to pursue it in what spirit rests in their hands in the future. you've talked a lot about their failures. what assurances can the american people have that those regulators will not fall down again on the job, and how can your report help to prevent that from happening? >> well, first of all, i will just say our report is important because while the law has been passed there's now 250 separate rule-making processes. the process of reform and the debate is just beginning. in the 1930s it took a decade. and i will say vigilance is required and i will say we are very concerned that we are back to business as usual. the only reason the ship isn't sinking is it's tied up to the dock. but the minute this economy starts moving i'm very concerned that wall street will return to its risky practices and i'm very concerned about whether we've built the right kind of attention to public protegs -- protection that we need. >> thank you so much for being "newsmakers." >> thank you very much.

>> we're going to continue this coveringsg conversation. zack, i want to turn to you and begin real quickly, what did you hear? >> it sounds like the financial crisis commission is looking to merge a lot of dissenting views into a nuanced history of what went wrong. while it will name people, i think that it's going to have to name a lot of people and a lot of companies. and that may end up distracting attention. or that might be the truth of the matter that it was a lot of factors that caused this crisis and may dilute the power of the ultimate report if one or two people aren't singled out. >> so you don't think they will be naming names? >> i think they will be but a lot of names so it will be hard to know how to weigh one against the other. >> when he first said we're going to let people come to their own conclusions, that struck me a little bit thinking well, isn't this commission supposed to be laying blame? >> they are supposed to be laying blame.

they have a mandate to describe to the american people the causes and to examine an actual list of different issues that may have contributed. i think they're going to make sure to check all those boxes. i think it's 22 items that they need to evaluate. i think that there's going to be the general answer that there's been out of washington, frankly, which is there's plenty of blame to go around. it's any individual party's response to the specific assigning of blame. i think we're going to have to close read that report. i think we're going the have to look very carefully at what language they're able to agree on for example on the issue of fannie and freddie. they have folk on the commission who are very outspoken on either side of that debate and it's politically charged. so i think we're really going to want to look at are they saying fannie and freddie caused the crisis? or, as i heard deep in his comments, did they merely join the game? in response to the fannie and freddie question he said wall

street led the charge. fannie and freddie caught up. >> i asked him about the role of congress. do you think that there will be blaming congress as well? >> they probably will put blame on congress but not tell us anything about congress that we didn't already know. that democrats did have a general allegiance to fannie and freddie. probably not as dramatic as republicans make it sound. i doubt we're going to see an excoriation of congress like we'll see of wall street. >> go ahead. >> i think that's an interesting point. there's a lot out there that we already know. there are multiple oversight bodies. for example, working on tarp. there are academic votes, there are popular votes. so the sections of the report that i think may end up being the most interesting are those that deal with reelly specific nuanced issues i would point to brooksly born who is well known as having suggested that derivatives be more heavily

regulated and being shot down decades ago. i think a section like that where not everybody who ever worked had for this or that party is going to have an opinion. it might be the opinions where they drill down concretely on what they believe the issues were. >> you were asking questions about possible violations and reporting them to the s.e.c. what was he saying there? can you explain that a little more? >> sure. the panel found out that banks knew information about these mortgage-backed securities. that they weren't telling investors in the securities. and that potentially is a violation of securities law, civil violation. and that's what the goldman sachs case was a while ago. and i asked if you found a violation of securities law are you going to tell the s.e.c.? it sounds like they already told them. he didn't want to confirm that because until an investigation is announced it's not public. but it wouldn't be surprised if

they refer that and other things to the s.e.c. he made a point of saying how citigroup, they found things about citigroup sort of window dressing. that's the bankruptcy examiner found that out two months before the panel did. so there's that issue. >> all right. thanks so much to both of you. >> this week on "q&a" two former pal taryns, compare and contrast the house of representatives and the house of commons. on the rules that run parliament and congress. tonight on "q&a." >> one of the great features of the c-span video library is the ability to clip and share our programs with your friends. during this campaign season, that includes more than 100

debates on c-span. search, find, and share with the c-span video library. >> next, a discussion on health care and social security. cokeie roberts of abc news mod rates this with reporters and pollsters. hosted by retirement living tv, this is an hour. this year, 80% of us say we were certain to vote. and that means incumbents beware. if this is the year of the angry voter, it's the year of

the downright furious voter. those of us over 65 are telling pollsters we want all new people to take charge, preferably people who have never held office. and compromise is a dirty word. what does that mean for the election and beyond that what does it mean for governing? we'll ask those questions and try to find some answers in the hour ahead. good evening. i'm cokeie roberts. for the next hour, we're going to take an intensive look at money matters, taxes, deficits, unemployment, and retirement. please join us for prime votes national forum.

>> there are few people better able to talk about what is driving voters than my first guest. we have two top pollsters. they have worked for political candidates for decades now. and they know what the candidates are doing, what the voters are thinking. frank, you specialize in doing focus groups of voters and listening to what they have to say. are they as angry in these little groups as they seem to be when we hear about the anger of the voter this year? >> i'm so afraid that one of these groups is going to result in an fcc fine because they're

using four-letter words. they have to make sure their mikes are turned off. there is no middle ground. there is no compromise. you've got those on the left, those on the right, and they want to fight. they want to be heard. and it's actually very difficult as a mo rators to work through them. because they really want to kill. >> mark, the people, the voters over 50 seem to be angriest. what's that about? >> people are angry, people are upset about the state of the world, about the state of the economy in particular that is true about when it comes to the issue of jobs, when it comes to sthuff of trade, social security, medicare, health care. people are concerned that their livelihoods are at stake and their well being is threatened. and that makes people upset and angrifplt >> let's hear from one of those people who has that view. >> i don't know what's going on in this country in the past. i don't even want to put a number how many years it's been. but things have been going down in a spiral and i don't know

how to get out of it. i'm very dissatisfied with the people we've got running things. >> is that what's driving it? people think we're in a spiral going downwards? >> two questions. are you better off than your parents when they were your age? about 80% say yes. but will your children be better off than you when they get to be your age? only about 40% say yes. that gap between our success generationly and the success of our children is what's driving so much anger, particularly among women who really want their kids to be better off than them and aren't sure that it's going to happen. >> let's listen, because we have someone saying exactly that. >> the overall mood in florida i think is people are almost frightened. of the economy, of the thing that is are going on. we have three children and three grand children and we worry about their future because it seems like when we were coming up, things came

easy. >> what is that concern about the future? americans are optists. why are we hearing this? >> americans are optimist when things are going well. when things aren't going well, it's hard to be an optimist. i think people have to admit things aren't going well. and that has a profound on people's attitude and political thinking. but there's something deeper than this. we asked whether they thought the united states was still the number one economy in the world. fewer than 40% of the people think that we are the number one economy in the world. >> but they're wrong. >> they're wrong. but that's a huge change. this is a country that defines itself as number one, in terms of exceptionalism. in terms of being a unique country. and for 60% of americans to be convinced we're no longer number one, it's a profound change in people's attitude, a profound sense of disappointment in the current state of the economy. we ask 20 years from now that same question.

only 25% think the u.s. is going to be number one. so not only have we shrunk right now our perceptions of the future are very negative. >> one of the effects seems to be a lot of enthuseyasm behind the tea party movement which we've talked about and we've seen that among over 50 voters. a lot of the members are over 50 voters. >> the tea party is speaking to the issues that a lot of the people right now don't agree with the policies that are being pushed through by the liberal democrats. so i do, i agree with many of the tea party issues. >> now, one of the things that really has struck me in the polling is the number of voters over 65 who say they want to vote for a congressional

candidate who has never held elective office. you would expect an older person to sort of value wisdom and experience and those things. why are they saying that? >> because they are dissatisfied with the way things are going. this energy happens for the out party when things are not going well. two years ago things were not going well under george bush. it was democrats excited. people were upset about bush. in reverse, things are not going well. so it's the other side that has the enthusiasm. but at the end of the day, people look at washington and say these politicians have fundamentally failed to deal with the problems. now, we can argue whether they're right or wrong. i think folks are being impatient. but their reality at the is things are not going well. they made these changes, problems have not been rectified, they don't see a future getting better. so they say let's sweep everybody away. it's the same kind of view with republicans but now democrats

are in charge. >> we should say this voting group of course is the prime group. these are the people who will show up. something like 80% say they're certain to vote in this election. not true of the young people in an off year election and young people seem to be much happier with the state of the world. that is also surprising, frank. >> barack obama speaks the language of 18 to 29-year-olds but he doesn't speak the policies of those over 65. and what bothers them the most are the economic issues. the wall street bailout, the stimulus vote, health care which they had thought early on was going to be great for seniors. they're the ones most opposed to it. and in the end, i give them so much credit because they're trying to be responsible for the next generation. >> i want to come to that. but ove the other thing that they are very concerned about is even from people who are retired or expecting to retire is that huge issue of

unemployment. and let's listen to some voters talk about that. >> very important is the issue of unemployment. especially for those of us who are 50 plus. i'm not sure if we're always giving the equal opportunities for the people who are under age 50 are in terms of education. it might be a little bit of discrimination. >> older people feeling they are not likely to get jobs out there because they're older. >> in part for that reason and, frankly, it's very scary if you're 50 years old it's harder to go find that new opportunity for yourself. if you're 22 or 25 and you lose your job, you still have plenty of opportunities in front of you. people over 50 find themselves suddenly without a job really have their world shatrd in a dramatic way, very difficult to put the pieces back together. so they feel that unemployment has a much more frightening prospect than do younger people. >> 60% of full time workers

