unless you have a particular -- you do not get to bring the case. that is just flat out faults. -- false. i would like to see them reckoned braque -- reconciled by giving broader standing. on the merits of the cases, there is much broader authority from the view of the first amendment to support it at the state and local level. it is more than we recognized in recent years. >> we can agree on something else in terms of the court. it is with the government.

all nine justices subscribe. there should be a wall separating church and state. if the supreme court is becoming more conservative, the justices have gotten further away from that. now with judge alito replacing judge o'connor, it takes five to reject the notion. five justices to take the position that the government [unintelligible] we will disagree -- that is where it is likely to be. toomey comment that is deeply distressing. -- to me, that is deeply distressing.

some are made to feel insiders and some outsiders. i do not think religion is also in jeopardy. that is where we disagree. >> i do see where there may not be a majority to go that direction. he talks about the psychological coercion that is in play. sec alleged coercion is exactly the issue on which the justice kennedy -- psychological coercion is exactly the issue on which justice kennedy did not agree. they are eighth graders. if they feel psychologically coerced. i can see justice kennedy spinning off and saying giving the dynamic and the culture if you are required to view the symbols of the majority religion, you will feel

psychological worst to go along. -- psychologically coerced to go along. justice kennedy is going to be in the center. i can see him on the cusp of that issue. >> a yes? >> could you please shed some light on the practice of refusal? >> or lack thereof? >> i think we can agree. >> we will disagree. justice is to decide for him itself whether to be recused. it does not apply to the supreme court justices. i think that is a terrible practice. i do not think any person should be a judge of him or herself.

we should create a practice whereby we rotate panels of justices. it is not that justice to decide whether he or she will sit. we should allow retired justices to fill in when a justice is recused. elena kagan is recused from a bowel was last three -- from about 1/3 of the cases. she cannot hear cases that have been in her office. that is an extraordinary number of 4/4 splits without any opinion. we now have three living former justices. why not allow them to come out

and prevented from being a split ?ha >> it would be nice if we can pass a rule that would not take effect for 20 years. i look at that and the odds that it is pretty bad from my side. i do not want to go for that. if the u.s. billy get and thomas sitting in retirement 5 that -- if it was just as silly and thomas sitting in retirement, they could go in -- justice scalia and thomas sitting in retirement, they go the other direction. they consult heavily of the court a. they ask for independent assessment. i do not think it is quite as

bad as everyone has described it. normally, if you want to require reclosable. justice ginsberg was general counsel for one of the abortion -- she was headed the woman's right. i do not think the fact that justice scalia has given a speech to an organization that has an ideological view should exclude them. if there is a financial stake, they have read clues to -- recused themselves. what qualifies?

>> my question deals with corporations that violate human rights causes. why aren't they subject to three strikes? [laughter] [applause] >> this will put you in an awkward situation. >> one of the things put in the book was the same year that i lost 5-4, i was representing a family that died as a result of a ford bronco rollover. the evidence showed that ford rash of the bronco on to the market known for its propensity to roll over and did not put in rollover bars. the top rope was almost all fair

brass -- fiberglass. a jury awarded $285 million against florida. -- ford. they said it would be manslaughter it done in criminal law. they handed down a case that limited punitive damages. california and reduced -- california reduced it to $24 million. that is still a lot. but this hard to call the client end tell them. i do not want to be cynical, but it is too much money for a corporation. too many years in prison for shoplifting does not violate the

constitution? the law is very inconsistent as to when corporations are persons or not persons. the law never found the corporations had free-speech rights and on 1978. -- until 1978. corporations do not have protection under the right to privacy. there are inconsistencies as to when corporations are and not persons. the actual answer comes from a federal statutes that creates an ability to sue those suit violate norms of international law. the question is can corporations be sued under that? that is where this comes up. >> were you on contingency? >> these are all pro bono.

>> the fact that it is limited by the constitution -- justice scalia has been adamant and objecting the award. it is made up. there is nothing in the constitution that says that there should be caps or what the caps should be. we can allow nine times the compensatory damages. none of that is in the constitution. there are other ones that raise serious concerns about unlimited punitive damages. their civil and not criminal litigation matters.

normally we impose punishment we do it through the criminal law. and to allow for unfetter punitive damages, you can be punished into oblivion on a mayor preponderant of the evidence or normally such a punishment can only be met if approved behind a reasonable doubt. if the evidence showed that they have been derelict to such a degree that they were subject to a manslaughter charges, led the district attorney bring those charges of manslaughter. >> that is what you talked about earlier. many states have adopted laws limiting punitive damages,

putting caps, requiring damage awards be turned over to the legislature. >> thank you for a wonderful program. do you think the court may repeal a series of punitive laws against individuals must like it did in world war ii? >> we will disagree pretty vehemently.

we have not engaged in the wholesale infringement of liberties such as occurred after pearl harbor with the japanese americans. we have not rounded up all muslims and put them in intern can. there is a dispute over whether it violated beyond the constitution. i think it is fair to say that there is not been the kind of grand scale. i do not think we will see the kind of grand scale that occurred in world war ii. >> another area of agreement that we disagree on. john is right. thankfully, the government did not intern people as it did in world war ii. invasion of rights is wrong.

the bush administration claim the authority to detain people without due process are complying with the constitution. this focus on guantanamo. -- just focus on guantanamo. i have been representing a man who is been in there since the spring of 2002. that is nine years. that is longer than world war ii or the civil war. he is never had trial or a meaningful hearing. during these last years of the bush and administration, the united states government systematically designed and implemented a policy of torture. the bush administration gave illegal electronic

eavesdropping. they have a mixed record so far. they made a disturbing decision that held that american citizens could be criminally punished for advising foreign crews on how to use the united nations and international law or how to apply systems. the speech could be deemed to be materialistic. there is a case now that may be the most important. it was held as a material witness. he was held in solitary confinement. he was shackled and never convicted of any crimes or

accused of any crimes. he was put on home arrest. it allows individuals to be held to a witness of their testimony is central. in 19 states court of appeal -- the united states court of appeal said it was never the intention of the united states government to use them as a mature witness. this violates a the constitution. they granted a review. we will see what they do. >> if i were to take up all the points, we have an entire another forum. let me just look at one. it is true that this war has lost it longer than any other war and our history. it is unprecedented that we have help people without hearings or

trials. we've always held combatants during war until the conclusion of the war. this one is different. the differences may require us to think about that question differently. we do not have a nation state as an enemy. we do not know how the end will be. they are not be a signing ever side. -- signing of the treaty of versailles. we've always help combat answering the time of war. does the unique nation of this war rethink this is a good question? the simple detention of them as

a combatant does not require a trout. >> never before has any president held american citizens at the hands of the united states as a combat and without due process. -- as a combatant without due process. >> franklin roosevelt did. >> here is a brief observation. my wife and i our grandparents of two children of a homosexual couple. they can screw up their children as well as heterosexual couples. that seems that marriage equality to me. you are asking a judge to make judgments. at the some of those differences cannot help but listen and lead to policy decisions. what do you think? >> way to attack a question on.

>> i think the constitution provides a more limited combine in which the judges exercise their policy judgment. i think that is the essence of it. i think it needs to be rooted in tax. >> i think he does it in different areas. he is willing to have the judges. he supports the supreme court striking down finance laws. he wants the court to strike down laws. conservatives and liberals disagree about where. this is another difference. liberals do not hide that they want the courts to do this. concerts is written there doing

something else. there is in a marriage -- conservatives pretend they are doing something else. there is faint modesty. member >> it involves the free- speech clause of the first amendment. this confines my discretion. this is not have any text that the find anything. i get to do what ever i want. this is the difference. i tried to grounded in the text. he does not think it is necessary. >> every decision by every justice is grounded in the cast -- in the text. >> thank you. [applause]

>> it is possible to have a spirited conversation and a civil one at the same time. >> please beauts for proposition l in my case. [applause] >> please, give a copy of the book and join him there. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> up next, wisconsin governor scott walker on a state budget challenges. in remarks from the libyan leader muammar gaddafi. the political leaders debate issues. >> tomorrow, rebecca-led of americans for prosperity discusses and a hyatt senate bill that would end collective bargaining rights for public employee unions. the assistant on jobs in the economy. after that, community health centers on the wall.

