>> c-span as local content of vehicles are traveling the country as we look of some of the most closely contested house races leading up to the midterm elections. >> there are only a couple of races that are highly contested, and they constitute good opportunities for republicans to pick up a seat in congress. this is one of those. >> this is a barometer of what is going to happen nationally. it has always been this way, and i think that is why there is a lot of interest. >> the democrat incumbent baron hill has served since 1998. he is challenged by todd young.

he is making his first run at any public office. it is a very interesting district. it runs along the ohio river in southern indiana. it appears to be homogenous, but actually, there is quite a lot of diversity in terms of political thought. there is the most liberal area of the state in the northern part of the district. there is a rural area where people consider themselves democrats locally, but they tended to vote for republicans for president. then you have areas that are urban and suburban. you have a real mix of there. the result is that even though the district can be considered

democrat, there are a lot of conservatives, and you're never sure how that will play. one of the things that makes this interesting and expensive is that it is covered by four different media markets. the problem is, none of them are a majority in the district. it is very expensive to buy advertising, and the advertising dollars do not go very far. the cincinnati market is a mostly covering ohio. the louisville market is mostly covering kentucky. >> i think baron hill is going to be explaining his controversial but on health care. i talked to him just the other day. he said that he is talking to

individual voters about why he supported the health care plan and what it means for individuals. he says if he can do that, it makes a difference. the question is if he will have enough money and time. since todd young is a first-time candidate, it will really depend on his ability to raise money. he will need to have enough money to have enough advertising. it is a very difficult district in which to advertise. you have to buy a lot of radio and a lot of television. i hate to say it, but money will play a huge role in this race. baron hill was way ahead in money. he had over $1 million at last check. but if todd young can keep up his momentum and you see some national groups come in, the

national republican campaign committee and the democratic campaign committee, that is where the difference really comes in. >> social security has been a huge problem to correct. we corrected it under ronald reagan. we had to do some things back in those days. we now have to readjust again. the commission is going to take a look at it to offer recommendations. those recommendations will probably not be forthcoming until december. then we will either have to cut the whole package up or down. we need to keep -- then we will either have to vote in the whole package up or down. we need to keep social security public. we do not need to privatize it. that is what my opponent wants to do. >> there is a stimulus package and pork barrel legislation. there are essential programs out there that need to be preserved.

plus, baron is the only one in this race to endorses' privatizing social security, something he alludes to in his commercials. >> i can see the social security is going to be a big issue in this race because there seems to be a big difference in where todd young stands from where baron young and does. we have not yet been able to -- baron hill does. we have not yet been able to get a detailed opinion from died young. there will be a detailed -- from todd young. there will be a detailed debate about social security. for baron hill, there will be questions of how -- questions about his votes on stimulus and

cap and trade. there is also the concern about federal spending. although baron hill is a blue dog democrat and considered a conservative in spending, i would expect todd young to spend a lot of time talking about the federal budget. there are so few races where the district are actually competitive. there are just a few dozen. this happens to be one of them. this is a pay raise -- this is a bigger raise, plus there is a democrat -- this is a big race, plus you have a democrat who has voted on some big things. >> c-span content vehicles are traveling the country as we look at some of the most closely contested house races leading up

to this november's midterm elections. for more information, go to c- span.org. >> now, a debate among the candidates running for the u.s. house ninth district seat in indiana, democratic congressman baron hill, republican todd young, and the libertarian. this is about one hour. >> from bloomington, indiana, the indian and ninth district congressional debate. -- indiana ninth district congressional debate. >> welcome. i am the executive associate

dean at the school of public affairs. we are pleased to present these candidates and their viewpoints to bloomington and the indiana university community. our moderator brings 11 years of debate experience. he has taught a debate on the college level. he is also the coach of the debate team. he has coached two national debate teams and i am company will be an outstanding coach for this university. [applause] >> thank you. good evening. the rules for tonight's debate are simple. during the hour-long debate, i will ask the panelists several questions. each candidate will be provided with 1.5 minutes to respond to

each question. each additional candidate will be allotted 45 seconds for a rebuttal. the audience has agreed to be quiet, except for right now as we honor our three candidates. [applause] thank you for being with us today. the starting order has been randomly chosen. the first question will be to todd young. a recent supreme court decision increased the legal rights of corporations to promote candidates during elections. what do think this means for the health of american democracy? >> i actually think this

decision was the right decision. i believe that corporations, like unions, do have a right to free speech, which was essentially determined in that decision. i think that all americans should be afforded an opportunity to express their views and to use their own resources to get their opinions out about their -- about the issues of the day. i encourage every individual to express their thoughts about the issues of the day by whatever means they can, whether it is by coming to an event like this and speaking to the candidates afterward, whether it is by attending a town hall meeting, or whether it is purchasing television ads on their own or through a corporate vehicle, be that a union or a corporate entity. that is my thought, but ultimately i defer to the u.s. supreme court. they are the ones to determine what our laws mean. i will leave the data that. >> thank you.

mr. hill? >> the supreme court sometimes gets the right -- gets it right, sometimes get it wrong. they got it wrong this time. [applause] corporate dollars are being spent right now. some have been spent in the ninth district, against me, quite frankly. the poor and the helpless cannot compete against something like that. there is too much money in politics, way too much money. i have been doing this for 10 years and i know that there is way too much money and politics. this is another example of money pouring into political campaigns to influence decisions. do we want oil companies determine what we see on television all the time by providing them unlimited resources that they can use to try to persuade the public to vote one way or the other way while the common guy cannot compete against that at all?

i think it was a terrible decision that was made. it goes against every grain of american democracy in the last 100 years that we have been campaigning for office. i am very dismayed that this decision was made by the supreme court. quite frankly, i think congress needs to act. one of the things that we can do is make sure that before corporations or unions can spend unlimited resources, they have to get permission from stockholders. it is profits from those stockholders that is being used to buy these television ads. i think that is something that should be legislated in congress, and if i go back i intend to do just that. >> bros is for holding this great debate. as a graduate of indiana university, i am honored to be a part of it. the supreme court it did get to

this one iran -- get this one wrong. we have too much money endorsing our elections. i am the only candidate in this debate to sign the fight washington corruption pledge. i encourage the other two candidates to sign it as well. many of the reforms that congressman bill referred to -- congressmen help referred to -- hill referred to are all encompassed within the it fight washington corruption pledge. i think all candidates nationwide should sign onto this. there are over two hundred candidates to have already signed on, and i challenge my opponent to join me in this pledge. thank you. >> todd young, you have 45

seconds for a rebuttal. >> i do not see that there is a great difference between myself and the other candidates. i would be open to asking that today's stockholders of a corporation or union members, before an ad is aired, and give their permission. that strikes me as something that maybe we ought to look at. i will say the congress mandel has never spoken out about this issue in congress mann hill has never spoken out about this issue in the past, and he has received millions of dollars in campaign contributions. >> your rebuttal? >> there is nothing to rebut, although i am delighted to hear that mr. young agrees with my

proposal. again, too much money in politics. because of that there is too much of an undue influence, especially by these corporations. it was a terrible decision that was made. i wish mr. young would agree with that, but as long as he agrees with the legislation i have proposed, will leave it at that. >> final response? >> sunlight is a great disinfectant. we need to know who this money is coming from and who is affecting our elections. if the congressmen really want these reforms, they should sign the pledge. i challenge both of you to do that. >> mr. hill, is the federal policy response to the foreclosure of prices appropriate in terms of scale

cosco, and the direction? could the policies be improved -- in terms of scale, scope, and the direction? could the policies be improved? >> one of the reasons we remain in tough times is because the housing market has not fully recovered. the federal government needs to do a better job, quite frankly, of overseeing this. this does not happen overnight. the financial crisis occurred because of the housing pick market. what was happening is you were getting -- because of the housing market. what was happening is you were getting a mortgage and people did not know if they were getting a good investment or a bad investment. we soon learned that the housing market became a crisis because

the law also would be made were bad loans -- the loans being made were bad loans. we are trying to get back to a point where we can better monitor and regulate the housing market. we passed a bill recently in congress, the financial regulatory bill, that would try to crack down on some of these las vegas style loans and they were making. hopefully, this bill will help us get to where we need to be when it relates to housing. >> congressmen, you need to take accountability for your of votes in congress. one of your votes was for the repeal of the 1923 banking act, which elizabeth warren, among others, says contributed to be too big to fail crisis. it stripped the separation between banks on wall street and

main street banks. this led to too big to fail. it was the wrong solution for the voters of southern indiana. the democrats who voted against the repeal only receive happens much as the democrats who voted for the repeal. that is paid to play and it is wrong. i hope you will be accountable for your record. i agree that the financial reform that was passed in the recent congress was a step in the right direction, but it was actually written mostly by the banking industry and it was watered down. it had no restrictions on derivatives, fannie or freddie, or many of the other things needed to do. we needed stronger legislation, not less, which you repealed in

the 1923 act. >> like so many of these national issues, all to the responsibility does rest at the feet of congress. -- all to met responsibility does rest at the feet of congress. it was congress that passed the community reinvestment act that encouraged bankers and those making mortgages that they should make loans they might not otherwise make. they wanted to ensure that people could own houses. that may be well-intentioned but it had some unintended consequences. these mortgages were then slowed -- sold off from wall street brokers to government entities, fannie mae and freddie mac, that all of us play a role in that stopping. when many of these mortgages failed, all of us on wall street were -- all of us on main street were left holding the bag. the legislation the congressmen

