded. and there are things that jurisdictions can it do to make sure that happens. host: such as the pap received guest: when you: right. at this point, most of the country, in most jurisdictions, there will be some of voter- verify paper record of the vote, whether it is the voter that

filled it out herself or what you call a paper receipt, a paper trail. that is on the side of these touch screen machines. we should be using those to check the electronic totals. we should be doing things like checking the number of people assigned in when they came to vote and checking that against the totals that the machines are recording. these kinds of things flag for us potential problems. one of the things we have seen, unfortunately, is that the problems that we have with voting machines, there is no central federal agency that mandates, for the most part, problems reported to them. there's no central authority collecting this data of problems, at least as extensively as we do for many consumer products and automobiles and airplanes, so that we can have a problem in one county and one part of the country in a 2006 that might pop

up again in 2008 across the country because election officials across the country did not know about it. so that is one area where i think we could use some improvement, a better centralization of reportingf these problems, so that we know about the matter of time and do not have to deal with them afterwards. host: columbus, indiana, a democrat line. caller: yes, i wanted to find out how if your state or your location or county does not lead you see who you voted for one and is done, i mean, i might tell you, yes, you completed all the answers, but how would you find out if you do not have a paper receipt to look at our call somebody to ask them? how would you know? guest: i mean, this is one of the difculties, the technical

and security difficulties in a voting. because of the secrecy of the ballot, we cannot publish for somebody how their ve was recorded, because we do not want other people to have access to how you voted. we want that to be secret. but your point is a good one. if you have filled out the ballot yourself and inserted it into a machine or if there is a paper trail that you can look at on your touch screen machine, then at the very least what should be done is they can compare those paper tallies to what is in the machine, what the softwares reporting the tolls were. in the states where they do not have that, where they do not have an independent voter verified paper record, a paper record that the voter has looked at, unfortunately there is no way to independently confirmed that the software is recording

the votes accurately. of course, you know, we do test before hd to see the votes are being recorded accurately. we do tests afterwards to see the machines are recording things correctly. but our recommendation that the brain and center is that there should be some kind of independent record and should be used to check the software. because you know, software, like software on any machine sometimes has boggs. sometimes their programming errors. and that this when mistakes happen. th best way to make sure votes are recorded accurately is to have an independent record that can be used to check and that can be used to substitute in case there's any kind of problem with the software. host: we're getting a lot of tweets about people's experience in their own states. here's one of your who says we tested electroni voting machines in one place, a paper trail, and more -- host: how do you account for the

human factor? guest: that is a huge factor. we should not forget about it when we talk about problems with voting systems. very often, it is becse voters d not do what they're supposed to do for poll workers have some problems with the systems. as much as that is a problem with the voter or the poll worker, it is a problem with the machine. if a machine, for whatever reason the way a machine is set up is caing problems for voters sd that their votes enacted being corded accurately or is causing problems for poll workers or election officials said that the vos are not added up and totaled correctly, then we should be working to improve those machines to make them as user-friendly as possible. one of the analogies i often draw is if we had traffic signs that were confusing to drivers and there were causing traffic

accidents, we will not say -- we might say was the driver is all for getting in the accident, of course, but we would do whatever we could to make the traffic signs more easy to understand and avoid accidents. we shod be doing the same thing with voting machines. but again, unfortunately, as i said, unlike automobiles or microwave ovens or toasters, we are not mandating that that data be recorded to a central agency so that we can collect it and understand where voters are having problems. for instance, this message you got about the 250 voters who did not press enter, how often has that happened elsewhere? if it has happened elsewhere in many parts of the country, we should understand this is a user face problem with the mission needs to be fixed. host: bristol, pennsylvania, bob, republican. guest: the soldiers and stuff

overseas other absentee ballots. there were suosed to give them 40 days before the election as of 15 days before the election, as far as i know, they have not got their ballots yet. host: thanks. we have been reading about that in the newspaper but can you bring us up-to-date? guest: yeah, this is a huge problem and needs to be fixed. congressct -- congress passed an act last year to enter the military overseas voters were getting their ballots for the days ahead of time. it also autrized ballots to be sent by the internet so that military and overseas voters could print out their ballots and then send them back by regular mail. you know, it is really -- there's no other way of putting it. it is really a tragedy that this continues to be a problem. there are people that are serving their country overseas