"washington journal" every morning. later, a look at the role economics plays in the middle east. we will hear from the government -- --. >> it is critically important that the house moved this. it will avoid a government shutdown. >> we all have a responsibility to make sure that there is no government shutdown. >> see what was said when the federal government did shutdown in 1995. it is with every program since 1987. serge, watch, clip, and share. >> scott walker talks about the recent protests over his budget

proposal. the governor spoke at the state capital and wisconsin. >> good evening. wisconsin is showing the rest of the country have to have a civil debate about our finances. that is a midwestern trade in something we should be proud of. i pray this will continue as people pour into our state from all across america. let me be clear. i have great respect for those had chosen a few in government. when i was a high school junior. i was inspired to pursue public service. they showed the honor in serving others. i felt the state employees who

showed up for work today and did their job well. we appreciated. we all respect the work that you do. i also understand how concern many government workers are about their futures. i have listened to their cell. she wrote to me about her concerns about the legislation and what that might mean for her classroom. last week we agree to make changes to the bill to address many of those issues. they come from the civil service here in wisconsin.

this is long before collective bargaining. despite a lot of the rhetoric we have heard, the bill i put forward is not aimed at state workers. if it was, we would have eliminated bargaining. we would have gone after the private sector unions. we did not. if they are partners in economic development. we need them to help us put people to work. the legislation i put forward is about one thing, it is about balancing our budget now and in the future. wisconsin faces a $137 million deficit with the remainder of this fiscal year and a $3.6 billion deficit for the upcoming budget. our bill is about protecting the hard-working taxpayer.

the woman would to me saying she is a single parent of two children, one of, is autistic. i've been intimately involved in my school district that i can no longer afford the taxes i pay. i am in favor of everyone paying for benefits as i have to. it is also about the small business owner. his employers pay much larger premiums them what we are asking. this is how they keep their company going. a substitute teacher wrote to me last week about having to sit at home and able to work because the union that closed the school down to protest. she sent me an e-mail that said i was given no choice in joining the union. i am forced to pay dues. i am missing out. i feel like i have no voice. i assure you that she does have a voice.

he was laid off two years ago. he is a union guy. he asks what everyone else has to sacrifice. last week i traveled the state visit to -- this is a manufacturing plant. many are paying 25% to 50% of their health-care premiums. most have limited or no match for the company. my brother is in the same situation. he works as a banquet manager at a hotel. my sister-in-law works for a department store. they have two beautiful children. they are a typical middle-class family right here in wisconsin. he pays nearly $800 a month for his health insurance. he likes so many other workers would love the benefits that we are pushing.

our measure asks for a 5.8% contribution. both are well below the national average. this is just one point of our comprehensive plan to balance the deficit. some will question why we have to reform collective bargaining. the system is broken. it costs past -- taxpayers money. for years it is a way of balancing our budget. edison power by collective bargaining.

in wisconsin, many local school districts are required to buy their health insurance through the trust. it is a $68 million per year. wisconsin raise taxes on corporations. they passed a budget repair bill in just one day. instead of raising taxes, we need control government spending.

this money was posed a used for things like roads -- was supposed to use for things that roads and bridges. the state faces a deficit for the remainder of this fiscal year ended $3.6 billion hole for the budget starting july 1st. we need a commitment to the future. i'm not going to allow their voices to overrun the voices of the millions of taxpayers from all across the state who know we are doing the right thing. this is a decision that wisconsin will make. whether we at -- like the outcome or not, that is why i am asking the missing signatures to

come back to work. do the job you were asked to do. we should be here in madison right here in this country. they must know that the failure to come to work will lead to dire consequences. 1500 state employees will be laid out before the end of june. 5000 local employees would also be laid off. there is a way to avoid layoffs and other services. as we speak they can come home and do their jobs. we are broken. time and time again, politicians of both political parties ran away from the tough political decisions. we can no longer do that.

this is a feature of my children, of your children,. like you, i want my two sons to grow up in a state as great as wisconsin a eiger of them. our ancestors approved wisconsins constitution. they believe in the power of hard work and determination. our founders understood that did this through frugality and moderation that we will seek freedom.

may god richly bless you and your family. may god continue to bless the great state of wisconsin. >> this is all available to you on television, radio, online, and the social media networks. find our content any time through c-span video library. we take c-span on the road with our local content vehicle. it is washington your way. firstt muammar gaddafi's sensed a few years ago.

>> i salute you. people of challenge. this is a generation of anchor and challenge. i sylvisalute you. you put forward real pictures of the libyan people. you have gone out. you give the truth. which being that the agents and -- trying to vover it. -- cover it. to give a wrong picture of the

world. some arab media is betraying you. it depcits you as bad people. look at the libyans. the look and libya. -- look at libya. they want the people of ibya wants colonialism. the green square, they want to talk.

they want no idenitity. when they say "libya" all african nations consider it as the mecca. rulers of the world, even the superpowers want to combpare. they give the share of you and

the arabic media. . he is the leader of a revol utoin. it means always sacrifice. this is my country. the country of my grandfathers. are standing.

they have tribals. everyone is challenging. we challenge america with it's mighty power. we can see it. here they put their hands

down. all mar tyrs. this is the victory i want to give a bad picture about. italy the emperor at the time is on soil. and big. then any job -- and bigger than

any job. libya will lead africa and soh america. we cannot hinder the process. from these -- greasy rats and cats. stay here. in 2019, i will not leave the country. ui will die as a martyer.

this is proof. are in the cemetary. i will not ruin the rightoues remains. they cannot enjoy the shadow of these three. we planted these trees. we oiled it with our blood. i am talking to you from the house which was bombarded with 170 planes by america and

britain. freedom, vicotrytory, revolutio. bombs were falling on my house

and killing my children. where were you? you worry -- where applauding year marcher, said the americans. they came to the house.

few people refuse. who were given tablets. they wree raiding police stations like rats. they raided a barrack. we are in relative security. they used this that libya was enjoying.

some stations -- the banned. they also banned the previous records. -- burned the previous records. they have no [inaudible] they are young people. 16, 17, 18. they are imitating what is happening in tunisia. they are imitating what is happening in some cities.

they are giving money. the people who are killed were taken by the police. but not those that you are in their houses. we start slaughtering each other. he was under my command.

20,000 people. it was occupied by the american forces. we are going to ask him to overtake it.

nobody dared to change the name. are a mercenary. -- you are a mercenary. we entered against america and britain. they will carry on. it will continue. we paid the price for libya. it can be reckoned with.

we left the regime. we left it to the libyan people. it is the lead the people who are there. it leaves the agriculture everywhere. it has been resolved. we fought the french.

we fought him. we -- all agents have this. we have this for you. but i have asked you to take it every month. leave the venue. leave it with the government. we are responsible for the people. i call on the libyan people. to form a new municipalities.

why did you come? why did you come? where were you? were you holding his arm, fighting for the revolution? it is shot by an island side person. who are you? these are not the people of [inaudible]

there are committees. i know it will lead there. it is capable of the committee. they were in the south.

they not want to be joined. they established their own committee. after this, people are caught. this'll be more destitute.

[unintelligible] beng people are giving ben armored vehicles.

families should protect their children. children of men, women they are there. they have the italians. it slipped. when will was sent back to the ownership of the people, 90% of it belongs to the people. get out of your homes. secure the streets. take the greasy of rats out of the street.

if we had to use force, we will use it. this is the victory. this was bitten by the american aggression.

their children are en america. what is this scale of the gangs? they are like rats. it is one in a million. they can do nothing.

the cases should be listed -- lifted. call them. get out of your homes. do you want them to be destructive? these can reach the oil fields.

they made it into the civlian aviation using it. they cannot use it at the airport. they are worried that in case the rats attack them

-- attack them. be aware that they will come and rule you. do you want americans to occupy you? like they did in iraq? is that what you want? go out in the streets. chase them. take away their arms from them. hand them security, your children. it is a bunch of terrorists.

bring the americans and drop bombs on it. all three offices are trying to cleanse these people and arrest those who will be prosecuted. that will be their punishment. they do not want me. they do not want libya.

this is a criminal act. any libyan who lift its arms will be punished with a death sentence. those who spy will be punished with a death sentence. anybody who undermines the sovereignty of the state will be punished with death.

they do not bring that in. they shall be punished with death that commit crime against the army. anybody who shall be handed a death sentence in a foreign country that undermines the defense of the country. we do not blame them. they will be begging for mercy. they will not be forgiving.

anyone who undermines the constitution by force or otherwise to chase it, the punishment is death. anyone who uses explosives or bombs shall be punished by death. please, keep quiet so we can hear. giving't even started

the orders to use bullets. any use of force against the authority of the state shall be sentenced to death. anyone committing murder shall have the death sentence. all this is punishable by death. anyone causing civil war -- this act is punishable by death.

you wn't have to [unintelligible] if you do not apprehend him. if you undermine the unity of the country, i will see it. they live like that.

the worst is not by force. members of parliament do not have any answers. in the square, they approach with tanks. they were accosted. whoever died, the unit of china is more important than those people in the square. the future of the russian federation was more important than those in the building. they sent them the tear gas and armored vehicles.

those took over the [unintelligible] we are looking in fallujah

nobody can be critical of what they did. that was destroyed. so many matters. wedding ceremonies, illegal gatherings.