over age 50 have had to delay their retirement because of the economy of the last three years. now, imagine what happens, you're 62 or 63. you're getting set to give it up and suddenly your stocks are worth 25% less, your house is worth 30, 40% less. we've never had that situation where people have been so in such a short time where their savings has been so decimated. >> but then everything that the government tries to do to help with the economy, you've pointed out earlier, the thruss program, the bank bailout which is actually paying money back to the government but nobody seems to know that, all of those things people are mad because of the budget deficit. >> it's going to take a long time to balance the budget and the only way that can really become part of reality is to start cutting. there's going to be programs we

just have to tighten our economic belt as a country. >> voters say that. but of course when you start talking about cutting and you really want to cut the deficit, you're talking about cutting social security, medicare, these are not programs that you see many people wanting to cut. >> well, nobody requires voters to be consistent. and on this issue they are fundamentally inconsistent. but people tell you at the general level we've got to cut. when you present them with what the cuts really are, they don't want to cut those programs. they don't want to cut social security, medicare, defense, education. there's nothing they want to cut. things like congressional salaries. people don't understand. you can pay them nothing. >> you can turn the capital into condos and make money on it. >> you still wouldn't have any effect. people just fundamentally don't understand that. and at this juncture that creates policy problems for members of congress, for the administration. because the real thing that is have to be done don't get

support. and the kind of cosmetic things aren't realistic. >> thank you. that's all we have time for. but we're going to come back after a brief pause. and when we do come back, we'll go to the battleground states for some first-hand reports. now that we've had the view, let's get down to ground level where voters over 50 are the political foot soldiers of the 2010 election. in california where 21% of the population is over 55, the biggest question of this election isn't on the ballot. it is, are california's best days already behind us? joining me now from sacramento is dan walters, political

columnist for the sacramento bee thanks for being with us. >> you're welcome. >> you've been covering california politics for a very long time. did you ever think we'd be asking this question, are california's best days behind us? >> yes and no. i started seeing signs of this about 20 years ago that california was starting to kind of fray at the edges, and wrote about it on several occasions. but clearly we are facing a kind of crisis of confidence here with unemployment almost 12.5%. when you count underemployment and people have dropped out of the labor force, maybe 20%. with this housing meltdown, with everything going on, i think a lot of people are asking have we peaked out in this the beginning of the decline? >> is that particularly true among older voters? are they remembering the good old days and thinking things are not the same? >> over 50 voters are about half the electorate in california. and what they think, and their

emotions about this situation will play a very big role. the polls show that the vast majority of californians, like 90% think the states headed in the wrong direction and are unhappy with things. and that's a really disspirited kind of angry, and maybe frightened electorate. people, older folks who have built up equity in their house, they thought that was going to be their retirement and so forth. they're watching that vanish and housing prices plummet because of the housing crisis. this is a serious time in california. kind of a real turning point perhaps. or, in maybe the optimistic view, is just the lull before the next wonderful boom. who knows. >> well, you've also had all kinds of just terrible budget problems in the state. and gridlock between the legislature and the governor and all of that. some say the state is essentially ungovernable. is that heading toward voters saying let's find somebody who

knows how to run a government or is that voters saying let's pick somebody who is not part of the system? >> hard to say. the two major races we have going on in the race, the senate and governors race happening for the first time since 1982, both of the races are fundamentally tied depending which poll you read. and they haven't moved a lot for a long time. both of the republican and democratic candidates, both of those races are sitting there somewhere in the mid 40 range. >> and we should say in each race, when you have in the senate race an incumbent democrat, she would argue for the person who knows about government against carlie feerna, a business woman, former head of hewlett-packard. and then you have in the governor's race, jerry brown who has been governor and been all kinds of offices in california. and again, running against a businesswoman meg whitman. and do voters seem to think

about that? >> well, they're oifsly at least receptive to the idea of changing. this has generally been a democratic state in recentyears and generally they seem to be recentive to change because neither democrat has opened up a commanding lead. they may be a little behind or ahead, but they really haven't got that thing nailed down yet. so that tells you that california voters, including a lot of democrats, are not convinced that they should return a couple of democratic politicians experienced democratic politicians to office. and so they're open to the idea of newcomers. people without political experience, whether they can seal that deal, whether they can seal that thing into a victory remains to be seen. these are very, very close races going into the final couple of weeks. >> very close races in what has boon a very democratic state. so thank you very much dan walters. we really appreciate you being with us today. now we turn to north carolina where issues of taxes, the defense budget and employment are affecting voters there.

and joining me is rob kristinson and author of the paradocks of tar he'll politics. hanks for being with us. >> my pleasure. >> so paradox. for many decades there was the old south versus new south going on in north carolina. but that doesn't seem to be the case this time around. >> well, north carolina has always been a very difficult state for people to understand, how is it the state has both a john edwards and a jesse helms. the fact is state has always been a battleground state and always on the fence and doesn't take much to push it from one side to the democratic side to the republican side. it's been a very, very competitive state. the last two election cycles have gone democratics. went for obama, surprised a lot of people in 2008. also, tends to elect democratic

governors. but it tends to go republican in federal races. again, in 2008 went democrat with obama, elected kay haguen over elizabeth dole. this time, there's national winds are blowing republican and so the state is now trending republican. >> you have an incumbent republican senator defending. >> we do. >> are you seeing that same kind of anger among voters that we're seeing in other parts of the country? after all, north carolina is doing a little better than a lot of the country in this recession. >> well, we are seeing that same anger. and the unemployment actually is a little bit higher in north carolina than it is noogsly. and we've gone through a couple cycles here in north carolina. first, we went through the old economy shed a lot of jobs. north carolina was built on things like textile and furniture and tobacco.

and we shed a lot of those jobs. and then north carolina's economy was then built on a lot of new economy like the banking in charlotte and like the research triangle park with a lot of the pharmaceuticals and high tech industries. but this area was hit pretty hard, zoo too. so the banking industry as you know went through some really hard times and that's been affected not only on wall street but was affected in charlotte with the banks. >> are you finding that that is particularly affecting older voters? are some of those voters the people, some must be people who have been out of work from the old economy and now are older voters also finding that they're out of work from the new economy as well? >> well, we're finding for a lot of people who are now being forced into early retirement, essentially, who were laid off, not just the banks but places like big pharmaceutical firms or other high tech companies.

people in their early, mid to late 50s or early 60s who intended to retire and a little bit later and are being forced into early retirement, and they're not quite ready for their retirement yet. and they haven't quite put aside all the money that they had hoped for and have having to cut back right now. >> are they likely to be showing up at the polls in large numbers on november 2? >> they are because the older voters, as you know, are the most consistent voters. and all the political candidates have been framing their strategies around targeting the older voters because as you know, during these mid-term elections when you have a falloff in terms of voter turnout, the most consistent, most loyal voters tend to be the voters that are the seniors are the most older voters. >> thank you very much. appreciate you being with us today. >> my pleasure. >> now let's head to hoy where the campaigns are all about

jobs, jobs that far too many ohioans no longer have. joining me now from columbus, ohio, is karen, state house bureau chief for ohio public radio and public television. hi, karen. thanks for being with us. >> hi. >> so you have a wild governor's race going on there. you have a senate, an open senate seat where the republican so far is running well ahead. and president obama keeps coming to ohio to try to rally the troops. is it working? >> well, he came to ohio again in this past week. he went to ohio state university and that was pretty carefully timed, i think, because the congressional district that encompasses ohio state as well as the governor, ted strickland, who is running for reelection, both depended heavily on college students and obama was here to try to bring out college students and bring out their interests in a mid-term election. they don't typically vote in mid-terl elections.

but that may not be a tactic that's going to work because college students, according to recent polls don't seem to be supportive like they were in 2008. a recent poll showed 44% are approving, 27% are disapproving. but this is about his third trip to ohio recently. joe biden has been here. so it shows that the administration does have its i eye on ohio. it has been such a key state in recent elections. and one that we can't predict. but it's a sitting democratic governor in big trouble. and how much of that has to do with some of these older voters who are likely to show up in a mid-term election? >> well, the recent polls have show f shown that the older voters, 45 plus all the way and then 65 plus are trending toward the republican in the race, who is a former congressman named john casik. and in the u.s. senate race where we have lieutenant governor democrat who is against former congressman rob

portman of cincinnati, portman is showing a huge lead among seniors. and certainly the overall approval ratings for obama are driving this. you mentioned at the top that ohio was by most stats lost 400,000 jobs over the last couple years and that's been a big issue. there's been concern about the health care law that president obama supported. recent polls show that that is opposed by most ohioans. 65% to 30%. so certainly those things are driving this election. >> that's a big gap because nationally it's about half and half. so that's a sizeable difference. are how angry are you seeing voters? is ohio along with the rest of the country got a lot of people out and yelling? >> i think people are angry and also a little bit frustrated about what can be done. for example, we have a huge budget deficit in ohio like many other states do. ours is estimated to be $4 to 8

billion in the coming year. it's been a big factor although neither candidate will talk about how they will address it. so that's been frustrating for voters. not only the national problems and how to deal with the national spending issues but also the state spending issues as well. the frustration with the economy is big here in ohio. our unemployment rate is at 10.1%. it's fallen for the last five months in a row but it's still double what it was in february 2007 and also we're one of the highest foreclosure states in the country. we're dropping slightly but we're still usually in the top ten, top 12. and that's been a big deal for a lot of poem because you want to stay -- people. because umt to stay in your home and your job. if you don't have a job and your home's been foreclosed, what do you do? >> there it is. thank you very much karen in columbus, ohio. we appreciate you being with us. ar thank you very much. >> the economy, jobs and taxes are familiar themes. take pennsylvania where almost 28% of the citizens are over 55

years old. candidates are battling out for governor and for senator. but the person who knows more about pennsylvania politics than anybody is the current governor, ed rendel and he is joining us from philadelphia. thanks for being with us. . .