held just referred to did not -- that the congressman just referred to did not reform fannie mae and freddie mac at all. we need to go back to the table. we do need to reform dannay and freddie mac. that is something that i would like to be a -- fannie mae and freddie mac. that is something i would like to be a part of. >> i did not vote to bail out wall street. i thought that was a mistake. i remember when the crisis hit, i flew back here, landed, called my staff to see what the latest was, and learned that the financial crisis was going on, that i was going to come back monday to vote for a multimillion-dollar bailout of wall street. i said there was no way i would be voting for a multimillion- dollar deal to bail out the banks on wall street. but in this last session of

congress, we did reform wall street. i think it was a real good bill. it addressed a lot of issues, but the number one issue it addressed was that no longer can banks be too big to fail. >> you need to take responsibility for your vote to repeal the 1923 banking act. in led to the crisis we are in now. it led to too big to fail. i applaud you for not supporting bailouts. no business is too big to fail in a truly free market, however, by voting against the 1923 act, you lead too big to fail. you also took millions of dollars from the banking industry. that is a pay to play this game

and it is wrong. >> i will reinforce what i said before. reform freddie mac and fannie mae. it is an abdication of federal responsibility by not doing so. >> just a reminder, please keep the applause to a minimum. the third question is addressed to greg knott. do you support the extension of the bush administration tax cuts or only those for the middle class? how would your policy affected the debt? >> i would respectfully disagree with the wording. there is no such thing as a tax cut with borrowed money. it is not monopoly money. we have to quit pretending that because people are saying there is a tax cut, it is a true tax cut. it is actually a tax deferral. we have to pay it back with

interest to china. that hurts our economic security. it is wrong. it is a wrong policy for southern indiana. i think if we are going to have true tax cuts, that will include spending cuts to pay for those tax cuts. i am the only candidate who has proposed spending cuts in the right areas. that includes wasteful military spending. we spend more than every other country in the world combined on our military. that is too much. there are countries overseas that should be paying for their on security. we have troops in japan, korea, germany. they should pay for their own troops. we should not have to pay for that. another area i would cut that my opponents do not agree with is reforming agricultural subsidies. the top 10% of agribusiness get

72% of the subsidies. that is wrong. >> the last thing we need to do during the worst economy since the great depression is increase taxes. that is going to kill jobs. according to the latest study, it will kill thousands of jobs in indiana. it will also disbursed millions of dollars of hoosier income. we can have a tax debate in the future once we pull out of this tough economy. mr. hill will favor more spending and higher taxes. i will favor less spending and lower taxes. let's agree to let least but that debate off until we pullout of this economy. >> i believe we should extend the tax cuts for people who make $250,000 or less. i think that is the way to go. we do have a debt problem.

if you extend tax cuts to the wealthy of this country, we extend the deficit by about $70 billion. that is why we have to get serious about the debt. paper rules were -- they go -- paygo rules were in place in the 1990's and it led to a surplus. president bush decided to stop those pay-as-you-go rules, and it led to edessa said -- to a deficit. the pay-as-you-go rules say that if you are going to spend money or cut taxes you have to figure out a way to pay for it. i voted for the stimulus because i believe we needed to get the economy going because of all of the lost jobs. as a condition, i asked the

president to get the pay-as-you- go rules back in place again. we did get them back in place again, and it will lead us back to a pathway of fiscal responsibility and get us out of debt over time. >> if we have pay as you go and it is so great, why is $0.32 of every dollar we spend this year our money? we need a balanced budget. that is the only way we can hold politicians accountable. we cannot afford to be wasting money overseas on the military and wasting money aaron, on corporate welfare. we have to wasting money. at home -- wasting money here at home on corporate welfare.

we have to stop wasting money. >> we first need to pass a budget. for the first time since 1974, our house of representatives has failed to pass a budget during the worst economy since the great depression, when every family and every business across southern indiana is setting priorities, it is time for washington to set priorities as well. they just voted to pass the greatest expansion to our entitlement program in modern history and now we are talking about pay-as-you-go. baron held voted to suspend the pay as you go role -- baron hill voted to suspend the pay- as-you-go rules 85% of the time. >> i do not know where you are getting those facts. pay as you go is an important part of getting us out of debt.

it worked in the 1990's. it is proven to work. i am proud that i had a role in entered using this legislation as a way to get us on a path to fiscal responsibility. to say it is a ruse is just not true. there are many things we have done in progress and had to apply these rules on a consistent basis. i am glad these rules are back in place again and i was instrumental in getting them passed. >> what would you do to reform social security to keep it viable for future generations? >> let me set the stage. social security is a sacred compact. we need to honor our commitment seniors and those approaching retirement because they do not have time to change their retirement package. for those people my age, we have

to ensure that the program remains solvent. i will wait to see what the president's fiscal irresponsibility commission report says we should do to keep this program viable. it is going to require a bipartisan solution and i want to work in a bipartisan way to solve it. we did this back in 1983. the greenspan commission helped sustain social security and keep it solvent for a long time. there are pass on the air that indicate that i want to do something -- there are advertisements on the air that indicate that i want to do something other than keep social security safe for our senior citizens. that is not true. entire campaign has been based on false and misleading advertisements, and it is time he be called out on a

bit. [applause] >> please refrain from applause. >> the advertisements are not misleading. listen very carefully to mr. young. for people 55 and older, nothing changes. what happens to people who are under 55? that is where you need to pay attention. the fact is, mr. young works for the heritage foundation which is a big advocate for privatization. i believe that mr. young is for privatization. i do not think there is any question. i will not privatize social security. social security is a sacred contract between the federal government and its people cannot all of its people, not just those over 55. i signed a pledge. i invite mr. young to assign the

same pledge saying that he will not privatize social security. even if you only do it for people under 55, you mess with the people of our 55 because it jeopardize is the solvency of the fund. we will read the report in december, and i am hoping that one of the suggestions that they make is to raise the capital of income that is taxed. why why it should be very wealthy not pay social security tax and not the rest of us? >> thank you. [applause] >> please refrain from applause. it is taking away from time for the answers. mr. knott.

>> you can find my opinions at nobullcongress.com. the n stands for nobel out. the zero stands for overhaul -- the and stands for no bailout. the o stands for overhaul the system. we have a shrinking work force and expanding retirees. that is unsustainable, as you might guess. we need to replace the current funding mechanism, payroll taxes, which are a drag on our economy and a job killer, and we need to replace that with a fair tax. why is a fair tax? it is not an additional 23% sales tax on everything.

quite the contrary, it is a tax replacement. it replaces the current tax system with a tax system that will create jobs. >> i agree that social security does have problems. the foremost problem is that members of congress, including mr. hill have rated the trust fund for years, moved it to the general fund and spent it on everything but retirement. that is wrong. as for privatization, there is only one person here that has gone on record for privatization, and that is congressman hill. you can go to youtube and see him saying that he is open to having the government invest

your social security taxes in the stock market. >> i am not for privatization. i am for increasing the yield on what we invest in the social security trust fund. let's clear up. here is the pledge. i have signed it. i will not privatize social security. i invite you to sign it as well. >> let's have a meeting during which we trade various pledges. >> i have time, and i will schedule the meeting if you are willing to sign the pledge. [applause] [laughter] [applause] >> greg knott, your final thought.

>> i wish i had noun that known thatn held -- n was notman hill going to abide by our pledge not to bring props. i would have brought my hon. -- my own. mr. young, if you aren't for privatizing social security, you should said. mr. hill, if you have a plan for saving it, you should explain it. >> thank you. just one more reminder, please

hold the applause. our fifth question will begin with baron hill. what are your plans for placing indiana in a leadership position to combat global climate change? >> that is a very good question. i have spent a lot of time on the energy and commerce committee working on legislation that i believe does a great deal of for cleaning up our environment and making us energy independence and creating jobs. passedergy bill that we - in the house unfortunately did not make it through the senate. when it originally started, it was a bill that i could not support, because it unfairly taxed rate payers in southern indiana and other rural districts. i went to work on the committee and convinced the committee to change the bill so that it would not have this effect on ratepayers in southern indiana. of the bill does three things.

it reduces the carbon emissions into our atmosphere, which we need to do because it is causing global warming. i think there's a difference of opinion about whether that is a fact, my opponents. number two, it creates jobs. there was one survey that showed it would create 30,000 jobs in india alone. number three, it puts us on a path to energy independence. that is good for our environment, our people, and the air the reprieve. it is bela proudly supported. -- the air we breathe. it is a bill by proudly supported. >> congressman, i am glad you asked where i stand. i would have voted with your democratic colleagues who voted against it because it is a job killer for indiana.

this is not a time to be killing jobs when our unemployment rate is above 9.5%, as it has been for the last 14 months. there is much disagreement with in the scientific community as to whether the climate change we are experiencing is manmade or not. of would encourage everyone here, along with my opponent, to watch both sides of the issue. watch and inconvenient to expand the bbc documentary a global swindle. if this is man-made and not a natural fluctuation as we saw during the medieval warming. period, there is nothing we can do about the biggest emitters' in the developing countries, china, india, brazil.