-- i think all of us would agree that those people who are fighting for us overseas and protecting us should have the right to vote. and we should be doing everything we cano ensure that th get their balance on time and that they get them back to be counted in time. i do not have anything more to up date i terms of the problems with military and overseas voters getting theirallots. but certainly i hope that counties and states around the cotry make allowance for military and overseas of voters who did not get their ballots in that time to give them extra time to ensure that their votes get counted. host: next up, our independent line, a call from memphis. caller: good morning. listen, i do not know if you are familiar with whatappened in mphis, tennessee in our august 5 election with rampant voter fraud.

the problem i have is when we have rampant voter fraud and the election cmission is implicated that there are no criminal prosecutions. and our election commission, those being sued numerous times, have never lost a case. in this recent incident, although there were irregularities, there is fraud or malicious content, but criminal intent was not the case. so they dropped the charges. so what can we do about the human error in the pretense of corruption in the election process? and if people are not afraid of being prosecuted, then don't you think these irregularities will continue? guest: well, i familiar with the situation you are referring to in tennessee. i am not sure what kind of fraud you're talking about.

but i do think that there are a number of things that can be done to ensure that whatever corruption there is in elections is prevented. the most obvious thing is to make processes as transparent as possible. so that the counting process, it is transparent, so that when we are checking the software tallies, that we're checking them against voter verify paper records, that we're taking them against a number of people who signed in. we now have statewide voter registration databases, and every state in the country that keeps track of all the people who are registered to vote, there is a lot that we can do to automate the process to make sure that our registration rolls are as accurate as possible. all of those things and making all of it as open as possible, it seems to me, is the best way

of ensurin that, number one, that our elections are as fair as possible, but also frankly, insuring everybody else that is watching the election that when there are accusations of fraud, the their dog with as fairly as .ossible hoste host: next up, republican from the state of texas. caller: i was in florida for the 2000 elections. it hurts me the way everything went down. ameritech, maybe you should get some illegal aliens to count your votes, because that is the only way that you're going to make sure that who you voted for god coued. check this out. first, they're going to rig the election machines. the supreme court has now ruled that corporations can be considered as individuals, so

now all this money that is going into these campaigns are giving you a false reality. how is harry reid somehow in the polls almost even with the lady he is running with? how was charlie rangel getting in again? they got the voting machines are rigged. an electronicxperts cannot rig any of those voting machines. we need to go back to hand- counting these votes. america, i feel sorry for you because somebody's going to blame this on barack obama. thank you, c-span, and god bless you. host: we need to go back to hand-counting votes, he argues. guest: i think unfortunately, in a place like los angeles county, they might have as many as 250 contests in the county and it is in one election. it is probably not realistic in most places in at the united

states to hand-count those ballots if we want accurate results in a timely manner. what i do think that we can do is, you know, we have these machines now, and in much of the country, as i said, we have ballots that are either filled out by the voterr a paper trail, we can check this offer totals. so that if there are suspicions that for whatever reason the software is inaccurate, we have this paper record, and we can hand-counts of percentage of them. there are all kinds of formulas out there that statisticians have been together where we can have extreme confidencof the software is giving us accurate totals. so i do not think that we have to throw up our hands and say there is no way that we can know if these electronic machines are giving is accurate results. host: earlier, you reference the investment of new voting machines and there has also been a number of innovations in how

people vote, including early voting and absentee ballots. will you talk about how widespread this is and what effect it has on an accurate count? guest: sure, well, this is been one of the biggest changes in the way we vote that has gone unnoticed in many ways in the last 10 years. in the last election and the lastig federal election in 2008, close to a third of voters either voted early or voted by mail. i thinks of the like 20 percent of voters voted by mail. it makes it a lot of desert -- a lot easier for people to vote. it is less likely that we have situations that many of us remember in ohio in a 2004 with incredibly long lines and people waiting for hours, people not being able to vote because they cannot wait that long. when people can vote early and vote by mail, you spread out of the tightest and when people are voting, and you make it less likely that you have those kinds

of problems. on the other hand, there's no, unfortunately, there's no perfect system for voting. and there are problems with these alternative methods of voting. one of the biggest problems with the vote by mail is that unlike when you go into a polling place and vote, you're not guaranteed that your vote is going to count. what i mean by that is if you fail to fill out the envelope correctly, and this happens to vors, if you fail to sign your name or you're supposed to, if the mail gets lost, your vote might not get counted. you know, it depends on the state, but there are one, two, in some states where a vote by mail is less frequent, as much as 10% of those at do not counted because of these basically technal ministerial

