joke. they are making the point that people should not take these guys seriously. host: you can watch and judge for yourself starting at noon today. that is it for "washington journal." at the rally to restore sanity and/or fear starting at noon. we will see you tomorrow. have a good day. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] . .

>> in political news. john mccain has endorsed sharon angle. tuesday's election will change america. across town, senate democratic leader, harry reid was campaigning. the latest polls show class senate race there. with a ten point lead over joe

miller. the democratic candidate is trailing. scott mcadams says he's twice the man but fighter for alaska. now the final televised debate between pennsylvania's senate, pat toomey and joe sestak. it's being moderated by it's news anchor >> decision 2010. the senate debate starts now >> good evening everyone. good to have you with us. arlen speckter is not longer going to be the encum went. this is the sect depate between

the republican pat toomey of allentown, pennsylvania and democrat joe sestak. congress man sestak will lead off by both. minute for questions. they will come from he as well as wpxi's facebook page and we sent a camera and got video you also. let's get things started. we begin with congressman joe sestak. thanks for tonight's debate. we know the challenges of nation. we have two men with different sets of values to approach these

values. he believes the answer can be found by giving breaks to large corporations. but with consequences for the middle class for us. mine come from 31 years of serving in the u.s. military. where we bleed problem solvers. with practical solutions. want to focus approximate small businesses and the middle class by driving wealth up. i am standing here tonight party. i believe my party put politics over principle. i want to be an independent representative of pennsylvania where principle will always triumph over politics. that's the choice we have. >> thank you. >> thanks david and wpxi. thank you, joe for being here.

i got into this race because i'm concerned and this federal government is is taking us down the wrong path, a path of way too much government. look at what we have seen over the last 18 months. nationalizing whole industries. could never imagine, government-run healthcare. is it any wonder we're not creating jobs? for every testimony and it hasn't gone far enough. he's to the left of nancy pelosi. we need to limit of the size offed government, got spends under control and encourage job growth to have the recovery we

need >> all right. there toomey, you took one of words i'm going to open with in this question. that's extremist. i want to talk about the party labels or the ones you give yourself, you give one another, the differences between you. let me start with you mr. toomey. you say you're a conservative? >> right. >> and he's a liberal. >> right >> congressman sestak. with that? >> absolutely, i do agree he's on the fringe of his party. i know hundreds of fellow admirals. i yet to meet one being a liberal. we believe when you're on the afghanistan, like i was. we breed are problem solvers. so when i got to washington, we had to clean up a mess that had

been put in place a few years earlier by congressman toomey and his party. i understand these labels. but that's political rhetoric >> so you reject liberal for yourself? you do not call yourself a liberal? >> according to the "national journal". i'm smack dab in the middle of a democratic party. held attack ads of moderate republicans trying to kick out of his own party, those that are mainstream. how can you work with the rest that senate isn't working now. >> is liberal a bad word?

>> no. >> that means, remember, i had to stand up to that to get here tonight. >> the only time, joe, he stood up to the party was to promote his political career. it might be joe is certainly the most liberal admiral. maybe the only one. during the primary campaign >> he described himself with with a liberal vote. nancy pelosi 100% of the time. every time that president obama and nancy pelosi wanted. he voted for stimulus bill. don't have. he voted for every single fail

out. even have a majority members of the house voted against it. he introduced his own bail-out bill to have underwater mortgages under cap-and-trade. it would ruin pennsylvania in general, but particularly devastate to go western pennsylvania. joe voted for it and said it didn't go far enough. >> i'm going to let you go back to that. >> you use the word "extreme". do you believe he's extreme? let me make it clear. >> can congressman toomey is extreme on the policies. he wants to eliminate all taxs from corporations. buying american is an

unfortunate tendency. in america, you close your factory and fire your workers and invest? a factory in china, your profits aren't taxed. he calls it a gift to us. creative destruction. hundreds and thousands of jobs will be lost. >> that's extreme. >> there's no question. i mean, joe is well to the left >> extreme is an extreme word. >> and constantly chosen because it's appropriate. >> i recommend people buy my book. and talks about how limited government leads to prosperity. joe knows because it's on my

website, i think we should lower the highest. second highest only to japan. we would be able to compete with our trading partners. then america becomes a less competitive place. we will lose a lot of jobs when companies go overseas. >> let's talk about the stimulus and whether you think it's working. mr. toomey, i will start with you. i think i know the answer. why do you think it's not work something >> it's been well over a year >> the president hasn't been in office that long. >> he's been there a year and a half. rate would never go over 8%. in fact, it went over 10%.

>> this was a flawed concept. borrowing and spending federal fallacy. they are taking money out of private sector and allowing the government to spend it. there's $31 million to build a spring training facility for the colorado rockies. i'm a big baseball guy and counting on the phillies to make it to the world series. how about the owners pay it? there's 11 and a half million dollars for microsoft to build a bring. joe sestak voted for that bill and probably the only guy in america that thought it should have been a trillion dollars. rather than spend $800 billion.

for workers and matching employer share. every worker would will have had a take-home pay raise. every employer would if you understand it less expensive to find and keep workers. you voted for it, unemployment still high. what do you think. assuming you think it's working and heading in the right direction. defend it. >> i arrived in congress the year the recession began. we were heading in a recession and mr. bush called us to help. during the vietnam area. i was damage control officer. we had to control the damage. in the last six months, we lost 3 million americans lost their jobs. we lost another 3 million. months, we

indica created a million jobs. this is my 90 jobs. economists says 8 million more would have lost their jobs. a 15% tax credit. i wanted to help republicans focus on small washington. mind you, 66% of all corporations pay no taxes already. how can you about below 0? everyone watching tonight paying

companies. if you actually invest in china and re-invest your money there, your profits aren't even taxed. that's quite an extreme policy. >> gentlemen, i mentioned before, we have questions from videotape. we took a camera to the streets of pittsburgh. >> i am yvonna, what your stance on shell drilling? are you for or against it. >> mercells and shale drilling. >> not just are you for or against it. but taxes it in any way. >> i will start with you, mr. toomey. >> we have a serious national

energy challenge. we have had it for a long time. we have an opportunity to do something that i think is very exciting with the natural gas in marcellis shale. in f you add up the energy in the gas. saudi arabia. penn state did a study on this and the development of natural gas in the shale could generate a quarter of a million jobs here in pennsylvania. it's not just the development gas itself. although that's part of it, but it's the entire industrys to need to locate year natural gas. it's the biggest economic opportunity for pennsylvania in

100 years. we need to do this in a responsible way with. we can do this. i took it upon myself to meet with the secretary of pennsylvania environmental protection to get his input on challenges. we know how to do this in a way that's responsible. we have to make sure the dep has the manpower to regulate this properly. takes the view of a complete moratorium. no other politician calls for this. this is an example of how extreme joe is. >> before you answer, congressman. would you tax it? >> that's a decision for harrisburg. that's a common presume. >> do you believe?