the cap and tax system has a mechanism to penalize those countries if they do not comply, but it would start a trade war which would again kill jobs. i am opposed to that. >> with respect to the science of global climate change, i know there are people of goodwill and intelligent people on both sides of this issue. i will continue to learn more about the science and follow those debates as they play out. accept thef we worst premises of those talking about climate change, this is not the solution. the cap antitrade tax is likely to be the largest tax in america. trade tax is likely

to be the largest tax in american history. it would bankrupt a coal-fired power plant. we will seek jobs migrate to the coast and overseas. it will hurt businesses and consumers alike. it will kill over 43,000 jobs here in the state of indiana. on a per-capita basis, this will more adversely impacted the state of indiana than any other state in a the country, and baron hill voted for it. >> the science is overwhelming. there is no question that man is contributing to climate change. the science is overwhelming. look, folks. this is god's green earth and we ought to respect it. we ought to do what is right for

our environment. this bill is right for our environment. it is god's green earth and we ought to protect it. for years, we have passed legislation and the special interests always bought it out. if this is so bad, why did ronald reagan himself do the same thing with oil? no difference. the same thing. this is not what people have portrayed it to be. this is special interest using their money and their influence to make sure that their interests are protected and not our environment. [applause] >> i agree that we must protect our environment. in fact, i major, my concentration was in environmental science. i just do not think this particular piece of legislation accomplishes that goal. i would have sided with your democratic colleagues in defeating this legislation,

instead of what you did which was siding with big business. duke energy was promoting this legislation for their own special interests. i wish you would have sided with indiana employees and not have a photophore -- have a voted for in this job killing legislation. >> this is a unilateral solution to what may be a global challenge. it will increase the cost of business in places like indiana. jobs will migrate overseas. places like china will have to build their own power plants in order to sustain those jobs, and those plans will be dirty air and less environmentally friendly than ours. this is a bad piece of

legislation. for those who are wrestling with the science, i understand that it can be very confusing. go to the qaeda website -- the kato website to see a list of scientists to believe it is not settled. >> do you advocate the don't ask don't tell policy? >> it sounded good at the time, did it not? unfortunately, the military did not keep up their end of the bargain. they did not implemented correctly. we were told that they would be able to respect people's views while they were off stage. if they wanted to attend a gay rights rally while they were off duty, that would have been ok, and then they could come back to the base and serve honorably. unfortunately, the military has not kept their word. they have instead look at people's private e-mails and gone on which funds to try to

root out homosexuals two are serving our country honorably. we need arabic translators in the wars we are fighting. they are kicking out, sexual translators. their performance reviews have been -- they are kicking out homosexual arabic translators. their performance reviews have been fine. that is not why they have been kicked out. i hope that obama will overturn it. ld call me ove fashioned, but i do not think it is good business for anyone to discuss their sexual orientation with anyone. that is not good business. i spent 10 years in the military. i spent five years on active duty in the u.s. marine corps.

i served when don't ask don't tell was implemented. at the time i recall that no one was happy with it. there are some implementation issues that need to be amended, but i do not think we should end the policy implemented by president clinton. on balance, it has worked. let's remember the rationale. at the time, it was that our military is primarily a fighting force and that military morale and readiness are preeminent. those are the main concerns. we were told that it might undermine military morale and readiness. i left the military to an years ago. it is hard for me to see how things -- i left the military 10 years ago. it is hard for me to see how things have changed so radically that we can overturn this. for right now, i have not heard

enough to convince me that we have to and this policy. >> it needs to end. i voted to repeal lead and given the chance again i will vote to repeal it again. there are men in our country willing to put their lives on the line and they should not be discriminated against under any circumstances. it is just plain wrong. i will leave it at that. >> thank you. your rebuttal, gregg. >> again, it is not a horrible policy in concept, but the military has failed to implement it fairly. they have gone on a witchhunt and searched people's private e- mails to try to prove that there hamas sexual. mr. young, i applaud your millet -- that they are homosexual. mr. young, i applaud your

military service, but if i were out there and a guy next to me it was a homosexual by doing a great job, i would feel less safe if the military removed him for an arbitrary reason. >> i voted to repeal it. i would do it again. i do want to return to china on the question about the energy bill. one of the aspects of the bill that we passed was that it would allow the united states to opposed sanctions on that china if they did not upgrade their utility facilities. right now, there is no weapon that we can use in order to get them to comply with emission standards. this bill actually created a way for us to do this, and that is the reason why i voted for it.

>> the final question is directed toward todd young. ue to time issues, we will reduce the initial statement down to one minute. what should our strategy be in afghanistan? >> i would not advocate staying the course. the note mission needs to be clarified. id is -- the mission needs to be clarified. it is murky right now. colin powell was on meet the press recently and he said it was difficult for him to determine whether we are winning or not. that is the fault of policy makers for not requiring the generals to establish a very clear benchmarks for success. finally, i would say that the arbitrary timeline we have established for pulling our troops out, a political time

line, is ill advised. if we're going to be there, we need to be there to win. otherwise, that harms the american troops and it is unfair to the american people. we need to maintain security and make sure this does not become a training ground for terrorists. >> i went to afghanistan in february of this year. i wanted to see for myself if this is something we should be doing. one of the encouraging things i saw -- we also went to pakistan and had the opportunity to meet with pakistan army generals. there is no question that the cozy relationship has developed between the pakistan army and the taliban. i wanted to hear their point of view. i came away convinced that because the taliban had almost captured islam a bad --

islamabaad, that they had to work with the army. the mission is this, to diminish the ability of al qaeda and the taliban to inflict another wound like 9/11. that is the mission. right now we are not there yet. we will get it done. >> we have come back again to the note will platform -- no bull platform. b is bring the troops home. i would take money from military spending and investing in k-12 scholarships so that every high school student is prepared for the work force and college. afghanistan in particular is a very difficult case because we

are not at war with afghanistan or its people, or for that matter, it's corrupt dictator. we are at war with what is estimated to be under 100 al- qaeda members. occupying an entire country with a heavy footprint is the wrong policy. what we did first when we came in with small special forces, cia and air power is the right thing to do. >> all i can say is that this is the most important decision members of congress must ever make, whether we commit our men and women into harm's way, then how we continue to engage in these different conflicts. it is something i will take very seriously. i will ask very probing questions. that is my chief criticism of our current majority. they have not asked enough questions in regards to this

matter. >> this is tough sledding, no question about it. it is something i believe we can do and i trust the president to keep his word to start bringing these troops, next year. he kept his word in iraq, and i will just and to keep it in afghanistan. i do not think there is any question that we all want to bring our men and women home from these areas, and one of the ways to do that is to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. >> it is not monopoly money. we have to pay the piper some time. what did it cost us to go to war in afghanistan, two undeclared wars of choice promoted by dick cheney and rubberstamp by congressman hell. ill.

according to one study, it has caused $65,000 per household. >> with time for one more question. there are approximately five different insurance vendors competing for my business. how is this competition represent government takeover of health care? >> the bill we passed which i proudly supported was not a government takeover. it was insurance reform. one thing it does do, pre- existing conditions are no longer in existence with this bill. children right now can get insurance if they have a pre- existing condition. the doughnut hole goes away for senior citizens. there is a tax cut for small

business. if you are a young student in college and you are having trouble getting a bad job, guess what? you can stay on -- getting a job, guess what? you can stay on your parents' health insurance until age 26. this bill is a step in the right direction to reform our medical situation as it exists in america today. i proudly stand before you to say that i am glad i voted for the bell. it is a good bill. [applause] [boos] >> please, please, please. >> what is the first thing you do when you find yourself in a whole? stop digging. lower the national debt. what the congressman voted for did not address the major problem, and that is the cost of health care. i think a much better plan was

called a healthy americans act, a bipartisan proposal that would have brought down the cost. instead, we ended up with a monstrosity that does not lower the cost and adds to the national debt. that is not the right policy. what could we have done in addition to that? one reform i would favor is being able to buy health insurance across state lines. i know where i work, you can only get it from and dumb and one other company. that is -- from anthem and one other company. that is one step away from a monopoly. >> i applauded the fact the we were approaching health care reform and taking it seriously. this is a genuine issue as we compete for jobs and a global economy. health care costs are skyrocketing. businesses, families and individuals are struggling to

meet those costs. unfortunately, this piece of legislation does nothing to address cost. it establishes a new entitlement program. it expands an existing one, medicaid. it actually increases cost by $300 billion. we can expect health care premiums to shoot up 111% over the next decade. how is it paid for? we cut five under billion dollars from medicare. -- $500 billion from medicare. we also instituted a slew of taxes that are going to kill jobs in the the worst economy since the great depression. [applause] [boos] >> please, we only have so much time. that marks the end of our question segment. we are now going to have closing

statement. >> i appreciate the opportunity to present ourselves before the people of the ninth district of indiana. two years ago, i was summoned back to washington for an emergency meeting. at this meeting, we had economists from all over america. if congress did not act, we would be looking at the depression, not a recession, a depression. unemployment would have been at least 16%, perhaps 25%-30%. that is what we were faced with two years ago. the economist said go to work, try to get the economy revived. we did. we passed the stimulus package. we passed cash for clunkers. we created new opportunities for home buyers with tax credits.

we are second to michigan in the number of jobs we have created. think how many jobs would have been lost if we had not helped the auto industry. and we did it by ourselves without a whole lot of bipartisan support. that is what we did. unemployment was expected to be 25% is down 9%. it is still way too high, but it is way better than if we had not done anything. the choice in this election is whether we want to continue the policies we made that have stopped the bleeding, or go back to the policies of the george bush era. i do not want to go backward. i want to keep moving forward. if you elect me to congress, i will continue to fight for the people of southern indiana and this country, and continue to fight to get us out of the mess that administration got a sin in

the first place. -- got us in in the first place. >> nearly two years ago, worried about the fate of this country and after much consultation with friends and family, i decided to run for congress. >> we take you live now to nevada. we hate to leave thi debate but we will show you the full coverage later in this schedule. harry reid is coming to the stage and he will be introducing the president. ♪

[bruce springsteen] >> thank you for being here. [applause] [crowd chanting "harry"]

i see searchlight is represented. we have some people who represent this area. chris is here, our commissioner. [applause] sam leiberman -- first of all, i want to thank the student teachers. they have done a good job do you not think? especially the principal, george levin. we are products of the clark county school system.