reasons, their votes do not get counted. you know, it is still a relatively small percentage of votes that are coming in bmail better not counted,ut it is a very treal difference than votig in the polling place. it is a concern, and we saw that in minnesota in the recount in 2008. there was a hotly contested in very close race between al franken and norm coleman. a lot of disputes over whether votes should be counted were around the absentee ballots, because those could be challenged. were the filled out correctly? whereas, again, with votes counted in the polling place, it is counted. it went into the ballot box or was recorded on the dre and there's no question of whether or not the voters filled all the technical requirements out that he or she needed to. host: our guest served as the terror of the ohio secretary of

state's bipartisan elections summit -- as the chair of the ohio secretary of state bipartisan elections summit. prior to joining the brennan center, he was in private practice as an attorney, concentrating in bankruptcy law. how did you get into the field of voter law and ballot access? guest: by accident. i was lucky enough to be -- this is so is sending a was interested in, and i was lucky enough to be volunteering at the brennan center while i was in private practice. as i said, i was already very interested in this. we were working on a project at the brennan center analyzing votinsystems, and i was lucky enough to be offered a position there, a permanent position while i was volunteering. host: will you tell pple what the brennan center is? guest: it was founded by the

family of the late and great justice brennan, one of the most important supreme courtustices of the 20th century. and we are at think tanks and public law institute at new york university school of law. and we are meant as a living low world to justice brennan. we work on many of the issues he was conceed with all his life. and as justi and the supreme court. in my case, i am in the area of voting rights, but there are folks working on access to the courts, on issues like campaign finance reform, and other important issues of justice and democracy. host: next is a call from new haven, connecticut, a democrat. caller: i cannot believe in the mail-in vote. taking corruption out of election day, i think it also

allows the voters to not be swayed by late october surprises and tricks with the media. and it gets the candidates to focus on the issues. and the voters to focus on the issues. and it is the voters' responsibility to actually fill out these forms correctly, to get themselves educated as to how to do it properly. and while they do that, there is so much internet connection now they can actually researched the issues and the candidates on their own and come up with realistic expectations of them. i think that it is a much better voting sysm than the one that has been in pce for 200 years in this country. i mean, i was a candidate one time with the green party, and i saw our candidates' names all upside down on the voting machine and voting things where

you could not pull the switch on for our candidates. they pull all kinds of tricks with the voting machines. diebold was involved in the 2000 election, wasn't it? seems like a real mess to me. guest: well, there certainly are a lot of benefits to a vote by mail. i do not think there's any question of that. convenience has to be one of them. but again, first of all, i would hate to see is a tuition or we got rid of polling-place -- i would hate to see a situation where we got rid of polling place of voting around the country. therere a lot of benefits to the voting machines we're using now, including the fact that when you do make a mistake, for instance, as we did in florida in 2000 or a confusing sign needs people to make a mistake and try to correct it, the machines now tell you, we cannot read that balladur and it

will not count unless you fill it out again and you know, all the problems that you have with voting -- russianoff sale, but many of the problems with the voting at a polling place that you're going to have with vote by mail. if you have a poorly digned ballot, the confuses people and leaves them to make mistakes. then it is going to have disenfranchising a fax, just the way it does in the polling place. people make mistakes in thr vote one market counted on the ballot at home, and that will happen the same way as it does in the polling place. one thing i have been very glad to see is jurisdictions like oregon where they have all of vote by mail and minnesota has recently worked on at this. they have worked with usability experts and design experts to begin to put together ballots that are easier for people to use, that are less likely to cause confusion. ihink, unfortunately, that is

one of the lessons we did not learn right away after 2000. we bought all these new machines. one of the things people think about when they think about the 2011 is actually the butter 5 ballot. why we do not to the butterfly ballot anymore, they're plenty of these design mistakes the cause confusion that we still see on ballots in every election. and there is lots we can do to prevent them. some jurisdictions have started doing those things. host: next is alabama, john, republican line. caller: good morning. i have been a service member for most of my life, and i he been overseas. i have watched what has happened in the elections probably very closely in the last 10, 15 years. and we do not have polling places in the military. they are not geared to do that for the servicemen overseas. and when you get to sending in these ballots, absentee ballots in the mail, and i have watched

this closely, both in the civilian newspaper and the stars and stripes, and it has been very consistent. even though they have said we have done this much to get this corrected. but when the ballots get at the state level, over 50% of them were thrown out for a irregularities, for problems in the process. now if the military cannot do a polehinke type of thing to validate and make sure that there -- cannot do a polling thing to validate and make sure they're correct, what is to expect that theye counted? guest: well, i think you hit the nail on the head in that statement. we have got to allow more time for military and overseas ballots to get in. anwe are relying on mail services that might not be as

