michigan to be the hub of the wheels they use to run michigans jobs. now we need to address that issue. >> the unemployment rate is around 12%, the state average around 14%. the foreclosure problem has been horrible in this county. it has been really bad in oakland county. the economy is really scary right now. .

>> i want to come by personally and ask for your support. >> i am democrat. >> thank you. we are going to keep working hard. we have had such challenges. >> you realize everything washington does somehow impact us. now from our health care to how taxes are paid to educating our students. >> there are two candidates.

and gary peters is the first democrat to win the seat in more than a century, and the republican is a former state representative and is a military event, so gary peters is on the finance committee, and he wanted to bring money to set up alone program for businesses to have the money to expand their businesses. >> i love this. make it hurt. >> he is very upset with the obama administration. he is also interested in jobs for michigan. it is encompassed all within oakland county, and it is always a very republican district, but it has been trending more democratic.

voters have been voting for democrats for president and governor. just this past election cycle, democrats won a lot of seats in a lot of different areas. >> we have to keep working. the key thing is going to be attended our message out. it is going to be tough to get them to the polls. >> that is the challenge. >> it is a big republican year. i think if if -- if it had stayed a little bit the same as 2008, he would have no trouble getting reelected at all, but the mood of the stage and the counter a -- and the county makes it a much tougher race. he has no plans to make them

campaign for him. the president has come a couple times for fund-raisers, but he has not been back in a while. it is going to be indicative of what kind of leader it is going to be as far as republican or democratic year. it could very well throw the majority of congress one way or the other. if gary peters is here, i fully expect the republicans will take over the majority of congress. >> leading up to the midterm elections, we are travelling the country and visiting where some of the most important house races are taking place. for more information, visit our web site.

>> coming up next, our interview with the chief strategist for the tea party express. that is followed by debates between house candidates in pennsylvania's third district. you are watching campaign 2010 coverage on c-span. >> c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs. every day we have "washington journal," connecting you with politicians and journalists, and week nave, congressional hearings and policy forums. -- weeknights, congressional hearings and policy forums. also the popular prime ministers questions from the british house of commons, and through november see coverage of campaign 2010 as a political party's battle for congress.

our coverage is available any time at c-span.org. c-span, provided by your cable networks, providing you of public service. >> now look at the party activists. we talk to the chief strategist for the tea party express. this is 45 minutes. >> sal russo is the chief strategist for the tea party express group. strategist of the tea party express group. begin with the tea party express group and your role in it. critics have said that you and others have done donefears what would be done, you tap in a movement to raise money for your own interests. people talk to your long resume, your 10 year but the republican establishment. critics say they feel like you are exploiting it to raise money for your own interests. how do you respond?

caller: the tea party movement has a lot -- guest: the tea party movement has a lot of critics, but when you go back when rick santelli at his ranch, there were people who said democrats will win senate seats and hold their own in the house and they were saying the republican party will go the way of the whigs, and reagan conservatism is over and we have entered a new era of obama liberalism and in 20 months the tea party movement has totally changed everything. it is very much a grass-roots organization, but it has had enough leadership to focus some of that energy into changing the political process in washington. as you see, we have had rather remarkable record of winning not only general elections like we did in the special in massachusetts but a long string of primaries to get people out of office that are not responsive to what i would like to refer to as the zeitgesit of the time, which opposition of the growth and intrusiveness of

the government, higher taxes, onerous regulations, higher deficits, and the worst thing probably, skyrocketing national debt. host: can you speak to your background where it -- so people can understand what you have done in the past? guest: i have been active in conservative politics since i was 19 years old when i have a great fortune of meeting ronald reagan, who was not yet a candidate for governor. i went to work for his campaign in 1966 and when he got elected, went with him to sacramento as a personal aide. that was my start. i have been involved in a concerted activities in politics ever since. i have tried to get fouled a few times but the lore of the campaign to keep things good in our country has been too strong for me to resist. i have my own political consulting firm and we have done campaigns all over the country and every once in a while we were -- would venture overseas and do things like campaign for

ukrainian independence and campaigns and other parts of the world as well. guest: according to the latest figures come as of but -- host: according to the latest figures, you have spent $2.2 million so far. putting this on the screen. the breakdown of where this money has gone. most of the fall into the nevada senate race to oppose harry reid and support sharron angle. before we talk about those numbers, i wanted to look forward to the next several days. how much money do you guys have on hand? where do you plan to spend it? guest: first of all, we are a federal political action committee and have been since the very beginning when we started the pac in 2008. everything we raise and spend has been reported by the federal elections committee. we are prohibited from taking any corporate dollars. we can only receive money from individuals. our maximum contribution has to be $5,000 or less.

of the 10,000 -- tens of thousands of donors, the average contribution is $62. we start every day kind of broke. we have no reserves, no major donors who cannot give even if they wanted to because of the limitations of the federal election law. what we do every day is said e- mails out and say, look, we think it is important that we win this election for the senate in nevada or alaska, or do this bus tour to try to get people enthusiastic and get out so that we are sure to get them to vote on november 2. when we do that, are members respond. we are totally beholden to how they respond. we are probably the most purist democratic organization as the tea party movement because we cannot do anything unless our people support it. it's good you do not have any money to spend going forward the host: you do not have any money to spend going forward? guest: that is true every day.

$8 million that we raised and spent on campaigns. our people are very enthusiastic and excited, so when we put a call out every day of what we are going to do they respond so we will continue to spend the right up to election day. host: if you look at how the numbers breakdown, "the washington post" said 9000 -- opposing harry reid and supporting sharron angle. if you spent 2.2 million and almost half has gone to bat nevada senate race, it plays into the scenario, the critics -- criticism that this is just the republican agenda. you are going after the democratic leader in the senate, by spending half of your supporters money on that one race. guest: that is certainly our priority raised but we spend money not only in direct supporting campaigns -- i did not know on the top of my head -- but probably 3 million or $4

million we spend on the campaigns, but these national bus tours, the whole idea -- and this is our fourth tour as the tea party express -- the idea of the first two tours last year if -- was there were millions of people who were frustrated with the direction of the country but they did not know what to do. we have the bus tours and rallies and thousands of people came out at each stop. the number one question was, what should we do. 80% have never been involved in the political process before, so they did not know what to do. our goal was to say, stop sitting at home on your couch throw with your slippers at the tv set out of frustration and go out and join the millions of people who share your view. what we have done in our bus tours it is gotten millions engaged in the political process, showed them the means by which they can get involved. as i said earlier, we totally changed the dynamics of politics in this election cycle. not only are we not going to lose seats in the congress, but

people who are conservative are looking at it and take control of house of representatives and very likely to take control of the united states senate. it has been a remarkable success and i can't think of another political movement going back to maybe the reagan revolution that has been as successful at the grass-roots level as this one has been. host: disagreement with you about success in the senate -- christine o'donnell, you put about $250,000 into that race in order to beat back a primary challenge but she is trailing by 20 points. by using that seat, it looks like the democrats could likely hold on to the senate. guest: first of all, i would say the polls are closing. the last poll i saw had a margin down to six in delaware. on a very big issue of the day, opposition of the growth and intrusiveness of the government with higher taxes and more

government regulation and a skyrocketing national debt, christine o'donnell is 100% right on that issue. a primary opponent mike castle was maybe 50-50. and her general election opponent chris koons is 100% wrong on the major issue of the day -- chris coon. number two, our goal is not to let the majority of republicans, our goal is to elect a majority of physical conservatives. host: but if you follow the money, your group has not given her candidacy and supports as the primary. are you conceding defeat? guest: obviously not. we are at a bus tour, and we are heading to wilmington, delaware, to have a rally. our strength is, even though we put money into campaigns, our strength is weak and motivate people to get out and get

involved in the campaigns and i think we will see it in delaware. she is a very good candidate and certainly right on the major issue of the day. it could teach strategist sal russo -- host: chief strategist sal russo is our guest. for tea party supporters, we have a special line -- there is an article saying "art tea party years willing to sacrifice -- "are tea partiers willing to sacrifice?" are you willing to compromise on the issue of raising taxes in order to tackle the deficit? guest: no, absolutely not. i think taxes are too high.

i think one of the big problems we have with our economy is over regulate it and overtax said. we have over $10 trillion on the sidelines in the business community because they don't have any confidence on where the government is taking things. i don't think raising taxes is the solution. i think that is a big part of the problem. i don't think we support anybody who wants to raise taxes. host: another story in "roll call" this is gop wants insiders to staff the outsiders. the senate tea party and house candidates, it looks like republican leaders are coming up with a list of potential chief of staff that are former chief of staff, capitol hill staffs, lobbyists, to staff your tea party candidates. do you agree? guest: here is what we have done. not only have we supported candidates who are physically conservative but we look for candidates to have a strong dose

of independence. the problem. in washington, d.c., it is a go along and get along culture. i don't know anyone who is democrat, liberal, conservative, who don't think we have a dangerous situation with these big deficits and national debt. i think these are the kinds of candidates when they get elected, will go to washington, d.c., looking this merry go round of spending and spending has has -- has to come to an end. people with connections to that it takes a blend of old people and new people to make a change, and that is what we will see. if you look at the candidates that we supported, marker rubio in florida. he does have experience. then we have others like christine o'donnell, joe miller, who have never been in the elected office. in it is not all about

experience but more about mental attitude, and i would cite my former boss ronald reagan. the day he left the white house, nobody doubted he was an outsider but he never joined the culture of washington, despite his eight years as president. those are the types of people that we want to represent, that will be a part of the problem, not the solution -- solution, not the problem. host: next phone call. caller: what we should do with health care is open up interstate lines. if i wanted to buy my health care from maine, it would be a lot cheaper because there is less demand in that part of the state. the other thing, buying cars, i

could buy a car for cheaper in maine not i colon how to assist a gift and i can in florida. -- then i could in florida. host: i am going to jump in. we are talking about the tea party express. talk about his comments on health care. guest: we opposed obamacare, not for the least of reasons, it will bring the costs of health care too exorbitant amounts. we think the federal government should get out of the health- care business. there are issues that we can address, the uninsured, pre-

existing conditions, there are a lot of republican solutions to the health care problems we have come without nationalizing health care, which is what obamacare did. host: houston. alexis. independent line. caller: good morning. i have a comment and a question. we get to call in once a month and i have seen you repeatedly cut people off midsentence. i would like to know from mr. russo why your organization is racist? you put a defense stamp on who you are but you are the racist arm of the republican party. host: let's get a response. guest: that is probably ridiculous.

not only do we have to be parties exploding in the u.s., we have hundreds of them growing in europe and asia. it is for the same reason, government is out of control. greece is the poster child for government getting out of control. it is a grass-roots movement and it has to do with bigh child born in the u.s. is born with a $400,000 debt on their head. the grass roots movement that is called the tea party are people concerned about the growth and of intrusiveness of government. we publicly do not support racism. it is just a phony issue that people are using against us. the tea party movement keeps on

going. host: karen, tea party supporter. good morning. caller: first i would like to address the previous caller. i am a tea party supporter. i am not a racist. i have been called a racist so many times because of my political beliefs. what we need to stress is political dissent is not racism. i am having -- tired of having the race card thrown at me. on one occasion i was called a racist and i said, what do i have to lose, yes, i am a racist, what else do you have to throw at me to discredit my beliefs? it is a spear tactic used by liberals try to hold onto power. it is time to end all of these

entitlements. it is time for every american to step up to the plate and get a job if you can. for those people who are not working, they do not want to work. if you cannot find a job in my area, you are lazy. host: on this issue of stepping up to the plate, would you be willing to compromise, representatives compromise someone in order to address the deficit? caller: i want to lower spending. i want to outlaw lobbying and buying of our house of representatives in congress. i want the federal government out of my home, outmyi do not be fighting wars to protect other countries when we have people suffering in our own country because of the way the government is set up.