we are glad we are. all five of my children have gone to public school in clark county. right now, 11 of my grandchildren are going to public schools in nevada. [applause] i appreciate every day the good work of teachers, administrators in this great clark county school system. i know how smart the kids are. we have to move them along. we are trying to do that. i will do everything i can to make sure teachers, administrators, support personnel, and all of the students had the best possible. -- have the best possible. but that starts with this -- no

one, i repeat, no one is going to take away the department of education. [applause] the department of education is so important to fund schools. it is so important because it helps kids be able to afford to go to college. [applause] also, listen to this, everybody -- there has been some talk this week about my opponent talking about what this person or that person looks like. well, i do not know what that is all about, but i know each of you look like you or from nevada to me. [applause]

people of nevada are fighting a tough fight. we never give up, do we nevada? let me tell you, we are going to bounce back stronger than ever. there are three important issues on my mind and on your mind -- jobs, jobs, and more jobs. [applause] the single most important part of my job is to create jobs. [applause] we have a long ways to go, but let me give you some good news. just a few hours ago we announced a huge highway construction project. it will create tens of thousands of jobs. [applause]

what it will do is he's traffic congestion in the middle of -- ease traffic congestion in the middle of los vegas. there is more good news. just last week i was present when the mayor of the city from china brought 1000 jobs to nevada. [applause] they have already leased the property. they have already signed the agreement with the steel workers. they are going to build lights and at windmills. [applause] what is interesting, it is just the opposite of my opponent's jobs program which is to ship jobs overseas. that is not all. last week the secretary of transportation was here to announce that we are going to

have a train between southern nevada and southern california. [applause] it is going to create 35,000 jobs. [applause] i do not know about you, but that train cannot arrive soon enough can it? renewable energy jobs -- those jobs that my opponent mocked and called designer jobs, thousands of them all are in progress right now. sun, wind, geothermal -- all over the state of nevada. this week we were able to announce the joint venture between ls power to create a power line from the northern part of the state to the southern part of the state. for the first time in the state of nevada at this has been able

to happen. it will allow the data to become energy dependent within three years. after three years, we will be able to sell back power to energy on greek california which has a law -- energy hungry california. [applause] we also announced yesterday that a significant number of schools and churches in nevada will be supplied with solar energy. we started yesterday. [applause] you see, these are not just promises of progress, these are real jobs. there is a clear choice in this election. jobs. sharron angle is running against

me. [laughter] it was really hard for me to say the name, but i did. she says it is not her job to create jobs. but also, she is someone who calls the unemployed "spoiled." these are her words. i did not make them up. they are not my words. she is also the same person who says that social security recipients are on welfare. again, these are her words, not mine. she is also someone whose foreign-policy strategy consists of taking your job and shipping it overseas. her message is this, when the going gets tough the american middle class -- the nevada

middle-class or on their own. you have heard some of her ideas. phasing out social security and medicare -- those are her words, not mine. she wants to get big banks, big oil companies, and big insurance companies more leeway. if they are not regulated enough she says. well, let's see. she said they are too regulated. can you imagine saying oil companies, insurance companies, and banks or to regulated -- are too regulated? that because of the bp oil spill was too much regulation? the wall street collapse was because of too much regulation? i believed it was greed, do you not think? she wants to help millionaires more than the middle class.

these ideas sound a little bit familiar? they should. they are the same exact ideas that got us into this mess in the first place. the rest of her ideas are even worse. they are extreme, they are dangerous, and the data cannot afford them. privatizing the veteran's administration? doing away with the department of energy? doing away with the department of education? doing away with the epa? and she does not believe insurance companies should be required to give mammograms -- to pay for mammograms or colonoscopys or cover autism? you have heard what she wants. she wants to take the country

back. but the problem is -- and she will not tell you this -- she really means she was to take the country not back, but backwards. that is why those who know my opponent best are running away from her. for example, her hometown newspaper will endorse made. me.will endorse her home town mayor, a republican, endorsed me. [applause] her hometown senator, a republican, endorsed me. it is not just the big names.

here is a postcard i received this week from an everyday president of nevada. ron angle "if sharon a is elected, we will be walking backward into the future." i am not interested in taking our country back word. i am it will not give them that the shovels they used to dig this big hole they put us in. we all want to take the country forward. [applause] we are moving forward not fast enough, but we are not going to give up.

we are going to continue to walk forward and we will stop anyone and everyone who stands in our way. i cannot do it alone. i need your help. [applause] something special happened in this state and in our country two years ago. president obama asked us to reach for something bigger than ourselves. he reminded us that we are all in this together -- democrats, republicans, and independence. -- independents. our job as citizens did not end with the election. the choice is clear, but that choice does not matter unless we make that choice. you do not get back on your feet unless you stand up. so today i have three simple request for you.

first, go vote. [applause] do not wait until election day. the mall is open until 9:00 right here. the vote tonight. second, tell your friends and family to vote. passed out fliers. knock on doors. help somebody get to the polls. finally, on what everyone here to give a good, big nevada welcome to someone who has bid did our state 21 times during the run for the presidency. a man i worked closely with. someone i am going to continue to work with every day to get nevadans back to work.

he loves the state and lost baggage. ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states, barack obama. [applause] ♪ [applause]

hello, they guess. -- >>hello, vegas. it is good to be back in vegas. i am fired up. are you fired up? [applause] there are a couple of people on what to make mention of. first of all, you're congresswoman is in the house. an outstanding freshman congresswoman is here. [applause] senate majority leader is in the house. former governor, bob miller, is here. [applause] my dear friend and senator from illinois, dick durbin is here.

i want to say to all of the people from the school, thank you for your hospitality. thank you. [applause] i am happy to see all of you. and i have to say, for some reason, whenever i come here, suddenly a whole bunch of people on my staff want to come with me. i do not know. suddenly there are no seats on air force one. i told them they have to be made themselves a little bit while they are here. but the main reason i am here, the main reason i need you fired up is because in just 11 days you have the chance to set the

direction of this state and this country, not just for the next five years, not just for the next 10 years, but for the next several decades. [applause] and if i am going to be able to help middle-class families all across this country live out their dreams, and i want to have a partner in the united states senate named harry reid. [applause] you know, harry is not the flashiest die, let's face it. -- flashiest guy, let's face it.

he does not move will quick. he does not get up and make big speeches. but harry reid does the right thing. [applause] harry reid has never forgotten what it is like to grow up in searchlight, the data. -- searchlight, nevada. he knows what it is like to be poor. he knows what it is like to work hard. he knows what it is like sometimes to hit some bumps in the road, to have to overcome obstacles. that things do not always work out perfectly. but because of that, because he remembers where he came from, it means that thinks every single

day about how he is going to get the folks in nevada a better shot at life. [applause] and so, i want everybody here to understand what is at stake. sayingciate everybody's ma," but i want everybody to say "harry." i need partners like harry. i need partners like shelly. but it all depends on you. just like you did in 2008, you

can defy conventional wisdom. the wisdom that says you cannot overcome citizens in politics. the wisdom that says special interest always win. the wisdom that says that the people with the most money with the most negative advertisements or always successful. the wisdom that says we cannot tackle big challenges in america anymore. in 11 days, you can say "yes we can." [applause] [crowd chanting "yes we can." >> yes we can. there is no doubt that this is going to be a difficult election. that is because we have been through a difficult time as a

nation. nobody has been hit harder than nevada. keep in mind, things were tough even before the financial crisis hit. between 2001 and 2009 average middle-class families in america lost 5% of income when the republicans were in charge. we had the slowest job growth since world war ii when the republicans were in charge. use all your health care costs go up. use all the cost of a college education go up -- you saw the cost of a college education go up. too many people are working two or three jobs and failing to make ends meet. all this culminated in the worst financial crisis since the great depression. we know the results of the

republican philosophy when it comes to the economy. it is no secret. basically their theory was cut back for millionaires end billionaires', you cut regulations for wall street and special interest, and then you cut middle-class families lose to fend for themselves. that was their theory. what happened was before i took office, we had already lost 4 million jobs. a bunch of them were right here in nevada. we lost 750,000 jobs might first month in office. we lost almost 8 million jobs before my policies, harry reid's policies were put into effect. and so our hope was that because

we were in crisis, that we could come together, both parties, put politics aside and deal with this once in a generation challenge. i want to move beyond the bickering and partisanship that has dominated washington for so long. although we are proud to be democrats, we are proud to be americans. -- we are prouder to be americans. [applause] the republican leaders in washington, they made a different decision. here is the thing, they realized what a big mess they had made. they knew it would take a long time to recover these 8 million jobs that were lost. it is going to take a long time before the housing market fully recovers. instead of trying to help obama

and harry reid to solve problems, they stood on the sidelines, sat on their hands, and basically just said no to everything. their theory was people will forget that we were the ones who caused all this stuff and we will be able to blame them and people will be so angry and frustrated that we will be able to ride this all the way to the ballot box. that was their theory. in other words, they are basically betting on all of you having amnesia. they are basically banking on the fact that you might forget who got us in this mess in the first place. so let me tell you, loss we have not forgotten. we are not going to buy what they are selling.

that is the choice we have in this election. [applause] we have a choice between the policies that got us into this mess and the policies that are helping to get us out of this mess. it is a choice between the past and the future, between falling backwards and moving forward. i do not know about you, but i want to move forward. [applause] you know, the chair of the republican campaign committee was asked, "what would you do if you win back congress?" he said they would do the exact same thing with the exact same agenda as before they took office. their policies resulted in the worst economic crisis since the 1930's and they want to go back

to that exact same set of policies. does that make any sense to you? it would be one thing if they had gone away into the desert -- you had desert here, pick it up on into the desert. they could have thought about how they screwed up so bad. they felt bad about it and came back and ask for new ideas and wanted to cooperate with us. but that is not what happened. they want to do the same thing they did before. it is not as if we did not tried them. we tried them for eight years and they did not work. why would we buy that snake oil now? we are not going to. imagine that the economy is a car and the republicans drove this car into a ditch.