reliable as the u.s. postal service. you know, i think a lot of it is a question of paying more attention to this problem, which has been happening recently in the past couple of years. one of the things that we can do, as i said before, iwe can get ballots over to military a overseas voters more quickly by sending them either by express mail or by internet so that they get them and can print them out. they can get a much quicker and print them out and then send them back by regular mail. and i think allowing an additional time, and again, making the forms -- the votes should not be drawn up for irregularities. making the forms as user- friendly as possible so we do not havthese irregularities, giving extra time to military and overseas voters so that if the ballot comes in a couple of days later, it is still counted.

i think we can allow extra time for that. we should be changing that in most states and localities to allow for that. all the things would, i think, go a long way to making sure that we are counting as many of the military and overseas the host:as possible ho last night, c-span hit the 100 markor the number of debates we have telecast. they're all log on our website at c-span.org. if you have not yet made your decision in your state and would like to review with the candidates have to say in debate format, you can click on all of them and watch them for yourself the next question is from colorado, thomas, democrats line. you're going to be the last. caller: in colorado, they have done a good job with the mail out ballot. it is working fine here. what i would like to see is you

can walk up to any atm and use a debit card think it the right amount of money or whatever out of it that would eliminate many errors. it tells you about the candidate and everything. thank you. host: a number of people have wrten about the process of atm-like voting. guest: i think, again, having some kind of independent voter- verified paper record is essential in all of this. and using it to check the software totals that are produced is essential.

one of the things we talk about is that atm's worked so well. there are differences. voting is a secret act that if there is some problem with your atm tour, you know it. if there is some problem with your vote and recording your vote, you cannot know it because the ballot is secret. there needs to be some independent record of that vote. i do thinkt some point perhaps with a more sophisticated registration system that as automated, electronic, it may be easier to have people vote in different locations, rather than having to go -- i do not think we are there ye unfortunately. we are going to have to continue with the various voting

systems that we have. host: we have a cple of other resources. the brennan -- our guests, you can hear more if you like. also, the map from "usa today" is fro their web site and there are active links where you can find out what kind of voting system, county by county, is in place there. you canno do more expe >> in a few moments, a debate among the candidates for governor in massachusetts. inculp dent deval patrick,

charlie pick aer, tim cahill and in an hour, new mexico's candidates for governor. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> on "washington journal" this morning we'll look at ballot measures relating to taxing and spending. pete sepp and john della volpe will outline results of a vurvay of young voters and to talk about the oil spill commission, bob graham and william riley. -- reilly. a couple of live events to tell

you about this morning. on c-span 2. secretary of state hillary clinton and pakistan's foreign minister talk about relations between the two countries live from the state department at 8:15 eastern. then at 9:00 eastern, more from "the daily beast" ino vators summit. it includes retired general stanley mccrystal and white house director peter orzag. >> this weekend c-span takes a look at precivil war virginia. how they struggled with the abolition of slavery and how they dealt with the secession. we're back to the classroom with former civil rights leader and professor julian bond. american history tv.

all weekend, every weekend on c-span 3. >> in a few moments, a debate among the candidates for governor of massachusetts. incumbent democratic governor deval patrick, independent charlie baker. mr. cahill is state treasurer. the cook political report rates this race a tossup. >> live from the 22 news broadcast center, the massachusetts gubernatorial debate with candidates, inculp dent deval patrick, charles baker, tim cahill and jill stein. >> welcome. tonight's debate involving the four candidates for governor will be the only gubernatorial

debate to take place here in massachusetts and will originate from our broadcast studios. tonight's debate will also be online. you, our viewers, have submitted some of the questions we'll ask the candidates tonight. we're committed to bringing you what you need to know to make informed decisions on this election day. thank you for your participation. >> good evening. welcome to the 22 broadcast center in chicopee. i'm jim madigan. i will be the moderator this evening.

the candidates are deval patrick, jill stein, charlie baker, and tim cahill. names were drawn to determine the order in which the candidates are speak. we'll start with jim patrick. >> 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. as we have made the choices we have to make, western massachusetts has been included in my mind and heart. you and i know that is how we're going to build a better and stronger commonwealth, to lift ourselves out of the hole we're in now but also to leave

a better commonwealth. we're getting results. we are growing jobs faster than the other 48. i want to finish what we started. i hope tonight we have an opportunity to talk about how we do that together. thank you. >> now jill stein. >> 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 record unemployment, bankruptcies and foreclosures and skyrocketing health care costs and struggling schools. all the insider candidates want to cut the critical services we need to stay afloat. instead, 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.