>> that's a decision for harrisburg. >> it's not a decision for me. >> marcellis shale. should it be taxed? >> if i know, congressman randel want to do it. patrolled those oil lanes. i am tired of sending men and women overseas to protect our oil. that's what this is about. do we need to drill? you bet we do. a boom. let's do it right first. that's how i learned to do that in the navy. seven counties have had their water contaminated. they are not allowed to know the

chemicals pouring into this place. they can do new drilling for the wells we have. more we do more, let's get it right and make sure we know what they're pouring into before more are drilled. 15 states with the the largest natural gas in america do put a 5% or more tax on it. tax. alleviate their tax burden to repair those. so what i want to do is make sure that if congressman toomey eerie. let's make sure we pennsylvanians take advantage. >> quickly. >> i never said we should drill in lake eerie. this shows how joe is more extreme and well to the left of

the entire democrats in pennsylvania. he thinks the epa should have an overlay in addition to the dep and calls for a complete moratorium on the biggest potential job creator in a hundred years. >> what i want to make sure. >> quickly for you too. >> let's make sure our community colleges train them. it, right >> let's go to our first facebook question. what makes you more qualified than your opponent? congressman. with you. >> i appreciate the response congressman toomey has. we need to understand the values of mainstream pennsylvania. congressman toomey supports any program that helps corporations

that helps wall street. i believe he should support program that is actually support pennsylvanians. they drive thing forward. what i learned in the u.s. military, to work across the aisle. the independent mayor from new york city to endorse me. i was taken with those endorsements, david. u.s. military where you learn about accountability. i ran for the democratic nomination. it's not about my job. but the people and making sure their jobs are taken care of. accountability and make sure we refocus washington d.c. on pennsylvanians, not special interest groups. >> congressman, thank you.

mr. toomey, what makes you more qualified. >> well, i think it's the sum of my life experiences. i was born into a blue collar working family. we didn't have much growing up as kids, but still a really close family. it was a wonderful upbringing. i was a lucky kid, able to go to a good school. i started a small business with allentown. this is a time we need somebody in washington who understands that expressive taxes will actually hurt our ability to >> we have a huge budget

deficit. in taxes, tax hikes, tax cuts, budget cuts, mr. toomey, let me start with you. what taxes would you like to have cut? >> i will get to budget in a second. >> be specific about which taxes you would like cut. >> there's two challenges. one is generating maximum growth to bring people back to work. i mentioned my dad was a union worker. there was a time when the union called a strike. those were times of enormous the family. he knew he would have a job to go back. my heart goes out to those people that don't have a job to go back to. it's got to come from the

sector. higher taxes will inhibit our way to do so >> i understand that. >> i will get to it, dave. >> make the 2003 tax cuts permanent for everyone. joe acknowledged, raising taxes during hard times is a bad thing. i have two exceptions to extending the 2003 tax cuts. i would take the corporate tax rate at 35% and lower to 25%. i would also lower the capital gains. the president has acknowledged. board >> would you cut taxes? if so, which ones? >> taxes reflect your values.

washington has to change its view on taxes. voted those taxes to profits in china don't have to be taxed, what i would do is 0 capital gains tax. if you invest in a small business. because small business creates 80% of jobs. not large corporations that are given loopholes like congressman toomey if we gave a tax credit, we create 5 million jobs in two years. i never got to use my doctorate until i got in congress. in the the navy, i never needed it. vote again a german that gave a 210 to 210 tie.

the speaker of the house had to come to the house to break the tie. the majority leader of the house said. let's at least get the middle tax cuts through. not unless the top 1% get those cuts >> joe was an advocate of cutting taxes. joe has no experience in business and doesn't understand the consequences of bad policies he has been proposing. he doesn't realize that all the budget damage they have done to your economic environment, that effort to throw a nickel is never going to offset it. costs. the threats of higher energy

cost because of the huge energy tax he advocates. when small businesses are faced with those threats and costs, a to hire a worker is not going to have. this is where it helps to have experience in business to understand how it would affect entrepreneurs. >> you say you would cut taxes. >> let's keep in mind. when congressman toomey was in congress. he slashed the loans in half and voted there needed to be a 3000 there is fee and those loans got cut dramatically. when congress toomey said he invested in a small business. he was working for a chinese

china. he said. i never had my hands in business. >> joe knows what it is. what it is, i had three establishments. the responsibility of management to my brothers while i worked every day growing and managing the other establishments. one was run by my brothers. he knows very well, i was in there creating jobs and running my restaurants. how do we get this economy moving again? the problem is the weight joe is imposing through these failed policies, take the bail outs. they didn't go to small business. they went to giant banks. i was opposed to all of that.

joe voted for them. >> i'm going to move on. hold on. question. >> all right. you vote in favor of some type of tax cuts. they are great. >> that's not true >> joe is in favor of a net tax increase you're going to reduce the deficit, you have to cut programs, you must have in mind and problems. i know you are chomping at the bit. or we're not going to cut this deficit. >> thanks, dave. look. first off, what's most important and i voted for and actually got back into law was the government that had to live within its means. you want a new program? cut another one? congressman toomey voted to rip

that out and throw it out the window in 2001. the largest surplus appeared. the largest deficit in america. he went on television and said. deficits aren't important. that is fact. we also need caps on discretionary spending. suppresser to prioritize. congressman toomey said. >> cut, cut you mean. >> he voted against the veterans administration. the f 22. we shouldn't buy anymore. there's no more soviet union. i'm the only one up here who has an example of cost cutting. $7 billion war fare program.

only 65 c.e.o.s had this kind of value. the navy couldn't afford these submarines. we cut them and balanced the budget. byrd's scholarships. those are duplicative. they tend to go to those that aren't needing. there's a smart and practical way. and cut tax and government. what is he going to cut? >> all right >> this is amazing. joe voted for every single bail out. introduced additional bail out that is would cost still more deficit spending. and giant omnibus spending. this is unbelievable. let's talk about deficits. in the six years i was in the

house, which ended six years ago, joe is voting for deficits each year are roughly 10% of our economy. 15 times bigger. trillion dollar deficits. this is dangerous for our economic system. >> give me an idea of what you would cut? >> i would cut the bail outs. part of bail out. earmarks are a wasteful practice. it's for politicians trying to bribe their own money. they hand out a check and get's photo op. >> joe. >> let me tell you, they were 123 opportunities for joe to

strip out this wasteful spending. this is no effort to rein in spending. >> arlen speckter is known to check. >> a lot of pennsylvanians wouldn't be happy with this. we are spending way too much money. >> as much as it may hurt. >> when we have a budget under control. order, they will be much better off than these bridges to normal. >> it's interesting. of course he doesn't want the remaining of the stimulus to continue. the bulk, heavy bulk of that. middle class tax cuts. he said, what he have done.