it was a really deep ditch. somehow they were able to walk away from the accident from the scene of the crime, but they left the car in the ditch. harry, we put on our boots and went down into the ditch. it was so deep down there. when we got down there it was muddy and 30 -- it was hot. we were sweating. there are bugs everywhere. we had to make sure we get that are out of the ditch. we are pushing and pushing. every now and then we looked up and sell the republicans. they are just standing there sitting on a slurpee, fanning themselves.

we said, "why don't you come up here and help?" they said no. but that was ok. finally we get this car up on level ground. pilot we get out of the ditch. it is banged up. it has to go to the body shop. it needs a tuneup. but it is pointed in the right direction. [laughter] [applause] the engine is still turning. suddenly as we are about to get in the car, we feel this tap on our shoulder and we look back and it is the republicans. and they say, "excuse me, we would like the keys back." we have to tell them, "you cannot have the keys back.

you do not know how to drive." [laughter] [applause] you do not know how to drive. it be what, you can ride with us, but you have to ride in the back seat. we will put middle-class families in the front seat where they belong. [applause] have you ever noticed when you go forward in your car, what do you do? you put it in d. if you want to go back words, you put it in r. i do not want to go backwards. i want to go forward. [applause] let's go forward. i want to go forward. because of the steps we have taken, we no longer face the

possibility of a second depression. the economy is growing again. private sector job growth has happened nine months in a row. everybody here knows that we still have a long way to go. we had a lot of work to do. a lot of people are hurting. families are hanging on by a thread. people are seen their homes lose a lot of value. it keeps me up at night. it keeps harry reid up at night. that is what keeps us biking. because we have a different idea about what the future should hold. it is rooted in our own lives. we were not born with a silver spoon in our mouths. our families were working folks. we understand how hard it is. we understand that government does not have all the answers to our problems. government has to be lean and its efficient. we believe in individual

initiatives, but we also believe in the words of abraham lincoln that government should do what the people what they cannot do better for themselves. [applause] we believe in a country that rewards of hard work and responsibility. we believe in an america that invest in the future and its people, in the education of our children, in the skills of our workers. we believe in an america where we look out for one another. where i am a brother's keeper. where i and my sister's keeper. that is the america we believe in. that is the choice in this election. [applause] if we give them the keys back, the other side is going to keep giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas.

we want to invest right here in nevada. small businesses, american manufacturers, clean energy companies -- we want solar panels built here in the united states of america. we want wind turbines built here in the united states of america. we want electric cars built here in the united states of america by american workers. [applause] if the other side gets the keys , they say they want to get a tax cut to the top 2% -- millionaires and billionaires. they do not have the money. the only way to pay for it is to borrow money from china. they want to cut education by 20%. think about this.

we are in the 21st century where everybody knows that the country that educates their people the best is better. do you think china is cutting education by 20%? they are not playing for second place. neither does the united states of america. we play for first place. [applause] that is why harry reid and deana and shelly, that is why democrats in congress helped to take away tens of billions of dollars that were going in unwarranted subsidies to banks and shifted those to find college scholarships for young people all across the country -- millions of young people. millions of young people getting more help to go to college.

that is what this election is about. that is the choice. [applause] when we give tax cuts, we want to give tax cuts to middle-class families who need help. they deserved relief. we do not want special interest feedback in the shotgun seat. they have already promised to roll back wall street reform. they promised to roll back health-insurance reform. we refuse to let that happen because i do not want your health care denied just when you need it most because insurance companies are playing games. i do not want you to have to pay for another wall street bailout. i do not want credit card companies to be able to jack up your interest rates whenever you feel like it -- whenever they feel like it without giving you notice. that is the old way of doing business. we have a new way of doing

business. if we are moving forward without looking back. that is the choice in this election. [applause] we believed in rebuilding our emperor structure. i just came into the airport. they are putting people back to work because of harry reid. we need to make sure that we have the best infrastructure in the world. we are not going to have better airports in other countries than here in the united states. we have always had the best infrastructure. we need to continue that. that is the choice in this election. by the way, another choice in this election is making sure social security is there, not just for this generation, but for the next generation. we will not privatize social

security on my watch or on harry reid's watch. that is the choice in this election. [applause] let me say this. we have some big problems because the same special interests we have been battling for the last two years or fighting back hard. -- are spiking back hard. they are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into negative advertisements. i'd be seeing negative advertisements out here? you do not even know who is sponsoring these advertisements. they have all these names like "americans for prosperity," and "mothers for motherhood." [laughter] i made that last one up. they are keeping their

contributions secret. they do not have the guts to stand up for what they say they believe in. we do not know if it is the oil industry, the insurance companies, speculators -- they will not tell us. they will not say. they do not want you to know who is bankrolling all these negative advertisements. this is not just a threat to democrats, this is a threat to democracy. i the only way to fight in, the only way to match their millions of dollars, is with millions of voices. all those folks to call for change in 2008, we have to fight for change in 2010. [applause] this is where all of you come in. you have to vote, everybody. i want everybody to know, we have early voting here in nevada. if you will vote crisis -- if you will but across the way, if

you get in line before 8:00, you can cast your ballot right now. [applause] do not wait. do not wait. if everybody who showed up in 2008 shows up in 2010, we will win this election. [applause] so let me just say this, in 2008 a lot but you got the call, some of you for the very first time. some of you knock on doors. some of you made phone calls. it was a defining moment in our history. you believed that this was a chance for you to make some history. to help finally move america in a better direction. you understood that what happens today was going to shape the lives of our children and grandchildren. that is the reason you got involved.

that is why he worked so hard. i note sometimes over the last two years as we have been grinding out change, doing battles, dealing with filibusters, dealing with obstruction, dealing with the "no you cannot" crowd -- you may have gotten discouraged. you think back to election night and the inauguration. you thought, "boy, that was so much time." -- that was so much fun." maybe you get discouraged at lose heart. as you travel through nevada, d.c. the foreclosures. you think that what you did did not make a difference. but i am here to tell you, do not let anybody tell you that what you did does not matter. because of what you did, there

is somebody in nevada who is able to get their cancer treatments without mortgaging their house. because of what you did, there is a small-business owner somewhere that kept their doors open in the depths of recession. because of what you did, there are some of you going to work every day on the construction site. because of what you did, there is a child somewhere that is getting health care. because of what you did, there are 100,000 brave men and women who have come back from a rock. -- come back from iraq. [applause] because of what you did, america is a better place. but we have just begun. we are just in the first quarter. i cannot have you tired now. i cannot have you tired when we

are just getting started. look, change has always been hard in this country. this country was founded when the 13 colonies came together in a revolution that nobody believed could happen -- except they believed. they founded this country on ideas that had not been tried before. "we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." nobody believed that the slaves could be freed, except they believed. folks did not believe that women could win the right to vote, except women believed. nobody believed that we could get workers' rights, except

workers believed. there were a lot of folks who said we would never give civil rights, but we got civil rights because somebody out there believed. [applause] imagine if our parents, our grandparents, are great- grandparents' had said this was too hard, i am too tired, i am this terrorist, somebody is saying something mean about me. we would not be here today. we got through war and depression. we have made this union more perfect because somebody, somewhere was released -- was ready to stand up in the face of uncertainty and difficulty. that is held change has come. that is the spirit we have to restore in 2010. if all of you are going to go

out and vote, knock on doors, talking to your friends and neighbors, i promise you we will not just win this election, we will not just elect harry reid, but we are going to restore the american dream -- the vegas dream, the nevada dream for generations to come. god bless you and god bless the united states of america. [applause] ♪18

♪ [song playing "only in america

"] ♪

♪

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2010] ♪ [song playing "higher and higher"\

♪ [playing marvin gaye] ♪

>> here is a political news to tell you about. joseph lieberman could have the power to decide which party controls the senate. some political analysts say republicans could pick up as many as nine seats in the midterm elections. if that happens, the senate would be evenly split with 50 republicans and 50 democrats. that number hinges on senator lieberman continuing to caucus with the democrats. it the switches caucuses, party control of the senate would swing to republicans. more news at our website, c- span.org/politics. >> you can clip and share our programs with your friends on our website. that includes over 100 debates. what's the tutorial on how to clip and chair on our website. search, blind, and share with

the c-span video library. >> tomorrow night, live from denver, a colorado senate debate with michael bennett and republican ken buck. that is at 8:00 eastern on c- span. >> now the third and final debate between russ feingold and republican ron johnson. they are running for the senate seat in wisconsin. the debate took place at marquette law school in milwaukee. marquette university law school and milwaukee public television or sponsoring the debate. it is 90 minutes. >> if this is a special presentation in association with milwaukee public television and with politics.com. >> wisconsin's voice will shape

the nation's agenda. your vote on november 2 will decide who will represent our state on the national stage. tonight in their final face to face appearance, democratic incumbent russ feingold and republican challenger ron johnson join a conversation with wisconsin. they will take questions from citizen groups in green bay, madison, and milwaukee. it is all part of the up brought tell all challenge. now, from the new home of marquette university law school in milwaukee. [applause] >> hello again, everyone. welcome to marquette university law school. i am a journalist from the law school exploring public policy

issues. this is the third and final in our series of conversations with candidates for statewide office this year. last week it was a party nominees in the race for governor. tonight it is the candidates for u.s. senate in wisconsin. with me at the table is the democratic incumbent russ feingold and his republican challenger ron johnson. i will be asking the candidates questions for the first 15 minutes or so i get a free- flowing conversation. we will take questions from citizens around the state. these citizens were recruited based on their participation in the local community. we found them by reading letters to the editor and minutes of school boards. they are republicans and democrats, conservatives and liberals, independents and tea party members.