i believe we need to work as hard as we can, even if it means fast foodburgers at a fat fo restaurant. host: there is a story about mitch mcconnell, and what the republicans face with the different factions of the republican party. he is known as a pragmatist, has been willing to compromise in the past in order to get things done. he is quoted in the paper as saying people are not sent to washington to do nothing. if you compromise, agree to raising taxes, would your group then go after him in his next primary for reelection? guest: i do not know what we are going to do in 2012, but i can say unequivocally, we are

opposed to raising taxes. the tax burden is too high. our deficits are too high. i do not think there is any compromise with the government. no, we are against growing the government. not only is it physically irresponsible and burdening our children and grandchildren, but we are expanding the government far beyond what the founding fathers intended. many t party members believe that the government exceeds the constitutional authority. i would say we are not compromising and that is why we are opposing michael castle in delaware, please send rakowski. we want people like joe miller or christine o'donnell. -- lisa murkowski.

these are people who are determined to bring the cost of the government down. the reality is, you have to give to get in washington, d.c. that does not mean that you do not have to compromise, but not on the fundamental basis that these people are running on, and that is stopping this runaway government. host: an e-mail from a viewer -- guest: first of all, saying you want to eliminate the federal on something does not mean that you want to get rid of it. i thought it was a terrible mistake to federalize education. i have a lot of teachers in my family. i do not know one teacher that

believes the billions of dollars in washington managed by and bureaucrats and thousands of regulations helps education. if we took all that energy and local schoolo thesthe level, we could get a lot more out of it. it is not the role for washington, d.c. that is how the government is out of control. host: joan emails in -- guest: no, i am not saying that at all. a lot of the health care issues along with the states, not the federal level. if i was to suggest what their role in federal would be in health care, they limit so much when a state health insurance policy would look like, the cost

would be unaffordable. allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines would go a long way to provide an affordable insurance program across the country. so there are a lot of things you can do for reform. paul ryan in wisconsin has a great website. heritage foundation also has a great web site. one of the thing people are unhappy about is that barack obama was elected on this idea that he was going to bring a consensus to washington. but what did he do? he lurched strongly to the left, and that has created this rebellion across the country. hopefully, this election result will send a strong results -- message to the president as well as to the country saying we want these problems addressed, but we do not want to strangle our economies as such.

host: tonya on the democratic line. detroit, michigan. caller: a lot of these tea party candidates are just plain crazy. take a look at harry reid. he was supposed to be dead in the water. now he has new life against sharron angle and he can win the election. there are one in three americans who have not made up their mind about who they are going to vote for. in november, i think the democrats are going to take back the house and senate. guest: i think the tea party candidates are terrific generally across the country. they have stuck to the big issue, the growth and a intrusiveness of the federal government. at our rallies, we did not talk about foreign policy, national

issues, we are focused on the personal, economic issues. i think the vast majority of the tea party candidates are as well, and they are perfectly in concert with the american people, and that is why the polls are showing huge gains for us. far from being crazy, i think they are your average american who is tired of seeing their government become dysfunctional, monopolized by lobby in washington, doing nothing more than raising money to start new programs. we need to put money out there to invest and create prosperity. i think these people are going to get us back in the right direction. host: fairfax, virginia. then, republican line.

caller: i am a conservative. i am very thankful for the tea party express, as you mentioned, for your focus on economic responsibilities. i am definitely against the nationalization of health care, banks, auto dealers, but tbe careful when you talk about getting away from health care. i know some people might think that that means medicare, it may not be what you mean -- host: thank you. mr. russo? guest: thank you. perhaps i should restate it. health care is an issue that should be responded to that the

state level, without federalizing every other issue, like we have done. perhaps i was over general in my statement. host: myersville, pennsylvania. caller: since ronald reagan there has been a big transfer of wealth to the wealthy. then we had president bush, along. big tax cuts for the wealthy. -- bush come along. we had government contractors and then pharmacy companies. all the money went to them. the ordinary people of the

country lost our good paying jobs through free trade. all the republicans were for renewing free trade agreements. the only thing that we have left is social security and medicare and now you are going after that. the rich have all the money. i agree with taxes, but taxes on the lower and middle class are too high. it is time to raise taxes on the well-paid so we can save our country from falling apart. host: mr. russo? guest: you gave me a lot to work on. let me defend my old boss. i think a vast majority of ronaldans would take a minut reagan back in a heartbeat. unemployment was a way in the double digits and then he was able to create this economic

boom that lasted 20 years. the private sector creates jobs, not the government. we need to create a good investment environment where people are creating jobs. when john f. kennedy was president, that is what he did. that is what george bush did. it is a tried and true way to get the economy moving. we have let the government get too big and out of control. our goal is not to make the rich people rich. our goal is to make poor people rich. you can only do that with a growing economy. you will not grow the economy with the government raising taxes, increasing the regulatory burden. that does not give investors the opportunity to invest and create jobs and prosperity. if you look at our tax burden,

it is distorted. we have too much reliance on the capital gains tax, high income, and we need to broaden the tax base. we want people who have money to invest that money. we have several trillion dollars parked on the sidelines today. we want that money invested because that creates jobs. host: a twitter viewer responds -- i want to go back to delaware. you said earlier that christine o'donnell was a strong candidate. does that mean that the tea party express will be giving her more money in the final seven days? guest: like i said, we are going to wilmington, delaware to do a rally. that continues to be a high

priority. at this stage of the campaign, we are just contributing money, and at this time, $5,000 maximum. we think her campaign is telling her story, making people aware as we did in the primary, the key issue of the day, the growth of government, christine o'donnell is 100% right, chris coons is 100% wrong. it is pretty simple. we are going to be there before the election to try to give her a pushed to the top. host: marietta. tea party supporter. houston, texas. caller: the tea party movement originally started on the

principle -- that which started the american revolution. the british were overpowering the american colonists. and then they threw the tea overboard in the boston harbor. that is where this got started and it has grown almost into a political party, which is fine, but the current administration has been running over the people in this country who have jobs, trying to control them, just like the british did in the 1700's. this is why this party was started. i just want to ask the supporters of these liberal candidate, who do you think is going to support you? this government will take away

everyone's jobs. we will be back to the 1700's. host: memphis, tennessee. vivian on the democratic line. caller: good morning. i have not heard the tea party talk about those people who have lost their unemployment benefits. how about the people losing their homes? like the lady just said, people are losing their homes, jobs, but they want to make it sound like it happened under obama. this was already happening. this was already in place. everybody is blaming this anon

obama. no, it is these rich, white men who are republicans. they want to go back to the time when my grandmother was working for them. guest: there is a reality today that it is a global economy. republicans and democrats alike -- president clinton, one of his hallmarks was pushing the democratic party away from isolationism, really having their heads in the sand, and that every president has agreed that that is the right way to move in the future. we cannot create jobs in the country and must -- unless we empower the people who will have job creation. we have been saying clearly, when you grow the government

side we have done, you increase the regulatory tax burden, like we have done, you do not provide the climate in which investors will invest, create new technologies for our children and people who need jobs today. that is what the two party stands for. i think you will see the economy get better once we can demonstrate to the business community that we can have a healthy environment. our goal is not to help rich people. our goal is to help poor people become rich. host: next phone call. caller: you must be talking about a different ronald reagan. he raised taxes 36 times while in office. he was also the one that gave all of the illegal aliens amnesty when he was in office. when bush was in office, he had

the house, senate, and the supreme court. he gave us nothing but taxes for the rich. they were getting millions. do not try to blame the problem that obama has on the obama. he could not reverse in two years what bush did in eight years. i do not hear anything from you about president bush. guest: i do not think we would have a two-party movement today if it was not for the fact that millions of americans were disappointed with both. we are unhappy equally about the spending between president bush and president obama. what we saw in 2006 and 2008, a lot of people who were concerned about this dropped out of the

political process. now people are saying enough is enough, but there was no way for people to get involved. they were discouraged by both political parties. the tea party became a place to go, a place to register your feelings. that is why we have seen this remarkable transformation of the political scene. i think people are ready for change and that is what they are doing. your caller was totally wrong about ronald reagan. he reduced the regulatory burden on the government. he innovated the technology industry that the lead us into this tremendous economic boom. everybody was more prosperous thanks to ronald reagan. we want to replicate that in 2012. hopefully, president obama will

listen and can change. so far, he and vice president biden are probably the only two politicians in america that want to raise taxes, raise the deficit. it is up to the president to this election. host: i want to look at this had done from "roll call." the senate race between dino rossi and patty murray. what will be the tea party express strategy in the washington senate race? will he give money, resources, people -- you give money, resources, people? guest: unfortunately, we are

limited to where we can go, and even though we wanted to, we could not make it to washington. 3 e-mail, we are encouraging our members -- through e-mail, we are urging our members to support him out there. and we want a strong caucus in the democratic party as well to understand that we cannot keep growing the government, taxes, the deficit. that has to be stopped, from both parties. we are supporting mostly republicans because they are the ones that understand the message. hopefully, you can see some of the democrats be opposed to obama, pelosi, and the democratic policies that got us into this mess. i think we are going to have some democratic allies that will say we have to get our country

in the right direction so that we do not end up like greece. we need both political parties to recognize that. host: richard in florida. independent line. caller: good morning. mr. russo, you just talked about people from both parties being disgusted with it. you are just another wing of the republican party. you have hit every talking point republicans have been using. you are putting all this money into these right wing political candidates, how much money have you given to the democrats? you are just another republican politician. host: care to respond? guest: as i said earlier in the program, we are laser-focused on

one issue, opposition to the growth and a intrusiveness of the government. we are opposed to more taxes, regulation, annual deficits, that annual skyrocketing debt. those are the issues we talk about. yes, you find conservatives at our rallies, but you also find people who are liberal on social or cultural issues. we have a chairman in oklahoma city who is opposed to the war. so this is a very bipartisan movement that includes republicans, democrats, and independents. our goal all along has been to encourage democrats to stand up to obama, pelosi, and read, that liberal triumphant responsible

for taking the country in the direction it has. we are seeing democrats running for office against the democratic leadership. the next election there will be more democrats that we can stand with. and there are some democratic members that have told me they plans, and we are starting to see it. i think you will start to see democrats who are not willing to go down this road of bigger and more expensive government. i think this next congress is going to be literally 100% better than the last one. host: there are some republicans, on energy, that wrotsupport government involvemt

in some energy sector businesses, which goes against some of what the tea party has asked for, only free enterprise. should these candidates, if elected, go against this? i just cannot ahead general and not taking specific -- guest: we have generally not taken

specific positions on these types of things. however, what is constant is the principal. the government is expanding and intrude in in the economy to such an extent it is slowing and stopping any job creation. how you divide the money that you are going to spend, what is the right program, what is the wrong program, that is what the congressional process is all about. the bottom line is, of what i think all two party candidates are supposedly about, we are going to stop the growing of government, higher taxes, higher deficits, the skyrocketing national debt. those are the principles. how you apply them -- some people may want to push an agenda that breaks our dependence on foreign oil. but then they will have to cut somewhere else.

but instead, what you see in washington, everybody says i will scratch your back if you scratch mine. we cannot do that. as i said, every child born in the country has a debt of $400,000 on their head. that is wrong. we see what is happening in greece, portugal, italy, those countries are not far behind. and we could spend money like drunken sailors, and that would be great if we had the money, but we do not. we need to bring some fiscal responsibility to washington. disagreeing on this and that, how you implement that, sure, that is america. but we have to stop the growth of government.