3 million died so we can eliminate terrorism. from air and sea and land. tanks entered the city, killing as they wanted. do you know what is happening

in somalia? they are doing what they wanted. i wrote fallujah same gangs, same group. >> the was libyan leader muammar gaddafi. after his remarks, the u.s. security council condemned the crackdown on protesters and asked for an immediate end to the violence in libya. now, secretary of state hillary clinton response to the latest violence in libya directed at anti-government protesters. >> good afternoon.

before we begin, i would like to say a few words about the middle east. the united states continues to watch the situation in libya with alarm. our thoughts and prayers are with those whose lives have been lost and their loved ones and we join the international community in strongly condemning the violence. we have received reports of hundreds killed and many more injured. this bloodshed is completely unacceptable. it is the responsibility of the government of libya to respect the universal rights of their own people, including their right to free inspect -- free expression and assembly. the united states is also greatly concerned by reports of violence in yemen and elsewhere. we urge restraint and for the governments in the region to respect the rights of their people.

in bahrain, we welcome the king's decision to release a number prisoners and we look for to implementation. we also welcome the crown prince's step to initiate meaningful dialogue with the full spectrum of bahraini society. we hope bahrain's friends up around the world and in the region will support this initiative as a constructive -- as a constructive path to preserve bahrain's stability and help meet the aspirations of all its people. as we have said, these steps will need to be followed by concrete actions and reforms. we urge all parties to work quickly so that in national dialogue can produce meaningful measures that respond to the legitimate aspirations of all the people of bahrain. and we continue to call on the brain the government to exercise restraint. there is no place -- on the

bahraini government to exercise restraint. we will come egypt's leaders, signaling their commitment to an orderly transition to a democratic government. and we look to them to take the concrete steps needed to bring about political change. and we will continue to be a supportive partner to the peoples of both countries as they seek a better future. across the middle east, people are calling on their governments to be more open, more accountable, and more responsive. the united states believes it is in the interest of government to engage peacefully and positively in addressing their demands and to work to respond to them. without genuine progress toward an open and accountable political system, the gap between people and their government can only grow and

instability can only deepen. >> thank you, madam secretary. as we know, right now, there is bloodshed in libya. there -- they have been using air power to attack civilians. colonel gaddafi spoke recently and said that he would never surrender. his intense frustration -- there is intense frustration as the world looks on. other than words, what is the united states doing to try to help to stop this? also, it you could, just any comment on the pirates killing the americans today. thank you. >> first, we are watching developments in libya with a great concern. we have joined with the international community in strongly condemning the violence in libya.

we believe that the government of libya bears responsibility for what is occurring and must take action to end the violence. as always, the safety and the well-being of americans has to be our highest priority. we are in touch with many libyan officials directly and indirectly and with other governments in the region to try to influence what is going on inside libya. the security council, as you know, is meeting today to assess the situation and determine whether there are steps that the international community can and should take. as we gain a greater understanding of what is actually happening -- because, you know of course, a communication has been very effectively shut down and we are trying to gather as much -- weation as possible

will take appropriate steps within our values and laws, but we will have to work in concert with the international community. i think that the message today is very clear and unambiguous from the entire international community. there is no ambivalence. there is no doubt in anybody's mind that the violence must stop and that the government of libya has a responsibility to respect the universal rights of all of its citizens to support the exercise of those rights. we are also deeply saddened and very upset by the murder of four american citizens whose yacht was seized off the coast

of oman. this deplorable act by pirates that stop vessels in the waters off of somalia firmly underscores the need for the international community to act more decisively together. we have to have a more effective approach to maintaining security on the seas, in the ocean lanes, that are so essential to commerce and travel. our deepest sympathies go to the victims' families at this time. we will honor their memory by strengthening international responses and partnerships to bring these criminals to justice and to more effectively and discourage a piracy, something that should not persist in the 21st century.

>> irish voters go to the polls on friday. the party leaders debated for 90 minutes on the future of the british -- on the irish economy and spending cuts. this debate from dublin is courtesy of rte. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> hello and welcome. tonight, the three men who will join us in the final leaders debate. in the next hour and half, they will tell you, the people of ireland, why they believe they would be the best person to lead this country. it is perhaps the most difficult time since the foundation of our state. first, the three candidates will make an opening statement.

the order was decided earlier by the drawing of lots. please give your opening statement. >> i am happy to be here tonight to talk about our nation and how we come together, can build a better future for island. in the last four weeks, i met and listen to many people around the country. i have been honest about the mistakes of the past and about the challenges of the future. when i became party leader, i said that i was committed to ending the old politics of sound bites and posturing. the leaders at this table disagree about a lot of things. but we should be able to agree that the people deserve a real debate. the issues facing our country are too serious to be used for political gain with big promises and then these levels -- and empty slogans. i will not promise any new spending or pretend that there are easy solutions to tough problems.

there are no easy solutions. but what i will do is talk about higher ireland can and will recover. our plan will help us to revive our economy, restore our finances, deliver jobs and restore our government. i know many people are cited. but the only way to a better future is to make the right decisions and not make things wortworse with politics as usua. >> on friday, you will vote in the most important election in our nation's history. i've understand your frustration. i feel your anger. i know your fears, for your job, unable to pay your mortgage, for your children's future. i am asking you to vote for the

five-point plan. the poor and the disadvantaged, the old or the infirm, and our children have to be protected. we cannot tax our way out of this crisis. we have to have a more cost offensive -- cost-effective and efficient service. the reform of the public sector stuff -- starts at the very top. i want to assure you that i will be saved -- be decisive, but fair. i have the commitment, the competence, and the compassion to leave ireland into recovery. together with my team, i draw

confidence from the tenacity and togetherness of the irish people. together, we will turn this around. together, we will overcome this crisis. i truly believe and i know, when united, nothing, nothing can beat the irish. >> good evening. the choice that you make on friday will decide the future of our country for the next 20 years or more. i ask you to choose labor because labor has the plan which is fair, balanced and sensible. to get the country working again, to grow jobs and growth forced immigration, labor is the party of growth. to fix the party -- the broken system, labor is the party of reform. the government will need more

than a plan on paper. it will need strong values and good judgment. labor's values but people and families first. it is not all about the national budget. it is also about the family budget. labor will make sure that no family will lose their home during this crisis. nobody earning less than 100,000 euro a year will pay more income tax and their children will not be punished for the failures of the bankers. we need the sound judgment of labor which alone opposes the bailout of the average bank. ireland is a great country and our best days are ahead. we have to renew hope and confidence, revive our economy, and restore our country's pride. we have to do that together. labor is the party best placed to bring us all together as a people, to work together and to overcome this crisis. we can do it. we will not fail.

on friday, choose labor. let's leave the past behind and let's make a fresh start. >> you all agree that this country is facing challenges that it has never faced before. the plan you are putting before the people, are you being strict with the electorate, in particular about the scale of the problem we are facing and the hard road ahead? >> i am. we still do not know the full scale of what we are actually facing because the stress test report will not be published until the end of march. it is true to say that our people are being hammered, disillusioned, cynical about politics, and have lost the feeling that politics actually means something to the reality of their lives. that is why, over the last two

years, we look at what is broken messreland, look at the that was left to our country. that is why we adopted our five- point plan to get our country working, to give ireland working. that means investing in jobs and protecting jobs and growing our economy, dealing an entirely different way with the budget, and a fiscal structure. we deliver a more efficient and more effective public service for the taxpayers. finally, we demonstrate that we are serious about politics and leading from the front. >> ok. the same question to you. it is an election like no other. you are offering a different policy. again, are you being honest with the people? is what you are suggesting achievable? >> yes, there is no other way for this to be done. we have to be strict with people.

what to the incoming government of this country will have to face is the biggest mess that any incoming government has ever had to face. we have a big economic mess. we have a problem with the banks. and people throughout this country are so worried about their children dealing with immigration. there are three pillars. first of all, jobs -- we cannot tax or cut our way out of this recession. we have to grow jobs, grow the economy, and work our way out of it. secondly, we have to reform the system that is broken. we know the political system is not working. we know there are huge sacrifices we have to make. we have set out 140 different proposals. finally, we have to do things fairly. whether people are looking for a caring hospital, looking for services for their children, they want fairness and that is with the labor party believes in. >> you say that you have done a

lot of the heavy lifting. can you tell the average people tonight what pain lies ahead? is your plan realistic? >> our plan is both honest, credible, and realistic. we're the only policy that has laid out a detailed budget plan for next year. department-by department, we have to people where we will make savings and where we will generate revenue. we are the only party that has produced a detailed plan. the reason that we have to be resolute about the public finances is to make sure we get confidence and certainty back into the economy, both in terms of international investment and in terms of domestic confidence. suddenly, jobs are critical. we begin with a credible plan in terms of exports. we did before in this country. in key sectors, agriculture and food, tourism, high-technology, medical devices, digital media, and things like that. we put forward a valuable

political reform that changes the way we do politics in this country. it would open up government to people outside of professional politicians who have expertise in certain areas. >> we will move on to the issues. the first issue we will address is the economy. there are many headings. we will alternate each section was somebody different. if you had to negotiate aid deal for us, what is your plan? >> first of all, the deal will have to be negotiated. it will not work. that see you-imf field does two things. the ira's tax payer is reliable for the debt of the -- -- for the debt of the banks.