that will save us billions. we could turn those billions into secure green jobs, 15,000 jobs around the commonwealth. in clean energy and transportation remanufacturing and healthy food production. this makes us healthier, saves us money and will provide secure jobs that western massachusetts needs. since i don't take money from lobbyists, 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. >> one minute, mr. baker. >> thanks, jim. thanks to the audience and the viewers as well. i got into this race and left my job 15 months ago because i was worried about the direction of massachusetts was in. there is nothing that has happened over the course of the last 15 months to change my mind. 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 loss in massachusetts in 20 years. over 20,000 lost their jobs last month. the governor believes that we're on the move. i do not believe we are doing near enough to get our economy going again. despite billions of dollars in rainy day funds and over $1 billion in new taxes, massachusetts faces a $2 billion deficit that this governor is having to the next governor to clean up. as someone who has been through 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. mr. cahill, one minute. >> 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. i think we need to go a new direction. in order to get different

results, we need different directions. we need independent leadership to solve all fiscal crisis. western massachusetts has been left behind in this recession. despite what's happening east and within the 128 beltway, 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 with needs like the university and health-care systems and make sure the government does not waste money. there's not enough of it to go around. we cannot afford to raise taxes as we go forward. thank you.

>> will move to questions from our panel. laura hutcison and dan ring. our first goes to mr. baker from laura hutchison. >> you signed a no new taxes pledge. how will you keep it and would you veto new increases? >> i think it is very important that we send a loud and clear message to the people of massachusetts, and especially to the small businesses of massachusetts that bacon hill will not come looking for them to bail the state out. we have huge economic issues. if we truly want to get those 300,000 people who are out of work back to work. if he truly want to turn this day around and get it in a positive direction, we have to

stop going to the taxpayers over and over again to solve the state's problems. i'm the only candidate in this race that has proposed a billion dollars worth of savings. i want to send a loud and clear message that they have been business as usual has to stop. we have to change the way we do business. i think 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. >> thank you, sir. ms. stein, one minute. >> 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 really adds nothing. it detracts from health care. i agree. facing the crisis we have coming up, there are enormous

ways we could be trimming the budget. particularly in the area of health care. 10 years ago, 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. at mass general hospital, it takes 275 people to file the paper work. 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 -- >> time. thank you. mr. patrick. a minute. >> first of all, if we accept and we enact the fiscal proposals of my opponent, charlie baker, property taxes go up 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. the difference between us is not tax policy. charlie has shown he is willing to raise taxes when he thinks that is appropriate. he has done it as a selectman 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. the question is what is the right balance? the choice that charlie is advocating is to cut education so we can do loopholes for big businesses. i think we should be investing in education. i think that is a better choice for the people of the commonwealth for the right now and for the future. >> mr. cahill? >> 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 over the next four years because our small businessmen

and women 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. the only way to grow the economy is to let 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 it must stay with the owner. i believe 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. if we miss, we miss under, we don't miss over. we do not have to go back to the taxpayers. raising the sales tax was the wrong thing. that's why i left the democratic party. we cannot go back to those days. >> miss stein? >> 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% to 8.4%. but out here, we're not feeling it so much, the unemployment rate getting better. as mr. cahill said it is worse here the than any place in state. you talked about a green job economy. but what specifically -- what plans do you have for actually creating jobs out in western massachusetts? how would you pay for it? >> great. the wonderful thing about green jobs as they tend to pay for themselves. i'll explain in a moment. it is true that the recovery to the extent it has been a recovery is in the boston area. it is mostly high tech. corporate services and business services, 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 and especially out here in western massachusetts 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. for example, $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 a zero interest loan fund so we can start up these small businesses in clean energy, healthy food and active transportation and bike paths and safe sidewalks and soon. >> time, please. thank you so much. >> you cannot grow jobs without a strategy. our strategy has emphasized education innovation and infrastructure. that is a strategy to the commonwealth which we have tailored to be specific for different regions including out here in western massachusetts. 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 green tech space are an area where we agree.