given them to the corporation. eliminate all of them. when 66% already pay and u.s. taxes. if i could. i'm the only one up here to have legislation to end earmarks. here's the issue, we have to control our spending. i voted for that law that put the requirement back in if you want a new program, cut another one. during the bush/toomey era. with the slowest growth since 2002. no jobs created. era. we had the largest expansion in 23 million jobs we have done. congressman toomey removed the requirement that a government had to cut a program if you want another one. now in election, all of a

sudden, he thinks we should control spending. he took over club for growth. the former president said. they worked to charge the republican party to a pro-deficit spending party. we should invest. >> we're going to have to move on >> to pay for it, he says, we should borrow from china. >> okay. >> you made that point before. >> this is, this is -- this is going to have to be quick. >> let me be clear. >> what joe has done with earmarks is unbelievable. he took a pledge and said. take a pledge. then the philadelphia inquirer found out he took a huge pledge. he said. i only meant during a limited

period of time. you know what he said. he said. i never really meant for the pledge to be public. then the house passed a rule that said, that we the democrats would only seek earmarks for nonprofits. joe did $350,000 nonprofit and funneled it to a for profit. this is a terrible, absolutely -- >> once again. congressman toomey, can't you tell the truth? i went to congress. the only congressman that published any appropriations. if i president of a corporation or company or university came to me without telling anyone, if he came, like president of the school. i couldn't take it. but his professor who gave $300

from the an -- some departments we took it. we has yet to publish like i it. the club for growth. took millions of dollars and bonuses from wall street. now they are funneling his campaign. the influence of money. my point, we don't want a senator from wall street >> i am going to get to our next videotape question. which has to do with cuts. question number two, role that tape. >> my name is larry cullins. i live to the north side. my question is, why is that it seeps to be the neighborhoods for the services that don't have cars

and access to different type was services are the ones that have their bus services cuts the most >> speaking specifically about bus services but other local services as well. >> thank you. been to north side many times. john f kennedy said. to neglect our cities is to neglect america. pittsburgh has lost much of its population. that's because they haven't had small businesses. let me give you an example. congressman toomey said. when said about the steel industry that was so strong right here in pittsburgh. said.

they went bankrupt because of their own self-afflicted wounds. then as a lobbyist. took a petition to the senate asking them to sign up opposing tariffs against china. >> i am going to interrupt, i would like you to answer the questions specifically. this is just an hour. it's flying by. >> the question was, why do certain neighborhoods appear to get less than others, the ones that perhaps need it the most? >> if we could have, for example, as my legislation does and these neighborhoods who are often of those who are the business enterprise centers, for example. should be associated with those types of minority-serving

institutions. only two of them are across the nation. with minority-serving institutions. transportation. you're right. in order to get our people to places where they can work. >> all right, congressman. mr. toomey. >> i would just say. i'm sympathetic to that question. i think it speaks to just the incredible inefficiency of government. earmarks are a great example. we tie up resources with earmarking than politicians go around and decide which favorite constituency is going to get the money. quite typically, it won't be the neighborhood that needs it. but based on political interest. a much better approach is to categories with merit and allocate that money to

states and let states and local officials, closest to the problems who best understand go. >> facebook question number two. do you think the markets have extended higher unemployment rates. >> this is kind, this is the mind set of joe. he's voting? lock step with nancy pelosi. his only criticism is she doesn't go as far. i advocated a different approach. instead of just growing government and putting

control. let's have an across the board payroll taxes. we could have cut payroll taxes in half for about three years. every single worker would have take-home pay raise. every employer would have found is less expensive to hire the next worker. that would have been a much more constructive way to deal with it >> congressman. >> thanks, david. let's look at the stimulus bill. another 8 million americans would have lost their job. unemployment would be over 11% today. 1 third of the stimulus went to tax cuts for the middle class. not corporations and the lower income. 1 third went to unemployment. congressman toomey voted against that.

they slammed apart in their lives. for job creation. i wanted to work with republicans. my party needs to understand, business is a good word when you of it. if we put that tax credit. we would have 5 million jobs today. it's a matter of looking at it pragmatically. did it help? yes it did. was it something i wanted congress to do? no. but it was something to where we had been torpedoed. the ship was sinking. 700,000 jobs a month were being lost. >> and to the control room. i need to get to the last two videotape questions. i time has flown here. i will do that now.

then i will ask a couple quick answers. you. from facebook. what is your most obviously fault and biggest strength. congressman sestak. >> i try to do too much. congress, i went there and they said. you're going to the intelligence agency. i asked to get out of that and get if the education committee. it's the key to the future. then i asked for a waiver to get out of a third commitment. my greatest asset. my wife. >> well done. >> we'll go to dinner tonight

and i love her. it's what i learned in the u.s. military. i learned you're not just responsible for what you're supposed to do. accountable. those were tough votes. when a father walks up to the boy and says, he's not going to able to go to the college they want. those jobs we lost weren't just jobs, they were fathers and mothers. so i'm willing to be held accountable. >> you try to do too much and your wife. >> on the plus side. your wife >> and your biggest strength. >> my biggest fault, i try to keep a lot of balls in the area and get distracted.

it's important to keep focused on what's really important >> you gave the same answer. >> you try to do too much. >> no question that my wife is my biggest aset. on a personal level, one of my one of things i discovered, working hard to grow this business. if we did our very best, and worked as hard as we could. competitive. that gave me a sense of humility. >> let's go to our last videotape question. let's listen to that right now >> hi my name is denyce. i grew up in the middle east. where theirs no separation between church and state. do you think that religion should play or be involved in

our government? >> did you hear that? should religion play a role or be involved in government? she grew up in the middle east where there's no separation. >> the role of religion in government, sir. >> i mean, one of the really great strengths of united states the very first amendment has the establishment clause. that's a vital part of our constitutional system. our history and our tradition. but it doesn't mean that we have americans of people of faith. our judea-christian. it forms the base of many of our laws and sometimes i think there's a tendency to deny faith

and religion entirely. i don't think that's what the establishment clause means. for instance, i'm a big believer we should offer every child the opportunity to attend any can school their parent chooses for them. now, i happen to believe that parents ought to be able to religious or non-religious. that's not a violation of establishing a state church. i would like our tax dollars to follow the child to the school of their choice >> congressman. thanks, david. i also agree. it's right about the constitution. there's a separation of church and state. there's extreme candidates like the one in delaware. that thinks there should be a

state-mandated religion the congressman, however, if you can't be in the navy, i have the next best job. i go to church or synagogue or mosque. i have been to one every week. i do that because i find good -- servants are good leaders. how can we work together? with faith-based groups. churches, congregations, others to solve our problem. if i believe something. want to work together to resolve those issues. that's why i make it a big part. of working with other faiths to bring them together to make sure we focus on our community.