it imposes an excessive interest rate on the irish people. it is being lent to island at a 3% interest premium. that is unfair and unsustainable. it is also putting a straitjacket on any government. if that happens, it will drive down the economy. it will prevent growth and jobs being created. and the european commission has acknowledged that it will cost 5 billion extra if we attempted to that in three years. it will have to be renegotiated across the street areas. we have to make sure that the banks bear responsibility for their investments and that the investments -- the interest rates are reduced. >> i will ask you to debate amongst yourselves in a moment. if you are really good seating this bill, you're the ones who negotiated it -- what is your strategy? >> anyone who is renegotiating

this deal is not being honest with the irish people. i do not think it is frankfort's way or levers way. -- or labor's way. the package is a facility forced to borrow money to pay off public servants, our teachers, nurses, and doctors. that is $50 billion of the overall package. the remainder is the recapitalization of the two main banks to make sure that the economy works. what is happening at the european level is that the heads of state are discussing the fund and potentially changing the interest rates, not for ireland, but for every country. that is the actual position. notwithstanding that, that is not the biggest problem we face. they choose to camouflage the wider issue of public finance. >> what will you do to renegotiate -- >> it does not take away from

the enormous challenge we have in public finances. intelligence and diplomacy, working with other heads of states and other governments in terms of enhancing and improving the broader framework that europe has created to do with the the issue facing the euro itself. this is the dishonesty of the bait. the text passage was there. the interest rate was set last may, long before island applied for the funds. that is well known. everybody knows that. >> let me bring that to kenny. if you're heading out there, whicwhat is your plan? >> when he speaks of intelligence and diplomacy, he was a central member of a government that could not tell the truth about the imf being here in ireland. he could not tell the truth

about that. i have already been to brussels and i have already been to berlin. some may deem them as five issues for the wrong purposes. it is only right and proper that the leader of the major party year, that i should inform the commission and with a standing invitation from chancellor merkel. this is a bad deal for ireland and a bad deal for europe. we believe that this deal has to be renegotiated on the basis of interest rates and the cost structure of the banks. this can be done by lottery. it has to be done on a cross- european bases with consent of all of the members. the debate has shifted. if the european central bank requires banks here to sell

their assets at wholesale prices, then the foreign party comes into play. it would break the irish deal. >> if you are out there negotiating, what are you looking for? if you go for 1%, it will save you about 450 million euros .ppeare >> we do not actually know the scale of the truth. the stress tests of solvency and liquidity will be finished in ireland by the end of march. it has already been conducted in european countries and european banks. when the full scale of this is known, european countries will have to change their attitudes about the kinds of bailout -- >> is this a a strategy for the

right way to go? >> you have to have objectives. >> do you have objectives? >> on some of the areas. i've understand the wishes to renegotiate the interest rates, as does the labor party. we understand that that needs to be done on a multilateral basis. he also which is to have order sharing with bondholders. the taxpayer would not have to bear the full cost. that clearly has to be done. but we also ought to make space. if ireland is forced to close its budget deficit within adjusted three-year period, that will drive down domestic demand. it will prevent people from being employed. >> if you go into coalition together, is that negotiable for

you? >> the election is not until friday. if you extend it beyond like the labor party, it will require further. it means higher interest rates. the irish people and saying to me,, will you get a fix on this? we do not wanted to drift and drift where people are continually disillusioned and bought a down.

>> is it your understanding that the deal you're trying to get will involve some burden sharing? is that part of your plan? >> there is a bit of dishonesty. >> what is your plan? >> they are not anti pledges. it is pandering to the electorate. -- they are not empty places. it is pandering to the electorate. at the moment, merkel and others are saying that it is 2013. it is not just an irish banking problem. it is a european banking problem. the plan is, of course to contribute to the wider debate going on in europe in terms of ensuring that the euro system comes out of this particular

crisis. that means, yes, there should be burden-sharing. but it should be well planned and well developed. i except that. i have always thought that this free market stability would change the nature. when you say that interest rates are at the center, fine, and everyone will welcome it. >> the minister is a member of the government that could not tell the truth about the imf being here or not. that is fundamental to this debate and this government. the people out there are fed up with the dishonesty. a wall of cash, we have turned the corner, green shoots, and here we are saddled with $100 billion of debt.

is an obscenity that this government put the irish taxpayer in front of bondholders extent. let me finish. >> you did finish. >> they supported the guarantee. we wanted to working banking system. >> what do you want to do with bondholders. when you go to europe, do you want to burden a share? if they do not burden chair and say no to, what will you do? >> to be truthful, let's see how the scale of the indebtedness is. if it is more than what we were led to believe, then we would not be putting money into banks unless there is a burden sharing with bondholders. as i said, it is an obscenity

that the irish taxpayer should be forced by this grant to pay -- >> first of all, in terms of banking policies, we know there will be no change. there will be no change because he has signed up for the fundamentalism of banking policy. he did support the bank guarantee. there's no question about that. >> on the bond holders -- >> there are two fundamental problems. first of all, they brought in the bailout of the irish bank and the labor party opposed that strongly at the time. it is that bailout that has resulted in the fortunes or misfortunes of the banks being tied to the head of the state. that is why we ended up not being able to borrow. >> stick to the bondholders. >> yes. that is why we cannot bar on the international market. that is why, ultimately, the eu and the imf ended up in the picture.

you did a deal within the space of a week, in a hurry, at a time when there were other countries in the firing line and when the euro was in the firing line. the deal you did with the imf was a bad deal. it does not work for island and it does not work for the european union. it has to be changed. the labor party for said that that bill would have to be changed. your party, your government, your boss at the time said that the interest rates could not be changed. >> what about bondholders? >> on bondholders, it is not fair and it is not right and it is not sustainable that the average taxpayer has to bear the full cost and full burden of the bad investment decisions that were made by the banks. >> our european colleagues are already saying that there has to

be part in sharing with bondholders. i heard chancellor merkel say that -- there has to be burden sharing with bondholders. i heard chancellor merkel say that. >> the bottom line is this and i have made this the point before. independent analysts made it very clear that we did have an obligation to ensure -- >> on the bond holders -- >> they did not stick to the bondholders and i want to make my points. the professor is graphic on what happened if you did not make the bank guarantee. the bank would have closed in days. there would have been an immediate and catastrophic

impact on the economy and workers. it would have been worse than the recession itself. it was a systemic bank and had to be protected. if i had not been, it would have been -- >> these are independent analysts. this is the kind of dishonest wreck -- -- ishonest rattrarhetoric >> we know the bondholders have said 2013. >> what he has said is that the guarantee should have been limited to deposits. >> do not change what he said. >> thank you. people were flabbergasted in europe at the extent of the guarantee given by this country. we may never find out the real reasons for why this happened. we do know that the average taxpayer is now, for $100

billion in euros for incompetence and the collusion between banks, developers and that party. that is the problem. >> i am going to ask the question. i need to move it on. on the question of bondholders, let me ask you. i think a lot of people believe that the figures do not add up, that we do not have enough money. we do not have enough money to pay everything we go back appeared is there a possibility that we need to talk -- everything back. is there a possibility that we need to think about that? >> i hear comments here at home

but there is 15 billion required. we have to see what the the reality of that is at the end of march. but you are right, this is true. our country cannot borrow money. our banks cannot borrow money. we are living for banks and existing for families. >> i do not believe that we will, as a country, be able to bear the debt. from a working point of view, it has to be renegotiated. the labor party opposed the deal. >> --. >> i did read it. [crosstalk]

>> would you counter his report? >> he did. your government may policy decision of that anger was systemic. -- that anglo was systemic. >> it had 100 branches throughout the country. it did not have an atm. it was a piggy bank. crosstalk >> we are moving on actually. >> do we know who the bondholders are? >> we are moving on now. >> nobody heard this exchange in

this debate because of the interruptions from my left and right. i think your point is very valid. the irish people are now faced with a crushing burden. we will now be faced with what ever the government is elected on friday will have to do with this. this party always wants to pay its way. >> ok, we will move on to banking. at the moment, the nightmare that is our banking system and 145 billion, how will we pay back that 145 billion euros debt? >> the fundamental issue we have in terms of the banking system is to get the banks into secure footing.