host: sal russo, the chief strategist for the tea party express. if you go to their website, you can see where they are traveling around the nation. he is in little washington journal begins live fed 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. -- at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c- span. coming up, debates between house candidates from new hampshire's first district and pennsylvania's third. candidates previously the next

election. you are watching campaign 2010 coverage. >> what is ahead for the tea party movement. revenues in and doug shilling talk about the possibility of a viable third party. that is part of booktv on c-span 2. now to watch previous programs go to new booktv.org. >> the granite state debates, live from the new hampshire institute of politics. now the candidates in the first congressional district. >> appearing at tonight's debate, the two term from rochester and her republican opponent, the former manchester

mayor. good evening, and welcome to the first of four debates being held here at the new hampshire institute of politics. tonight, the first congressional district. questions will focus on the the major issues focusing -- major issues facing the country. for th we will also have questions from fewer and peter e-mails, and there will be two rounds of questions from the candidates. we have two candidates and their podium position was determined by a drop earlier today. -- 2 candidates at

tonight's debate. there podium positions were determined by a drop. go ahead and welcome the candidates. [applause] and we have three panelists to night. -- tonight. let's get right to our first question. you have 90 seconds to respond. >> you were critical of big government and big spending. without the federal stimulus and the other short-term programs, wouldn't more americans be without a regular paycheck? >> thank you for the question. before i answer, i do want to it knowledge my wife who is with us this evening. it -- acknowledge my wife who is with us this evening.

it is our 13th wedding anniversary. secondly, that the stimulus was not the solution. what we should have done, which is what every small-business owner was desperately looking for in new hampshire, is to cut taxes, allow the small business community to grow jobs. it is not the federal government that grows jobs, it is our small business owners right here in new hampshire to create jobs. it is a fundamental difference between my opponent and myself. she it believes in a government and big solutions. i believe n. ltd., effective government. >> the unemployment rate nationally has been at 9% or higher throughout most of obama presidency. where is the hard evidence that

these policies have worked in creating good private sector jobs? >> if we had not passed the stimulus package, the job loss would have been twice as great. we lost 8 million jobs because of the previous administration's refusal to pay attention to wall street. economists, including the chief mccain'st for john k presidential run, said that the stimulus kept this country from going into a depression. also, it was just on abc news that the stimulus package did create jobs. the mayor kept asking for that money to area and get to manchester. i think he knows and i know that it did help. >> if you could point to a couple of areas where there have been long-term private sector jobs. >> absolutely. the economy has been growing as

you know in the private sector. it is moderate and it is still not where it needs to be, but we have a combination of federal partnership with state partnership properly administered by the governor and the democrats in the house. >> both of you have spent the last several months talking about job creation, a lot. specifically, where have you helped create a job? >> as mayor of the state's largest city, it is important when you are the administrator of $300 million in budget to focus on taxpayers and on growing the economy. what we did in my first year as mayor was cut borrowing in have -- in half. we had bipartisan support for the first tax cut in a decade. what that does is create more

money for private citizens to use how they see fit. there are great examples of how manchester has flourished over the last five years, whether it is a small business, where a small-business owner would invest his own money in his own time into his on business because we had economic strength whether itter, or what was the 300 businesses that are now thriving because of the economic conditions we had in manchester. i will tell you what the stimulus did not work. it created two thousand 730 four jobs -- 2734 jobs at $337,000 per job. nobody thinks that math makes sense. we should have been cutting

taxes and putting that money back into business owner's hand, allowing them to create jobs. >> you both talk about job creation a lot. i would like to know where you have been instrumental in creating a job. >> again, abc news tonight before i came in here was talking about how the stimulus had created millions of jobs. the mayor knows that because you requested and received $30 million of stimulus money which state teachers' jobs, police jobs etc. there were good jobs in that the private sector. i can name pike industry and many other places that hired. many other people along the pipeline were working and received work because of that. funding to a place at the ports and shipyard. a lot of money from the fda to make credit available because, as you know, the real problem for small businesses was getting

credit. we worked very hard to create jobs and i am proud of that record. >> most of us pay federal taxes. so i do support them. i think we had to do the reform we dead and i am part of that reform. you have to put your name next to a and sign an affidavit. all my remarks are on my website. i handed out the sheet to everyone. we still can do a lot to make it more and see what the earmarks are about. they're good thing. you do not want to send your tax

dollars to alaska. >> we had 9000 earmarks alone last year to the tune of $16 billion. i did look at her website. she has requested your marks for california. the idea is to get rid of wasteful spending and ensure that federal dollars are going toward federally responsible projects throughout the country. but do it through the general fund process. we have to start bringing accountability back to federal spending like we do it home, like we do in new hampshire or any other community. we have to identify a budget and administer the budget. this is not happening at the federal level. people are tired of it and fed up with it. they want to see a different approach in washington. >> we now move to our first round of questions.

each will get up to 30 seconds to ask the question. thereupon it will get up to 90 seconds. carol shea porter, you have won the draw. >> for months, your party members and your employer has questioned the money you found in your account. you did not reported in 2010. they have been asking where did you get the money. is this legal or illegal? if you do not explain it, you should step down. you have been saying that is a matter of principle. since they are questioning you, don't you want to clear this up and will you show everybody your bank account just to prove this is not an illegal contribution. >> i think new hampshire is tired of personal attacks on

candidates. it is not just happening here. it is happening across the country. incumbents have -- do not have the ability to defend the stimulus cap and trade, the spending and the deficit. the unemployment rate. this should be and this is supposed to be four years of .ongresswoman porter i have complied with the rules and regulations. i am standing on principle because at some point, the need to not do what is politically correct but what is personally correct. >> your chance to ask a question. >> upon -- at that time, the

deficit was $240 billion. the deficit stands at $1.50 trillion. would you agree that you have not been successful in achieving your initial campaign promise despite four years of democratic control of the house? >> i have to say that when i was running for congress, i knew of the bush administration and the republicans have not done a very good job. i had no idea how wild the lead will street get. a former head of the research said when the party gets too well this time to take away the punch bowl. a believed there was some kind of regulation going on. we saw what happened in october 2008. there were talking about a possible depression. we have had to invest in this country. i would like to remind you that

all those dense for two wars that were not on budget, we had to take care of our soldiers and so many of the infrastructure. i want to read what david stockman said. the republican push would amount to the bankruptcy filing. that has continued because of that. i'm sorry we have not been able to get this under control. >> one minute to respond. >> setting aside questions of where that come -- came from, it is fair to ask why should voters trust you to read and understand mass of legislation

when you had trouble with a campaign forum. >> i voluntarily corrected the mistake i made on this -- on the disclosure reports. i did not disclose i was a board member of liberty house, a veterans shelter. i have corrected that mistake and i think people recognize and respect that. why do think people want is to be talking about the substance of issues. if my opponent wants to talk about this issue, we can talk about the 27 times she amended her report. the fact that she does not disclose any of her bank accounts on her report. it is a mistake she made. i would be happy to continue to talk about this. they want to know how we're going to move this country forward and how we're getting unemployment down. how are we getting people back

to work. that is what i will continue to focus on. >> you did not voluntarily do that. you broke the law into had -- you did not take care of 2009 or 2010. it is not the democrats. your former employer. also this corrections you like to point to our technical corrections. it is not personal finances. i am certain that there is a difference between the technical which everyone does and the personal. you did not corrected for 2009 either. >> the fact is there are different rules for a member of congress. she did not disclose her bank accounts. it is something i think she made an error on. there are different rules for members of congress. people like us to focus on

issues, substantive issues about jobs and the deficit. >> we will move on. >> i am sure he read the forms that you report the bank accounts that are interest- bearing. you know the differences again. it is the same rules for members of congress versus people who would like to be members of congress. that is number one. public office is a public trust. >> back to you for the next question. >> i have another reading comprehension question. can you say honestly that every piece of legislation you vote on or do you rely on party leadership on where to vote? >> or making a mistake if you rely on party leadership. you have to read them. i was on the health care -- one

of the committees that read the health care bill. on the smaller stuff you sit on the committees and you know people on the committees and you talk these over. we cannot read every single word. there are the go to the members and ask about the piece of legislation. they also met legislation. >> our next question comes from a viewer. i am discouraged and angered by the lack of cross party cooperation. what will you do to foster a spirit of cooperation to get things done? >> i want to make a point. our incumbent said she does not read every single bill. that is unacceptable to people in new hampshire.

when someone votes, i expect they read and make an informed decision. one of the things that was most challenging is being a different type of approach. a fiscally responsible approach. working with the majority of democrats to change the focus to accountability to -- efficiency and i am proud of the fact that my fellow colleagues who happen to be democrats work was made to cut taxes. it is that kind of corporation that i will bring as a member of congress. get donewant things to moving the country forward. >> if he says he will read every

single bill, it cannot be done. there is so much. it is like to dozen bills that get submitted. you have to read the major pieces but a lot of it is small. if he did not read through the form he has a lot of reading in front of him. as for the bipartisanship, we work well in committee. uc bomb throwing on the floor of the house but those bills get past with a bipartisan effort. we do have been partisanship. there are fundamental differences about how we see this country and that is the reason we have these disagreements. >> you were elected officials in this district. can you name one time when you

worked well together on one issue to benefit the first district? provideere able to it was ks and i know important for some many projects in manchester. >> there was the entity that was looking to work with the member relative -- what i was trying to do as mayor was say is a city which should not be relying on the federal government. we should be pushing back on the state of new hampshire and we should get through the challenging times we have. when i was mayor in the first part of my tenure, i did invite the congresswoman to manchester and we had a great experience. looking at how we could focus on improving the largest city in

the state and i applaud her for that. >> we have heard a lot from voters on the tone of your campaign ads. they have been filling the airwaves. they focus on your opponents. we wanted to take a couple of those accusations tonight. and see what the responses. >> we will start with you. your record is under fire in a number of campaign ads including this one. >> in washington, carol shaver voted for higher taxes. >> what is your response? >> i have to laugh. that is political trash talk. we know how the game is played. he has outside groups that are running much worse. i sat and watched for them one after another. it is political trash talk. you can check that and others

for that. it is what they have to say to take out an incumbent. they are major multinational corporations who are running these ads against me. >> she the support higher taxes. she does support bigger government. she supports stimulus. it is a comparative ad regarding what she supports and advocates and when she is concerned about outside money, neither candidate on the stage has any influence over that. she was not complaining when $2.5 billion -- million dollars was spent on her behalf. the candidates should s -- focus

on substantive issues. effectiveted to government. >> your opponent has started a number of your ads as well. >> first this. >> elminating social security? >> we put more money into social security every week, more money goes in and goes out. the problem here is 60 years from today when my kids are retiring there was a different system in place. we need to ensure that the promise made to every american is a promise kept. we need reform on social

security. if you go down the path we are in today it will be broke and we have to do something about it. >> in 30 seconds, why is this fair in your opinion? >> the previous president said that was one of his greatest disappointments and the reality is we can absolutely protect social security. he does not want to take any political steps. he is marching in step. it has been the goal all along. it is going back to what the previous administration wanted. i am not surprised. the head of the republican party said we're not going to be any different than we were before. i believe you are

referencing congressman john boehner. republicans are going to be different than they were in the 2000's when they had out of control spending. republicans want to focus on the economy and reducing debt and deficit. what happens every year is happening -- what is happening is she is using social security as a scare tactic. they do not believe that anymore. we know they should have substantive issues. that is not the way to win campaign re-election. you have to go in earn every vote. >> i want to drill down deeper on social security. there are a number of options. they include raising conrad and raising the payroll cap.

which one is the best solution or do you propose something different? >> i do not believe in raising taxes at a time when you have a record deficit in the country. that is a different position than my opponent does take. she does want to raise this cap which raises taxes on people in this room. the first thing we need to do is after this next congress gets elected, said down in a bipartisan fashion and identify a long-term solution which includes insuring that anyone who is receiving the benefit continues to receive it. a promise made is a promise kept. secondly, we have been stealing from the trust. we need to set the tone where we are not taking money out of it. if you have to take from the general fund to solidify it, let's make that decision and make it solvent for the long

term. what should not happen is this back-and-forth and bickering to scare people. it is not what anyone is looking for. >> is this something you would consider? >> everything else should be on the table for consideration. you come to the table with a global of respect and decorum. all members, not looking at them as republicans and democrats but as colleagues and saying what are the things we should consider and come up with a bipartisan approach that is reasonable to both sides. >> did he say yes or no? the reality is he did not say anything. when you're down there you have to take a test vote. it is not true that everyone's taxes will be raised. the taxes will increase on people earning over [unintelligible] but they have to raise the cap.

you pay tax on every dollar on a $50 sweater. that is not fair to people who are paying on every single dollar they earned. the burden on the middle class. i do not want to raise taxes on the middle class. you're acting as if it is not true. what we have said about social security and you know it is true, you have to take a position. if you raise the cap, you will protect and guarantee social security. he is -- does not want to answer and has been asked several times and i have no idea what his position is. i have heard it three different ways so far. >> raising the cap raises taxes. it is a tax hike on every small- business owner and employee, that is not what people are asking for. we have for years of that and people are rejecting that.