>> i think the tide is turning in the state, whether the shift in momentum gets us there and a strong enough remains to be seen. what's happening in pennsylvania is happening all across the nation. voters realize this is not a referendum on president obama or democrats. it's a choice between two democrats, two parties, to philosophies. among older voters, we are getting benefited by the fact that so many republicans -- obviously all -- but some many of them are doing or saying absolutely flat-out crazy things. that is starting to impact

voters in general, but particularly older pennsylvanian. >> we have a good bit of polling now showing that older voters are more likely to say let's get somebody who's never held office before. let's get somebody new altogether. >> i think in a vacuum, that's right. but when you start looking at who the people are and what they're saying, it's pretty scary. particularly older democrats who may have decided they're not going to vote or may have tinkered with the idea of voting republican, i think they're both coming home and deciding they have to vote. the good news for us is a tepid vote counts the same as a wildly enthusiastic vote. >> once you get to the polls. >> correct. >> one of the issues that affects older voters tremendously is the issue of

pensions. what we're seeing in states like yours the east have a big manufacturing base -- union workers are finding their promised pensions may not be quite what they expected. similar problems with firefighters or police officers. how much of that is playing into this race. >> there's a great worry about pensions. police, fire -- their pension funds are troubled. i don't think they fix blame on anyone in office because it's a decades-old thing. in terms of pensions lost when companies go under, the trade adjustment act has done a fairly good job in dealing with that. the obama administration has used it very well. it is a great concern, but i don't know if voters think it

this the democrats fault or republicans' fault. >> thank you very much, governor ed rendell. our special program will continue in just a moment. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> welcome back. let's get the introductions out of the way so we can deal with the issues. greg grandee served four terms as a congressman from iowa and is now a radio talk show host here in washington. former senator and majority leader, trent lott, from mississippi is now advising top clients in private practice. clarence page is a longtime columnist for the "chicago

tribune." joining us by satellite is former new york governor, eliot spitzer, who has also taken to the airwaves as a talk-show host on cnn. we are hearing a lot about how angry voters are this year. particularly the older voters are telling pollsters that they just want to throw the bums out in a big way. what do we think this is about? >> the first one that comes to mind is promises made but not kept. i would immediately site -- and this is close to me because it's in my state iowa, but we reported on about 21,000 people in iowa who are on medicare advantage who will lose that because of the consequences of obama care. that's just one group. but i think it's one among many. >> i don't like the word anchor.

i think they're worried and fearful about their security -- i don't like the word anchor. -- i do like the word anger. their nest egg is in some jeopardy now. i think the election is making things even worse and people are up in arms. it is such a mean-spirited this about the elections. i would hope we could stop scaring people and start analyzing where we have been and talk more about what we're going to do to make sure things are better for those who are not yet retired, let alone those who are retired, and our children and grandchildren. >> there is a lot of talk a lot where we have been. that's happening among democrats in this election. they say things are all president bush's fault and give us a chance. >> i think it's a legitimate argument but not a winning strategy.

saying blame somebody from two years ago does not persuade people that want to give you the baton back. president obama has used every economic lever available to him. i happen to be one who believes his stimulus program is correct. it does take a long time. if there are also very deep structural problems with our economy, we are short about 20 million jobs -- as senator lott point out, the stock market is uncertain, and unemployment is at 9.6%, really at about 18%, so everybody is terrified. 84% of college graduates are moving back home. think what that does to our social dynamic these days. we are at a point -- i am with senator lott -- anger is not a word we want to use, but it is

all: regulating. >> no wonder people are angry if there college kids are moving back in. [laughter] >> all lot of older voters can appreciate that. >> are you seeing a disappointment of hopes raised and dashed? >> yes, only because i feel president obama and the administration has not sold their accomplishments very well. colin powell recently said there's nothing out there in voter discontent that would not be greatly reduced if we had 4% and set of 9.6%. we're all alluding to that in the current economic strife. but there are recent polls showing an amazing majority of the public think president obama did not lower taxes and in fact raise taxes or they don't know. the fact is, the stimulus, is widely despised stimulus was

about 40% tax cuts. but the administration did not promote the fact because they did not want people to put the checks in the bank, they wanted us to go out and spend it. which we did. eliot spitzer is right, the stimulus did have a positive impact and so did tarp, but the administration has not sold those programs. >> that has led to another set of concerns, which is about the debt. this is something we're hearing again at about from older voters. >> something does have to be done about the deficit, the debt, and the level of spending. the president has a commission that's going to be reporting in december -- a lot of commissions wind up saying thank you for your work and they put it in the drawer and it's never heard from. but this is a broad based group

and they could it -- they could come up with some considerations. i want to put a positive spin on this -- this too will pass. it is difficult, but the stock market is back almost where was. the housing problem is real. we have been impacted by but it will work itself out over time and -- if we don't do something really stupid -- i believe there's an opportunity next year that some things to be done, hopefully in a bipartisan way that can be good for the economy. >> i love the optimism that i hear and i share that. the deficit issue has to be sequenced. by that, i mean we have to grow before the deficit will be confronted. unless the gdp begins to grow, tax revenues will have to grow significantly before we can work down that debt. the only way to do that is to get stimulus back into the economy.

one areas really concerns me is that median family income in the united states has basically been flat to declining for the last 20 years. that is why the middle-class, in addition to seeing their housing values drop, the wage earning class is declining because we are exporting so much to china and our overseas partners. that's the dynamic we have to figure out. if we don't, we have long-term- trend lines. i share your optimism and hope the commission does something, but it is going to be tough. >> i'm going to be the skunk at a family picnic. the long-term trend lines are exactly what they debt and deficits. how many deficit commissions heavy lived through? they're usually dismissed with a lot of congratulations and congress doesn't move. i don't think the public will tolerate that now. i don't care what age demographic you are in the. there is now be -- with a

demographic you are in. there is no appetite to make substantive cuts in spending. -- there is an appetite to make substantive cuts in spending. >> they think for an aid is 40% of the budget. they think social security -- [crosstalk] >> when president clinton was president and i was majority leader and new gingrich was the speaker, we did the shutdowns and we should not have done that. that was a mistake, but we did come together in an agreement to control spending and tax cuts but i think we ought to do something. >> that was prosperity and not after a recession. >> take a look at some of the candidates who are running. when you have candidates who are saying i'm running against someone in the primary because he did across the aisle to try

to work with the other party and that guy or that women in many cases wins, that since the st. -- that sends a signal they are in trouble. >> is going to take men and women of courage to exert leadership. i of the people in america want this to say no to everything. are there any positive answers out there? >> i think we would all agree the rhetoric of this campaign has not been helpful. when those screaming for deficit-reduction exclude defense and of the primary entitlement programs from the area they're willing to cut, and we understand that only $580 billion of the deficit is discretionary spending, they're not saying anything helpful. let's fast-forward and hope all meat -- all reasonable minds sit down and say we know we've got to do. there is no hope unless we juggle the retirement programs

-- the entitlement programs, and it will take enormous courage that we will frankly not see from most of the folks in washington. let's hope we get a few who will do it. >> would one of them be alice rivlin? she is proposing the draconian cuts in the system which would be lowering benefits to people who are 55 or younger. nobody was about to go on the security -- i saw a report this morning that there are 200 democrat to say we would never sign on to that, ever, regardless of the economic conditions. where is the courage there? is alice rivlin or is it those who say not on my watch? >> how about lifting the caps

on payroll taxes? how about raising the retirement age? these ideas have been floating around out there. it takes courage to have a serious debate and that's the problem. that's why they keep having commissions. >> if you raised the retirement age, you will never get as college kids out of the house. [laughter] >> people cannot retire now at the age they thought there were going to retire. that's happening already. >> when the senator lott made the observation about what happened post-94, it was a moment of split the governments. maybe that's what it takes and maybe the public is much smarter than either party. >> it is interesting to hear where democrats and republicans are coming down in this conversation. we have democrats saying maybe two-party government is a good

idea and the republicans saying stop being so angry. one of the things that struck me is you say eventually it will come out. of course, it already does. the problem for older voters is a may not -- we may not be here by the time it all works out. >> we will make sure that those who are genuinely retired, i'm 69 years old right now and i have no plans to retire anytime soon. but we have to make sure that other than the losses they have had in real estate that their program will be secure. but i know this from my own experience with my mother and myself. my greatest concern is my children and grandchildren. i want to make sure when they get to retirement age, there is something there that is worthwhile and they benefit from. unless we take action like fred and clarence are talking about, they will have the real problem.