it is for the small-business community and to make sure that we have a working economy. that is the only motivation behind the government and behind our banking policy. we have worked with europe and the central bank and the european commission to get the bank's right. the means bringing confidence back to the banks. the stress test is underway. we have had a number of stress tests already. the key is to restore confidence in to the banks. there will be recapitalization for those banks to get their reserves of two recommended by the sec -- reserves up to recommended by the central bank. >> how would you payoff that that? how would you even imagine paying that off? >> it is an absolutely phenomenal amount of debt. with the banking situation, i

would close down bank of virus and -- bank of irish by the end of the year. there are those who want to invest in this and have it as a working day. i also see a future for an amalgamation of ebs and outside investments. we met with the capital group ourselves. there are possibilities for smaller knish banks -- smaller niche banks. we will not get anything moving unless we get jobs working and grow the economy. exports are absolutely critical. but we have to stimulate our indigenous economy as well. in terms of being able to repay anything, you have to get the country moving again. >> today, we hear there could be

an extra 50 billion to pay. can we afford it to? >> it is a staggering figure. we have to understand that the banks always owe money to other banks, including to the european central bank. what we have to do is restructure the irish banking system. we have to look not just that what money is going into the banks, but policies we want to get out of the banks. there are a number objectives we have to have. we have to have lending restored to smaller and medium businesses so they can start creating jobs. secondly, there has to be a strategic investment arm in the irish banking. the labor party has suggested the arm of a strategic investment bank. in germany, it would invest in to the economy and start of companies to provide the money for infrastructure and more. >> there has to be a deal with

householders because there are people who are already stretched out in paying their mortgages. one of the few understandings we have to have with the banking system is that no family will lose their home during this crisis. whatever happens, positions will not be proceeded where people are making a genuine effort to pay their mortgage and, over time, we restructure the banks. i think the few things we have to do with the bank said the governments of them, we cannot allow the kind of culture of crony capitalism we had in the past. i also think we have to look at ways in which the bank will repay the money that the taxpayers have put up. >> he has his program for an investment bank. i differ from that. i think we have enough banks as it is. >> the catastrophic bank policy

was to keep writing checks. do people understand the agony and the heart and the fear that so many small businesses have every week when they cannot get credit from any bank? i know hundreds who put up proposals for manufacturing in taking on extra employees who cannot get a red cent from the bank. they propose to bring in a credit insurance scheme where the state takes a portion of the wrist and gives proof flexibility to the banks and allows credit to business which can then be freed up to invest and create jobs and grow the economy. this is absolutely critical. we are going nowhere unless credit can be extended to small business. >> sticking to the amount of

money we need to give the banks, we have already put in $45 billion of iris taxpayers' money. and it looks like we could need another 35 billion to the 50 million. if you were to get into government again, how much more money would you actually put into the banks? this is a very specific question. >> let's deal with the facts first. for small businesses and for everybody else in the economy, we do need to get the two main banks back up and running and on a solid footing. all policy has to be designed to do that. in terms of the agreement with the european institutions, we're talking about $10 billion in recapitalization. we are in favor of it and we

would do if we were back in government. the stress tests are currently being done. we have to await the outcome of the stress tests. depending on the outcome of those stress test, then we have to discuss again with the central bank and europeans. you cannot accept one individual in 1 bank. >> will you put that 10 billion into the banks? >> the minister of finance said he did not want to do it because he did not have the numbers. it has not stop them having mandates to film appointments to various positions around the country. >> they said that was a very

prudent decision and then, half an hour later, he changed his mind. that is what happened. >> the point i make is this. he was quite correct when he said this was a prudent thing to do and also to wait to seeing the scale of the liquidity tests. let's see exactly what the scale is. i would actually like to see bank of ireland, which is still in the position to recover by sale of assets and whatever to make its way back to being a proper trading bank. but, in the context of putting extra money into these banks, their party would be reluctant to do that until you see the scale of what is here. >> i find it interesting that he

has admitted tonight that the decision by bryant to defer the $10 billion recapitalization money for the banks was due to the election. [crosstalk] >> the bank of ireland to require recapitalization. there is no doubt about that. we do not know the extent of what that recapitalization is until the stress tests are completed at the end of march. what we need to do as well is used -- i will come the fact that the $10 billion was declared. there was a time suddenly, it allows for the restructuring of the banks because additional money going into the banks would have to be conditional on a

number of things being done, addressing the extent of credit, and addressing the problem of rising interest rates. the main issues i hear raised all the time by people is a worry about the interest rates going up. other banks talk about raising their interest rates. that is a huge worry. any recapitalization of the banks has to be a quid pro quo. >> we have to be open and honest with people in the debate. eip and bank of ireland would have to be protected. >> he just said he would have to consider what to recapitalize for at the event of the stress tests. it would have to be strengthened and enabled to recover in order to do your thing on mortgages, and in terms of the economy

itself. >> we are getting two different messages. you will find -- >> i would like to see bank of ireland to get back to where it used to be of its own volition. that is a good reach, i think. eib has some difficulties. we believe it should be whole. it can still be a strong bank. for people watching these billions of taxpayer money, this could be double is the suggestion. are you happy with how it is going? >> no.

i believe it is the wrong kind of creation. it should have broken the banks into good banks and bad banks from the beginning. currently, as we speak, there are people working at hundreds of banks, assessing loan valuations for transfer. it is not open enough. it is not transparent enough. there should be competition between asset management groups for delivering on the property portfolios in there. i think it has to have an injection of competence, accountability, transparency. 215 billion have already been spent on consultants fees. >> i think we have to stop the problem getting worse. the labor party opposed it. and a lot of these loans have now been transferred. there is the next phase of it,

which is the second tier loans, the smaller loans. the labor party believes it should not proceed. >> do you agree with that? >> the third phase is where the loans are warehouses. what we need to look out for is what it will do now with the sale of the assets. we are in no the they have taken these loans at a discount. the these assets will be sold back out again at a further loss to the irish people and that's the area the labor party would be working on. we've been burned once with the bad loans going in, we could be burned a second time by them being sold off and perhaps being sold back out to companies who will have the same principles.

>> first of all, they're fwoipping to run with it, first of all, nama is up and running a year and a day. we saw the kind of things it can do here. and the most important thing with them is this, the taxpayer has to get a return on this. they're predicting a profit at the end of 10 years. >> if you read the detail of the plan, they want to outsource 70% of it to private companies. it's privatizing the profit that should be going to taxpayers. that's what you're doing. it's in the small print in your document and it needs to be spleshed out -- fleshed out more. >> it's effectively a secret society. >> the taxpayer deserves the return on this. it should be privatized out to private management companies who

maybe the profit on that. >> we'll move on. >> the author of nama said what emerged and what was created is not what he envisaged. this is in effect a secret society. property cannot move and will not move until there's an injection of confidence in there, until we know the registrar of loans, until there's movement in the property section that's transparent and accountable. >> i want to move on now. we're going to move on now. to another part of the economy. let's move on to public finances. tax and cut. for many people watching tonight, it's money in their pocket that matters to them. i'm starting with you on this, in your manifesto you say you accept the fiscal target set out in the plan including the % of g.d.p. deficit. and you plan to achieve this by

27% taxes. the taxes are the sum of $2.4 billion. -- 2.4 billion. tell people who are worried about next year's budgets, what will the tacks be? >> there will be no increase in income tax. no increase in writs and bans. and of the three party here's, the tacks versus cuts in administration and inefficiency, it's 73-27. that means that for the average family, the context of the labor party, for instance, having changed its view about 214, 215, 216, the extra amount of income tax per family would be about 1,400. the other party would be 1,400. we recognize that you cannot tax your way out of this recession.

you've got to keep taxes low, you've got to keep the interest rates low, you've got to keep confidence moving so that unemployment can come down and jobs can be create. and jobs can be protected. we have put together our program without a property tax. i'll tell you why. >> there will be a property tax? >> not from our party. what we have said is to say to local authority, we're going to give you the responsibility and the responsibility, if you wish, after 2014, to consider whether you should introduce a profit tax on the sale of houses. now, both parties, in respect of their annual recurring charges, are going to have a valuation on property charge whether you're in negative equity, unemployed, living in a mansion or attached house. our program is based on not having a property tax where we give local authorities the option either to increase their charges or do nothing or introduce further tax after

2014. >> before i ask you your 50-50 breakdown, what's your reaction to his proposal there? >> i think this comes back to what you said at the beginning of the program. i think we have to be straight with people. the total fine gael problem does not include the introduction of water charges, for example, the graduate tax for people coming out of college and when you add those together, their tax package is about $4.1 billion. really for families, i think at the end of the day, it's the bottom line that matters. it's the amount of tax you're paying. doesn't matter whether it's coming out of your pay pact or whether you have to write a check for water charges, it's taxation. the local party's proposals for taxation are absolutely clear. we will not increase income tax on people earning less than

100,000 a year. we have put forward a tax on other things, a pension relief for high or large pension funds and the phasing out of the remaining property relief. that comes all told to just under 3 billion ewe roe between now and 20 -- euro between now and 2013. >> would that be a deal breaker in term of these two going into coalition? >> i'm not going to get into questions of deal breaking situations here, the election has not been held yet. but i note in his comments, we signed on for water charges only after meters had been installed. we would start that as soon as possible as part of our 7 billion investment in water renewables and broadband. obviously irish water, a new

company, would levy a charge for the provision of these uses. >> can we -- let me bring him in. i'll come back to that. we're coming back to that. 2/3's-1/3 tuition for you. you plan to raise 1.5 billion through tacks. what will those taxes be? >> we have already, as you know, had 20 billion that will be needed after 2014 so we have a good track record. we've taken tough decisions to correct the problem financially. we're talking about 6 billion in ex-penture cuts and three 3 billion. we're the only party that's gone in detail to savings in every party. the only party, what we're doing is saying to people, we're talking about broadening the

base, recommended by every party for quite some time. we've been up front about that. the fine gmbing ael is not honest or up front. they're by paising 6.5 billion. he's saying he'd take 30,000 from public service just like that. despite the fact that we're in a peard of high unemployment. that's not credible. that's not real. then he says it's not going to affect frontline services. that's not real, that's not credible. in terms of what we're going to do in savings. people picked up what he said, he said we're not going to do it nationally. in order to boast he has no income tax, he's putting it all through the local authorities and allowing them to levy tacks like the profit tax and other taxes. what happens is local parties, when they get that permission,

will choke jobs. i've seen it before in terms of what happens when you give local authorities power. >> the main issue i have is that he doesn't have a plan at all so he's forced to talk about other people's plans. our five-point plan is designed to get ireland working. let's look at a number of the charges he made here. every business in the country, every household in the country has got a tax according to its measure. a man on showed me his check with a 40 euro university charge he said it was taken away from his children as a result of this. what they propose to do is --