>> you mentioned o'donnell and pelosi. i want to ask you about your ads. do you hear from the voters, opinions on your ads? >> sure >> what do you hear? >> um, most people i hear from like our ads. >> you need to be in a room with me. >> no. i understand. i don't hear that. i'm not picking on you or you. in general, >> look. i'm joking in all seriousness. the tone was campaign is unfortunate. campaigns in general and this one in particular. i had hoped that we would be able to have a more substantive discussion. the first ad, i ran had a of me and joe sestak. two good men with different views. my ads focused on the big views.

joe has an extreme view of expanding government and following nancy pelosi. i think we need less government. less spending and lower taxes. we have different views. i hoped we would have stuck to these policy decisions >> unfortunately, joe has gone another way. >> congressman toomey said it well in his book. casualty >> correct the tone of the campaign >> if you remember, right after the primary. congressman toomey put up ads. ads until late

summer. his ad said i voted against all insurance plans. how wrong that was. my daughter, who has brain cancer would have last her healthcare plan if i had done this. i don't think either of us should be pointing at one another. what i know is this. >> too late for that >> i have great faith in pennsylvanians. they are the most common. sensical peop, what we want sho somebody. when you break through. it. who's going to on their side >> could you ever foresee running again and running ads that say, here's what i plan to do and not attacking?

perfectly legitimate to run ads to show the contrast on policy. i don't think it's right to run ads to smear a person's character or distort their background. dishonest in any way. i think it's okay for one person that wants lower taxes and the other doesn't. the way this has to work. >> you understand people think it's negative. they don't like it. >> it's when the ads on issues are false. look. congressman toomey has a person is a good guy. i had a beer with him. i sent out a press release. would like to debate you. we debated and had a beer together.

you're right. ads should be true >> all right. >> and called him and said. thank you. >> one more question. quick answer. we're running out of town. gun laws, do you like where they are? would you like to see more or less? >> i think it's a fundamental right. it's spelled out in the constitution. that's high up in the bill of rights. frankly, i'm glad to have the endorsement of the nra. joe and i disagree on that. joe has an f from them. make sure we have laws in place to make sure any dangerous person

is not able to obtain a weapon. i think we're good right now. >> all right. >> but i think we're about now. sir. >> yeah, david. i lived my entire military career with respects. i know how to use them and i know how they should be used. i have defended the second amendment for 31 years. those hunters that go out. whether for hunting or recreation must be able to have that right always protected. but i also know, if the federal order of the police said. back in the '90s. when military assault weapons

law enforcement officers, murdered dropped. i don't agree with gun control can be expressed by a steady aim. i believe criminals have steady aim. never get a gun. >> you wouldn't add gun control laws? >> well, i would will just observe, i'm am candidate with the endorsement the state troopers. my record in supporting the second amendment and law enforcement and being tough on crime. quickly. >> i also have the endorsement. so, look. they supported what i said. >> time for closing statements >> thank you all for tonight. and thank you, pat. two days ago. we stood in the national

us were the words, the constitutional words. "we the people". not we the corporations. i really believe it's so important to remember it's about to do people. i honestly believe as i went roads of pennsylvania, if you really invest in the middle class, the people and let small businesses prosper. america. watch out china. i loved being in the military and i loved serving again after the nation helped my daughter. i ask you to come out and vote. no matter who you vote for. to honor those men and women who i left overseas, who are serving our nation in war today. come out and vote in honor

>> thank you. >> thank you. your closing statement >> thank you. joe. i believe our federal government off on the wrong track. joe sestak supported nationalizing whole industries. a staggering amount of spending. cap-and-trade energy tax. car check. government-run healthcare. the combined weight of this agenda and joe sestak argued it should go further. i am very bullish on america. i believe we can have a strong recovery. restore prosperity. we will do it with job growth in the private sect or. we have to get spending under control, which is not under control now and have lower taxes to maximize incentives for people to work. i appreciate your vote to turn things around and have the

prosperi prosperity. >> pat toomey and joe sestak. to vote. thanks for the folks that wrote in on facebook and the videotape. election day drawing near. don't forget to vote. thank you for watching. later tonight. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> president obama will be in pennsylvania today. the president will stop in philadelphia before heading to connecticut and chicago to appear at events for various candidates. we plan to show you his remarks tonight on c-span. charles baker was on a four stop bus trip. :

the debate was held that dominican university and was moderated by nbc news's tom brokaw. this runs one hour. >> live from dominican university in california. tom brokaw.

>> the evening from dominican university in california. welcome to the third and final debate before 2010, the race for governor. it is a crucial election for this state and nation. the winner of this race will face daunting issues on the economy, jobs, budget, pension, immigration, and health care. tonight, we will get answers on of those topics and more. from the democratic candidate, attorney-general jerry brown, and in the republican candidate, former ebay ceo, meg whitman. rebuttals and follow ups will be allowed at my discretion. they will last for 30 seconds. there is a great deal of ground to cover. the candidates have agreed to forgo opening statements.

the coin toss was held to determine who will get the first question. that will go to meg whitman. jerry brown will get the last question. welcome to both of you. nice to have you with us. let me remind you of something that i know you were familiar with that one point, 50 years ago this january, john f. kennedy said, "ask not what you -- what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. modern campaigns spend most of their time telling voters what they can do for them. i would like for you to say to the voters of california, "as citizens of this state this is what you must do for california at this crucial time." ms. whitman, you may begin. >> think you to dominican

university and thank you to year, tom. i am delighted to be here tonight. i will start by telling you why i came to california. 30 years ago, my husband and i moved here as newlyweds. i wanted to be in business and he wanted to be a doctor. we wanted to raise our family here because everything is possible. i ended up running one of the great internet success stories and lived the california dream. i do not think by story would be possible in the really any other country in the world and maybe not in any other state. today, i see that the california dream is broken and not everyone has the chance to live their lives, raise their children, send their kids to public schools, be successful doing everything they love. that is why i am running for governor of california. what people are going back to do is support the next governor in making very important trade-

offs. we have a government we can no longer afford. we spend more money than we take in. there will be tough tradeoffs that everyone will have to make to get california back on track. if we do that, we have a credible -- an incredible opportunity. this is a great state with tremendous people, more compassion, courage, and what we can do together none of us can do alone. there will have to be some shared sacrifice. >> mr. brown? >> i would like to thank the dominican university and you, tom brokaw. i would tell the people of california that we do have to make some tough decisions. we have to live within our

means. we cannot point the finger. we cannot scapegoat whether it is government employees or the opposite political party. we're going to have to rise above this poisonous partisanship whether our identities be ethnic, gender, partisan, religious, and we really have to think as californians first. we are a great state and we have tremendous potential. while some people think it is some kind of a failed state, it is not. last year, the bove created by these people equaled $1.80 trillion which of more than most of the other countries in the world. this is a fabulous place with a great environment. i love california and i have lived your all my life.