>> thank you and let's move on. healthcare is a contentious issue. we will allow the opponents 60 seconds to rebut. >> you said it was important to pass something on health care and fix the problems later. the size of such massive legislation, when push something through without making sure every detail was worthwhile? >> i have never known a perfect bill or perfect human being. i have never known a perfect but sutter. we're not going to do anything until it is perfect. that is what we have been trying all along. we had to do something. we have been doing that and we will continue to do that. what this bill did is for the first time it is offering insurance to everyone. this was a republican plan a

decade ago and it is a good, solid plan. it offers insurance and cannot be knocked off if you get sick. you can keep your family on until age 26 and to have preventive care. you will get your doughnut hole produced, were you have to pay for your own prescriptions and there is no cap. should you be unlucky enough to be sick you will be covered. there is a lot of insurance reform. it is a good thing to do. we will be stopping along the way to make the changes that need to be done. anythingver find perfect on earth. >> i do not think perfect was the objective. it was to reduce costs and i do not think anyone thinks we reduced cost when the bill was passed. it was past seven months ago and the single provision i would like the member of congress to explain to us is why she would vote for bill knowing that it had a 1099 provision that required every business owner

to 1099 someone when they spent more than $600 during the course of the year with the vendor. that in and of itself is a burden on small business owners and it is a burden on anybody that does any kind of business in this country. i believe her answer was she did not realize it was in the bill or she recognized it was a mistake. either way, it is a problem for new hampshire. >> i am happy he keeps returning to that. the bill is paid for and everybody knows it is paid for. we knew that there is that provision there that was too onerous for businesses. we did try to change that. it is paid for. we have a program called before which is low. we had another way to make of that income. the way that we're going to make of that lost income was to take tax subsidies away from special interests. republicans would not vote for that. i do not know iwhen he keeps bringing that up.

it does not make his party in washington look so good. >> this notion united the republican party to pass this makes no sense. the democratic party is in the majority. this party can do whatever they want. they do not republicans -- need republicans to do a thing. they either did not know it was in the bill or realized the mistake was made and they still could not corrected. either way, new hampshire taxpayers are at risk and american taxpayers are a risk. >> we will stay on health care. >> your response brings us to the new question. the health care law needs to be repealed entirely but given the political climate, the reality of that happening is stretched. it does need to be repealed and a lot can be effective if it is tweaked. would it be fair to say that your message is more of a

political statement, political rhetoric than the reality of the ability to repeal this thing? >> i think good republicans can agree to disagree on how to address certain issues. the wet look at this legislation is it is unconstitutional. there are more than 20 states were leaving it is unconstitutional and try to get it repealed. on its face, i do not believe we can force americans to purchase a service or product. secondly, if you truly did want to improve the cost, there are more targeted ways that you can address that and those are the things that we should have done. they can then negotiate with the heads of insurance carriers that i was able to do is the mayor because i had thousands of employees. we should allow people to purchase health insurance

anywhere they want in the country. if you are buying auto or life insurance, you can buy anywhere you want. one of the primary issues that the employer said to me is he had an actual policy britain from arizona that would have saved him more than $100 per month per employe. the law in prohibited him from using that cost savings. members of congress are trying to -- should listen and reflect their needs. that would have been a better start than an overhaul of a great medical system that we have. >> first of all, this is a republican plan but it is interesting to me sto see the efforts to repeal this program. i respect he may feel this way. the reality is there have been tremendous costs to the

taxpayers. it will be a way to reduce costs. i like the fact that he brings of these things. he will be able to pull together. he wants insurance companies [unintelligible] across state lines. that would be a race to the bottom. we have people in the state's performer compact and there will be able to do that. also small businesses will get tax help with this. it will be up to 50% to help them. they could've done this but they did not. nothing was done. we have a health program that

will help the consumer. that boeing may reduce or low -- eliminate its health-care for every employee that it has. it is cheaper for them to go on to the federal system, which is what our member of congress wants. the growth of the federal government. that is not in anyone's best interest. we have an insurance carrier dropped its plan because they attributed directly this health care legislation. that is not what is in the best interest of those 22,000 members. one of which is jim apprentice -- prentiss. >> moving to our second round. each will have 30 seconds to as a question and your opponent will have 90 seconds to respond.

>> of thank you. during your four years in congress, you stated you voted with 90 -- nancy pelosi 98% of the time. the people do not agree with nancy pelosi. you promised to stand up for the rest of us. if you were to be reelected, would you pledge today to vote against nancy pelosi for speaker? >> nancy pelosi does not bode. she is not even in this election. i am running for the people of new hampshire. i think you are too. that is washington -- for washington talking point. you have been there to pick up a special interest money and you come back with a talking point. the speaker is not standing here right now. i am an independent voice. if you look at where i have disagreed with the house and it is the house.

you can see that there have been times i have stood on my own and said this is not right. i am happy to go through the list. to keep bringing in the speaker of the house, you think that she was running in all 50 states. every single one of you has the same talking point. >> i am reiterating a comment you made regarding nancy pelosi. you had nancy pelosi come to do a fundraiser for you in boston. you support nancy pelosi enter principles. there is a disagreement. i am asking if you would vote for her or not if you were able -- to be reelected. >> i hear you sing the democrats are going to win house. since you're going to use the ", we were passing the six for

2006. we had to protect ourselves [unintelligible] and it had to do with raising the minimum wage. that was in march 2007. it was what the people of this country wanted. >> do we have a yes or no? >> would you vote for her if you were reelected? >> i would. >> your chance to ask a question. >> you have punted and claimed that this is political and people do not want to talk about social security. you have used phrases that say absolutely nothing. i will ask you yes or no. will you protect social security and see it as a program that should be around for the next generation and generation after that and if so, how are you going to pay for it?

or your other story was you're going to abolish it. what would you do -- you said you wanted to privatize or abolish or you would make it a means test, a welfare test. tell me what you will do for the seniors and the people. it helps people who have been widowed and dependent children. what is your plan for the people if you succeed. yes sir know. should it be available to something like that and the answer is yes. for anybody who was watching this evening, if you were receiving social security, the prom -- country had a promise to you. let's not allow partisan negative personal attacks to scare you into voting for one person or another. what i am asking is for a bipartisan group in the next congress to put their political

differences aside and bring everything on the table to see how we can make social security solvent. it is not solved and right now. more money goes out than those in today. it is fully insolvent in 2015. it will not exist in 2037 unless we do something about it. i hope i have the opportunity to serve you in the november 2 election. what you'll get out of me is not a scare tactic but thoughtful consideration in a bipartisan way to make sure that seniors recognize the benefits they have burned. >> that is not the answer to the question i asked you. i asked you what we do -- are you planning on supporting social security so that it will exist. what would you do for the rest of the people, the disabled and those who will pay for it to and

what will they have? what is your plan for them? people need the social security. my mother depends on it and so do many others. what is your plan for them? >> i will answer again. i answered yes the first time. >> we have two very different opinions. >> i answered your question the first and second time yes. it should be something there that is solvent. it is a promise made to certain americans to make sure that promise continues. the reality of where we are today is more money goes out that goes in. that is a fact and it will be insolvent in 2015. there is no question that america wants us to solve the problem. what they do not want is partisan - and false attacks to scare the electorate. the electorate is smarter than that. i think it is discouraging about politics in america when

all people tried to do to save their job is to scare people. that is not the coming -- becoming a member of congress nor is it what the american people are asking of us when we assumed office next year. >> there are millions of illegal immigrants in this country and many of them are employed at low level jobs. are they or are they not a part of the economy? >> the problem we have is employers are hiring them. the way to control this is for employers to get -- be held accountable when they attract people across the border by offering low paying jobs and it is not fair to american workers and it is not fair to those who came over. we prosecute the employers and i think that you would see a solution pretty quickly. if canada offered jobs at $100

an hour, there would be americans who would go there. we have seen that dry up. >> are you talking about shutting down the businesses? >> i am talking about taking them to court. the solution is to go to the root of the problem. it is the employer. they know it is illegal. they have to be held accountable. >> there is two components to the problem. if you are employing someone who is illegal, you are paying a certain price. the government has refused to enforce existing laws, nor have they agreed to complete the border. but fans. arizona had to act and they had to act because they felt their sovereignty was at stake. the reality here is if you are breaking the law, we're a nation of laws and someone who is here illegally is breaking the law.

that should not be allowed. i have personal friends in manchester. they spent years making sure they could raise their family here legally. it was a wonderful, phenomenal event. they are proud of their heritage and proud of america. that is what we want to see. we want to see people coming here legally, encourage them to come here legally and make something better for themselves and our country. these undocumented immigrants, are they an important part of the u.s. economy? >> the jobs themselves are an important part of the economy. i believe just like many others those jobs will be filled by american citizens or legal immigrants. >> over to you, next question. >> the u.s. has spent millions

fighting the taliban. the african government has considered negotiating to bring a peaceful government. if that becomes part of a functioning government, how do you feel about the u.s. opening up dialogue with the taliban? >> part of our responsibility to our country and to americans based on our constitution is to defend this country and defend americans. if there is a terrorist who wants to kill an american, what we need to do is defend ourselves and our nation against that. we need to do that wherever those terrorists exist. i do not believe that we negotiate with terrorists. we have a duty to protect american lives and our country. sometimes it is tough but we have to take necessary means to do it. i would not be supporting a terrorist entity or organization anywhere in this country and i do not think american should be there.