>> why didn't you tell journalists where you're going to make the savings, department by department. why didn't you give the spread sheets like we did? it's out there, black and white, in our plan what department of defense will lose, what the department of justice has to save. you avoided that and refused to do that. >> let him answer that. >> that's just -- >> answer the question. i know what you're going to say. 14 year, five-pint plan, let's get ireland working. you need more than that for the future of the country. i canned why didn't you give details to journalists. >> let me answer. >> it's all on www.-- >> it's not on there knotts there. >> they have 1,000 young people -- >> there you go again. answer truthfully. it's not there the detail is not there. in terms of 6.5 billion cuts.

the people want to know. >> do i get a word in here? >> whenever he opens his mouth -- >> you can't say we're going to get 6.5 billion without telling them where. >> he made a couple of charges here and then proceeds to interrupt. they will introduce jobs within a hyundais. we'll approach employers side-by-side to give them that extra encouragement. we would reduce v. ample t. at the lower level from 14.5% to 2% affecting the tourism industry, the labor intensive industry, food outlets, all of these. we will bring in the credit insurance scheme which will deal with the small businesses who look for credit. as far as the fine gael party,

we issued instructions to freeze rates or reduce them if possible. >> you know, i think we have to be very clear with people. i think these are the questions people want answered. they want to know what a new government is going to do in terms of taxation. the labour party has been clear in relation to, no income tax on earnings less than 100,000. we spelled out where taxes will be adjusted in the period between now and 2014. in relation to cuts, cuts is the other side of the equation. it's all well to say, we won't raise taxes but then you introduce cuts like cutting child benefits which hits families, or make other cuts hitting people in schools and in the hell services and so on. youal have to look at the cuts that will be made in terms of the numbers of people who are employed. the labor party does believe we can reduce the payroll and

reduce the number of people in the public service and can do that on a voluntary basis. but if you go beyond a certain level, and my concern with fine gael is they would proceed to the plan to take 30,000 people out of the government and people would be made compulsory redundant and i think they would have to have cuts of a far greater degree. that would result in additional cuts and additional charges we haven't heard today. on this subject, may i also say that frankly i think they have no standing in this government. you have done 20 billion cut from taxes and so on over the last couple of years. every worker in this country, looking at they pay pact in january, sees the amount taken out in terms of universal social charge and additional taxes and so on.

you have no credibility now. because you have imposed excessive taxes on people, you have cut people to the bone, families are suffering and they can't afford to suffer anymore. >> but you and enda both said you're not going reverse one single tax or cut we've made. you campaigned against them but you're going to retain them. >> you go on the attack and say we're going to do this -- >> but let me apps. >> you say that's all right, we're going to leave it there. >> we will reverse the decision you made. >> tell me what the issue -- >> on the tax issue, as i said, i found the -- on the universal social charge, we'll make changes to that universal social charge because there are people who support it, people on low incomes, widowers, pensioners

causing a situation. >> i want to bring you in on the minimum wage to deal with those. >> i did not get an answer to the earlier question. why haven't you published -- >> we're not going back on that. we're not going to go back. >> the point is, that is going to be broad it's going to be increased, a higher v.a.t. of 21 pk. they'll low it -- lower it. all along the way, they're not saying the painful side of what they want to do. that's the point i'm making. >> the fine gael published a long time ago, before the government, that we would apoll lish 145 positions. with eknow the duplication that exists. if we're to deal with the public service in terms of numbers and cuts, i revalue the work the

public servants do. many have come to me and said, do you want to see where you can save two million or five million or 10 million, i'll show you. but the system strangles them. i differ from them in this regard, the government program is for 12,000 people to leave the public service by retirement and everybody understands that. our program is for 18,000 over four years beyond that. for instance, two weeks before christmas, at a fortnight's notice, the h.s.c. had 2,000 voluntary redundancies. we know there are 1,500 offices around the country which take down names, addresses and p.p.s. numbers, duplicating that work, so it is possible in my view to have a one in 10 over four years reduction. that's going to give protection to the frontline services which are so critical, so you have a leaner, more efficient public service, which will protect the public salaries which we said --

>> we need to -- >> the i.m.f., which he signed up for are going to -- >> on that point, talk about the public sector. >> you talk about one in o10. what you're talking about in practice is taking two teachers out of every school. talk about taking out -- >> no, that's not what -- >> but -- >> you promise everything for everybody in the audience. >> we apolish 145 positions that you failed to do. >> if you exclude people at the frontline then you're no longer talking about one in 10. you might be talking about one in five. that's a pretty tall order to try to get on a voluntary basis within three or four years. if you can't get them on a voluntary basis, the question then is are you going to proceed? if you don't proceed with compulsory redundancies, as the

figures in term of your budgetary proposals don't add up. and we come back. this is an issue we may have to, you and i may have to sit dun and hammer this out after the election because if you don't do it that way, your numbers won't add up. that is where, that is where -- that is where we then have to talk about the period of time within which the deficit is reduced. >> we can come back. >> there's a difference between the labour party and fine gael. we said we accepted thery ducks of 3% by 2014, that's a target we accept should be achieved. if the growth projections are not as stong as was originally envisaged, it allows for a further extension of one year. only in those circumstances would fine gael accept that. our program for fiscal correction is based on nine

billion. >> what about the public secor plan and issue. >> we achieve those figures -- >> go back to public sector. >> around the conditions, we said we would honor the park deal as far as public salaries were concerned with a different view about investment of public moneys to create jobs. there are conditions set in there, as you're well aware, about redeployment of staff and all the rest of it. our program does not envisage any compulsory redundancies and we believe strongly that over the four years we can achieve an 18,000 reduction by voluntary redundancies. >> the big issue here and it goes to the heart of the lack of credibility of the fine gael plan, we're talking 6.5 billion. so talk to the odd civil servant who says i can get a million or half a million there, that's nowhere near enough. >> but you were -- >> apolishing 145 of them is not

going to get you that number. this is cutting people. you know why? because the big electry board they want to put up was -- headline they wanted to put up was no income tax. therefore it's 6.5 billion. of what in true waste. nothing else. we actually -- >> we laid it out department by department. >> we're going to make the savings. >> of course you can save money. we have to do more. i'm talking about 6 ppt 5 billion. let's be realistic. let's be honest. >> 63579 billion is what i'm talking about. >> we all know, we all understand that there can be efficiencies achieved in our public service. the expert group, for example, that lacked at the health

services estimated about 19% savings that could be made across health services. there are ways in which savings can be achieved across every state agency. if you give the management of those state agencies the discretion to do the savings. one of the things the labour party will do is we will say to state agencies and public service managers, if you can get 2% reduction in your fwudget each year, 2% reduction in your expenditure each year over three years, that's a total of 6%. then we will give you discretion as to how you manage that budget. the problem at the moment is you have an over-rinled management of public service system. it's management by fiat and dictate and by circular going out from government departments. you take for example the embargo, the recruitment embargo that fine fail brought in. >> let me come back to that. i'm trying to give you all equal time.

>> we can get the savings without having to specify where we're going to be. i don't think they've been upfront with the people in this election. and we need to be. the efficiencies are already taking place. some departments are 8% or 9% down on administration savings and efficiencies now. i think if you talk to people they'll tell you quickly, there can be more savings made and there will have to be. there have to be consequences. we are saying that exclusively in our matter. we said department by department we're going to make savings. you can't just throw out a figure, like 6.5 billion, without setting out where you're going to get it. it's not credible to say it's going to take on 30,000 public servants. >> we're moving on to john. >> martin represented his country and government for 14 years he accepted no

responsibility for not reading his brief when he was in the department. >> that's not true. it's more prop began da. that is not true. that's false. that's false. >> he's endorsed by -- >> ok. for many people watching tonight, i don't need to tell you this, all of you, 39,000, more immigrating in the next two years. what's the plan to create jobs and is it credible it will work sips you have been in government for 14 years? >> of course we're in the worst recession since 1929. that's the context within which we're operating. it's not just an irish recessioning it's a global recession. it can work. we did this before. it's not just us saying this, most independent analysts are saying it has to be an export recovery. we let out -- laid out sector by sector where we think jobs can be created. we created a blueprint for the

agriculture and food industry. >> how many jobs -- >> can i finish this? i want to make a point, agriculture and food is one. technology is another key sector. medical devices, farm sought cools, digital media and working with interprize we have targets that they've agreed of about 150,000 jobs over the next four years in those secors. you can add others as well. side-by-side with that is an extensive capital program which will be labor intensive to build more schools and concentrate on the modernization of schools, on the retrofit program, the installation of water meters, for example, which will create thousands of jobs as well and other jobs. there is a coherent jobs plan there. we actually did it before in this economy. which created significant wealth and significant jobs and exports last year are up by 7% and it's looking very good again for 22011. -- by 2011.