protect and secure the program for those who are now on that. but that we have to think about how to reform it. >> you have talked about programs, but a huge proportion of this age group is working. jobs are hard to come by and when you start to feel strapped because your investments are not going anywhere, if you even have investments, which is this percentage of the population, you are looking for a job and that the problem for older voters. what do we do? >> i don't have an easy answer, but the only way we will retool the economy is with significant infrastructure investments that make us competitive. that will cut against some of the deficit controls and that brings us back to the percentage of government spending that we're willing to tolerate. if you ratchet down too far, we will never be in the a competitive position, we will

have the real systems, internet systems, research and development that needs to be funded. that cannot be lost in this mess. andf we're talking about infrastructure investment, many times, this goes back to your question -- how many folks who are watching this program in this age group are actually going to see the realization of that as opposed to what the republicans propose which is rolling back the bush tax credits. >> not republicans. >> i mean extending them -- the problem now as it does not become law. that battle will continue, but it will have to be against a backdrop of this deficit commission. if we do not address that now -- and i base is not so much on what we're talking about now,

east have town meetings in iowa where we had the highest propensity -- i used to have town meetings in iowa and we had at the highest propensity of people 65 years and older talking about meaningful government cuts in spending. how many said i want $3 a bushel for my corn and government out of my farming. i would say pick one and ask them to leave the room. our tolerance for political rhetoric, we will cut the budget and keep your benefits has reached a point where we know longer trust either party, most leaders, and even people in the media. >> the same thing back in the '70s when we had gasoline lines down the street. the sky was caving in, etc. these swings ups -- these things swing up and down with the economy.

the 1930's -- it works -- roosevelt turned things around. world war ii was government spending. the fact is it does work. >> everybody loves a war. we have to wars and recession because nobody recognizes reality. there is a lot of hypocrisy but a lot of people simply don't know what the real budget is. once they do, american people will do the right thing if they have the right information. >> but will their leaders to the right thing? there is no silver bullet that's going to take care retirement benefits and create jobs. we need to do all. we do need to control spending, we need to have some programs. the problem with the stimulus package is a lot of it was just a group -- a lot of those is to get to certain groups or states. >> a lot of those were tax cuts

and the administration is to be faulted for not promoting that. >> some of it is the dog that did not bark. >> many of those jobs were at the state level. states are grotesquely inefficient. a lot of that was funneled directly to the school district and teachers at the area where we want to increase spending. teachers and doctors and nurses were not laid off. that is money well spent. >> if they can make progress and are together in a bipartisan way -- you mentioned energy. we need to be less dependent on foreign energy. that should be an area where we can come together. >> except we have democratic candidates taking out guns and shooting the energy bill. >> here is what we used to do -- what are the extremes we cannot

do. cap and trade is not going to go. but can we have conservation? can we have worked in alternative fuels? find an area where we can work together that will make us more -- less dependent on foreign oil. another area is transportation. we have not had a highway bill -- we keep talking about modernizing our infrastructure, our bridges are in bad shape. the governor will agree with that. also the faa, we keep talking about next-generation technology for aviation the we have not done that. let's find the areas where there should be an ability to come to an agreement and get something done. >> with an area of agreement be that we're going to pay for these things -- when i was on the ways and means committee, this always came up. the gas tax.

we have arbitrarily low fuel costs in this country. it comes out of your pocket and goes into the government's because i will trust fund is dedicated to building roads and bridges. >> the gas tax we pay is most to get to the highway trust fund that is supposed to pay for highways. it does not happen, but that's the way the law is written. >> because we as a society are accustomed to arbitrarily low costs for energy, we are arbitrarily unaccustomed to raising those costs to building infrastructure we need. that is something republicans are as much in the dark about as democrats. even though the room plenty of your colleagues in mind on the republican side of the aisle that are very much in favor of public works and the structure, you can't serve on the committees -- >> ronald reagan supported

advocated doing something in that area and we got it done. -- supported and advocated doing something in that area and we got it done. >> you said you could not serve on those committees without bringing something back home. from seeing that different every year and all of us who have observed this political system for a long time is that people are not being rewarded for bringing something back home. they are being punished for it. what does that mean when we come back into session next january with people who have been elected by punishing people who brought things home? does that mean they stop bringing things, and the deficit comes down? no, it does not. -- >> no, it does not. you could not usually just stick in your mark on and there is a process and everybody got into the game and it has been

revealed -- has been abused. you're never going to get a system where there can be no involvement by congress, it's illegal in to be up to the department of transportation or department of urban development. but there needs to be responsible process that cannot be manipulated in appropriately. >> earmarks, i was never a big proponent of them because i was in the minority and never get to use them, in remarks are the 21st century version of waste, fraud and abuse. earmarks' are a problem, but the real problem is authorized spending. it is the stuff they actually agreed to. if that's not cut, you can cut all the earmarks you want and their confidence. >> there is room for smart compromise on energy and transportation. one of the grand bargain is that

has been out there would be to do something -- forget cap and trade. it's not going to happen. i think a straight carbon tax -- but use all of the money for and the structure and reduce the payroll tax. you satisfied a lot of major arguments out there and -- >> that might make a bill right there. >> i'm here for you. >> as a member of the cynical press, we have people here who are smart guys think we can get to some kind of compromise. do you think it's ever going to happen? >> yes, in the best of all possible worlds. but this is something that was alluded to earlier. when the economy was doing well and the budget was heading toward balance and was realistic, you found compromise. maybe it will happen again. >> thank you all for being with

us today. we have heard a lot of opinion that perhaps the answer or two. we will take another short break and let our audience have the final word. >> now that we have heard from the experts, to hear from the voters. we have assembled a group of 50 plus voters and it's time to hear what they think. we have a wonderful group of people and you have been listening to these former politicians -- and that is key, i think and journalists talk. i'm curious to know your reaction that what things you would have liked to heard me bring up or have them say?

>> the senator talks about a need for more compromise in congress of these larger issues are going to be solved. why is compromise so difficult? >> my answer to that is we have members of congress to find it is politically not to their advantage to compromise because voters are telling them not to compromise. we see more of that this year than most. but i'm curious about what your reactions were to their proposals on cutting down the deficit, talking about programs like social security and medicare. does anyone want to address that? are those things you are willing to seek cuts on or is that off the table? >> one of the problems that was mentioned earlier is the national debt. i think it's unsustainable and

it will hit the country and could be catastrophic unless we take drastic measures to reduce spending or even increase taxes. >> i think i see a head shaking over here. >> i think people have to realize the president cannot do things by himself. he needs congress to work with him and if they don't work with him or with each other, then nothing is going to become accomplished. what do we expect? we need to get behind the president and support him. >> is there someone who disagrees with that? does someone feel the president is disappointing your congress needs to be stopping him in one way or another? >> my name is john. on that point, i think so much of this is driven by the money the candidates have to raise. this thing -- somebody says why

do we give him more time, the congressman all have to be elected at this election. the pressure is money, money, money. i feel like one of the biggest problem is the influence of campaign money. >> what would you like to see done? what would you like to see happen? >> i'm concerned about unemployment. i think i agree with mr. page that until something is done about that, we as americans are going to be unhappy because i'm pretty sure most of us have someone in our families who has been without a job for some time now. compromise has happened if that's the only way we can get folks back to work. as the seniors, we have to look at it people are now working, there's no money going into medicare.

that means eventually that will drive up, as they are predicting already. >> that's a good point. you have to have people working to support these programs. >> as far as your financial future, if you are working now, you should probably keep working. i know a lot of people who are not able to retire as early as they thought they could and are having to work. unfortunately, some of those of given up their full-time jobs and working as many hours for peanuts as part-time employees. >> as far as the government coming together as a you bet to represent us as citizens of this country, i think one way to stabilize the deficit is for them to get together on cutting military spending, it gets us out of the fighting around the world and focus on our country and our citizens here. >> thank you very much.

we have an election with voters angry with the politicians, angry with the ads making them more angry, not happy about the money being spent, all against the backdrop of concern about the economy, about jobs, about retirement, and about their kids and grandkids. so is an election to watch. , thank you forts watching this special presentation.

>> tomorrow and "washington journal" the chairman of the american conservative union talks about what conservatives are looking for from those running for office. then the president of the service and for you to international union talks about the role of money in the election that efforts to give voters to the polls. richard barrett, coordinator of the un al qaeda-taliban monitoring team, discusses reports of high level leaders of the taliban are in negotiations over ending the war in afghanistan. that's "washington journal" at 7:00 a.m. in -- on c-span. >> follow the key races on the season and networks, with debates every night right up to election day. archived debates are online on c-span.org. you can watch campaign ads and other helpful resources.

follow coverage right through election day. >> of the congressional panel that has been overseeing the troubled assets police program met thursday to let that executive pay -- troubled assets relief program met thursday. testifying is the former treasury department special master overseeing executive pay at companies that the tarp money. he talked about his recommendations for executive pay going forward. this portion is just under 30 minutes. printed in t official record. >> it has been 30 years since we first met. i want to emphasize i am the former special master. acting special master is right here along with kerr's lawsourt.

i also note the presence of patricia murphy. i just want to emphasize a couple of points. this whole issue of causation was sort of preempted by congress when it came to my role. congress delegated to e secretary of the treasury, who delegated to me, the legal responsibility for linking executive compensation to regulation. prof. murphy and others can talk about whether it is a good idea for government to get involved in this. iave emphasized repeatedly that my role was very limited to just seven top recipients. that is all the statute conveyed to me, even as to those seven, my role in actually regulating pay was limited to the top 25

officials as a ndatory matter. i had other voluntary discretionary regulatory authority, limited somewhat by the statute and regulations. in effect, to some extent, to some extent, of my role is a side show because if you really want to get answers tohe question of causation, executive pay, what is a corporate regulation, look to the federal reserve, sec, fdic, the g-20, and new legislation that is now double of the land. my role was rather limited. we did find some prescriptions we invoked and implemented. time and pay to performance.