>> if the karzai government wants to talk to the taliban, there is nothing we can do. there are -- our footprint is too large there. we do have terrorists who would like to hamas and i am well aware of that. we have to have some footprint in afghanistan. we have to have special forces. it can be international or the europeans and countries that ring that area. we have to hunt down terrorists. there is a difference in the taliban. they are an awful group. the reality is they are woven into the community. if the afghans want them to be thrown out, they will do that like they did after the 2001 attacks where they threw him out. the problem we have is the taliban -- we do not know who they are. they're working with us in the day and attacking a night. karzai who is corrupted, i have met him and i said we were concerned, he said that allows

-- was our problem. fit we have a leader there that we're not able to control. we need a glider footprint to catch the taliban who intend to harm us. it is not all the taliban. >> thank you. i would like to hear our second your question coming in. david has written in saying -- >> we have been working on that since i arrived in congress. i was a military spouse. this is a problem. they should have fought. we're the only state in the country that does not have a full-service hospital. i would be happy to have a card that could go locally. we have seen more clinics that

put more money in. you can look at the manchester be a -- va and see the improvement. we send far too many to massachusetts and vermont and other places. >> as i talk to veterans from new hampshire, the single greatest concern is they are traveling to massachusetts or for mahon too often for medical needs and services. the practice should end. i will do everything i can to make sure that does happen. for those veterans who would like to see a full-service va, they have deserved it. we have to prioritize to see that happen. for those who seek a different alternative, going to any hospital they choose, they

should be able to do that. you put your life on the line for me and my family, we will make sure that medically we take care of you when your medical needs a ride. >> the next topic is education. >> how does that improve manchester's schools that were struggling during your tenure? >> education is extremely important. the first thing we need to do is have more parental engagement in how kids are learning. when the department of education was created, it has not done anything to help manchester. when i talk to superintendents or principles or teachers, they are frustrated with no child left behind and frustrated with the wacko of mandates that come

to new hampshire. there would prefer direct support in a classroom -- and classroom support. making decisions on behalf of washington. >> a question and education. >> other than funneling money into the states, what does the u.s. department of education due to help schools? >> the mayor received $10 million of federal money for the school system. it is essential. he had 2000 people who were angry with him because of failing schools and they came from the communities that were tied into manchester to talk about his failure. what we do is we look at all the

communities around the country. we make sure that the funding is there and it is not complete. we work to make sure they have money to do the basic stuff they do. the department of education sponsors research. we make sure there are standards that are meant which are important for children. whether a child is born poor or rich, they should have access to good education. education is a key to prosperity. it is an investment and in our best interest. the people who are the next generations are the ones who're going to count your pills. make sure they know how to do it. >> we will ask closing questions. you will have 90 seconds to

answer the question. if they feel is appropriate, they should use it to make their final pitch to voters. >> you have 90 seconds to answer. how was the recession affected you and your family? >> it has been difficult for everyone. i have an extended family. a lot of sisters and brothers and nieces and nephews and cousins and everyone has a story to tell. we saw the value of our house drop. my daughter had trouble getting a full-time job and she did not health -- did not have health insurance. the economy improved and she was able to have a good time job -- full-time job. the good news is the economy is growing. it is now contracting. there are people who are left behind it we have to make sure that we are creating jobs and we also provide unemployment

benefits for those who are seeking and we grow the jobs in the grain sector. it will take a united effort. the reality is we have a ways to go. the economy is growing and for myself when i see my 401k coming back, we will get there. i am optimistic and i believe in the middle class and will be able to pull ourselves all the way out. thank you. >> i would like to thank the institute of politics and the panel for being here this evening. this is a critical election and i hope to earn your support and bring fiscal responsibility and discipline back to washington. the last question is apropos of what we're feeling. my wife and i had to change the investments we have made on

behalf of our kids. we do not see the stability in the economy. locally or nationally. those of the things we're concerned about in this country. we want to see the unemployment rate which has been more than 20 consecutive months exceeding 8%. we want to see that come down. we want to see residents and americans back to work again. excited about the opportunity to provide for their family. we want to see a budget passed in this country. we want to see the $1.50 trillion debt eliminated and the $13.60 trillion debt that has been amassed on the decline. this is what people have been asking me how i will focus on their issues. if i am their next rep. i'm here to ask you to go to

frank gun -- vote frank gunta. time.k you for your cabinets and panelists. tomorrow's debate featuring the second congressional district candidates. news 9 will have a full wrap up and analysis. have a good night. [applause]

sharon. >> good evening. welcome. i am the director for the center of political participation. i will be the moderator. the center opened its doors in 2002 with the aim of helping americans, especially young americans understand the potential of politics. we believe in elections and we believe in civic engagement. all that has changed through the years but a fundamental truth remains. candidates are called upon and they call upon us to judge their views and character and to

[inaudible] they are applying for position and the voters are doing the hiring. there is no better way to conduct this job interview then through the debates. these events allow you to assess candidates without consultants and media imagery. they're open and direct. because this event is being held at one of the nation's oldest and one of the most prestigious on it -- institutions of higher learning, we believe the candid its have a special responsibility to provide direct, specific, respectfully answers. evidence of this sort are not easy for candidates. it is tough work standing up there. taking questions.

i am hoping you would join us in thinking the candidates for coming tonight. -- thanking the candidates for coming tonight. [applause] we have a few housekeeping matters. if you could turn off your cellphone, that would be appreciated. each candidate will have a two minute opening and closing statement. the order has been decided by coin toss. the candidates will be asked questions in alternating order and will have two minutes to respond. audience questions will be used for the second half of the

debate. i hope you noticed the there were some cards in the program. if you could fill those out and pass them to the assistant. we will use that for the second half of the debate. audience participation will be limited to short periods of applause after each candidate's opening and closing statements. there will be no applause during the question and answer period. college democrats and republicans are hosting an open reception. the college republicans will be over here and the democrats will be by the dining room in the campus center. this debate is being carried live by c-span.

we welcome the viewers from the district, the state, and the nation. let's get on with their debate. ou -- our debate. >> thank you for hosting and thanks to you in the audience for taking the time to come out and for my khalif for joining me. i am honored and humbled to be york rep. it is a responsibility that i take very seriously. i am kathy dahlkemper. i have five beautiful children and two grandchildren. i have grown up in this region. i love this region. raised my family here. it is a region i want to be strong and grow and thrive so my children and doors and grandchildren have the opportunity to stay here, have a good job, raise their family and

live the american dream. that is why i ran for congress to years ago and that is why i am running for congress today. to continue to work on the things i have been working on for two years to help this region grow. i haven't focused on the economy and jobs. that is my number one focus. -- i have focused on the economy and jobs. i have been working with economic leaders to make sure we have in place what they need to help our region grow. i have been working to cut taxes for small businesses. not once or twice but 16 times. i have been working to make sure we make it in america. we make products here in america. we do this by disclosing tax loopholes and by fighting against countries that use of unfair trade practices to take our jobs overseas such as china. times are tough. we have seen things getting better.

14 straight months of improvement in manufacturing numbers. we have seen 863,000 jobs created this year alone. things are getting better. there is much more work to be done. i am looking forward to tonight's conversations so you can see the contrast between the direction i am taking the country in and where my opponent wants to take the country. thank you again for being with us and i appreciate your vote come november. [applause] >> thank you. i want to thank allegheny college and you for being here tonight. it is an important election. probably the most important

election of our generation. i want to thank the congresswoman. there are two completely different views of the way things are going. i do not share that same enthusiasm for the last 22 months. i do not think things are getting better. things are a lot different now. our views are different and you will see a contrast. i believe in a smaller government and a less intrusive government. the people are the best way to get there. i believe small business is the best way to get there. i believe there should be a constitutionally limited government. what we have seen for the last 22 months is worsening people who were going to washington and change washington -- we were sending people who were going to washington and changing washington. i would like to see this country return to its greatness. america's best days are ahead of a spread we can get there together. not just as republicans or democrats, but as americans.

we have an excellent opportunity to make a decision that will change forever the course of this country. if you are living we're going in the wrong direction, you can fix that. it is fixable and the greatest country in the world, our best days are ahead and we can fix it. we're going to find out which campaign is going in a direction you like and which campaign is desperate and taking a direction you might not like. i welcome the opportunity to be with you tonight. thanks so much. [applause] >> we would like to start off related to the economy.

the stimulus bill was billions of dollars pumped into the economy. the economy remains stagnant. we're looking at 10% unemployment, give or take i the way. should congress consider another bill to jump-start the economy or should we be putting in tax incentives into help small businesses grow and what should that be specifically? we recently passed a small business legislation. this is a small landing bill going to our community banks that we know and trust. we are trying to get this bill. the house and through the senate for months and months -- get this bill through the house and through the senate for months and months. two brave republican senators

came forward and voted for that legislation. that will help throughout our region. i voted for 16 tax cut for tax small businesses. republicans voted with us for one. it is helping to create jobs. we want to find the tax cut for our small businesses to continue to create jobs. my opponent says he is against stimulus. as a member of the authority of the chairman of the redevelopment authority, he has asked for stimulus money for butler county. is one thing to say you are against it. it is another thing to put out your hand and asked for it. we have to find ways forward. we need tax incentives weather for a green energy or a job is. i have legislation that will

give tax breaks for those who want to develop wind turbines. it is very important to our economy and energy needs. those are the sensible tax credits that will be there till 2020. those are the smart incentives i would like to see happen. >> i find it interesting that somebody who voted for a $1 trillion stimulus that puts a heavy burden on corporations would find that that somehow was an incentive. where of looking at reform bill that is 5000 page -- we are looking at reform bill that is 5000 pages. there is not taken the world right now in this country that feels confident that they can lend money to any small business because of of the regulations they do not know are there yet.

the reels arrules are not there. we stay here are the rules. you look at that piece. you tell me that we are somehow helping small businesses. how can we spur the economy? by lowering corporate tax rates and making it easier for people and small business to invest in jobs and training and the tools said they need to. these are the things that make people in best. the biggest problem for anybody in small business is the unknowing. they are afraid to get in the game. they do not know what the next thing is. we are so overregulated. the taxes are so high. we cannot move. we are bound by air cell. these of the people that create the jobs. -- by ourselves.

these are the people that create jobs. they will take more of your tax adopt. that is the way it has always worked. >> i just want to make sure you clear. you are talking about taxes. if we had the same type of package before, would you or would you not vote for a stimulus package as previously passed? >> i've that you are talking about further beyond. >> both actually. >> i would vote for the bill that already passed. that bill i believe kept this from going into a depression. did it do everything? no. it created $8 million. if reinvested in the future. -- to reinvested in the future. we reinvested in clean energy technology. we reinvested in broadband. in pennsylvania, where the

largest recipient of broadband in the state. if you are a business and to have dial-up and you are trying to compete, it is impossible to do that. we reinvested in infrastructure. this is a game changer. we invested in high-speed rail. it is spurring growth in a private job creation area. >> out of like to respond. i would like to respond. hearing this right, it is one of the things you do not have a time to look at you still voted for. you voted for an over a billion dollars in stimulus funds. if we did not do it right thing, and upon it was like to go above 8%. we've been hovering around 10%.

the president said the biggest problem was that he thought there were shovel ready projects. they do not know where they are. this is a person that we have to do this. this idea a half to take its vantage of a crisis, if this is in the whole theme of the administration. this is dangerous. this is the result of believing in your party instead of the people. they are overregulated. we are saying it works? that does not work. that is a disaster. >> i will read by the candidates that we have not to direct questions or comments directly to each other. -- would like to remind the candidates that we do not want to direct questions or comments directly to each other. there are recent projections

that suggest our national debt is approaching $14 trillion. recent media reports suggest candidates across the country and in both parties have been very vague about what they would do about the deficit. let's break that down and for specifics. according to the cbo, making bush year tax cut permanent would add an additional $4 trillion to the national debt over 10-years. extending those tax cuts just for the middle class would add an additional $3 trillion to the national debt. your web site suggest, mr. kelly, that if elected he will fight government waste and pork barrel spending. even the most optimistic projections of pork barrel spending is that combine a would

total less than one-half of 1%. could you please tell us what specific savings you have? where would you find drastic cut? >> i will address it very specifically. the specificity is in the process. when governor charlie crist the got elected, he said the same thing. as a business person, you have to look at fremont and what you do. you have to look at the things that worked -- you have to look very closely what you do. you have to look at things that have worked and what that have not worked. i would tear it apart. i would want to look at everything we are spending money on. does it work? is it something we can improve on? absolutely. there is that to be cut. -- steps to be cut. people take this attitude that

you cannot expect the government to work the way a business does. i look at it the other way. you could never expect a business to look at the way government does. when we talk about all these savings, the costs are on the backs of the taxpayers. the government act like we are taking money from them. the truth is, if they are taking money from every single penny that goes into government coffers comes off the backs of -- the truth is, if they are taking money from every single taxpayer. the money that goes into government coffers comes off the backs of taxpayers. is a performing the way it is supposed to? is this another government program that has an endless license? the specificity is getting people that are responsible and understand what it means to make

payment out of your own pocket and not the taxpayers. you would look at it as a sacred duty. >> to be fair, your web site devotes a bid to the deficit. you mentioned your office was able to get $90,000 back. you mentioned that it was a drop in the bucket. we are talking about trillions of dollars. could you provide some specifics on where you think we might find savings? >> i certainly will. my opponent and not answer the question. let me tell you what i would do. [applause] >> both candidates have agreed to the rules of the debate among have a plus.t .