>> they said to me, what has happened to neil martin. has he had some kind of boost here, where were these ideas when he was in government the last 14 years. what people want to know is this, you knock on 1,000 doors, 980 of those people will say to you, jobs, work and all the rest of it. it's important for dignity, fundamental for the person to have that opportunity to go to work, raise their family, have their career. that's why fine gael set out another five-point plan where jobs is the first and primary function of that. >> how will you create them? we'll invest 7 billion from the national pension reserve fund and the sale of nonstrategic state to create 100,000 jobs in four years in water, broadband and renewable energy.

we'll have it for obvious use from there on. we'll abolish the travel tax from a tourism point of view if the airlines say we'll bring in x number of new flyings and x number of passengers. and it will make fleblingsability for small businesses plus the changes we make for employers to take away those tax obstacles to employment. plus deal with the issue of inspections, the plethora of red tape that's in there that's costing $500 -- that's costing 500 million a year. >> let me bring in gillmor. what do you think of their proposals, then tell me about your own. >> first of all, i don't think they're credible. i met a first-time voter today who told me that she couldn't remember in her lifetime when fine fail wasn't in government, that's the length of time they've been in office and when they took over office, when

labor left office, we were creating 1,000 new jobs a week. what's happening now is 1,000 people are living in country every week. there are many ways to create jobs. first in the short-term. construction. got to get people back to work in construction. and what the labour party would do is get the school program moving get the retrofitting program moving. immediately we would establish a jobs fund from which employers would get relief where they're taking on new employees. we would make changes in retail. one big area with a loss of jobs is the retail sector, high rebts allowing the d dawn ward revision of rents to allow business to continue there. in the medium turm, the strategic investmentback, to provide credit for small and immediate yalm businesses who are the people who generate employment. and focus on specific sectors of the economy. one thing to remember in this country, we have huge potential for trade with countries like

china. only 2% of our exports as a country goes to china. this is the fastest growing country in the world and its economy is growing fast. we need to be much more up to speed with our trade have trade missions there, be developing our trade with those countries and -- in areas like food and in new energy, in the green energy area we know that oil is going to run out. this is a country, our sea area is 10 time ours land area. huge potential for wind, wave, tidal energy, potential for 75,000 jobs in that area. finally, i think we have to remember if it's government that creates job, it's employers that create jobs it's businesses that create jobs and what government has to do is create the circumstance -- >> i'm trying to give you all on the same time. on that issue of businesses, as we all the 700,000 people are employed in this country in small and immediate wrum sized businesses. i was in galloway the other night doing a primetime program and quite a number of people on

the program were talking about they are literally crucified by the banks. what would you do, what would you promise to do to get credit to those businesses, guys are saying to me they wake in the minute of -- middle of the night, they cannot sleep because they're worried because they have no money and they can't get access to credit. >> there are normal ways of getting access to credit. i think for small businesses in the high street and commercial intervises, we have to reduce commercial risk and reduce development levies. it would give breathing space to small businesses in this country. in addition to that, in terms of -- if you want to go back to the banking thing, the bank has to be -- there are funds there to try to fund small businesses but i acknowledge there's an issue in terms of getting credit to small business. they don't create jobs except through the capital program. enterprise ireland has been strong in giving targeted and

group support to this country. i've worked with them and been on expeditions to china with them. >> so that's what you would do. >> research grants in terms of -- not just grants but also improving and enhancing their management capacity, enhancing their market capability. when i was on trade measures to silicon valley, we brought people over there in technology companies to advise us. they said ivish companies have the best technology in the world in areas like software, diagnostics and medical devices. the one thing wellocked was -- lacked was marketing capability and apbigs and a certain degree of management ability. we need to support that these are lrgely export oriented companies. for domestic commall companies i think we need to do what i said in terms of commercial relief and in terms of development levies. i want to make another point.

again, this is about being credible with the people. you cannot raise seven billion without a fire sale of strategic assets. you won't get that much through nonstrategic assets. he summed it up when he said it was a public relations add on. that's what myal said about it. he didn't believe himself in the figures. i think we need to be credible in terms of what we're doing in the future. >> what he didn't tell you is when he was administrator, ireland slipped in the competitiveness rating. he as minister did not implement what he should have done in terms of our competitors. second fact. stockbrokers have done an evaluation of the sale of nonstrategic assets, i'm talking nonstratenalic assets and there are several billion to be had there. >> such as? >> colin mccarthy has been commissioned by the government, he fin herbed his report, it

wasn't published because of the election. >> which assets would you sell? >> e.s.b. power generation. >> that's strategic. >> but not the transmission lines. transmission lines are strategic. the power yen ration unit is in competition with other competition for electricity at the moment. we also say the same about gas generation but not the pipelines. because these are strategic assets. it's not true to say from martin's point of view -- it's not true to say that you can't put together the fund of 7 billion from the pensioners fund and sale of nonstrategic assets. they wouldn't be sold at fire sale prices. the bottom line is this, i'd like by 2016 to demonstrate we're the best small country in the world to do business. >> we get the point.

>> i don't agree that they are nonstrategic assets. i think power generation, whether by e.s.b. or someone else is strategic, particularly in an island. that's the first thing. even if it were a good idea to sell these, you wouldn't be doing them now where the market is very low. but it's now entered that we need to have the resources in order to put in to employment creation. we can't tell people who are out of work or young people imdeprating or their parents that we have to wait until the price is right for the sale of e.s.b. power generation to get people into employment. one thsh about employment, there are lots of good ideas. the irish eblings port economy is doing well. the food sector is doing well. what is not doing well is the domestic economy. and the gain -- again this comes back to the whole issue of if we take too much money out of the economy in budgetary measures

and insist on getting the deficit down to 3% by 204, then too much money will be taken out of the economy. domestic demapped will be reduced. one thing i see walk down is 50% or 60% reduction. >>en that point -- >> i want to finish. i want credibility in what i've put forward. i've asked him a numb of questions that we haven't gotten answers for. the most strategic issue facing this country in the next decade, even as we come through this difficult recession will be energy. and the state does need to keep its lever of control over nrbling. and that means means e.s.b., i'm afraid. to sell those off would be a huge mistake. i'm very suspicious of your proposal. i don't know what they're about. but i want to say this much, i think it would be --

>> we all -- >> we saw what happened with russia and a lot of states in europe a year or two ago. and we see the middle eastern crisis. this is a serious issue. we need to be extremely careful in terms of how we do this. >> he admitted he's not going to do it now. >> how can he get seven billion? >> there's a lot of people who are worried about health issues. it's a big subject. on health, you have this health insurance scheme based on the dutch model. it sounds a good model but how would it work here? we don't have the seven big insurance companies they have in the netherlands. is there a risk you'd end up with a few companies here and it would privatize service? >> no is the answer to that. leon martin set up the h.s.e. its legacy has been a disaster for many people. what happens to most deputies

from all parties is that they are now getting volumes of phone calls from people about the situation their families are in every tai of the week. a woman seven months pregfant had to lie on the floor in beaumont hospital for 24 hours. he said he would abolish waiting lists 10 years ago in 2001. we don't want to tinker around but change the system radically. we cannot do what we believe over a period of government, it will take two years after that. we'll end the two-tyre system, end the location of private hospitals on public hands. we will not privatize the public health system but in three phases, it will eliminate waiting lists, allow for a situation where money follows the patient and hospitals get paid for what they do an not for what they think they might do. and the third end is the --

>> i want to bring the others in on that. >> which is fair. >> i know you don't want to remove the h.s.e., though you have a similar insurance scheme. what would your view of it being abolished, is it wise when we've no money to do this and have a period where we don't know what would happen? >> it can get bogged down for a numb of years abolishing it then you have to set up something similar to it anyway. what we would do is we would change it. we are in broad agreement. the labour department is in broad agreement with fine gale, we have to reform our health insurance an base it on universal hurns and do it to end the two-tyre system so that people get treated on the basis of need rather than on the basis of money. we have set out a two-phased

strategy to do that the first phase would be to concentrate on pr primary care, upgrade our primary care system and have three freeh primary care for everybody as part of the insurance system. it would cost 489 million euro and we identified where the savings for that would be found both in the health system itself and in the reductions in tax reliefs on g.p. care. the second part of it is the hospital phase, which would take another two years where we end up with a fully insured system a transformed health system which would be more efficient, which would save money and which would be fairer for patients. >> the health insurance scheme, it sounds a good idea, would you accept that? >> no. i think it's a crazy idea. that the another part of the five-point plan with huge holes in it. the dutch don't believe, some of the dutch researchers don't believe the dutch model -- a

recent study said it has major flaws with the dutch model which dr. riley acknowledged on monday was the case. he admitted that and said he'd look into it. a few days before elections he's going to look into it. >> he has not factored in the reserves require nerd private health insurance companies to take on the volume of money from the agency. second the agency block grant across the cupry will end in three years time according to their plan. the last point is this, in holland it's costing an average family 5,500 per anumb. >> in ireland, don't go to holland at all now. in ireland -- in ireland, and

you were minister for health for a time and you were responsible for setting up the h.s.e., what we have ended up with is we've ended up with a very expensive health system. we're paying a huge amount of money into it between what's paid in in taxes and what's paid in it in insurance and what's paid out of our pocks. we've had more people lie ogen trolleys and not able to get in hospital this year than ever before. you're talking -- >> i am in position -- >> we are talking about reforming -- >> you're in no position. >> you're talking tissue putting forward something with no detail. >> there is detail. we published. >> he set up the h.s.e. he knows the last thing the health system needs is changing.