very ltd. guaranteed compensation. cash. very ltd. guaranteed cash compensation. tiger rest of an executive's compensation to stock in the company for which he or she works. -- tie the rest of the executives' compensation to stock and the company for which he or she works. compel the executive to keep the compensation in the form of equity. non-transferable assets for over periods as long as four years. the law requires immediate investing of the compensation, but we decided in a mood that i think was important that the long-term compensation of any individual top official in the

seven companies should be deferred as much as possible, so that the long-term success or failure of that company will be tied to the long-term competition of the executive. i think it is sort of elementary. i not sure everyone agrees with me on this, but this is what we concluded. we watnednted to minimize risks, and appropriate allocation, we wanted to maximize performance. we wanted to look to the seven companies and see how competitive our pay packages would be relative to other mpanies that are in the marketplace that we had no authority to regulate. finally, we wanted to make sure that the top officials were paid based on what they

contributed to the overall performance of the company and its shareholders. anfinally, we heard over and ovr again that if we did not provide competitive pay packages, those parts of officials would leave and go elsewhere. -- coast, officials wld leave and go elsewhere. -- those top officials would leave and go elsewhere. they are still there. 85% of the seven individuals who 's pay we regulad are still there. the final response is to panelists holders. why didhe special master conclude at the end of his tenure that as to officials at 17 top recipients, not just the seven, but the 17 top recipients

-- or why did i conclude at the end of my tenure battle low certain compensation practices led to compensation that was inappropriate and not justified, why did i not demand that that money be returned to the tax payer? answer -- >> you are out of time. how did you judge your success as special master? >> issin think we did exactly wt the statute, what congress, and what the tresury regulations asked us to do. we were confined by the legal regulations and statutes, and

overall in a very limited way, we did exactly what we were trying to do, and frankly, we now see other federal agencies of adopting many of the prescriptions i mentioned in their own effort to rein in executive pay. >> there are other numbers used. you said there are metrics i feel good about or i feel bad about. >> that is most important. i also looked at the metrics that demonstrate that we substantially reduced while we thought was an appropriate -- was inappropriate. i think the executive pay that we stepped mostly consentual with the company's demonstrates a drop in the overall executive pay, some think i think was

important to do. >> [inaudible] >> whether or not that will happen, i do not know. i draw conclusions from that question. it is a bit pre-mature to s whether companies will go back to business as usual. i have only left couple lamonts ago. we will wah. -- i have only left a couple of months ago. you have to look at each individual company and see how that company reacts to criticism when it comes to pegg. -- when it comes to pay. >>ou do have some views about whether or not specifically what happens the other thing you

looking for is long-term affect. >> that is right. the two ways you will find about a broader impact is what the agencies wil are ing, and it will be interesting in the next few years to seek it companies unthat were not under my jurisdiction voluntarily adopt those prescriptions. >> you kept track of what the pay was four -- can we have that? -- you kept track of what the pay was before you got involved -- can we have that? >> theinal report.

>> thank you. >> mr. feinberg, you were charged with that interpretation and implementation of certain statutory and regulatory provisions regarding executive compensation. what is your assessment of the statutory and regulatory provisions? i think they worked. it was a very limited role. i doubt that congress or the treasury wants any expansion of that role. i think in the limited area that i was asked to regulat we did it, we didn't pursue io law, we did it effectively. -- we did it personalpursuant to

law, we did it effectively. >> if you are asked to draw the provisions against a no vote, how would they differ? >> clearly we would want to change some of the lake which of t statute that prevented -- that required that compensation in an annual year happen immediately. the problem we ran into is that for the top 25 officials, besting was required immediately. cash bonuses were curtailed. cash compensation was really curtailed. i think we would want to tinker with some of those incentives or requirements. i think of rawhidverall those we

major areas. >> in answering the question, do not be constrained by the reer of roles. -- by the current roles. how does an employer structure our compensation program to identify risk but also minimize any unnecessary and excessive risk, but still permitting the executive to take sufficient rest so the company prospers? how do you balance that? >> very difficult. my first answer is a hedge to ay that every company has an environment that is different. i am not sure y c answer by saying that gm should provoke the same prescriptions as bank of america. i think they are very different.

i would say the fundamental conclusion we drew is you want to set up a compensation package that provides competitive cash to that employee, but in a competitive amount. we said under $500,000 annually. and the appropriate balance should be struck by giving the remaining competition in a given year in stock in that company, but over are relatively link the amount of time -- lenthgthly and mouth of time. -- amount of time. >> ok.

thank you. my time is up. >> mr. silver's. >> before i let you continue, and what you were about to say before, let me express my view that i think your work has undoubtedly significantly improved competition practices in the financial sector and in the specific companies that you had authority over. >> you are setting me up, mr. silver's. >> i am indeed. but i am trying to be ne first. i would like you to tell me why you found in your final report that a significant amount of the compensation paid to the 17 firms referre to, what you found a significant amount of

the mposition during that time after the enactment of tarp to be inappropriate. >> it was inappropriate becse there were taking taxpayer money. >> that as sinister and a -- that is an extrrdinarily helpful lead in to where you left off. because i want to know should you have called it back but how to reconcile the fine dinner with your sacha story obligation around the notion of the public interest? >> it is a very close question, i admit to. i debated this for many weeks. i concluded for the following uple of reasons that it would be inappropriate to call back the money. first, 90% of that money that was an appropriately paid to those executives -- that was an

appropriateinappropriately paido citigroup that had already paid every dime. >> they have not repaid every dime as we sit here today. >> that is correct, but under my statutory and jurisdictional -- >> i understand that, but the public interest mandate was not confined to public aid. it seems to me that what you really did come at and if it is not true then tell me, but what keira really did is concluded that -- but what you really did is concluded that it was not in

the public's interest to have an accurate finding because it would trigger a process of recapture that yo felt was not in the public interest to capture. >> you say it well. but let me go on andemind you that i also recognize i had no authoty to force that money back. all said could do under the statute was -- all i could do was the speech or request. at the time t money was an apprpriately paid to the executives, that violated no law at the time or violated any regulation at the time. >> but that was not your standard. your standard was the public interest. i understand you made a judgment about what was in the public

interest in terms of consequences, but that was also not your mandate. irony is that in your own way you have determined that that competition violated the public interest. >> dr. thomas d.. >> i thought he made very good point about the limited role you had. it is something we should all keep in mind. we have a lot of experience in this issue so we would like to draw on your broader experience. one question that at have is you are supposed to look at what would be competitive and what are some terrible firms predict

imperils firms. if-- comparable firms. i do not thi ceos of bankrupt firms get paid a lot. is that something you consider when thinking about what would these peop be paid had it been looking for a job, just as ceo of a firm that they drove into bankruptcy? >> yes, we looked at all of these variables when you're coming up with a competitive pay package. >> you mention 85% executives were still there. what was the expectation? i am trying to get a sense of what a competitive pay package would have been. you would expect a normal amount of turnover at these firms. did you investigate what turnover was like before they implemented tarp.

maybe you paid them too much. th seems like a high number to me. do you have a sense of what that is? >> i must say, i always viewed this whole issue of pay as 21 variable as why people stay where they are. this argument that was presented to us, i found dubious at the time and i still find it dious. people stay at jobs for a lot of reasons, only one of which is their pay. >> as a college professor, probably you get paid more as a consultant. you are right, that is a common finding.

talk a little bit about aig. it was reported that they receive some sort of special consideration. they were not based on the value of the stock, b at some relative of that stock. is that the case? and if so, why? >> i do not believe so. that was proposed. we ted to work something out with the suggestion that the common stock was not worth enough' to are appropriately compensate top officials, but we worked out a compromise with the federal reserve's ,aig, pompous of financial stability. it turned out that that ended the day they did agree that the common stock under our formula would be appropriately used as a

compensation device. >> the $500,000 line in the sand. you said you try to come up with a competitive amount. where did that come from? >> it was not a line in the sand, we allowed variations. we concluded, based on the packages that were submitted to us, based on evidence we took on our own it anecdotally, empirical evidence we took on our own, and also our sense of what congress and treasury intended in the statutes and regulations, at the end of the day, we exercise our discussions based on the variables. >> following up on that, it is clear is a fundamental debate on executive compensation.

as i mentioned in my opening statement in your referenced in your stomach there is a lot of work being done by federal bank regulators. the guidance put out in june took a principled based approach. i would be interested in your experience, and you set out the six principles that guided you. do you see the proper role for government and a principal-based or in a rule-setting a framework or combination of those? >> combination. the one thing i had to do that no one else had to do of course was actually put pencil to paper and come up with the dollars. coming up with the dollars, i would have thought at the outset of the assignment, there would not have been much interest. only 175 people. it turns out the principles plus

rulemaking is fine, but asking government to translate that into you will make $1 million or 800,000 or 5 million, that is government intervention, which i think, should be very limited and should not be expanded upon. >> what are the specific pay issues that are more susceptible to principal-based first israel's? -- vs. rules. are there other specific pay issues that you think rule- based is appropriate? >> very important that compensation be spread. and not be guaranteed and tied to the overall performance of the company where the official works. we made sure -- perhaps our most important prescription -- we concluded that compensation should be in the form of stock,

the stock which cannot be transferred, cept overhauling t a ,iolenghty amount of time. >> that is a principal opposed to a role? >> right. >> we hear many of the commentators to t federal reserve guidance that said principal-based give rise to bigness, ambiguity with respect to compliance, and i think it is clearly tied to enforcement. what is the enforcement regime on a principal-based? >> i want to debate the federal reserve more on that. it seems to me that what we found is that their rules

delegated to the special master the ability to provide more detailed principles that would be used to effectuate derosa. the danger i think with pay is that you'll come up with vanilla rules. hat is the underlying deta behind their role that is a principle that will be adopted? i think it is an important difference. >> i would like your view on the guidance put out by the federal bank regulators as getting at the issue of this. >> again, it remains to be seen. to me, only test with their rules put out by the agencies, what impact do they have and practice? i think it is too early to comment, other than say, and vigorous enforcement w

>> midterm elections are november 2. we're showing debates from key races around the country. here's the lineup. first, the debate in the pennsylvania senate race, then it from the colorado senate race candidates, then the wisconsin senate race, and later, the florida senate race debates. phil angelides on "newsmakers" talks about what led to the financial crisis. the report is due in september, expected to address the role of regulators, institutions are too big to fail, and what to do about fannie mae and freddie mac. today at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c- span.