have taken hold near western massachusetts and in some cases been invented in western massachusetts. the infrastructure, the projects go on and on. the broad band expansion. 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 progressive 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 chicopee on the uniroyal site. >> one minute from mr. cahill. >> how can we this 20,000 jobs -- lose 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. it would insent people to start their own businesses like i did. 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 big business or tax credits or beacon hill billing amount. they can do it here. 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 our growth and most importantly, i think 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 unemployment rate fell is because more and more people were discouraged and just stopped looking, period.

in western massachusetts, we have lost 8500 jobs from 284,000 to 277,000. for all the talk about green jobs and green tech, and the rest, i find it ironic that the computing center which is a major development is a good idea. part of the reason 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 wind instead of pursuing a more aggressive strategy with hydro quebec. which can deliver for cheap and renewable energy. five times as much as wind can. there is a lot of manufacturing and we should help figure out strategies. the thing i hear from many of them cost, cost and cost. >> we will go to mr. patrick. >> thank you. governor patrick, ballot question number three will reduce the massachusetts state

sales tax from 6.25% to 3%. you have been asked in the past if you would enact question three if voters approve it. would you go on record tonight and tell us if you will implement the will of the people m? >> yes. i have been clear about that. 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 three passed. 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 talk about -- i think everybody here has agreed that question three is drastic and yet the 555 plan imposed by charlie

would have exactly the same impact. let's choose. let's be honest with people. i think people are hungry for us to be candid with them about the choices and the consequences before us. >> thank you. now to mr. cahill. >> thank you for the question. i will not vote for question three. i think it moves too quickly, too 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 we will have to implement it quickly, fairly across the board. 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. at the same time, people would get a tax break and they would go out and spend money. hopefully that would grow jobs. 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 a period of time and grow jobs to make up the revenue but question three i think goes too far, too fast. >> mr. baker. >> question 3 goes too far too fast but let's make one thing clear. he cut local aid by $700 million. 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. so question, question three would add $2 billion to that

problem. that does indeed 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. 5% on the income tax. voters voted on it 10 years ago. a little overdue. 5% on the sales tax. >> time, sir. >> man, that flies by. >> it does go quickly. ms. stein? >> yes, i'll agree. question three 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 altogether, 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. >> time, please. >> thank you, jim. on monday the springfield, the district attorney revealed that convicted murderer alfred gainer killed nine women in springfield during the 1990's. 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 if comes before us. we have to be careful about putting innocent people to death. i think that has been a challenge over the years in other states and even in this state. we have to be very rigorous 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. i think it will be high time to bring it back so people like mr. gainer don't get away with they get away with. >> mr. baker?

>> 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 in massachusetts off and on for many years. i thought the legislation that the governor filed several years ago and almost passed would have been an 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. the final thing i would say about is i think one of the things we need to do, not just for folks like this but lawbreakers and criminals generally is reinvest in our district attorneys and law enforcement. the d.a.s are down and we need to start reinvesting everyone to keep our streets safe.

>> ms. stein, one minute. >> 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. however, 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. so no, i don't support it and i would like to mention it is really 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. >> thank you.

one minute, mr. patrick. >> thanks for the question. look, 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. >> now a question from fred to mr. baker. >> there has been a debate over whether the states should stick with the federal testing regime.

what do you think about standards -- standardized testing? teaching to the test, which led to cheating on the test? >> i think the most important thing was the bipartisan support it had from state officials and local officials and teachers to raise the standards and create some sort of common mechanism. it is a mechanism to measure performance as kids went through the school system. i think it proved out over time to be enormously successful. if you look at the state's track record, we took a pretty good system and made it the number one system in country. we still have a long way to go in our educational achievement gap but i think the governor's

decision to join this national consortium was a very bad idea for massachusetts. our calling card is the quality of our school system and the quality of our education system where high taxes, and high costs are separated. what makes us competitive is the quality of our schools. >> i think, you know, the report is actually 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 my students, improving the ability to go to college and stay in college, reducing the need for remedial education, it fails the test. the reality test.

it actually hasn't helped. 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 across schools. i think it is useful for that purpose. to be viewed 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 -- stinks at 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 high-stakes measure along with high standards, is the reason why we are listing schools and student performance. it is the reason why the tool that we have used has made us

number one in student achievement. 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 in the commonwealth and there is no evidence that it is. i am proud of our leadership role. i'm proud of the fact that we continue to 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 high-stakes tests. we need to raise the bar as far as we can.

that test has not done a 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 or focus on teachers. not just teaching to the test but also 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 as they go forward. there is a big achievement gap. the wealthy suburbs are doing fine but the inner cities are not working as well. i don't want to lower the standards but we need to give teach herbs the tools, we need to give them support. we cannot justify them or throw the kids at them. >> thank you very much. we are now going to take a very brief pause and be back in one minute. welcome back.