>> what i would do is not extend tax cuts to the millionaires and billionaires. that'll cost is $700 billion over the next 10 years. we cannot afford it. what i will do what the economy westill struggling as recover it is to extend the tax cuts to the middle class people who need to have a tax break at this particular time. what i have done it is a number of things. we reinstated statutory and pa y-go. last august when there is a need to keep teachers on th in the school, i set out not vote for this unless it was paid for. we pay for it by closing tax loopholes that allow our jobs to go overseas. every republican voted against it. i am on a balanced budget

amendment. we have to balance our amendmenbut it. i've balanced the budget at home all the time. if i ever run my business by the government, it would have been out of business. i understand that. a balanced budget is necessary. we have got to look at how we can cut programs in the long term. we need a commission to look at the programs that are wasteful. one specific thing i would do -- if you watch c-span and there is someone out there speaking and no one else in the house, that costs us $22,000 an hour. you do not see of the security that is out there prepared to do thousand dollars an hour every night times four. -- out there. that is $22,000 an hour every night times 4. >> i like to speak about

international relations. u.s. and china are heading toward a currency war. we had the u.s. dollar being not as valued as the chinese dollar. it is hurting our industry. it has been a thorn in our side for about 10 years. we are looking at the possibility of trade tensions against china to help the playing field. if it does come to a trade war, what specifically would you support we go after? >> i have already voted for a bill that will go after china for the currency manipulation. this is something we have been talking about for years and years. today they were saying that going after china would actually create half a million jobs in this country. there are some people that think we should be happy about this.

-- this, because we can go out and buy cheaper products. those cheap products means american jobs have been lost. we need to go after china. they have been teaching for a long time. i have been a vocal supporter of looking at that manipulation. we both did that out of the house last of timber. we need -- we voted that out of the house last september. we need to get it out. we've had three hearings in front of the trade commission. i have testified at two of them. we have won all three cases. the last administration would not take on china. these are products being brought illegally. we will not go after china. we cannot let them trample on our businesses and workers. we have gone after china. we will continue to go after them again and again and again.

they unfairly dumped products into our country. we need to go after china when they tried to corner the market. let me tell you something about legislation that is mine. we passed through the house in september regarding rare earth minerals. china controls 97% of the world supply of a rare earth minerals. our country controls 0%. their use in all the energy projects -- they are used in all the energy products and security products and hybrid batteries. we have got to go after china for these unfair trade practices. >> i have no problem with fair trade as long as it is -- fear -- i have no problem with free trade as long as it is fair. we do not play by the rules in

china. we force ourselves to go by the rules of the force china not to go by the rules. i understand it is a global economy. i am concerned with shareholders. why do they go overseas? we over regulate and overtax them. we make a possible for some companies to stay in the country prepared them a one to blame the chinese for our taxation. -- in the country. then we want to blame the chinese for our taxation. to not make it too hard to compete. it all comes down to that. the rest of the world has been waiting for america to take a stand with china. when china was part of the wto, we did not enforce the rules. now that they are in the 20, everyone wants to make sure they followed the rules. we've always welcomes competition.

what i do talent is the government that over regulate and over taxes -- challenge is the government that over regulates and overtaxes. we need to see what is going on in the world. the why want to protect american jobs? absolutely. we have to do them with the rules that make sense and enforce them. >> i will look at domestic politics for a minute. we will talk of the health care reform. -- about health care reform. you want to repeal it. would you replace it with anything? >> first of all, how can anybody boat for a health care package that penalizes our seniors? neo-natals.s our am

we do not increase affordability. who do we penalize the most? the seniors, the people who have lived with in the roles, who have paid their dues and taxes. who do we put that burden on? it is a 500 million dutch predict by founder billion dollar cut in medicaid -- it is billion cut in medicaid. i would never vote for a bill that penalized the unborn. we can talk about executive orders. it is the worth the paper is written on. the first thing obama did was resend bush's executive order about mexico city funding. i will not have been more proud

of her. she was in a position -- they needed her more than she needed them. if we were really concerned about protecting the unborn, put the language into law. that is all that it would have taken. you could have done that. i would have been so proud of you. your district would have been so proud. the party ask too much. instead of taking the side of the people, you went the way of your party. that is inexcusable. we are supposed to be representatives. i do not think we have represented ithe best interests of our people. >> i think is morally reprehensible that my opponent would accuse me of not being pro-life. i've been pro-life of my life. ito's wife at the age 21 when i was pregnant and unmarried -- i chose pro-life at the age of 21

when i was pregnant and unmarried. i'm the best friend they have. this was the best legislation ever passed by congress. pennsylvania, new mexico had to change their language. the worm farm to not take out any possibility of abortion -- they were warned not to take out any possibility of abortion funding. i'm nature. i was the one fighting the night before we voted -- i made sure. i was the one fighting the night before we vote. my opponent was repealed health care was to take away healthcare from a young child that might have autism. he wants to take away healthcare from a senior. he was to increase prescription

drug costs. he wants to take away tax credit for small business. this is why we passed health care. it is a basic need. at some point, everyone is going to need to access healthcare. working men and women across this country are working hard every day to not have the access to health care that i do. i am sure that my opponent says. it is the right thing to do. it is the moral thing to do. i did with a certainty that there will be no abortion period, o uout of that bill except in the case of rape. >> i like to move on a little bit to some other foreign policy

issues. we have troops in afghanistan and iraq. we also have the world on edge. there have been reports bailey, attacks in india. if the u.s. was attacked and we know who did it, we have the evidence, would you be willing to send troops into the country it is hard -- that is harboring the group that harmed the u.s.? >> if our country or any american base is attacked, and the country from which the country a tactic known listed by and allow the attack to happen, every option to be on the table. we should never go into war without looking at every option in front of us.

we should always look at every single option diplomatically prior to going to war with any certainly, if a country stands terrorists attackattac americans, i think war is ce options that we should seriously think about. >> the question is under attack? >> yes. such as an embassy attack in a third country and the country does a bit to do it and the government stands by and does -- and a bit to doing it in the government stand by and does admits to doing it and the government ss >> i would support it if he made

that decision. >> we are going to move into some of the audience questions. the first steps upon by a number of participants. it has to do with the electoral process. it is very close to a question that i've pulled together. there has been a trend in recent years that scholars and commentators are beginning to fall outside money. it is being spent by those that are not located in the community. that has pulled together it this information and does ranked our

district 16th in the nation. -- and has ranked our district 16th in the nation. you have been the benefactor of most of that money. they estimate through the court order that it has predicted a the third quarter that it has been 1 million -- the estimates through the third quarter it has been $1 million. do you think this outside money is appropriate? would you support legislation to disclose the sources of this information? >> i think it is a good question. i do not think you go far enough. you just said what money is raised. if the go back to the prior, the congresswoman started off with $1.3 million. i started off a 75,000. i raise more in the third quarter.

this is for all of us to follow. >> i'm not asking about your own fund-raising. i am talking about the groups that are spending money on your behalf. >> i understood that. if you are going to say about to who took the money, there are ballots we have to follow. i have no problem with making sure whoever has money that they declare it. i do not think that is a problem. >> i am not sure. she voted against the bill that would require disclosure. i am wondering if you could explain that and talk about the outside money and the disclosure issues. >> i think we have all seen the amount of money that has come into this district. i think everyone in this room

has about had enough about all the commercials. most of them are targeted against me. it is not our local chamber. it takes money in from beyond our borders. i have been supporting my opponent. they are going after china. i voted against it when it came in front of the house. it actually had exemptions for certain groups. i thought if we are going to pass legislation which i thought is crucial, if we have elections that are not bought, i think everyone to have to be disclosed. no one should receive an exemption. that is why i voted against it. i fell strongly that everyone to be disclosing the i feel

strongly that everyone should be disclosing who their donors -- i feel strongly that everyone should be disclosing who their donors are. he thought the citizens united ruling was just fine and that we did not need the disclosure. or we were together last week, he said he cannot give you an answer on whether that was good or not. he also says he is not read the health care bill. if you are going to go to congress, but to understand the issue and the bills. you have to make decisions. it has been out there for a long time. you better know about these very important issues. >> it has been brought to us

this audience, this question. how are we going to be able to go after china won the zero of them so much money? they have a lot of our debt -- when we showed them so much money? they have a lot of our debt in their hands. >> we certainly have to go after this. i have a plan that we are working on to attack that. we have to have a balanced budget. we have a sunset commission that will determine which programs are not working. we have to look at our entire budget including the department of defense. we have to continue to hold china and accountable for the roles that they agreed dumb. that is why we need to take them

in front of the international trade commission. that is why we need to go after them, for manipulating their currency that allows them to into our country. this is a pretty important subjects. these rare earths control 97% of the world's supply. japan does not have any natural supplies on their rock. an

these are very important products. china controls 97% of it. we have our own supply here. we have not mind since 2002, because china subsidizes that industry. irene is a sympathy beckon to that of industry to get it back up and going -- might industry put sympathy -- my group put sympathy back on that industry to get it up and going. >> thank you for repeating the question. i got lost in the answer. first of all, we do not have to worry about china and the debt that we owed china. china buys debt from the united states because it is a great investment for china.

the rules are the rules. we have allowed china to back door a lot of things because we have not had the stomach to go ahead and stand up and say stop. you cannot do it. when we talk about all of those things -- really, i thought that was a closing statement. when we talk about a balanced budget, this year, the revenue, $2.10 trillion, which is what we will taken as a government, the spends $3.50 trillion. i do not need a laptop for this. a $1.40 trillion deficit, if you put your hand up and say, i think that will work. i can do that in my business -- we have put ourselves in a bad situation by people who go to congress and make a decision among things they do not understand and vote on a $1 trillion bailout.

the third district is in the northwest corner of pennsylvania. >> this hour-long debate is held at allegheny college. it is incredible we can have that discussion. >> the number trying me.

this is an important issue. anything dealing with natural resources to not appear. how can we interpret that? >> we have technology out there that is cutting edge. protecting our environment is our first responsibility. we do have the technology out there. we have ways of doing almost everything that we're doing right now, whether it is mining coal or drilling for gas.

i think it can make a lot of sense. >> you spoke at length about environmental protections. you did vote against the energy bill. >> i broke ranks many times of my party because it would hurt the district economies in the third district.

not california, not florida, not iowa. i am representing western pennsylvania. we are so based on fossil fuels here. it would have been a very heavy economic burden on our industry. i have voted for so many wonderful pieces of legislation that will help move things along with cleaner environment for all of us. my opponent did not answer the question as to why he does not address this issue at all. he talks very little about these issues. i do truly wonder how much he really cares about this. i voted for the greatest increase in funding for the great lakes, to make sure the great lakes are protected. i have voted for protecting land throughout this country. i voted for a bill that reinvest in green energy technology. i know a lot about earth

conservation company. their project is just around the corner here. with the wreck center and the training center coming together on their campus to put in a new energy, cleaner lng-burning -- cleaner energy-burning heating unit. it is great because they were able to get many from the american recovery and reinvestment act. without that money, they would not have the money to save this community. that is what we did with the recovery and reinvestment act. .