>> this week, two former parliamentarians, one british, one american compare and contrast the house and the house of commons. on the rules that run parliament and congress, tonight. >> now the debate in the pennsylvania u.s. senate race -- the candidates, joe sestak, and pat toomey, are meeting for the second time. it is taking place in pittsburgh. it is about one hour. >> good evening. the current senate seat is held by arlen specter, but he will no longer be a long-running and have them. this is a debate between republican pat toomey of

allentown, pa., and a democrat congressman, joe sestak. we have had quite a flip to see the will go first on closing and opening statements -- congressman joe sestak will lead off in both. the answers will be one minute for questions. all of them will come from me, facebookas from wpxi's page. we also sent out to cameron got some video tape questions from you downtown in pittsburgh. let's get things started. we begin with joe sestak. >> thank you, david. we know the challenges to our state and this nation. tonight you have two men who have been shaped by different experiences in life, have different values on how to approach the challenges. pat toomey has come from wall street and washington, d.c. where he believes the answer can be found by giving breaks to

large corporations, but with consequences for the middle- class. mine comes from 31 years of serving in the u.s. navy where we want to approach problems with practical solutions. we want to focus on small businesses in the middle class, that they may prosper. i'm standing here tonight because i helped my party against arlen specter. i want to be an independent representative of pennsylvania where principals will always triumph over politics. the to thank you. pat toomey pat? >> thank you. i got into the race because i'm very concerned. i'm convinced the federal

government is taking us down the wrong track, the wrong path of the way to much government. look at what we have seen in the last 18 months. serial bailout of failing companies, nationalizing and tire industries, spending on a scale never thought possible. the corresponding deficits and debt completely unaffordable. add in the cap and trade energy tax, and government-run health care -- is it any wonder we have no recovery? with all these policy problems, is it any wonder we are not creating jobs? congressman joe sestak has been in washington the past four years and has voted on every item on that agenda list. he thinks it has not gone far enough. he is so extreme that he is left of nancy pelosi. we need to limit the size of government and get spending and a control, keep the taxes low, and encourage job growth in the private sector. >> alright, you took one of the

words from my mouth. that is extreme or extremist. i want to talk to about not only your party labels, but those you get yourselves, that you give one another. -- when i got to washington we had to clamp of mass in place by his

party. i understand these labels, but that is political rhetoric. >> you reject the label of liberal? nor do you believe yourself to be liberal? >> according to "the washington journal" i'm smack dab in the middle of the democratic party. i found myself pretty much of a pragmatist. if i could, congressman toomey headed for growth -- will he was a lobbyist for the wall street firm he had a personal attack ads against moderate republicans tried to kick out his party. those who were mainstream. if you cannot work with those in your own party's, how can you work with the rest of us? that senate is not even working together now. >> moderate, progressive, mainstream. >> is liberal a bad word? no, my record is in the middle

of the party -- i had to stand up to that to get here tonight. >> the only time that joe has stood up to his party was to promote his own personal career. it could be that joe is the most liberal admiral, maybe the only one minute during the primary he was happy to describe themselves as a progressive. that is the euphemism liberals used to describe their liberalism. they know most americans and pennsylvanian still not share their views. last year joe loaded with 100% of the time nancy pelosi. he accepted the entire agenda. he voted for the stimulus bill. his criticism was that it should have been $1 trillion. he voted for every bailout, even after a majority of the house

members were voting to finely and tarp. he was voted to keep it going. he introduced his own bailout bill to force taxpayers to bail out underwater mortgages. on cap and trade, and particularly devastating to western pennsylvania, he voted for it and said it did not go far enough. on the healthcare bill -- >> i will let you get to that in just a moment. you used the word extremely net do you truly believe he is extreme? and do you believe he is extreme? >> congressman toomey is extreme on the policies. he would also limit all taxes from corporations. in fact, he says that buying american, in his book, is an unfortunate tendency. he said if your corporation is

an american and you close your factory and fire workers and investing one in china, when you import cheap goods here, your profits are not taxed. he calls it a gift to us. he says that is creative destruction. hundreds, thousands of jobs will be lost. i'm concerned about his extreme policies. >> do you believe he is extreme? >> there is no question. >> extreme is an extreme word. >> it is a proper. i recommend people buy my book. not the least because of the like to have the royalties. but you can find out what is really in it. it is called "the road to prosperity." on taxes, joe knows well that i think we should lower the top corporate tax rate from the 35%

today, the second-highest in the industrial world, second to japan, i think we should lower it to 25%. there we could compete better with trading partners. if we do not, if we raise taxes on businesses, then america becomes less competitive. a place where people will not want to --their businesses. >> let's talk about the stimulus and whether you think it is working. why do you think it is not working? it has only been a few months. >> it has been well over a year. the to the president has not been in office that long. >> we were told aglimmer rate would never go above 8%.

the idea that spending and borrowing will increase economy, it is a false idea. it does not create growth. some things in the bill -- and it there is $31 million to build a spring training facility for the arizona diamondbacks and the colorado rockies. i'm a big fan. i count on the phillies made it to the world series. but how about the owners pay for the new training facility? there is money for microsoft to build a bridge. joe sestak voted for that bill. he is proudly the only guy who thinks it should have been $1 trillion. instead, rather than spend $800 but we did not have, if we had across-the-board cuts, every worker would have had it take on

a race immediately. every employer would find it less expensive to keep and hire new workers. >> let the congressmen and service. unemployment is still high. what you think, assuming that you think it is working? >> i arrived in the congress the year the recession began. we were headed to a depression. mr. bush called upon us to help. mr. hank paulson did. my first job in the navy during the vietnam era i was damage control officer. in mr. bush's last six months 3 million americans lost their jobs. and the first three months of mr. obama's term we lost another female. in the last eight or nine months we have created 1 million jobs.

congressman toomey said it would have been slightly harder if we have not done this. mr. john mccain's actual, said another 8 million americans would have lost their jobs. he is correct. i want to do something else. i had wanted to work with republicans to say small business tax credits from a 50% for every small business, would have created another 1 million jobs. it was not perfect. pat toomey said we should have given the money to corporations. 66% of all corporations in america paying the taxes already. he was to eliminate all taxes. how can you go below zero? everyone watching in a working family tonight pays more than most fortune 500 corporations do. now he wants to eliminate all

taxes for corporations after having voted that if you invest in a factory in china, an investor corporation's money there, your taxes, profits are not even taxed. that is an extreme policy. >> i mentioned before we have only questions from myself, facebook, and video camera from the streets of the city. >> my question is this. what is your stance on the shell drilling? -- shale drilling. not only are you for or against it, but taxing it in any way? did we have a serious national energy challenge. we have had it for a long time.

we have not had an energy policy. we have the opportunity to do something very exciting with natural gas. if you add up the energy in this, it is equal to half of all the oil in saudi arabia. is a staggering amount. it is right here in pennsylvania. penn state has done some research. the projected over the next 10 years the development of the natural gas from the shale to generate over a quarter of a million new jobs here. not only of the gas itself, but the related industries. entire industries that need to locate near the source of natural gas. it is a huge opportunity. the largest one for pennsylvania in 100 years. we need to do this responsibly. in a way safe for the

environment. we can. i take it on myself to meet with the secretary of pennsylvania's epa. to get his input and insight. the fact is, we know how to do this safely commit in a way that is responsible. we need to make sure there are the resources and manpower to regulated properly. joe sestak as usual take the extreme view and calls for a complete moratorium on all drilling. no other official i know of has called for that. it is an example of how extreme joe is. >> before you answer, would you tax it? >> that is a decision for harrisburg. likely, eventually, there will be a tax. it is the common approach. it is a decision for harrisburg. it is likely to happen

eventually. >> alright, shale. should be taxed, and if so, in what way? >> in my opinion, i am an independent. i patrolled the the oil lanes in the persian gulf in the navy. i'm tired of sending women and men overseas to protect big oil interests there. do we need to drill? you bet. this is a boom. but let's do it right. that's how i learned to do things in the navy. seven counties have had their water supply, drinking water contaminated already. seven of them. the federal environmental protection agency is not allowed to know what the chemicals are that they are pouring into the place. there are firms from japan and elsewhere coming in here. a 85% of the workers are coming

from outside the state. continue drilling in the wells we have it, and first major that we're getting it right. yes, attacks. 15 states with the largest natural gas have put that much more of a tax on it. we should get that, alleviate the tax burden for senior citizens. and repair roads. he thinks the big zero should drill in lake erie. he thinks any regulation over companies is nearly criminal. let's do it right in practical terms, and make sure that we pennsylvania's take advantage of our resources. >> i never said that we should drill in lake erie. it shows how joe is very extreme and well to the left of the entire consensus of the democrats in the pennsylvania.