>> maze have very involved in growing renewable energy sources. residents are now expressing concern about plans for a wind -- on a ridge in their town. viewers have asked us to ask you, if you favor wind power projects and do you favor wood-burning plans? >> let me start with the easy one first. wood-burning i think is unjustifyable by the data. it is pollutesing in terms of its carbon footprint. the studies make it look better than it actually is. it is a problem. it is also very bad in terms of the traditional air pollutant.

it will promote excessive use and wasting of those forests. no to biomass. communities should have a role in deciding where winds should be sited. communities have been able to find workable sites themselves and it is important. we do need offshore wind and shoreline as well. >> mr. patrick? >> on biomass, i think so it makes sense in massachusetts. that is what the data seems to point to. it makes sense here in massachusetts. on wind, one of the things i notice is that out in western massachusetts, wind turbines are a great idea.

on the cape, they think wind turbines in the berkshires is a great idea. what we have to be about for onshore wind 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 one or two levels of appeals, it 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-foot wind turbines. i think people need to have some control over their lives. over their livelihood. it is also very, very 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. wind alone is not going to

solve our problems. we need to be committed to nuclear power. we have a plant that needs to be recommissioned and relicensed. 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're trying put manufacturing jobs back on the table, you can't do it with the high energy costs. i don't think it is going to work and it is not going to help us grow jobs. >> i agree with the governor on small-scale biomass. i would not sign that bill. remember, these are being located in some very remote locations where we will have to chew our way through a lot of natural habitat to build in and the mechanism to get the wind out. we do have, remember, one of the highest costs of

electricity in the country and it does affect your ability to grow jobs. that's why i don't support wind. we ought to be chasing less expensive alternatives. it can bring us five times the power. that is a good deal for massachusetts and job creation and reducing our carbon footprint. >> a question to mr. patrick? >> governor, 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 is balanced and it has been balanced in 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 and 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 $200 million overbenchmark in september alone. october is trending that direction as well. 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 in august, we were able to back out of rainy day

funds this year. >> time, sir. please, thank you very much. mr. cahill? >> yes, i think we have had a structurally unbalanced budget for as long as i've been on beacon hill. we paper over those imbalances with one tie money. the problem keeps occurring. we have to reform and are you restructure how we deliver health care in massachusetts. we're spending an extra $4.5 billion that we were not spending prior to the law passing in 2006. 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. that has to end. it started in the mid 1990's.

it has grown to epic proportions. it is not a good budgeting. it adds 30% to 50% of the cost of each employee as we go forward. those have to stop before we get hold of this budget. >> it is an important question. the next governor will face a $2 billion deficit delivered to them by this governor. jill and i are the only two candidates who are opposed to some reforms. i want to make sure that people know i am serious about restructuring or forming state government. 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'm not going to that because the families in massachusetts 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. >> thank you. ms. stein? >> well, it is pretty simple actually. dan, if you look at the big picture, and again, in the big picture, what has been growing while everything else has been shrinking for the past 10 years is health care, which is now 50% of the budget. one out of every two tax dollars is paying for this health care 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. and moving to single payer basically apply at 10% to 15% savings per you apply that here. you apply that to our $14

billion budget 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. particularly the our small businesses. that is where we should be providing support. >> thank you. continuing with state spending here, several surrounding states have opted to trim spending by forcing state workers to take furloughs. do you think unpaid furloughs 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 ing jobs and leaving jobs unfilled.

furloughs are a short-term solution. not a long-term solution. long-term, if we have too many employees, we have to find out who is essential and who is nonessential and make sure we get those essential employees to work and the nonessential ones -- i have a rule in treasury. if everyone thinks --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 treasurer to some extent that creative furloughs are only a 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 has happened since then in terms of information technology and all the rest. we should be able to come up with a much leaner and simpler bureaucracy than the one we have now. we also need to take a run at reforming our health care system. i have made specific reforms to what we should do. we spend $3 million on parking spaces. they are generally empty. $3 million on an empty building. $3 million on out of state travel. there is lots of places we can go here. >> thank you. ms. stein? >> i agree that unpaid furloughs are not a good idea. we have been cutting workers by the thousands over the past many years. i am not convinced myself there