i have the know-how and the experience. >> ms. whitman, in june of this year the fuel organization polled the voters in california and 40% said you could cut the state budget by 20% and not affect the services they have gotten used to. to make that kind of a cut you'd have to give up the prison system, transportation, and welfare. have the voters of california become utterly unrealistic about the reality as a result of the year after year deficits and crawling to the finish line in the budget process? >> the voters in california have the right instincts. they know the government is not run effectively. the first thing we need to do is put californians back to work. for families, the solution is a job. we have to get the californians

back to work. i have identified $15 billion worth of savings that if we achieve them, it will make california a stronger, not weaker. we need fewer people working in the government. we need to use technology to do more with less. we need two very tough reforms, the first is the pension system. the taxpayers of california cannot afford that program anymore. the taxpayers of california zero more money than they can afford the pay. we have to reform welfare. we have become the welfare state. 12% of the population lives here and we have 32% of the welfare cases. it is not the right thing for our budget, but it is really not the right thing for our community. we need to run the government

more efficiently and effectively. the bay bridge is an example. from san francisco and oakland, the repairs were supposed to cost $1 billion and it cost $4 billion. over budget is not acceptable. the parties blame the traveler. >> have the voters in california become unrealistic based on the polling? >> we do not like to face the tough choices. all long time ago, the government was facing an era of limits. the misinterpreted, they denied it, but it is true. we have to recognize them. we make choices and choose one thing over another. i have decided that the budget process has to start, not in early january, but i want to

start this process in november, a few weeks after the election. i want to do it in the sacramento with all legislators then go to southern california. i want to go to the central valley. i want to go to san diego. by what the people in this state to reflect on what they are doing. how much does it cost? how much will they pay for it? we are suffering from the gap which was caused not only by too much spending but also by the wall street meltdown and an ability to regulate the banks, mortgage comes down artists, people fighting with me as attorney general, and we have received a lot of good judgment. here we are. i think caltech said there were $18 billion in possible fraud and abuse. we need to dig in where we can and those of the top should cut first.

of the by example. i will do that if i'm the next governor. >> ms. whitman, let me raise what has become a holy grail in this state, proposition 13. i was here when it was passed and put the limit on property taxes. a lot of people see them as a boulder road to reform and others do see it as a sacred part of the california tax code. can you go forward and achieve the goals that you have outlined without reforming elaine -- without reforming proposition 13? >> proposition 13 is essential to the future of california. i want to defend proposition 13. what it does is to keep a lid on property taxes. i was in the home of an older woman who was able to stay in her home after her husband had

died two years ago because of property taxes being lowered. but if they had escalated without proposition 13, they would have been $6,000 more per year. one reason i am running is to defend proposition 13. the only way is to create more jobs. the more jobs there are, more companies are paying taxes, more individuals paying taxes. the only way we can do that is to reduce taxes comment streamline our regulations which aired -- reduce taxes, streamline regulations which are strangling. it is not ok that big companies are leaving california for neighboring states. for example, the headquarters of a health-care services company in los angeles announced they were moving to denver, colorado. it is easier to do business in

neighboring states. we need to compete for those jobs by having competitive tax rates. we need to get the stop sign out of their way. doing business in california will just be harder. >> mr. brown, is proposition 13 sacrosanct? >> there are no sacred cows over the long term. i support the implementation and the author of proposition 13 voted for me and did a campaign commercial because he said even though while he created 13, i was the one he made it work. i built up a $5 billion surplus which would continue when i am a governor. i held down spending. the actual business side of home ownership is contributing about the same in taxes.

we have got to find these tough decisions. the state took over more and more power, micromanaging schools, of putting more control the cities and counties and special districts. i would do my utmost to return authority in decision making to local communities. finally one thing i would not do is totally eliminate the capital gains tax. that tax benefits multimillionaire's and billionaires. it would add $5 billion to $10 billion to our budget deficit. >> the first opportunity for a rebuttal. >> thank you.

the capital gains tax, the one he likes so much, is a tax on jobs, job creation, and investment. we compete with three other states, washington, texas, and nevada. if we eliminate the capital gains tax, you will see more jobs, more businesses, more tax revenues so we can invest in the things we want to invest in. we are not competitive with neighboring states. tax cuts are a big part of my plan. >> 82% of the benefit of the tax break will go to people making $500,000 per year and there is not one guarantee they will spend that money in california. ms. whitman, how much money will you say if the tax rate went into effect this year last year? [applause]

>> i am an investor. investors will benefit, but so will job creator. i was a job creator. we have got to get someone in office who knows what the conditions are for small businesses to grow and thrive. my business is creating jobs and your business is politics. you have been doing this for 40 years and you have been a part of the war on jobs in this state for 40 years. you have increased regulations, increased taxes, and have made it more difficult for small businesses to grow and thrive here. >> those statements are demonstrably false. taxes went down when i was governor $4 billion. jobs were up 4.9 million. i have not been in the state government in sacramento for 28 years. there have been the three republicans and one governor.

you can call los pulte -- call those people to account. [applause] >> let me move on to another subject, if i can. >> i need to answer that, if that is okay? what you just heard is a classic politician answer. it is a half answer and therefore dishonest. jerry brown talks about creating all of these jobs, but unemployment nearly doubled to what was then a record 11%. this is the kind of half answer and the reason people do not trust politicians. spending went up 120% direct -- during your tenure. that is the record and you need to be accountable for that record. >> two points. talk about half answers.

i will get to that later. we have something called the business cycle. you are a businesswoman and you would know all about it. we have come back. we always come back. we created new jobs and we are in a recession. two years later, california is booming again. we will make the tough decisions and live within our means. >> now i will engage in a fact check. this was in the middle of the ronald reagan recession. there were four republican states, illinois, ohio, michigan -- indiana, and then tennessee. they have higher unemployment rates at that time because of the recession.

it took 100 days for the legislative and the governor to agree on a "smoke and mirrors budget." the numbers simply do not hold up. you say the process is the plan and you have outlined is something very similar to what they have just done to get to a balanced budget. this undermines any authenticity of to the plan you want to put forward. >> tom, that is a good question. first of all, i do not have to learn on the job. i have done this eight times. my plan is to not have the governor presented a budget in january and everyone sits around to june and then get serious. i am talking about two weeks after the election, i believe

the next governor should call the 120 legislators into the room and start going over the budget in detail. then we will work in november, december qana in january. -- december, and january. i think we need to articulate what we want in our schools, prisons, highways, water works. i think that needs conversation not the fund-raising, give banks, perks. that is the status quo. i want something different. i also want to start at the top. i have a number of other cuts that if i have time i will go over them. >> ms. whitman, in your first