>> one thing we would like to ask you about is bipartisanship. it is a matter who wins this election between the two of you. one of you will go to congress, maybe in the minority or maybe in the majority. what do you think about the possibility of bipartisanship going forward? would you be willing to work across the aisle with the opposite party? >> i have tried and have worked with the opposite party many times. i was surprised at how much both sides of the i'll try to tear you apart. we have great orientations for a couple of days and then they separate, republicans over here and democrats over there. it is the party leadership that continues to try to pull of support i go every morning to a bipartisan prayer breakfast.

it allows me to get to know members of congress in a very different way. when you going to a committee to work with them, you actually see the many different light. we need to have more things like that outside of the house floor. in my committee, we work very well together. i am on the science and technology committee. every bill that we have brought out of that committee has passed in a bipartisan nature. i mentioned a rare earth bill. i'm very proud. we passed that out of committee and bipartisan. it was passed 395 to 98. i will continue to find ways. do we have common ground? of course we do. i am a moderate. i was voted the eighth most moderate member of congress.

i work with those moderates all the republican side. there has been the constant call from republican leadership to keep their members in line, in tow, and not allow them room on any single piece of legislation that was on the agenda of anyone who might possibly have a v behind their name. >> that is interesting that you would be the eighth most moderate. you voted 94% of the time with yown piece of legislature ever passed, the most intrusive bill we have ever had, there was not one republican sign-on to it. when we talk about bipartisanship, it you do not invite them to the table, if you do not invite them to the debate, then how was that bipartisan? when you look at that voting record, it is not true what you

say. you may have grown up in northwest pennsylvania, but you sure vote like you were from san francisco. these are the kinds of things that make people wonder at the end of the day, if we're talking about bipartisanship, will we really be bipartisan? will we only be bipartisan while we're here? [booing] [applause] if we vote on the bills the do not mean as much, why did not -- you said that washington is broke. it may be so. i think the government is just fine. i think the people that we have elected and sent there to represent us have done a worse job. if you're watching bipartisanship, then invite the other party to the table. do not exclude them and then

make and the demons when things do not work out. >> if you were elected to work on democrats on legislation, is there anywhere that you would break ranks with the party? >> i cannot be that person now. i do not know. i'm not there yet. would there be issues? i would sure hope that there would be issues. but i would really hope that we would be built to have the debate over it an extra get invited to the table. what i see going on right now is the summit calls up because their houses on fire and two different fire departments show up and the debate over who has the right to put it out. in the meantime, the house burns down. we have seen a time after time on both sides of the aisle. i will never vote for legislation that for the people

that they were voted to represent. i will be going to represent them and their best interests and the best interest of this country, not my party. >> can i respond to that? >> republicans were invited to the table when we passed health care. in fact, there are 200 pieces of legislation that were republican ideas. we invited republicans to everything we have done and we invited a lot of people to be part of this. but will we do not appreciate is my opponent calling me a liar and that i am not telling the truth because i am telling the truth. [applause] we are about at the end of our time. we have 10 more minutes. we're doing a good job. thus continue 1. >> i have broken with my party on a number of things. first of all, i am pro-life. the majority of the members of

my party are pro-choice. i am pro-gun. the majority of the members of my party are not. i have broken with them on many different pieces of legislation and will continue to do that because i have two things that i love to. first of all, i look at my conscience. when i go to sleep a night, i want to be good with my god and with myself. third, what the big things for the people of the third district and the 60,000 people that i represent? >> ok, and john, from erie, rights there are a number people in the region were poor. what would you do in congress that would help the working poor this community? i believe it is mr. kelly first. >> i think it is me. >> the working poor in this region. >> when you talk about working poor, we're talking much of

again and the economy. as the economy improves, so would the wages. what could government do? the best answer is that the least the government is the best government. if we could get to a point where we are able to actually grow our businesses without being over-regulated or over-taxed, then we can go into training. in my business, every month, we reinvest in our people. we add on and we buy stuff that we have to buy to make it better. i would think that the same their attendance would be used in government, too. -- the same very tenanttenets would be used in government, too. it is unbelievable to me that come in the united states of america, there 15 million people that wake up every morning and have no place to go to work. and all we have talked about all the time is taxing, taxing,

taxing and spending, spending, spending. we have not addressed the very problems that keeping those businesses from growing. it is the government that has its foot on their threat. many people to go there who have a strong stomach and a strong backbone to do the things that need to be done. i will tell you right now, the hundred-pound gorilla -- the 800-pound gorilla in the room is spending. your party, the economy, we have to take a step back and do things that make sense, common sense, the same that you do in your home is coming your schools, in your churches. it is so basic. we have just gone away from it. we have allowed these other things to cloud our minds. >> one thing i would not do is extend the tax breaks for the millionaires and billionaires in this country. that will not help the working poor. but we need to do is give . . ucation you get.

this education needs to begin with our preschoolers, our youngest children. this -- they're beginning to realize how important it is that our youngest students are prepared for kindergarten. they will be much better student and all the way through to graduation. obviously, we need to reinvest in high-speed rail. >> if i am hearing this ride, the stimulus bill had to be rushed through. again, is probably one of those things. you voted for over $8 billion in

stimulus. unemployment was going to go to -- we have been hovering around 10%. the president said that the biggest flaw was that there were not enough schauble-ready projects. -- enough shovel-ready. you have to take a ride -- did did you have to take advantage of a crisis to -- this idea that you have to take advantage of a crisis to get things done. the stimulus is so overregulated. that did not work. it should never have happened. >> i will remind the candidates to address their comments directly to each other.

as you know, this is very informative. recent media reports across the country, in both parties, they have been very vague about what they would do about the debt. according to the cbo -- making bush tax cuts -- a government that is so overregulated, so over-taxed, and we just want to eliminate

the tax loopholes, why do you think these businesses are leaving this country. they are being penalized for staying here. we have to level the playing field. i am not saying anything about who we should tax and who should not tax. if i can pick your guess somebody else, we talk about only raising taxes on the wealthiest 2%. that makes it pretty good. but who determines who the wealthiest car? they are small businessmen. these are not the wealthiest out there. they are the job-treaters. creators. believe me, there's on a day that goes by that a company does not see me and says that we need funding. we need help. [unintelligible]

the answer is truly right there. it is not hard to see. we all know where it comes from and we know where we need to go. especially those times when you are standing on the edge of the abyss and there's nobody there to help you. but god. that is who i am. that is too high have always been. the reason i am running is because i could not said at a thanksgiving table or christmas table and look at my kids or my grandchildren and say, i knew it was bad and that it would not work, but i did not love you enough to provide for you. >> my life has always been guided by my strong faith. my faith in god. i have always been a person for whom family comes first. something that is difficult to hold on to.

but it is my family that helps me everyday and it has continued to move forward for this country because they have the support of the service that i have given over the last two years. i continue to be a person who is filled with compassion for all. for our seniors. i will not use scare tactics and untruths to scare our seniors. i care too much for them. my mom and dad died from cancer this year. my in-laws are still here. i would not vote for a piece of legislation that would hurt those people who i love so dearly. i would never vote on a piece of legislation that would hurt my children or my friends or neighbors or my constituents that this district. i was a scout once and they said, leave the place better than you found it. that is what i have always tried to do, whether it is my church, my children's school, my committee, or the third district

of pennsylvania. >> we will move on to closing. >> by calling toss, she will give us to her final words first. >> two years ago, we were losing 750,000 jobs a month. two years ago, we lost two 0.8 million jobs in 2008 we saw $17 trillion in savings, your retirement savings. we have seen 14 straight months of improvement in manufacturing numbers. we have seen 863,000 jobs created in the private sector

this year alone. we are on track to create more jobs than were created in the eight years of the last administration. if my opponent sounds like a career politician, it is because he is. he says he is against bailout, but he took a cash-for-concur money. he sold nearly $3 million worth of cars and pocketed the profits from that. when he sat on the butler city kelso, he raised taxes. he says he is against the stimulus, but he has asked for stimulus dollars for color. he says he is against outsourcing, but he will not sign on against a loophole that will send your jobs abroad. he says he will vote on the legislation that will extend the tax cuts for the millionaires and billionaires of this country. let me tell you. i'm tax cuts for the middle

class. i'm for tax cuts for small business. i am for making it in america again and going after in a country that uses unfair trade practices to go after our jobs. i'm here to protect seniors, social security, veterans, and the press -- and the promises we have made. and i want to continue to take this country down the right path for children and our grandchildren and continue to grow this district as a place where they can have the american dream. i ask for your vote in november. [applause]

as of the same claims she made two years ago. my question is where was that strong of mr. gearan told us, as mother and grandmother, that she was worried about the growing deficits and has transferred the step onto her children? you were worried as a candidate. you should be sick to your stomach as a legislator. you have from the disaffect -- the deficit to the point that it will break this country. i will never apologize for being a successful businessman, the same as your husband. that is how i feed my family. i do it every day of the week. [applause] and the same talking points you're hearing tonight in allegheny are being voiced by a democrat because it cannot talk about their record. that demonized their opponent.

>> please. [booing] >> where are we going? if you're really happy in the next two months and you can see this great success that the white house report has put up there, that is fine. deficits have grown off the charts and taxes have gone higher. a feature for your children that will not be there. it will not be the same, america -- it will not be the same america that we have. it will be totally different. who do you want representing you? what does one vote mean one vote for a congressman would have kept them in session and they

would have had to vote on a budget. where is that strong leader from the northwest that has your concerns. if that is the kind of leadership you want, that is where we're going.

>> we'll talk with thes hill reporter about how house incumbants are fairing this year. beginning live at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> c-span's local content vehicles are traveling the country. a look at the most closely contested house races in this year's elections >> it's good. it want down and you have nothing. >> i'm concerned about

employment, definitely. the auto industry has changed. michigan, jobs were plenty. we need to address that issue. >> unemployment is around 12%. the foreclose your rate has been horrible all over the state.

>> a lot of the jobs have been out sourced. we need to recover from that. >> serve moving out of state, arizona, sdags, dallas. and affecting me. i'm moving too because i can't get full time work.

>> for dpary peters, he is on the finance committee. he will bring back a loan program for businesses to set up and expand their businesses. >> i know obama care may get hurt.

>> we just have to keep working. the key thing is to get the message out. that's the challenge. >> jo it is a big republican year. if it had stayed even a little bit of the same as it was in 2008, he would have no problem getting elected at all.

he has no mravens to ask the president to come in and campaign for him. he has said, no, obama is not on the ballot. i'm on the ballot. it could well throw congress one way or another. if dpary peters was here, ifully expect them to take over in congress. >> traveling the country and visiting congressional districts. for more information on what the local content vehicles are up to, visit our website.

on c-span today, strategists preview next week's election and the south carolina governor's debate. jo just days to election day, follow the key debates and candidates on c-span. and follow on the c-span library. follow the page for twitter feed. through the weekend, we'll show loves campaign events and interview. follow c-span's election coverage through election day.

>> demo kra tick strategist and republican strategists talk. >> he should know.

here to prove nothing is uncontinue able is our a team political panel. jim is here. harold ford, new york's loss is our gain. thank you. howard kerr. the best analyst money can buy. he wrote the book on the spin cycle. welcome howie. >> and the clean up republican strategist, leslie san chez. welcome to our final political rumble. first, we have to hear from do you go. welcome. >> i'm the opening act this morning. ly do one sming that will be

appreciated. be brief. i'm going to summarize today the results of the 75-odd responses we got to our survey, which is if nothing else, food for thought. we wanted to assess people in your own fearless assessment. the mood of the country is a decidedly mixed one.

that being said, this is also a sense that things will get better. optimism the american people show is evidenced here. we asked a question that most surveys get a mixed answer this group said they would pay more taxes. a clear willingness to pay more.

will sarah palin get the nomination? 7% say yes. 78% say no. if we were in a republican audience, they'd give a different answer. >> who will control the house

16% say the republicans will. the republicans say they will. you are betting on divided government in america. only 19% say we'll be able to solve some of our problems thank

you very much. jo i'm exhausted of defending you and deeply disappointed about where we are right now. flu

>> shows you sng about where the country is right now. move that up a little bit. how is that? we are nine days outright now.

what kind of a hurricane are we looking at in november? a category 3 or 4 a category five which is a complete wipe out, history, something we have never seen before i think we are

looking at a category 4 right now. is there a chance it could be a 3? sure. the republican party right now is no more popular than the democratic party. there is some evidence that the in party closes slightly better somebody tell me the last time the house changed and the senate

didn't. >> that's true, it has also been more than 50 years you are working with research and the republic, is category four the last you have seen. we are much more positive thing. i will say that there's a lot of excitement not only in the number of seats but the amount of money that has been raised.