is a lot more room to cut. certainly there is the occasional patronage or wasteful job. we should be vigilant. but on the whole, 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. a recent study from umass 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 after it but furloughs are not one of them. >> we have had to do furloughs and we have had pay freezes and got a contract recessions. we reduced headcount by over 3,000 positions now and all of those measures are part of $4.30 billion in cuts. in fact, we have closed and

balanced the budget not with tax increases. that represents 9 cents of every dollar taken to close these gaps, but mostly with cuts in the use of the rainy day fund. the sort of thing that is criticized by my opponents but what has maintained services to vulnerable people. you heard some of the candidates talk about pension reform. we actually capped pension and ended the abuse in the pension system. you hear folks talk about consolidating agencies. we eliminated over 20 different agencies and shut down the turnpike authority. how long have we been talking about that? a lot of folks talk, we do. that's why we earned aa ratings from independent agencies. >> thank you. mr. baker? >> for a while all we heard about was casino and it went silent. the governor and speaker of the house could not come to terms. as governor, 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'm not a big believer that gambling and casinos are the answer to our 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 in to start thinking they can grow and expand here, 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 on their car. one resort would give them a place to gamnble massachusetts. 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 also worry that we're focusing too much on one solution when in fact, the real solution here is to cut spending, fix our fiscal problems, and get serious about regulation and business costs. >> ms. stein? >> thank you for the question, barry. 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 establishments. looking at nevada, 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 casino, but what tends to happen is when the industry comes in, they tend to get their way. they are very powerful and influential. 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. i think if we do it in the form of destination resort casinos and we have few in number, 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. enormously important tax changes and extensions to permits to developers to enable them to get into 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 that we have done with this legislature. the second session that was the most productive in 30 years. so, yes, we could not get together on that. i think we may yet, but there is a lot of ore important work. >> mr. cahill? >> thanks for the question. i would sign the bill. it would be the first i signed in january. it creates 15,000 jobs. we all talk about jobs. 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. as written in that bill. 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. i think that is important. also bring billions of dollars of investment in massachusetts.

it is a great way to start and my commitment to you is one would be here in western massachusetts. 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. >> now to what will be our final question of the evening. candidates, you will have unfortunately only 30 seconds to respond so we have enough time for closing statements. the first question goes to ms. stein. >> this is a question from two readers of masslive.com. west side, the republican daily newspaper in springfield. in 1996, then governor weld abolished tolls for passenger vehicles between exits 1-6 on the massachusetts turnpike.

between west stockbridge and chicopee. the readers 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. >> ms. stein? >> that sounds reasonable. i would have to look into the particulars little more to know. i think clearly we need to fund our public highway system and transportation system which has enormous problems with its operating budget and maintenance. the problem certainly applies to western massachusetts but throughout the commonwealth that we need to be eible to free up the resources. >> time, i'm sorry, only po 30

seconds. mr. patrick? >> no. is that fast enough? >> no pl cahill? >> no, i would not support increasing tolls or bringing them back. we still have a turnpike and still are paying tolls in the rest of the state. we can do that. we can put the money back into western massachusetts without raising tolls. >> mr. baker? >> no. i made a commitment not to raise tolls either. i think what we ought to do is seek other efficiencies to generate additional revenues to support the entire length of the roadway. closing statements. mr. baker, you are first. >> thanks for tuning in and things to our studio audience and everybody else for being here. this is a very important election. it is going to 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 than what we have had. we have a $2 billion budget deficit going forward. i think massachusetts can do a lot better. i don't think massachusetts is heading in the right direction but the choice is clear. we can do better. state government needs to live within its means and we need to create a business climate of affordability that can compete. if we don't, we won't get the 300,000 people that are out of work back to work. fundamental focus. people are not working. >> time, sir. ms. stein, you have a minute.

>> if you are happy with the way things are, i say vote any one of the insider candidates. if you think we can do better, i think you have an historic opportunity now to put massachusetts on a different 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. they will keep us there. some people worry if they vote their values it might help the candidates do not like. remember, all three candidates are promoting pretty much 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 don't bring your values into the voting booth, everything you do for your values outside the voting booth

won't count for much. the common wealth needs revision to get us back on track. i ask you for your vote. >> thank you. i hope you get a sense of who we are and our commitment to western massachusetts. almost 400 million have been invested here and all across the state but specifically here in western massachusetts. we opened up an office in treasury to deal with retirement issues in 2006 and we kept that office open not by adding employees but by taking two of our western mass employees so you don't 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. i want you to look at who has put his money where