we want to thank them for their time and participation in advance. my colleague is here with a group of citizens from southeastern wisconsin who have questions for the candidates tonight. dan jones from milwaukee public television is still being questions from our internet viewers. the rules are pretty simple. this is a conversation. the viewers tell us they want to hear more talking points. we have 90 minutes tonight, but believe me, the time will go by quickly. we are asking the questions -- we are asking the candidates to answer the questions quickly and concisely. the candidates may also speak to each other directly. i will be played the role of traffic cop. we want the candidates to address the issues the citizens want to hear and tell us how

they will tackle the country's toughest challenges. each candidate will have a one minute closing statement. we asked the audience to refrain from any applause until then. mr. johnson will go first. i actually, it is the same question for both of you. i thought we would begin our conversation tonight i tried to get a better sense of your world view. mr. johnson, let me ask you this -- what do you think poses the greatest threat to our nation at this moment in history? >> it is the out-of-control spending and debt we are racking up in this country. that is the issue. certainly it is the economy and jobs. we have to get this economy moving and create jobs. but people understand that racking up a deficit of $1.40 trillion -- over $3 trillion

have been added to the debt in three years. it is unsustainable. they see greece. they are watching france. they understand we better do something about it. we need to bring this to a grinding halt. >> senator feingold? >> of course the debt is one of the biggest issues. that is why i worked so hard to reduce the debt and deficit and successfully did so with president clinton and republicans in the 1990's. we actually got that done. there are more challenges. we cannot just solved this by cutting spending. we have to have creative ways to create jobs. frankly, there is an international situation out there. my opponent does not talk about it. allocate attacked us and we now have this -- al qaeda attacked

us. >> it seems to me that you are saying washington does not get it -- that they are not listening. what evidence do you have? >> we have $800 billion in additional debt. senator feingold provided the final vote for the stimulus package. the government it is the private sector that creates jobs. but this election is a pretty stark choice. a pretty big difference in terms of the two candidates. u.s. senator fine gold -- you have ross fine gold who spent 30 years in politics. there is a pretty stark difference. >> is there any reason why a

gridlock -- a career politician is a bad thing? there are others out there. there are other career politicians. >> what kind of government philosophy does that career politician have? he does believe that the government is the solution to our problems. he has voted for more spending. my governing philosophy is less government, less government intrusion, control, spending, and taxes. that is the big difference. >> i voted to cut taxes. he says the recovery bill did nothing. it provided a tax cut for 95% of all working families. the health care bill, at 85,000

small businesses and wisconsin are going to give a tax reduction. it provides a tax cut to any business that hires anybody that has been laid off more than 60 days. it will be a $6 billion tax credit. on all these issues, i have supported them. since january in 2009, he wants to wipe out that entire agenda. so this statement that the recovery bill did nothing is absolutely false. he keeps saying that despite the fact that it is not true. that bill probably prevented a depression. it is estimated to have created or preserved 1.5 million jobs. the notion that it did nothing flies in the face of all reality. >> one of the arguments you hear

of word that teachers' jobs were saved. firefighters were saved. what is your response when you hear that? >> before he cast the deciding vote, he said that in the first year it would create 2.4 million jobs. we are a year and half into this, and we are down jobs. he indicates -- there were far more jobs lost than saved. a 85,000 in the state of wisconsin since this stimulus was passed. >> you are saying they were lost because of the recovery bill? >> if you do the math, those save the jobs come in at an incredibly high cost. those are just temporary jobs.

they were not private sector, self sustaining jobs. those are the jobs that pay taxes. they fund what government we need. >> i was with and the other night. that committee worked for 11 years to have a new senior center. when the economy tanks, their plans and their hopes to have that senior center were dashed. i was would then the other night and they had a celebration. the reason they will have that senior center is because of a $1 million grant from the stimulus package. that is a very conservative community. they were ecstatic. who is doing the work? not government employees. they are doing the work, it is private jobs, private work. that is a permanent firm. it is felt that the bill did not pervade -- provide job -- it is false that the bill did not provide jobs.

>> let me move this conversation and a slightly different direction. i heard you at an event two weeks ago where you were speaking to a group of commercial realtors. you were telling a story about senator judd gregg who was retired senator from new hampshire. you quoted him as saying that you have to understand that the people up here in washington did not get it. they do not believe in the free- market system. they do not believe in politics. do you believe that that is true? would the senator for -- fit in that category? >> that is certainly the implication. it is unfortunate that

washington does to understand how the free market works. exhibit a of that is the stimulus package. what they should have done was come into office and to say these tax krises sadr scheduled, we will not increase taxes. -- these tax credits that are scheduled, we will not increase taxes. that would have provided the certainty. that is what creates real jobs. that a incentivizes -- when they think the economy will grow. a $3,000 tax credit, that is not what prompts a business person to create a job. >> how can somebody say that an $800 -- $800 billion bill is

somehow a waste of money or a ballooning of the deficit? those were tax cuts. you are so committed to pretending that the stimulus bill did nothing. you cannot even admit that 95% of all american working families a tax cut. you like to minimize the of fact. i talked to a guy in like geneva the other day. i had to jobs. that is a tax cut. it is literally sang, if you do this, we will reduce your taxes to a business. that is what i favor. every item here that has to do with tax cuts, he is against them in time for them. >> there is more to what he is saying.

your critics would say -- when he talks about an anti business attitude, look at the things that ross fine gold has done with his record. -- ross fine golgold. he wants to regulate trade more. these are examples of a guy who wants more government control. what do you say to that? i favor main street. i stood against any effort to try to collect wall street make its own rules because i knew it would hurt our local institutions. this bill does not do the job of regulating wall street adequately and yet you have over

regulation of the banks and credit providers here in wisconsin. we just passed a small-business bill that is providing credit with some help from the government to these banks and it is making an enormous difference. it might issue here is that i favor the small businesses and the main street businesses in wisconsin. of course, some of the big companies. you can ask the people at harley-davidson. you can ask the organic farmers. you can ask any kind of business in this state whether i have worked to try to help them. of course, when certain businesses and start having a stranglehold over all parts of our economy, they were destroying small business. the constant complaints from wisconsin businesses that the insurance business -- insurance industry was destroying their ability to cover their own employees. that is why i fight for them.

>> first of all, i am a small business person. i am main street. i pay about half a million dollars to help insurance companies. i want to make sure that we can lower cost. the reason the tax cuts did not work is that there is nothing else that this administration did to create any kind of certainty. anything we have done has created a great deal on sunday. -- uncertainty. when the government spends money, you eventually have to pay money. taxes will have to go up. they took this $800 billion and said it would create jobs. it did not. they produced a 2600-page bill. part of that was 16,000 additional irs agents.

they created a high-level and uncertainty. they have not taken cap-and- trade off the table. from a standpoint of a business person, from a standpoint of consumers, are we going to have our jobs? business people certainly do not see any hope that the economy is going to grow. >> you smile when he said he was main street. >> he is not. he has no idea what is going on. i've been to every county in the state. he does not have the scope of experience that i have when talking to businesses of the state. we are getting orders much later in the year than we normally do.

i find the same things and other places. there certainly places where people are down. you go to oshkosh and there is a company that is making when turbines. because of the stimulus bill, they're able to put their financing together. there is a lot of positive energy out there. the worst thing that we can do is to press its. even though it is not fast enough, in plymouth has gone up every single month for nine months. we can sit here and they say and say nothing good is happening, but that is not the truth. there are some good things happening and we need to encourage things like water technology. this part of the state can be the silicon valley of water. i'd been very engaged with

others to do this. i am the candidate that has taken the time to learn about all the different kinds of businesses in this state. he has a very narrow focus. >> i'd done over 500 events. i have visited all kinds of businesses. i've been doing this full-time for six months. i visited countless businesses and every time i asked him about the economy, i'll get to of one person say, is this going to prompt you to hire somebody? they always say, no. >> i want to leave then are citizen groups. i want to begin tonight with pam. this is an extension of the conversation we've been having. >> john fisher is here and this

is a question that could make or break it for him. >> what role do you feel federal housing policy played in the economic collapse? what role do you feel that federal housing policy should play in the economic recovery? >> if you go back in history in terms of what crated the housing bubble, it was the federal government forcing banks to loan to people who could not afford homes. we will let you have a fannie mae and freddie mac guarantee those loans. the banks had every incentive to make those loans and then offsets -- offload them. it was very easy money. the beginning of our economic

problems really it was -- they saw an opportunity to make money. it was paid for by the american taxpayers. >> it is very convenient and it fits his philosophy. you like all the big corporations up the hook. wall street had something to do with this itself. the use of derivatives is one of the greatest abuse is we have ever seen. the fact that the glass-steagall act was overturned, it was critical after the depression. that was the thing that made sure that investment houses -- is notion that it was just government housing that did it. i talked a lot of people about this. nobody who is serious about this issue police said it was just about the housing. however, i do think we need to -- when john mccain brought up an amendment on these financial regulation bill and said we should include these gse's

within the category of these institutions, i was only one of two democrats to vote with them. they may have played a role, but it is simply strain's any credibility to suggest that it was only because of that. it is we just sit -- it is way too simple. >> the big banks certainly played a role. the reaction was a 2300 page bill. they did not address too big to fail. we have an entity -- regulation already failed. >> did he get the answers said they were looking for? >> ar enter in your question? >> they entered the first part. the second part, which is more

important. >> the housing sector well, certainly. this is all going to have to work its way out. we will end up buying up so that people into buying houses again. what we need to do is remove all the other uncertainty. caused by the deciding votes. we have got to make sure that we do not increase taxes in 2011. >> housing is going to be critical. mr. johnson has stated that he is willing to put the mortgage deduction on the table as part of tax reform. that is unacceptable and that is a tax increase. it will have a devastating impact on housing and the ability to stimulate the housing market.