100 days, but alterations would you like to make to the budget they you are about to be handed if you are elected governor? >> the next governor has to have a plan. you are right. attorney-general brown said the process is the plan. if you like the process we have in sacramento, if you like this -- if you think this is working then you should even jerry brown. if he goes to sacramento cable be the same old, same old. i bring a fresh approach with a detailed plan that will engage the legislature. by the way, when governor brown says he will start by cutting 10%-15% of the governor's budget, do you know how much it is? the governor's office of digit its $80 million. if he cuts 15% he will save $2.7 million which is less than .001% of the budget we face.

if that is your plan we have really big problems ahead of us. [applause] i have a really detailed plan which i think is part of leadership. yeah of a plan to give californians back on track than we have to engage the legislature, make sure you have the right appointments. the governor needs to have a plan and a way forward. if you do not know which way you're going commit any road will take you there. that is the problem with the dysfunctional government today. we need a new, fresh, different approach. i have 30 years' experience with technology and balancing budgets. in the silicon valley, we figure out how to go after the program if we can all saw that. in sacramento, they hunkered down and did the same thing over and over again. >> if i could respond? i know it is a fraction of what

it is the date when i was governor. i want to those in power at the top to lead by example. i want to see them feel the pain and sacrifice. it is very hard as those believed to do things. she does not have a detailed plan. she's a $14 billion in cuts, but does not say who they are, what they're, where they are. guinea to get the legislature on board or nothing happens. -- you needed to get the legislature on board or nothing happens. [applause] >> this is the 1000-pound gorilla in the room -- public pension programs. it is now being compared to greece in a lot of sectors because of the amount of money in the pension. we of 3000 teachers who are earning more than $100,000 in retirement.

any reform of the pension program, what is the role of the current tensions? should they be required to cut back on the amount of money they feel obligated to receive? >> pension reform is a big deal. you can log on to my website, jerrybrown.org, to see my plan. you asked about the existing plan. you can increase the amount of money you can contribute which is the biggest way to inject money into the pension. they have been telling the politicians that you can keep expanding it and have expanded it quite a lot. get a two-tiered pension system as soon as possible. they ignored that.

when you sit down with the labor groups, like arnold has, he has already gotten some severe concessions. what will the stock market give us and what can we expect? will it be made up by the employer or the employee? as an employer you have to lay people off or reduce wages. a knowledgeable governor can get the type of pension compromise is that the actuarial numbers require. i will do precisely that. >> in your judgment, ms. whitman, those receiving pensions now are taken off of the table? >> we can attach to the existing pensioners. they need to have what they have earned. you have to listen to what jerry brown said. it is "do as i say, not as i do." when you look at oakland when he was mayor, the highest paid city manager was there before dallas.

the number of plays who made more than two under thousand dollars had gone up by 740%. -- the number of employees who made more than $200,000 went up 740%. if you work in the system right now, you can retire at age 55 with almost all of your salary. that lavish pension is squeezing out other things we care about. these have gone up at the university of california. the pensions have gotten so big for all of the faculty and staff that it is squeezing out the students. if we do not resolve this pension issue, we spent about

3000 -- new employees have got to come in under a different deal. i think they need to say -- staying on the defined benefit program. rank-and-file needs to be different because we cannot afford $3.9 billion on its way to even $6 billion. >> let me follow up with another question. looking at the retirement program in the city of los angeles, they have 31 fire and police officers who have retired on pensions from $265,000 down to $150,000. a four-star and mary -- army general retires at $149,000. the city of los angeles within four years will be on the book for $2 billion in pension

programs. that cost will come to sacramento at some point. should there be a state law as well that oversees municipalities and county governments that they have? >> this is where the governor needs to exercise true leadership. one-third of the los angeles budget could go to support the benefits. we have a $60 billion liability in this state. with the governor negotiates with the unions said the table. here is the difference between me and jerry brown. he is beholden to these unions. they have paid for his campaign and they are paying for the expenditures. i am spending my own money in this race to give me the independence to go to sacramento and i will not know anything to anybody.

we need to find a solution that is fair to government workers and fair to the taxpayers of california. i do not think anyone thinks it is fair to retire three did thousand dollars per year when a four-star general retires at a fraction of that. -- i do not think anyone thinks it is apparent to retire with $300,000. [applause] >> mr. brown, your response? >> some of the comments she made about what i did or did not do in oakland have been refuted. i just want to make the point that she distorts the facts. the woman i put in got a lower salary than the person in front of that was appointed by the mayor. she said she would exempt fire and police when they are 25% of

the total pension costs. everyone needs to sacrifice and we have to make it fair to the workers, fair to the taxpayers, and after rarely sounded. i will do that. -- actuarily sound. >> we need to take the age from 50 to 55. the public safety individuals will have to contribute more to their requirements. i think public safety officials have earned a defined benefit program. i'm not exempting this at all. the number of people working for the state has increased over the past five years. we have to shrink the size of government to make california stronger and get us back on track. >> you wanted to reject to the

police unions. someone in your campaign referred to ms. whitman has a -- as a "whore." we have heard no outrage from you about the use of that language which is the same as calling an african-american the "n word." >> this is a 5-week-old private conversation picked up on a cell phone with a garbled transmission. it is hard to pick up who it is. i will say the campaign apologized promptly and i reaffirmed that apology tonight. >> you repeat that to ms. whitman? >> yes. it is unfortunate that it happened and i apologized.

>> it is not just me but the people of california who deserve better than slurs and personal attacks. that is not what california is about. i think californians and especially women know what is going on. that is a deeply offensive term to women. >> have you chastise your chairman pete wilson who called contras "whores" to the union? >> that is a different thing. the fact that you are defending your campaign for a slower -- slur and personal attack, it is not be fitting of the office you are running for. >> private conversation and i am not even sure it is legal because you have to consider lots of people are talking. i am sorry it happened and it

does not represent anything other than things that happen in a campaign. the issue is pension reform and the fact you got the endorsement of the union and i did not because they said i would be too tough on unions and public employee pensions. i will take that. [applause] >> could i ask the audience that we ever lot of things we have to cover and you would like you to not be as demonstrative as you are. i know it is hard to contain yourself. >> i got the endorsement because that union as i will be tough on crime. jerry brown has a record of being soft on crime. he appointed judges who were simply not fit. he is against the death penalty. i put out a detailed plan in march of this year. the decision was made in the summer. they said i would be better defender of the death penalty,