he thinks that the epa needs an additional regulatory overlap in addition to the dep. he calls for a complete moratorium on the biggest potential job creator in literally 100 years. sure committee colleges train workers. -- committee colleges train the workers needed. >> for the first facebook question -- what makes you more qualified than your opponent? congressman? >> i appreciate the background experience that congressmen toomey has, but we want those who understand the concerns of minister. if he is consistent about anything, he supports programs to help corporations to help

foster. we should support programs that support pennsylvanian and the middle-class -- to help corporations is what he does. i learned to work across the aisle. when senator hegel came to endorse me, or the independent mayor from new york city, i was taken with those endorsements because it meant it was the ability to work across the aisle. more than anything, my background in the u.s. military -- you learn about accountability. congressional seat. i stood up to my party. i ran for the nomination. it is about the people, not my job. making sure their jobs and taking care of. >> what makes you more

qualified, pat toomey? >> the some of my life experiences. i was born into a blue collar family. my dad was a union worker. my mom was a part-time secretary in our parish church. there were six of us kids. we did not have much going up. we are still a very close family. i was a lucky kid. i was able to go to a good school. and the only candidate in the race to has created jobs. i began a small business with my brothers in allentown, and restaurants, hired hundreds of workers. this is a time where we badly need people in the washington with some business experience to understand that excessive regulations and taxes of the sword joe advocates will hurt our ability to create jobs. to the hugee on budget deficits -- and taxes,

hikes, cuts --what taxes would you like to see cutbacks olga to budget cuts and a second. would you like to see? and i will get to budget cuts in a second. >> one, generating maximum growth to create jobs. i mention my dad as a human worker. when i was a kid there were times the union called a strike. my dad was then of of work. those are times of enormous anxiety -- my dad was then out of work. he knew eventually the strike would be over and he could return to work. he had a job to go back to. my heart goes out to people who have lost their jobs and have no job to return to. we need to maximize growth and job creation from the private sector. the higher taxes will prohibit

the ability to do this. >> which tax cuts? >> i am getting to that. we need to make the texas permanent for everyone. last year joe acknowledge that raising taxes in hard times as a bad idea. -- raising taxes in hard times was a bad idea. lower the tax rate from 35% down to 25%. the president has said lowering capital gains is a job creator. i was too broadly create those. >> all right. would you cut taxes? if so, which? >> yes. taxes reflect your values. washington needs to change its focus. the congressman says to

eliminate all corporate taxes. when we voted that the profits in the china do not need to be taxed, i would propose at the zero capital gains tax if you invest in a small business for middle-class work. they greed 80% of all jobs, not the large corporations -- day create 80% of jobs. if we gave it a tax cut to small businesses for every job the created off of the payroll, we create new jobs. the bush tax cuts. we need it to extend them. it was my vote against adjournment they gave the ite. we could not go home. the speaker of the house had to come to the floor to break the tie because of my vote.

pat toomey said -- the republican leaders said let's get the middle-class tax through. he went on television and said not unless the very rich, the top 1% also get their taxes extended. he held hostage the middle class taxes. >> joe has no experience in business and does not understand the consequences of the bad policies he has been proposing. he does not realize all the damage they have done to our economic environment. he wants to throw a net go to the small businesses. it will never offset it. the reality of much higher health-care costs because of the healthcare bill. the threat of higher taxes. of much higher energy costs because of the huge energy tax

he advocates and the cap and trade bill. when small businesses are faced with those threats, the hiring credit will not get them to do it. there's a bigger weight on their shoulders that will prevent it. it helps to have some experience to understand the decision- making process for an entrepreneur. >> let's keep in mind that when pat toomey was on the small business committee he slashed the small business administration in half. the loans that used to go to them, he voted there had to be a new $300,000 fee. then the loan of volumes got cut dramatically. understand that when the congressman says he invested in a small business he was working for chinese billionaire in china. i never had

hands on experience and my small business. which one is it, >> congressman > i had three establishments. in one of them i delegated the responsibility to my brothers while i worked every day developing the other two. i acknowledged that one of them was run by my brothers. joe knows this. this is a silly destruction. we ought to talk about how to get the economy moving again. the weight that he is proposing to the failed policies -- take the bailout. they went to giant banks, not small businesses. i was opposed to the mall. who do think will pay for those?

>> hold on a second, congressman. you're both in favor of some type of tax cuts. the tax cuts are great. but they do not reduce -- >> joe is in favor of a net tax increase. >> hold on. if you will reduce the deficit, cutting taxes alone will not do it. you must cut programs. i know that you're chomping at the bit. what programs? >> look, most important, and what i voted for and got back into all -- the government had to live within its means. you want a new program, cut another one. congressman toomey voted to throw that out in 2001.

the largest budget surplus in history disappeared. he went on television and said that deficits are not important. and the debt double during the bush-toomey era. david, you need a ton suppressor to prioritize. the congressman voted against the entire transportation bill twice. he voted against the veterans administration. let me give you a couple of examples. in armed services the f-22, to say we should not buy any more. there is no longer a soviet union. a $70 billion program which only 65 ceo's had a larger market

value. the navy could not afford 55 submarines. there are no more soviet submarines. and education the scholarships, or early start -- was a duplicate programs to head start and others. scholarships tend to go to those who are not needed. there is a smart way to go about it. not slash and burn. what will be cut? >> this is amazing. joe but for every single bailout, introduced additional ones which would cost $100 billion even more in deficit spending go he voted for the stillness. he is pretending he wants to reduce spending. let's talk about deficits. during the six years i was in the house, six years ago, the

average budget deficit was .7% of our country. his voting for deficits that are now each year roughly 10% of our economy. we're running a one $0.50 trillion -- all 11 $5 trillion deficit. i would specifically in all of these ballots. i would rescind the unspent portion of the stem this bill. i would ban the marks. they are wasteful practice. -- d earmarks. the politicians lorded over people and hand out big checks and get caught what bridges. they are spending on things no one would spend their own personal money on. there were 123 opportunities for joe to have voted against earmarks.

>> you brought this up. arlen specter is gone and for showing up in committee after committee with a big check in hand for a project. are you saying that you would and that? >> yes. >> many pennsylvania's will not be happy about it. >> i think many understand this is how we have gotten into the mess. when we have a budget under control, and get taxes lower, there will be much better off then these $250 million bridges to know where. >> of course he does not want the remaining portion of the stimulus to continue. the heavy bulk of that is a middle-class tax cuts.

he would eliminate all corporate tax cuts. already 60% of them do not pay taxes. i am the only one here with legislation to end earmarks. here is the issue. we must control our spending. i voted for that law to put the requirement back in the if you want a new program, cut another. during the bush-toomey era, the gdp even without the recession years, was the slowest growth since world growthii. but during a clinton era we had the largest expansion with 23 million jobs created. but congressman toomey remove the requirement that you must cut a program if you want another one. now all the sudden during an election he says he thinks we

should control spending. he took corporate growth where former presidents said they had worked to change the republican party from balanced budget party to a pro-deficit spending party. now -- he says with social security -- to pay for he says we should borrow from china. >> ok. will have to be quick, please. >> what joe has done with earmarks is unbelievable. he took a pledge to say he would not take any, and then it was found he took $129 million in contributions. he said he only met during a limited time. they discovered they had come during that time. he said then, i never meant for

the pledge to be public. then the house passed the rule that said, the democrat said we will only seek earmarks for not- for-profit companies. joe had a $350,000 earmark to a sham not-for-profit that only existed on paper, and funneled it to a for-profit entity. >> let me tell the truth. if the president of a corporation or company or university came to me quietly without telling anyone, if the president of the university wanteda pre-k schook, i could not take it, but when a professor from as anthropology

department did -- remind you, congressman toomey said he took nine during his first year. then we found out he took them the second time. he has yet to publish two he got them from, as i did. the worse than that, as a lobbyist to take millions of dollars in bonuses from wall street corporations. now there funding his campaign. my point is the influence of money. we don't want a senator from wall street. get to our next videotape question which has to do with cuts. let's roll that tape now. >> my name is larry, live on the north side, and my question is, why is it that it seems to be the neighborhoods with the most need for the services, for people without cars or access to different types of services are

the ones that have their bus services cut the most? >> he could be talking about other neighborhood services as well. congressman? >> i have been to the north side a number of times. i was remember john f. kennedy said, to neglect our city, we do so to our peril. to do that is to the left america. we truly have neglected our cities. pittsburgh has lost approximately 17% of its population in the last 30 years. this bird as laws the rest of pennsylvania has not had the focus on small businesses that it should. worse, it has been our manufacturing process -- pittsburgh as well as the rest of pennsylvania has not had the focus. pat toomey said they went bankrupt because of some of

he said it was because of labor contracts and mismanagement. then as a lobbyist to to the petition to the senate asking them to sign opposing tariffs against china the been they're cheap steel -- >> i have to interrupt. i would like you to answer questions more specifically. it is only for one hour. why do certain neighborhoods appear to get less than others? perhaps the ones that needed the most? >> these neighborhoods are often of minorities. a business association should be assess it with those type of minority-serving institutions. my legislation says they are to

be associated with minority- serving institutions in order to get these neighborhoods moving again. in the transportation, you are right. we'd better public transportation to get people to places they can work. >> i would just say i am sympathetic to the question. it speaks to the incredible inefficiency of government. so often resources get so badly misallocated. earmarks are great example. politicians decide which favored constituency will get the might get it may not be the neighborhoods that need it the most. typically, it will not be. a much better approach is to determine categories. grant projects that are broad categories with merit. then allocate that two states and let states and local officials closest to the

problems of us understand where the need to go, let them make the decision about allocations. >> question to buy facebook. the think the $1 trillion stimulus funding has extended high unemployment rates longer than if the markets had work things out by themselves? >> we would be much better off if we had not launched that giant stimulus bill. i cannot believe that joe sestak this should have been even bigger. it is an example of how extraneous. -- extreme that he is. this is an example of joe, butting in lockstep with nancy pelosi. -- voting in lockstep. we cannot borrow our way to the most successful economy. i advocated a different approach.