>> that is not true. >> tammy has a question. it is about decisions made and what we have learned from it. >> thank you. the securities and exchange commission was created in 1934 in the hills -- on the heels of the great depression and it is responsible for enforcing the federal securities laws and regulating the securities industries. >> put yourself in the position of a front line and government officials.

if you're the chairman of the sec, how would you expect wall street to self regulate? how would you direct the agency to do a more effective job of achieving its mission? >> i would not expect or think that wall street can regulate. that is essentially what happened after the repeal of glass-steagall. the problem is that regulation and just having regulation often does not work. if there are not absolute rules preventing certain things from happening, these regulators did coopted by all of the back and forth between washington and new york. these agencies get coopted. one of the reasons -- i am the only democrat to vote against this financial regulation bill is because it did not place to

the basic rules. they did not get rid of these too big to fail institutions. the other is to get back to the rules that we have had since the depression to make sure that investment houses and banks are not allowed to enter main goal. that distinction was critical. i think the regulators can do a very important job, but without those basic protection than prohibitions, their job becomes very difficult. >> i think we are pretty close to agreement on this. banks cannot self regulate. we need effective regulation. what happens with the 23-hundred -- 2300-page bill, it did not address the problem. the fact that in the entity was termed too big to fail just proves that regulation failed. had i been in opposition, i would have -- when the banks were operating properly.

i would contact to see what worked then. -- i would have gone back to see what worked and then. >> we will go to channel 27 in madison. let's get a question from the citizens' group. >> we had a good discussion about social security a couple of weeks ago. it's started with someone mentioning that they had heard a latest date -- target date and running out of money, 2037. that is the target date at this point. we started talking about the fact that many people had heard and read about experts who said that relatively minor changes could prevent it from running out of money. >> would you support making

changes now to keep social security solvent and if so, what specific changes would you support? >> i will ask you to be specific. >> i have to first predicate my comment. promises have been made to seniors. to hold true to those promises. the fiscal problems have been known for decades. instead of addressing the problems, the senator has used social security as a political football. what is happened in his tenure, social security has taken in $2.20 trillion in taxes. they spent the money on other programs. when you talk about social security being solvent until 2039, that is based on treasury

bills. they are no more than additional claims on the taxpayer. they were taxed once. in order to -- they will have to be taxed again. you need to look at all the options except for -- i would not agree to an imperial tax increase and i would never forced privatization on anybody. all the other options have to be on the table. how you make this thing sustainable. young people do not even think they -- there will be social security for them said they will be a good audience. >> all options on the table does not constitute being specific. in every area of policy, mr. johnson wants to be your senator and he will not tell you what he wants to do one jobs, to fix the health care system, and on this one is almost incredible

to me. he cannot answer your question. i think we need to raise that payroll tax level to protect the upper income people. to help fund the future of social security. the reason this fund is solvent is that this was done well before i was involved in politics. the commission was put together and they said, we will have to raise that a fight global -- fica level. when i came back and started working in madison -- it needs to be higher. i did to every county in this state. -- i have been to every county in the state. at least raise it to the level of the salaries of the member of congress. >> again, i believe when you start raising people's taxes,

you are going to harm the economy. our job is to get the economy going. we have got to move toward growth. >> let me go back. >> he loves to insulate himself from the privatisation charge. it means he is open to some kind of privatization. everybody he was already over 65, we will keep our promise to them. but what about everybody in this room? what about people were 30, 40? he has specifically said he would be open to the idea of voluntary privatization for certain people's accounts. i oppose that. i didn't specifically the wrote about how i would fix it. -- i have been specific with you about how i would fix it. >> the senator and his

colleagues took into play $2 trillion and spent the money on other things. >> [inaudible] i have two questions. about half of the social security goes to the disabled. it be privatized, they presumably would not be getting any money because they would not be putting money into it. the other thing is that my understanding is that the social security changes that were done under president reagan work to create a surplus which would then put into treasury bonds that would cut interest back to the social security trust fund. has the government used that money? if they had not borrowed it from the social security fund, they would've had to have borrowed it from the chinese or

other creditors. >> it is a complex question. >> you have to understand what that trust fund really is. if you have $20 and you spend it and you write yourself and ious, that is what the federal government has done to itself. when the federal government writes an idea to itself, back -- rights and i owe you to itself, that ball on the taxpayers -- that falls on the taxpayers. >> he completely mischaracterized my record. i have been the hardest working senator on trying to prohibit --

i was the first guy to introduce the bill that would pass it. i will not tolerate that. people with disabilities need to be included in this program. >> you are running an ad right now where you have all of these -- you just made a concrete proposal on how you would address the situation. why not include that? >> i said that privatization is off the table. he has stated that he is willing to be open to some kinds of privatization. for me, that is off the table. i just described to you exactly what i would do. >> let me move on to the next question. we have a couple of questions from people watching this with

politics.com. >> we have been getting some great questions. society, at the basic goal the business is to make a profit. would people be good at running our government. why are why not? >> we need a different perspective in washington. 57 senators are attorneys. there are nothing wrong with attendance. -- there is nothing wrong with attorneys. we're talking about budgets index is up to replace $5 trivalent -- $3.50 trillion. i understand the discipline. i need to have a surplus. i need a surplus because that is

the engine for economic growth. i am afraid way too many career politicians in washington simply do not understand that because they have never operated a business. the only perspective is writing rules and regulations. which is to a different perspective. >> i've worked with a lot of business people in the senate, people like mark warner. a very successful business people. my senior colleague from wisconsin is a very successful businessman. he took a look at the health care bill and he said, you bet. it is the right thing to do. look at the recovery act, with his business background, he said that it was the right thing to do. what is wrong with his business judgment? >> and this case, it failed. the stimulus package failed.

the health care the bill is taking money away from medicare. it is increasing taxes. we're putting on a 16,000 additional irs agents. we understand what it will lead to. >> do you have anything to add on this? >> he refuses to answer the question. how do you justify this argument that businesspeople bring a perspective that lead to the conclusion? he has some of the best business experience with anybody in the history of this state. he probably voted for the health care bill. how can you argue that -- >> america would like to start manufacturing and producing products again. >> this question is for both

gentlemen. based on some polls, this is a pretty close race. the challenges facing this nation are enormous and requires citizens to work together, find a share division, and commit to a set of shared priorities, investment and sacrifices. if you win, how will you govern and lighted the fact that much of the electorate did not vote for you and does not like you? >> [laughter] >> i have experience with this one. my attitude is and always has been, whoever votes -- i pretty much always have close races. i work for everybody. that means i do not hold scripted town meetings. i go into some tough places. sometimes is a little warm in there. but it is the right thing to do. i made a pledge and i would go to every one of the county's every year, hold a town meeting, and i've done that the well my

senate career. when i worked in washington, i am known as the guy was very active in bipartisan initiative. paul ryan, half the time we disagree. we want to have the president be able to zap these earmarks and other bulky business that goes on in these bills. i do that because i work for all the people of the state. i will show my respect for all citizens. >> i understand the need for excellent customer service. i understand the senator from wisconsin is a representative office. you need to represent every voter.

i have a history of building consensus. same type of process. finding experts, get them together, get the input. start solving problems. that is why i'm doing this. >> let's move on to the next question. we're going to the northwestern part of the state. jerry gallagher is there. we want to talk about an important industry in this state. >> we have not heard the word of agriculture or farming mention yet tonight that i can recall. here is a couple points. the number of dairy farms in the u.s. is down 33% in just 10 years. milk production in this country is up 15% over that same time. many small farmers are being pushed out of the business because of cost.

there is no argument from the candidate that dairy farmers are being paid what under the cost of production. there are five people do understand how dairy products are priced. four of them are dead and the fifth one is lying. [laughter] all sarcasm aside, what will you do specifically to address concerns that small farmers have with this crisis? >> i want to talk about my background. both of my parents worked on farms. all my aunts and uncles are farmers. i understand the heritage, the traditions of family farming. i understand the responsibility. my business is in plastics and i have not been as educated as far

as the dairy farm business. i tried to learn. there is one consensus that i found in talking to all the dairy farmers. keep our exports open. it is critical for the demand of the product to be able to maintain decent pricing. americans realized that our economy does not follow a perfect free market system. i do believe -- i certainly support a safety net in terms of pricing and risk management tools. 12% of our entire industry employs about 400,000 people. it is extremely important part of our economy and i will work hard to represent the farmers. >> i can tell from his answer that the issues that are raised by family farmers are not the

ones that he is hearing about. what i hear from people is that we of got to reform the pricing system. the one that has traditionally been based on -- that is the national system. this definitely has to be changed. it is very hard to change because the regional rivalries. we have to do something about the problems with the farm economy, especially the dairy economy. people are still paying pretty much the same things for cheese and milk at the store, bar farmers are getting less. who is making the money? apparently those in the middle. they are making the money. the distribution is not going to the dairy farmers. how do we solve that? the enforcement of the antitrust laws. this administration is taking a much more serious attitude and we had the national forum on dairy in madison recently.