three strikes and you are out, and i would be a friend of law enforcement. that is why i got the enforcement. [applause] >> i received the endorsement of the california police chiefs, the largest organization of the management, porac, and other shared organizations. they know i am tough on crime and the three strike world. i have defended the death penalty as the attorney general. >> let me now move on to another subject. a.b. 32 would roll back carbon levels to the 1990 levels by 2020 is supported by gov. schwarzenegger. you first said it was a job

killer. then you said you would suspend it for one year and then examine it. are you saying that george shultz is wrong when he claims that proposition 23 will kill a bill that will actually create green jobs for the state of california? >> let me tell you where i stand. a.b. 32 was signed into existence in 2006. the notion was to be leading the environmental movement and stimulate green jobs? today we have a 12.4% unemployment rate. here is what people really need to understand. today, only 3% of our jobs are green and 97% are in the other parts of the economy. it is not fair to the employees in manufacturing, trucking,

packaging to drive those jobs out of state. i call for a one-year moratorium on a.b. 32. there is a provision to freeze it and fix it. i want to freeze the implementation for one year and fix it to see if we can not nurture green jobs that at the same time not drive 97% of our economy out of the state. with regards to proposition 23, that would have effectively eliminated 32. i did not support that because i thought the one-year moratorium on the implementation was a better way to go. that is where i stand. we can be green and smart, but we need the jobs of the people who are working so hard and barely making it today because we have 2.3 million californians you wake up without a job. we need to keep people employed.

>> this is turning the clock back. it is increasing regulatory uncertainty. it has been adopted for california that one-third of our electricity use be your renewable energy. i've a plan that meets that goal. 20,000 megawatts by 2020. when you stop that requirement, as she is advocating, you create uncertainty and doubt for investors. another part of the a.b. 32 which incentivizes biofuels for oil. we do not want to pull that incentive back. by the way, those are two oil companies in texas in a big petrochemical company from the midwest who are putting up the money. one of them said, "my god, they will use less oil in california."

you bet. we are born to use more sun and wind to get this done. [applause] >> he did not answer the question you asked which is, what will he do about the 97% of jobs hurt by a.b. 32? there was a provision in this log that in times of economic arrests, i was in lancaster, and someone came up to me anin tears. truckers are going to be hurt by this. what is wrong with taking a pause? what is wrong with being smart and green and protect 97% of the employees who are very vulnerable to a blind of the mentation? >> i think it is silly in a phony economic study that has

been thoroughly the bond. -- debunked. if you but thousands of people to work retrofitting buildings, that will work here. when i was governor, i've got to the steel efficiency standards.

yes, i am getting support for many unions as well as businesses. done awas governor, i've raises for state employees not once but twice. we needed to have a two-tiered pension system 20 years ago. at this stage in my life, i feel i have what it takes to do the right thing, to work with people, and to stand up when they resisted things that we really need for california. >> i think jerry brown needs to get out and campaign more. every stock i have had which is two, three, or four every week, i hear a story about someone in jeopardy of losing their jobs because of a.b. 32.

i want to fight for every job in california. let me turn to the california teachers association. we have a mess on our hands in our k-12 education system and are almost rated at the bottom. you know her as part of the problem? the bosses of the california teachers association. we need to change how we do things. we need more charter schools. we have to pay the better teachers more. we need to grade every single public school. the teachers' unions fight change everything away. there is a parent teacher association, california teachers association, and i want to defend the children. i want to have the very best public school system in america. we will have to make radical changes. [applause] >> ms. whitman, this brings me to something else. it is well on your spending $120 million, at least, of your own

fortune on this campaign. it is money have earned and it is your absolute legal right to spend it. i think people wonder if you were so concerned with california that why did you not get involved in other parts of public life? is it about how you have used your fortune for the good of the californian that we do not know that you would like to share with us tonight? >> let me talk about voting. i am not proud of my voting record. it was wrong. i take full accountability and full responsibility for it. i apologize to the people of california. you are right to look at it. every candidate has a package of strength and witnesses -- weaknesses. the reason i have invested my own money is because i think we can make california a stronger. i think we can revive the california dream for every

single californian. i am up against some big entrenched interests. the public employee unions have poured money into this campaign. they have put $300 million in to control politics in sacramento. the expenditure of my own money allows me, as i said, to be independent did go to sacramento with no strings attached. if jerry brown gets to be governor, there will be meeting. he talks about bringing people together, there will be meeting of all of the union bosses there to collect the i know you's for them having fun at his entire campaign. -- having to collect the i. o.u.'s. we have a family foundation that supports higher education and health care, but my focus right now is turning the state of california around. i bring tremendous expertise from the private sector. i know how to balance budgets. i can bring a common-sense approach from the real world. we're supposed to be a citizen

democracy. we have faced challenges from the government. that is what i bring to this race. [applause] >> first of all, my campaign has been supported by many businesses and many individuals. i raised $2 million on the internet alone. in addition to her $120 million, she has raised $30 million from the kind of corporate executives will benefit directly from her key economic plan which is not to invest in schools but to take money from schools and invest in her rich campaign contributors. that is a fact many people do not take into account. when i ran for attorney general, the california teachers association supported my opponent in the primary.

i appreciate charter schools. 95% of the kids we need to recruit the best teachers we can and take the control from sacramento, moving it down to the districts, schools, and teachers and letting those closest to the students have the power and authority to make the tough teaching decisions. [applause] >> mr. brown just said sunday he knows is not true. i never said it wanted to cut education spending. i want to continue to invest in education. i have a different plan on how we spend the money. we spend $70 billion, and only

60 cents of every dollar goes to the classroom. 40% goes to bureaucracy. we are starving these digits before we see the bureaucracy. the next governor cannot be beholden to the california teachers' union because they want to protect the bureaucracy. the number two contributor is the california teachers association. >> let me move on because we are beginning to count down on the clock. let me go back to immigration. we could have a whole debate on that. there are a couple of unresolved questions. you said businesses and households ought to be held accountable for employing undocumented workers. at the same time, you said the three strikes and you are out business license. you had an undocumented worker who work for you for nine years with a very good fake documents. if you could not tell someone in your home was undocumented, how

do you expect businesses to be able to do that? [applause] >> we went for an employment agency and looked at three forms of identification. she falsified the documents and admitted it nine years later. it broke my heart what i had to let her go. this is why we need a very good e-verify system to allow businesses to know if it is real or not. we have to hold employers accountable to hire only undocumented workers. illegal immigration is a huge challenge in california. $6 billion goes to services for illegal immigrants. we need to get our arms around the challenge. what i want to do is secure the border. the border patrol agents need more resources, more patrol, more infrared and emotion detecting technology, hold employers accountable, eliminate sanctuary cities, and we need a