>> was this inevitable? >> something like this, where you see the turnover. the president comes in and faces his first midterm election. you have more than 9% unemployment or is there something president obama could have done to eliminate the damage. >> we live in a time when speed is so important. we fire football coaches if they don't win immediately. on one level, my party forgot a bit that the number one way you stand up to the middle class is to crow ate jobs.

the department is enjoying the benefits of it. jo are you saying the president made a mistake even though you put up healthcare on the board. no one las received or few people will say they could boy a car and pay for it in a couple years.

jo inside the white house, they place a lot of the blame for the failure of the country on the press. >> the one concession that the president and top aid makers could have done a better job. they don't make any apologizes for the policy choices they've made. that is an important question.

we are talking about the president here and cable host. people on twitter. it's a pretty large beast to use. >> i do think that there is attention, which we probably hadn't given the president enough credit. he got it done. the day after it was done, they wrote the second story. >> that's life. the white house seemed a little bit shel shocked about it. people don't know. they would say it is a failure

to tell familiar that, hey, we did this for you. this is not a very good political place to be >> we'll thank you for coming. we will pass the legislation to get the demand back. we are going to fix that crisis but we will demand the crack down on the bank. it may take us a while but we have a plan in place.

>> they put policy into people when reagan came in, we had the rate and roosevelt had fire side chats. he was explaining to people. bush would say he miss under estimated the severity of it.

the president has been out there for years. he's going on the view and the daily show this week the frustration i have with james is the future of a former press secretary. you know it will be a 6-9 month investment. that is going to get in the way

of everything else you are doing it's not how much you are out there. it's what you say when you are out there. i agree with most of those policies. individually, they are not bad policies. >> if we went back to the same tax rate, if we went under seige.

some of those thing that's have deviated there. i will tell you fundamentally, we see it differently this started with obama care and moved with the stimulus in terms of the house and senate how did

they skru this thing up so bad? maybe we need an idiot we have to be very, very careful there are voters out there with start willing numbers. people have asked. people said i'd rather go with the person with less experience

we ought to figure the people. if the separation of church and state wassen shrined and state law. >> a lot of that is the media coverage. the people in my profession she always seems to be saying something a lot of republicans and democrats again.

it's funny. i council a lot of women candidates and they say they don't want to be palinized. it's a verb now. but they don't want to be caught wide eyed and without an answer. i think they are trying to run their own campaign. >> how do you not, you run for president. you can't name one thing you read. you say you can see russia from alaska. you look like a million dollars. i can't get enough of sarah palin.

let's be honest. you can cover sarah palin or cover anybody else if you are running for an masterbation activist, that's different. >> have they taken what could be a historic vote they are not

running on the social issues. that is debated going back and forth. there is a strong appeal as they are floating voters. people under of the that appeal and the appeal of conservative and moderate women. >> a lot want a fresh perspective. throwing out a 48-seat pick up in the house. eight seats in the senate what would you count for president obama to say and do in the house and senate for congress to say and do after. >> the winning governor from across the country. i gave a speech before to say, look, i sat where you sat before

i have an open door with you and i want to work with you. we can only learn from our mistakes. i would use that moment that is a policy. he's not going to work well with bainer and the tea party. if they win 48 seats in the house, i think they win the senate. even if we find out selves in

fairness. >> you know, first of all, what really got to me. the question people had is that they are not staying. i don't know why he did that. i got the message, the country wants change i'm going to ask this or put it on the table. once they go back to get that proposal and come out. that we know. invite him in and say, i'll give him three weeks and come back. >> no leadership and no agenda forward. >> the public wants these.

once you put these on the table, they are not going to be able to put anything on the table. >> the best thing that he can do is be very, very, very political. you put it right back on the republicans and say, layout something we can react to. >> i don't think the public, we don't believe in the one party rule. >> anybody who doesn't feel that two years after the republicans haven't done any better, they are going to spin them out and start all over again. >> they want to look at the economy. republicans will realize and focus on the economy and job

creation. we keep hearing president obama rant on. in 2008, the public said they want to see more work together.

>> they don't like obama and they don't like taxes if not, you are right. the president will be reelected. >> that's true, the republicans can't be the default option, the word no against the obama agenda. >> it worked throughout 2009-2010. >> it's a short-term strategy that doesn't work. >> this is a redistricting time.

there is a lot right now. >> i'm still trying to figure out the magnitude of the hurricane that's going to happen >> and you ordered this count. i don't know who is going to turn out. what looked like the wave is really powered by the amount of people that stay home. i have looked at the ads. what message is each party and candidate trying to put out. even trying to be down here. . it's he's for obama and agains you.

you have democratics coming in and not talking about the budget or healthcare and going after republican candidates on a very personal basis. >> common. they are not doing that. >> negative ads on both sides. both sides use them. >> there is an ad in connecticut and i'm not saying it's not fair game. but i do say that they are not running on the main issues. >> the only thing we may all

agree on. >> >> with greenberg and pos. one hassan actual policy message. the white house message is wrong. they say the white house is wshging. i have listened to people get angry when they say that. if they had the right message, they could cut the losses a lot shorter. they don't have it. they say, look, we can't win where it is at. it's not like she wasn't there.

what you are saying is true. my point would be that there is a better message. >> you are tying that to the white house. what is preventing 200 democrats. >> sustak is running this type of campaign. he may not win but he's had the greatest improvement. definitely by the polls, has flipped that race. if the tea party campaign isn't so beefed up, why is there 15 in ohio and in kentucky.

if it is category five. >> in illinois, there is the similar thing. both those states, illinois and pennsylvania, should be solid blue, no controversy. >> yes. but this is a bad year for democra democrats. >> what's going to happen the day after is not going to play out over the year. it's immediate. congress will have to find out what to to do. every single american's taxes are going up on january 1. >> the one policy proposal that

democrats have that actually wins. you go back to the rate of people making over $400,000 a year. here in louisiana, it costs me nuts, it costs me over $50,000 a year to send my daughter to newman but she could go to lsu for free. they have this thing that if you have a b average, you go to school for free. that's nuts.

i think november 15, they will focus on the taxes cuts for the same reason. some democrats running are pledging to vote for it when they get back. >> a lot of people are counseling the president if that's the case. >> i'm not saying that's the right thing, i'm just saying. >> what would a veto be like? >> it would be like clinton. you have telecom reform, s chip. there's a positive model to look at. >> and some negative things.

we took some beatings on that one i wonder if he would take heat on that, he ran on that. i think he would take some heat. >> you have eight democrats. you come back and they have someone who wants. i'm not saying that's the right thing. >> first of all, it did not work. they passed the bush tax cuts. >> it was going to trickle down. from 2002-2007, what happened to incomes? they went down $2,000.

the only argue. you can make is that hey, i'm making more money, i'm going to keep more of the money i make. >> you can't make the argument in a downward market. are they going to go out and spend that money or put it in the bank? they'll put it in the bank. >> i think he does. hard to see right now. it all depends on the economy.

>> hard to say. >> i agree. i think so too. >> who has a question? >> my name is julie, i created a company creating jobs for freelancers. i live in the african-american dorms. the year that george w. won, it was a horrible evening. the year obama won, it was the proudest moment for me as an

american. isn't that an obvious part we are flirting around. >> i think it has nothing to do with it. if you have 10% unemployment, that's enough. >> every piece of polling i have seen suggests it's not a racial issue at all. >> i agree, i think that in the president were white, it would make no difference. i got a lot of people. i don't think his race is a primary factor. >> i don't either. if unemployment were at 7%, every gun toting white guy would be excited.

>> our senior senator are both women and three largest municipalities, black mayor of and black mayor and white mayor. take that, connecticut. >> i have covered technology. this is an innovation summit. i love the sports of politics. a lot of us here would agree, despite what these disagreements are, we can pretty much identify the major issues that can determine the long-term success and the income success of the average american. they have a lot to do with the company formation and things we have been talking about here.

my question is, despite how interesting and fun it is to talk about this inside like baseball stuff. i love to hear about christine o'donnell too by the way, it's very entertaining. when will the american electorate focus on the real issues to lead this country to prosperity in the face of global competition? >> this election is about some serious issues. no question as lot of these other matters. i partially blame the media, leaving aside christine o'donnell. what are the two things you know

about california. ? we have mesmerized by these little shiny things. you have to blame the candidates. they are trying to get themselves elected. they want to talk innovation and budget the media is driving that. that is one of the hardest conversations to have. it's rare that it was a national conversation. once you deal with the job's issue, the two are going together.

it does come from the outside putting pressure on these candidates. >> and what about innovation? no one ever stopped me on the street and said, hey, i'm sick of this innovation. it's not like there's an anti-innovation caucus is out there. >> when r this election and the last two have been about very big things. what should the role of the government be? should the government have a greater role in healthcare or not. what should the level of taxation and spending be? you don't have bigger questions and all of them are implemented in these debates.

>> if you let the banks just do what they want to do, like in 1998 when the invisible hand came up and slapped us in the face. >> this is george from new orleans. when james said he never stopped in the street to hear about innovation. of course not. the big deal is innovation, what is stopping it? number one banks loans and small businesses. there's an issue for you. when you say the tax benefits for the very rich, the $250,000

people. like those people all have two yachts. we know that's bull sh --. you don't know where the hell you are going. why is it going to work out in terms of cost. anybody considering taking a leap into the water. just the same, nobody ever asks you about innovation. >> we all think the lack of demand has something to do. >> we have a much greater stimulus package. we must have a second one. now with the reaction in congress, we are not going to go anywhere accept backwards. >> again, i'm all for innovation.

>> can we go back to sarah palin and how does her role in the campaign affect -- [inaudible] not just sarah palin but also hillary clinton. what happened in 2008 showing that she's can be viable candidates changed the landscape for political women and in this case for republican women. she would shine the light of the media's attention on these candidates; again rate a lot of influence. she fills a void of leadership

on the republican side. there's nobody on the left that matches her. there's nobody on the right that matches her in terms of drawing attention and raising money. because of that, she's an important voice and been on the presidential ticket, is she an important voice, yes. i believe she's moved into celebrity status. >> she is a potential for candidate and i'm not convinced she is going to run. is she a cultural and entertainment force as much as a political force at this point? >> there tends to be a certain pro protocol you adhere to. >> she states things every time

she tweets. you saw it in focus groups in 2004 and 2006. she is an application of that. >> i think she has transcendnd and become sarah palin inc. she has to decide if she wants to be a serious and stoodious candidate. i have yet to see those steps be taken. >> my name is mark from la. my dad is a producer. my therapist hears about it every week. i spent last weekend in illinois with the youngest member of congre

congress. i went with him to places a jewish kid from l.a. should never go. the one thing that doesn't get captured is that the response to obama is personally viseral for those who don't support him. i scratch my said and you look at the president of the united states, whether you agree with him or not, they are doing what they believe in. the response is so -- they hate him. they would come up with the congressman and this guy is 29 years old. we hate him, we need to you do this and that. the response to sarah palin is personal. why is that? i got to tell you. i was shocked. people would come up to the congressman and say he's taking away this and that.

>> in 1998, clinton in 1994, people would come to the airport screaming at him. >> even george w. bush. >> i know very little. i used to travel with john edwards, so believe me. >> but when i used to travel with the senator, people would come up and have their things, it was this personal thing. i couldn't believe how upset people were because it wasn't about -- it was like their entire livelihood is wrapped up into this one guy.