we got a good indication that they are taking a more serious attitude. that will be just as important as pricing. >> terry gallagher, you have a follow-up question. >> that is the point that we keep hearing, mike. it is about the middle man. how is that done? you mentioned the antitrust. does that come in the form of separate legislation? >> in terms of the whole pricing structure, it is archaic. it amazed me. i was not aware of the fact that farmers do not know what price they're getting for milk. we absolutely have to reform act. -- how to reform that. >> that was not the question. how do you deal with these people in the middle? my answer is, the current laws are largely are already helping

if they are properly enforced. i think some reforms have to be made. when it comes to derry, it is enforcing the current antitrust laws in a way that the bush administration refused to do. that is the issue. anybody who is serious about representing the dairy farmers in the state is the crux of the matter. >> we thought that education is a key to just about everything in life. there was a lively debate about how involved government should be. >> education is universally recognized as the most fundamental building block for human development and poverty reduction. when given the upper girardi to learn, and people are empowered to contribute fully to the development of the allies and their countries.

i would like to ask both of you to tell us what role you think the federal government has in the education agenda and what you would do to influence or change that role. >> i think the federal government's role in education should be very limited. i've always believed in local control of education. this is why i voted no for the no child left behind bill. it was heavy-handed. i was glad the few -- i do about them -- independently. i voted against it. i think, however, the federal government can help encourage good policy providing funds for grants. if school districts want to do this. this is what we have done so well under the clinton administration. smaller class sizes and the

other is after school programs. some people want to pass a man dead like that. i am against those unfunded mandates. it distance wanted to apply for that money, they could. that is exactly what happened in wisconsin. we cannot keep finding it permanently. it is a way to stimulate the kind of activity. the funding is still going to be principally at the local level. >> we agree on what -- i agree that it should be local control. my volunteer activity in oshkosh has been education. the unintended consequences of no child left behind. local teachers can teach.

i am all for local control. the role the federal government should be limited. they can help out in very distressed school districts. >> there are some in the tea party movement who say we should just eliminate the department of education. >> a clearing house for best -- best practice methods. >> i am concerned about the fact that there are those who believe that the best ideas about education in washington and- little carried away sometimes. i'm a skeptic of some of the stuff that goes on. they know wisconsin education best and there the best at it. >> we will talk again about health care and what is working in health care today. >> mike, people in western

wisconsin are very proud of our to local institutions. they would like the rest of the country to share in what works here. >> we are home to two well-known health care systems. the it made headlines by being efficient, reducing costs, and giving patients great care. what would you do relative to help care reform to ensure this kind of model survives and is replicated across the nation? >> it is a model. it is a model operating in a free market system. from my standpoint, i am acyl leave for the repeal of the health care bill. >> we are talking about restructuring. >> we can replace an appeal. -- replace and the repeal.

this was such a complex overreached. did we did not have to write a 2600-page bill. to address the issues in health care. if you think about what representations' are made by this administration, when this bill passes, every family will realize a $2,500 savings per year. the cbo has now said that it will cost $2,100 per family. they all are starting to see their premiums increase. if you like your health care, if you like her plan, you can keep it. the 81% will not be grandfathered in. we are watching right now -- 51% will not be grandfathered in.

there'll be far more people losing their plants and that will be government run health care. it is not a 30-state solution. we did not need to do that. >> let me have your address the question. >> lacrosse understands this issue. i am astonished to hear that mr. johnson toward the there because he obviously was not getting attention. i had been there several times. do know what they told me? we want you to pass that health care bill. not only was i the deciding vote, i was one of the principal players in making sure the very recommendations about the cross has been pioneered -- instead of the same procedure being ordered for everybody, they came up with a better idea.

mr. johnson could not possibly have read the health care bill. i did. in the health care bill is some of the most meaningful reforms in this area. his answers are about everything about -- except the fact that the bill is exactly what they wanted. they are ecstatic that we passed the bill. >> you talked about the repeal and replaced sequence. with the replacement be before the existing act is repealed so that the replacement could take in as quickly as possible? or would be one be repealed and then we wait another 40 years for the replacement? >> i was not hearing anybody ecstatic. in terms of just the practicality of this, i doubt

that we will change the president's mind. if one of these houses of congress changes, my recommendation will be that house should write the replacement legislation. we would start be doing things that would -- why wasn't tort reform included in this bill? the health care providers i talked to think that is an underestimates in terms of the cost. why don't people have the freedom to purchase insurance over state lines? >> are there good parts to the reform bill? >> you cannot read it. i think you understand the story about my daughter. i will make sure that we have protections for people with pre- existing conditions. we could have done some

individual bills to address these problems. they would have contained cost. i am a big fan of help savings account. he did not have to write a 2600- page bill. >> how would you do this? >> i know exactly how this works and i was proud to vote for this bill. he says the top issues are jobs and cutting spending. the last thing we should do is repeal the health care bill and start over. this a new and believe -- does anyone believe that it is some piece of cake to scratch that?

we will not get to the main issues. this is a formula for the absolute quagmire. he is said that is going to be his first priority. my first priority is jobs and cutting spending. >> if you want to cut spending, the last thing you should do is before this health care bill. it will add trillions of dollars. >> what does the cbo said specifically that it will save $143 billion in the first 10 years? that is the official estimate. i think it is only reasonable to say that it is more likely than not. >> they will revise that. they were forced to use the administrative the assumption that the administration gives them. >> let's go back to madison. a question about taxes. this is something that people do

talk about. >> it was one of the few things are group completely agreed on. that was the statement that the irs tax code, it is impossible for the average taxpayer to understand >> in an effort to simplify and neutralize taxes, would you support a tax concept instead? >> i am open to a variety of ideas on this. this is such a complicated area. my preference would be to simplify the progressive income tax that we have. it has a lot of problems, though. there are so many different loopholes that have to be cleaned up. i am willing to look at a flat tax proposal that would not be aggressive to working people. what we ought to do is have a

special session of the congress to get into this issue. it is something that almost every american agrees on. i do not want to lock in on this. you have to be willing to compromise because it is so complicated. >> right now, our tax code is -- it cost $338 billion. it is a costly beast. we cannot be increasing taxes. i have to point that out again. right now, taxes on everybody are going to increase in 2011 because the congress did not pass the extension bills. >> i am going to go up to tammy eliot. >> we are well aware that at the end of the year, the tax cuts

will expire. we know the debate is going on in washington. the congressional budget office expects that the extension of these cuts would be the main cause of budget deficits over the next decade. cox did you support extending the bush tax cuts? should they be paid for it? how? >> i absolutely do support -- i do agree that we should extend all the bush tax cuts. we should not increase taxes on any segment of the economy. i disagree with the way that the cbo scores these tax cuts. the static analysis. it does not take into account economic behavior at all. we do not have a tax problem in this country. we have a spending problem.

in 2000, our total spending was $1.80 trillion. this year, it will be three plan $5 trillion. -- $3.50 trillion. tax cuts work. that was a two-thirds increase in tax revenue. in 2003, revenue was $1.30 trillion. revenue increased by $700 billion. if we increase taxes, it will harm our economy. >> hypothetically, if you are in a position of having to vote on a piece of legislation that we will extend them for everyone, where to come down on bad? >> i would extend them for all.

not extending them for everybody -- we're talking about 50% small-business and calm. 750,000 small businesses, a 25% of all workers. it will be -- it would be devastating. >> whenever the choice is to be responsible and do something about the deficit, he is not willing to do it. he talks a good game about the tipping point. he is not going to pay for these tax cuts. next 10 years, if we keep these tax cuts for the upper income people, that is a $700 billion hole in addition to the current problems that we have. how can somebody said that he is passionate about controlling federal spending and the federal debt and is willing to continually practice something that was irresponsible during the bush years?

i voted against the bush tax cuts. the bush tax cuts were as idec -- a gigantic hole in our country's finances. obviously, they did not work to help the economy. they were a mess. you cannot have it both ways. you ask a specific question. i would extend the middle class tax cuts. i would not extend the upper income tax cuts. i would make sure that we take the more reasonable stance about the estate tax. i do not want to completely eliminated. i think we need to raise that up to $10,000 per couple. people have to be able to pass on farms and businesses. the issue of the deficit and the issue of cutting taxes. he wants it both ways. >> the citizens have follow up. >> you have a follow-up

question. >> economists say that tax cuts are one of the most least effective ways to stimulate the economy. they do not pay for themselves. biggest contributor to the deficit. -- base just contribute to the deficit. they just make matters worse. >> i simply disagree. look at history. the reagan tax cuts to our federal revenue from $600 billion to $1 trillion. that is a two-thirds increase. when the senator -- it is a spending problem. when he first came to office, his number one goal was debt and deficit reduction. it is about ready to hit $14 trillion. that is when we could have used

a real maverick. >> i cannot tell you the number of people who think your eye on this is the most tony abbott have ever seen. when bill clinton was president, we work together. he completely balance the budget. i took a very tough votes. those votes cost me members of congress. we worked on a bipartisan basis. i stood up for the deficit spending of the bush administration. that is absolutely dishonest, iran. i it voted against tax cut -- this honest, -- dishonest, ron. how can you run an ad that says i voted for that? ? you should pull that ad. of before surplus is that we had during the 1990's, he only

voted for one of them. he voted against the other three of the large surplus budgets. -- we need to establish a hard spending cap. force the politicians to prioritize spending. he voted against the balanced budget amendment for times in the 1990's. if we had the discipline back then, we would not be in this mess. >> the national taxpayers union is a very conservative group. they named to be one of the top five fiscal disciplinarians in the congress. they hated it. this gentleman here is trying to have it both ways. he cares about the deficit. he will simply not touched back as the way to help solve our problem. this is a formula for disaster.

he will not pay for it. he will put it on a credit card. that credit card is largely owned by china. >> tax increases will harm the economy. that is a different perspective. somebody who understands what it takes to create real jobs. it is not the government. >> we are going to talk about the u.s. military. our next question comes from waow. >> we are going to switch gears. >> do you support a fully integrated armed forces, including appealing don't ask 24 -- don't ask don't tell? >> yes. >>