temporary guest worker program to allow people to be here on a temporary basis to work in all kinds of different industries whether it is agriculture or hospitality. i have been clear from the beginning that i did not think the arizona law was right for california. it will get caught up in the courts and i have a better plan. we need to solve this problem. it is a major challenge facing us in the united states and california. i think i have a great plan to do it. >> mr. brown? you are the chief law- enforcement officer for the state of california. why should business is not be held responsible for the hiring of undocumented workers? >> businesses should. this is the federal government's responsibility under our constitution. almost every police chief i know does not want to be in the business of breaking businesses. that is what immigration services are for. as attorney general, i have signed agreements with the federal government so that those

illegal immigrants who are arrested then have their fingerprints said to washington and are subject to deportation. we have millions of people here illegally in the country and in california. they are in the shadows. what will you do? are you going to leave them there or deport them? we need a comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level. our strong support that. without a pass to citizenship, you have no way to deal with the people who are here to have kids going to our schools and have not broken laws. we need to think about this for a carefully, not just from a political point of view but from a human for devi. these are real people. these are mothers, fathers, kids. they have this fear, the fear that her housekeeper had. i think that is a sorry tale. after working there for nine years, she did not even get her a lawyer.

the other thing i want to say is about the temporary workers for the farmers. the farmers -- what the farmers want and the people want are temporary workers who if they do right by their employer can get a pass to citizenship. she says noted that. that is treating the people from mexico as semi-serfs. i do not think it is human and i do not think it is right. [applause] >> please, let me move on to another dimension of the issue of the relationship between california and mexico. mexico is in a state of near anarchy because of drug violence. a lot of the blame is focused solely on mexico. the fact is the drug violence is a result of the enormous purchasing power of drugs in states like california. i have heard neither one of you talk about cracking down on

illegal drug consumption in california which would go a long way toward helping mexico, our southern neighbor, do something about drug cartel violence. you are the chief law- enforcement officer in the state. that has not been a high priority so far as i can tell. >> as part of my department, the department of justice as the bureau of narcotic enforcement. we have had several take downs of cartel-inspired corroboration, a prison convicted drug operations in salinas, empirial valley, and stockton. it is very dangerous. these drug cartels are beginning to infiltrate. yes, we have gangin task forces. i found other funds to restore most of what was dropped.

i feel strongly that this drug operation connected to the prisons, mexico, and gangs in our cities is a very high priority and as attorney general it has been a high priority of mine. >> ms. whitman, you are opposed to a proposition that would legalize marijuana. what would happen if tomorrow marijuana were legalized, licensed, and controlled by the state because it is no secret that in the state and across the country people can get it wherever and wherever -- whenever they want to. >> i think proposition 19 is not the right thing for our young people and the citizens of california. do not ask me. as the law enforcement. every single law enforcement official in the state is against proposition 19. i will make one other comment. jerry brown says he is tough on drugs and drugs crime, but the narcotics officers information

-- bureau looked at my record and his, and they are endorsing me because they know i will back up public safety in california. [applause] this is a big difference between me and the attorney general, our point of view on a law enforcement. jerry brown has been soft on crime for 40 years. he has been against the death penalty. he has appointed judges, as i mentioned, who fought against all 64 cases of capital punishment to came her way. she was recalled by the voters of california because they did not like her stance. you have to look at the california peace officers association who endorsed me come the police protective that the los angeles. the broad lines in los angeles no i will back them up, be tough on crime, and fight drugs in california. >> let me ask you about another

proposition. proposition 8 which would ban gay marriages. it is now in the federal court system. come on board and is that the california and it to you personally on a scale of 1-10? >> i am running for governor because we need to do three things. we need to jump-start our economy and get californians back to work. we need to cut wasteful government spending and our k-12 system is a mess because we are denying children a chance. personally i was opposed to prop 8, i think marriage needs to be between a man and a woman. i support the civil union the laws. what is the obligation of the attorney general to defend prop 8 said they can have their day in court? in the ninth circuit court of appeals and in the supreme court? i think the attorney-general needs to defend that lawsuit

regardless of what your view is on gay marriage. 52% of the people voted for the constitutional amendment and they need their day in court. it needs to go through the appeals process. jerry brown has refused to do that. i think that is dangerous. you cannot have an attorney general make decisions about what part of the constitution they will or will not defend. that is of a judgment call we want being made. we the governor and the attorney general to defend the constitution of the state of california. >> mr. brown? >> the prior attorney general refused to defend a discriminatory initiative. because i believe that the 14th amendment which i have taken an oath to uphold bans discrimination against same-sex marriage i am not entering the court and i will not appeal it because it can be appealed by the party.

when something is so fundamentally wrong as defined after a long trial when you hear testimony about the pro's and con's, i will not be the one to take that up. i have the police chief's backing me because i know they're tough on crime. [laughter] >> i think he was going to say he had the police chiefs in his back pocket. >> unaccustomed as i am to politics, i stumbled. i have their backing. not like some of the ones backing year because of crime but because they know you will not be as tough. one of these police unions said brown will be too tough on unions and that is one reason why we are supporting mega whitman. they put out a press release. -- why we are supporting leg with men. i supported the three strikes world.

they have built 20 to prison since i left the governorship of. those have been causing problems. we need reentry and many to be tougher on crime. [applause] >> thank you. we are closing in on the final questions. let me try to get in a couple quickly. let me begin with you, mr. brown. what these think of the job president obama is doing? would you like to have him come here to campaign by your side? >> i think in a tough time this man greeted stimulus, helped stabilize our banks, we have a health care plan for the first time since harry truman. it is not perfect and we need to work on a. i think he is facing tremendous and on reasonable opposition by a small faction of the republicans in washington. i think obama is doing a good job. >> ms. whitman?

a real force in your party will be here on saturday. william c. vice on what he may do for california after her experience in alaska? -- will you seek her advice? >> sarah palin is going to be here. you know that i have supported the other presidential nominees in our party whether it was john mccain or mitt romney. that day i will be out with voters talking about the things that matter to californians which are jobs. if we do not cut taxes and streamline regulation, there's no way we will ever get out of this financial mess. do you know what jobs do? what a job does is that the family budget back together. more jobs in california will help the california budget back together. i need to say one thing.

the notion that jerry brown is going to be tough on unions is a fairy tale. he has been joined at the hip with them for 40 years. >> we are getting to a quick close with two minutes left. i want to get from each of you, the question that i think is essential to california. in the 21st century, the california need to reform its political structure, referendum, term limits, two-thirds vote on anything? do we need to go back and build the state politically from the ground up? briefly, ms. whitman. >> i think there is a way forward with some fundamental reform. the budget plan that i have is first to increase tax revenues by more companies, more jobs being in california. we need to get our hands around government spending. we spend more money than we take in and it is not sustainable. there are three reforms i would be interested in pursuing. the first is a two-year budgeting process. budgeting process.