i suggested and across the board cut on payroll taxes for both workers and employers. every worker would have had an immediate take, paris. you would not have to concern yourself with a shovel ready project. every employer would have found it less expensive to hire the next order. that would have been a more constructive way. rather than growing government. >> let's look of the stimulus bill. if we had not done it, mainstream economists said that another 8 million would have lost their jobs and unemployment would be over a 11%. one-third went to tax cuts for the middle class. one-third went to unemployment. pat toomey voted against unemployment benefits four times.

one third was for job creation. he is right. i did want to do something else. i wanted to work with republicans. my party needs to understand that business is a good word, especially when you put small in front of it. if we would give that tax incentive for every new job critic, we would have 5 million new jobs created today. it is a matter of looking at it pragmatically. the stimulus did help. did i want congress to do it? no, but it was something -- the ship had been torpedoed. we had to do something. >> i need to get to the last two video tape and facebook questions. then i will ask a couple more.

hopefully, real quick answers. i know that is hard for you guys. from facebook. what is your most obvious fault, and what is your biggest strength? joe sestak? >> i try to do too much. when i went to congress, for example, i went to the armed services committee and hoyer taught me to go to the intelligence committee. i asked to give of that and be on the education committee. education is the key to the future. but then i asked for a waver to be in the third committee when you are only allowed to be on two. my greatest asset, my wife. [laughter] >> well done. >> we will go to dinner tonight. it is what i learned and the u.s. military. it is not about me.

forre not just responsible what you're supposed to do. you're willing to be held accountable. those were tough votes, but i did it because the matter to pennsylvania to losing jobs. when a father has to tell his son that he will not go to college because he lost his job, and many other parents, those 8 million jobs lost were not just jobs. they were fathers and mothers. we prevented another 8 million from losing their jobs. >> so, you try to do too much, and your wife. sir, your biggest fault? and your biggest strength. >> well, maybe my biggest fault it is sometimes i think i like to keep a lot of balls in the air and can get distracted. it is important to impose the

discipline of keeping focus. >> that is the same answer. [laughter] >> there is no question that my wife is my biggest asset, but on a personal level and it comes down to my small business expense. working as hard as i could every day with my brothers to grow the business, make the right decisions, if we did our best and worked as hard as we could, we could hope to be competitive with the other good players. that gave me a sense of humility. if i have to work that hard to be good at my business, who am i to tell everyone else how to win theirs? i'm willing to listen. lastt's go to one of our videotape questions. >> my name is denise. i grew up in the middle east where there is no separation between church and state. do think religion should play a

role in our government? >> she said she grew up in the middle east where there is no separation. should the role of religion be separate from the role of government? >> one of the really great strengths of the u.s. is our constitution. the first amendment has the establishment clause, saying that congress will pass the law establishing religion or prohibiting enact their of. that is the final part of our constitutional system, history, and tradition. deny the fact that most americans are people of faith, that our data-christian tradition is an important part of who we are. -- our judeoo-christian tradition is an importer part of who we are. it often forms the basis of many of our laws. it makes us think we must deny faith or religion entirely. i don't think that is what the

clause means. for instance, i am a big believer that we should offer every child the opportunity to attend the school their parent chooses for them. i think that would be enormously helpful for the quality of education. there are so many kids stuck in failing schools. i believe parents should be a book to choose public or private, religious, or non- religious schools. i don't think it is a violation. it would be a great opportunity for the kids. i would like our tax dollars to follow the child to the school of their parents' choice. >> thanks. i also have to agree strongly that is right about our constitution that there is this separation. there are some extreme candidates like o'donnell in the delaware who thinks there might be a state-mandated religion. we know that is wrong.

if i cannot be in the navy, i have the next best job. you can almost and buy yourself anywhere. when i get to a church, synagogue, or mosque, or to my own catholic mass every weekend -- i do that because i find good congressional leaders are like good military leaders, like politicians, and good public servants. but their congregations also care about the surrounding communities as a larry from the north side just spoke abouth spokeow can we work together through faith-based groups and others to help solve problems? people really do want to work together. that's why make it a big part of working with other faiths to focus on our community and issues.

did you have mentioned o'donnell and nancy pelosi. i want to ask about your ads. do you hear from people concerning your ads? >> sure. most i hear from like our ads. no, i'm understand. >> i don't hear that. i'm not picking on either of you. but in general -- >> i am joking. i think the tone of the campaign is unfortunate. integral, and this one in particular. i hoped to have a more substantive discussion. the first i ran after the primary had a picture of myself and joe sestak, and the voice was -- two good men out with different views. my ads have focused on the big policy issues. joe and i have very different

views. he has an extreme view of expanding government. i think we should have less government, less spending, lower taxes. i had hoped we would stick to these policy differences. unfortunately, joe has often chosen to go down a different read. >> do you believe the tone is unfortunate? >> yes, i do. in his book, he writes that truth is often the first casualty of an election. [laughter] that is what is called. >> how do you correct the tone of the campaign? >> he put up ads, but i don't have any until late summer. i voted to cut -- to do with all

private health insurance plans. how i egregiously wrong that was. my daughter who had brain cancer who is now nine years old would caredon lost her health had we done this. i have great faith in the pennsylvania ns. they have the most common sense of any people i have ever met. i was born here. my woof at my door was my daughter at 9 with a brain disease. she is not 22. when people go through this, who will be on their side? >> let me put it this way. could you ever foresee running again, and just running ads that say here is what i plan to do, and not attacking the other --

>> it is perfectly legitimate to run and showing the contrast on policy. i don't think is right to run as that's mayor character or distort background. it is reasonable for voters to understand that one person wants higher or lower taxes, another person wants a government-run health care and the other does not. it is part of the way the process must work. >> you understand that people negative, do not like it? >> i think that pat toomey is a good guy. i have had a beer with him. i went to his hometown and we debated and had a beer together. but you are right. i think adds should be on. when senator arlen specter went

after him, as it should be out of bounds. >> ok. one more question. quick answer. gun laws in this country -- the like where they are? more, less? mr. toomey. >> i think a second and then and is a tunnel right, for self- defense. it is spelled out in the constitution. -- i think it is a fundamental right as the second and and and. joe has an f rating with the nra. that is unfortunate. citizens should not have their right to fire arms concern. we should have laws and place some criminals and any dangerous person cannot obtain a weapon.

i think that we are about right now. >> sir? >> david, i live my entire military career with weapons. i know how to use them. i know how they should be used. i have defended the second amendment for 31 years -- is sacrosanct. those 1 million hunters to go out on the first day of hunting for the family tradition and a pennsylvania -- whether for hunting, recreation, or self- defense, must be able to have that right always protected. but i also know that the order of police has said back in the mid-1990's when military assault weapons were banned, the deaths of our law enforcement officers, murders of them by the weapon

dropped 20%. i don't agree that gun control can be expressed as a steady aim. i think criminals have steady ames, and they should never get a gun. >> you would add it gun-control laws to those already on the books? did i would observe that in the candidate with the endorsement of the pennsylvania state troopers, the philadelphia and pennsylvania fop. my record, support of law- enforcement, and being tough on crime -- >> we need to get to closing. >> look, they supported what i said. >> closing statements -- congressman, you're first. >> thank you all for tonight's debate, and thank you, pat. two days ago we stood in the national constitution center.

above us those words -- we, the people, not weak, the corporations. i believe it is so important to remember that it is about the people. if you really do invest in the middle class, the people, and let small businesses prosper, america, watch out, china. i love the military. i loved serving again after was indebted to this nation after it helped with my daughter. i would ask for your vote, but more than that, to come now to vote no matter who you vote for. to honor those men and women who left overseas, who were serving our nation in war today. come out and vote to honor them. thank you. >> congressman, thank you. your closing statement, mr. pat toomey?

>> i believe strongly our federal government is on the wrong track. for the last four years joe sestak has supported an agenda that supported serial bailouts, nationalizing and tire industries, staggering spending, and affordable deficits, cap and trade energy, card check, and government-run health care. the combined weight of this agenda and joe sestak has argued is to go further -- and prevents us from having an economic recovery. i am very bullish on america. i believe we can have a strong recovery, restore prospered. but we will do with job growth in the private sector. we need to eliminate excess is. we need to get spending under control. we need lower taxes to maximize incentives for people to work, save come and invest. i would appreciate your vote to turn things around. >> pat toomey