they say the two-tyre system is working well. the last people who would do it is they took up private lands which could have been used for expansion of hospitals. a good friend of mine died recently of cancer. tumors. he couldn't get a bed in his hospital. what did he have to do? they have to drive up to the emergency until such time as they are admitted for treatment. that's the legacy of their deprupe and the legacy they created. many fine people walking into service. they work under enormous stress and pressure with a system strangling them. >> tell me about the millions of wastes that are -- >> i know the health service. i acknowledge that. but thousands of people walking around, we've achieved a lot in the last decade. we are treating far more people

faster with betterout comes than we ever did before. it's up from 400,000 per anumb in 2005. i come back to the main point which he avoidsed, all he does is he talks about his five-point plan and talks about let's get out db -- >> you know what he wants to do we the health service, he wants to lay off ,000 health care workers far plan that would take 10 years to implement. he place -- his plan will take 10 years. >> i'm not sure where he's been for the last 4 years that he talks about himself. >> how many more times does he have to say that. >> h.s.e. said he had 2,000 people working in h.r., he could do the job with 700. people in the h.s.e. -- the man who set this up, there were 200

million wasted in the computer system that never worked. and the report was never protusde. >> you don't have a plan of you don't know it. there's no credibility. they said under this plan they'd have to close. >> there's no detail here. >> it won't work. >> you have -- >> 10 years. >> what's the cost? >> i've told you what the cost was. >> it's a joke. >> i'll tell you what's a joke.

>> some of the best economic years we had in this country and after 14 years, yes we have some of the finest people working in our health service, doctors and nurses and so on. we're a country of millions of people and you could not provide them -- >> we're moving on. >> at one time -- >> 10 years ago he was supposed to eliminate 19,000. responsibility lies with the minister of the department. >> many people -- many people when they -- enda, i'm going to move on. many people asked me about issues of social justice and equality. whether it's things like issues of disability, gay marriage, children's referendum, childrens that -- issues that over the years politicians have dodged if

you had one key social justice or equality issue that you would pursue if you were in government, what would it be? >> looking after people with disabilities. i think that, for example, what they did in cutting the blind pension, i think that was scandalous. i would -- the first area that labour in government would address in terms of equality and in terms of giving decent support to salespeople would be the area of disability. as a country we have to make that a priority. >> i feel an absolute priority should be the 300,000 people who suffer from mental illness every year, 75,000 who attend and the ratcheting up of priority for those who have the tragedy of suicide visit their families. >> we needed to make a universal national provision for children in our mainstream schools for special needs children. none of them were there when i

came in now there are close to 19,000. it's a decisive game changer in terms of disable. i think my passion in life is that every child in this country should have an opportunity to progress and should have equality of opportunity in education. we should always seek ways to ep hance and improve our education system so that those irrespective of background or difficult jis have -- difficulties have the chance to progress. >> i want to charge with you talking about leader shi. we started talking about the position our country is in. people are frightened. it desperately needs strong leadership to give hope to inspire confidence to give people a belief, i suppose, there's a way out of it. why do you believe, genuinely, why do you believe you can be that leader? >> because i've got a deep sense of conviction that i know how to fix what has been wrong in ireland for so long.

the -- to change the politics of co-lution and cronyism to give people a sense that there's a way forward here. what i want to do to -- to do in my life in politics is to be able to say i was part of those who rose and rebeled and died and took the first accepts -- steps toward freedom. i think the investment in jobs and creation, we can be the best small country in which to do business and raise a family and frankly the best small country to grow old in with a sense of degreeny -- dignity and respect. >> in terms of leadership, what's required is honesty in terms of the issues we put before the people. i think another fundamental aspect of leadership is the capacity to be radical and take decisions to reflect on where we are and take radical decisions such as fundamentally changing

the way we do politics in this country. and invite people outside of the political arena. chame our electoral system and also enhance and strengthen the role of pilots. edge the capacity to be radical an i've embraced radical decisions all my life and would do so again as leader of this country, is to unify people not to be targeting special groups or special interest groups but to build consensus in terms of the future of the country. and that builting that consensus, do what we did before, rebuild and recover our society and our economy which we can do and will do. >> in terms of leadership, what kind of leadership would you offer at this time that's critical in our nature that would be different from pote of the men beside you? >> i think the first is around values an the labour party's values center on fairness. we are all equal. we should be treated in an equal and a fair way. whatever decisions we have to

make in government about budgets or about the health service or anything else that it is done fairly. the second i think is the issue of good judgment. there will be moments in government, whenever government is in place, where there will be a crisis and you'll be tested. your judgment will be tested. when the labour party's judgment was tested on september 13, twage, labour was the party that stood by the taxpayer. the third one, i have a passionate police chief in the future of this country. i think this country will succeed. yes, we're going through a very difficult time right now. but we can come through it. we do have to pull together as a people. we do have to work together and i believe the labour party is best placed to provide that leadership and bring people together. >> thank you all very much. we will all know everything by the weekend. best of luck to all three of you. that's it for tonight. thank you for watching the 11th hour on rt2 right now with an analysis of these gentlemen.

we're back tomorrow night with another special at 9:35. good night and take care. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> coming up on c-span a discussion on the federal deficit and national debt. we'll hear from former co-chairs of the national debt commission, alan simpson anders kin bowles. then -- and erskine bowles. then vice president joe biden talks about bipartisanship in

congress. then the supreme court and the u.s. constitution. tomorrow on "washington journal," rebecca heimlich discusses an ohio senate bill that would end collective bargaining rights for people in the buckeye state. then jane oates on jobance the economy. after that, dr. gary wiltz on the new health care law and current budget debate. "washington journal" each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. later in the day a look at the role economics plays in the political unrest in the middle east. we'll hear from the governor of due nearby fra's central bank -- of tunisia's central bank. the carnegie endowment for international peace hosts this event, live coverage at 3:30 people eastern. the congressional budget office projects a record budget deficit

of $1.5 trillion this year. next a discussion with the co-chair os they have debt commission, erskine bowles and alan simpson. the national center for policy analysis hosted this one-hour event in dallas. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon, i want to thank you for coming and braving the weather to be here today. welcome to the hatton w. summers in distinguished lecture series. one of the board members is here today, we want to make sure and note that her mother, dorothy, wife of former summers in board chairman and -- sumners board chairman is also here. thank you for coming. we appreciate that.

also seated here up front is the mayor of the great city of dallas. tom leppert. other distinguished guests today, several students who are recipients of sumners foundation zhrarships, they're scattered in through here. i think the schools represented are s.m.u., texas wesleyian, austin college, the university of dallas an houston-tillotson university. some of these kids traveled a long way, we're happy to have them. several ncpa board hebbs -- members are here. thank you all for coming to the event today. if you're new to these events and even if you aren't, you should have found some information on the ncpa in your chair. please take a moment to read it. because of your support and the support of the people i have

mentioned, we have been able to promote, nurture and found some ideas that have been fundamental to the prosperity of america. the roth i.r.a., the health savings account, other ideas like that started at the ncpa. as a result of that, $225 billion in personal savings has been taxed once and at least up until this point will never be taxed again as a result of our efforts and more than 23 million fall families are now managing some of their own health care dollars bying is a health savings account. because of other reforms that started at the ncpa, half of all future enrollees in 401k plans will be enrolled with a diversified portfolio that will give them safer and better returns for their retirement and 78 million baby boomers will be able to work beyond their retirement age without being penalized by social security. now in this information among other things you can sign up for

daily policy digests and flsar john goodman's health care blog, the only place on the internet that all these good ideas in health care are vetted and debated and discussed. now i should also tell you that the ncpa, especially through dr. goodman's effort, organized a collaborative effort that brought together policy experts from a lot of other think tanks, they had a standing room only capitol hill briefing just moments before the house was going to vote on reforms to the recent health care law. several of our -- several of the cable networks covered it and our friends from c-span, who are here today covering this event also covered that one. so if you happen to miss that one and you want to be sure or tell your friends about this one, give anybody from the ncpa who is wearing one of these badges to -- that you'd like to receive or know -- get a link to that, we'll be happy to help you out with that. they also covered all of those. before you know it, it's going

to be summer. i know. need to think a little bit hard on that. but we'll soon be getting ready for this year's edition of four-star debate. that's a leadership camp, a debate camp that is co-sponsored by the general tommy franks leadership institute, oklahoma christian university and the ncpa and our friends at the sumners foundation also help with that. we'd be delighted if you'd consider sponsoring a student for that. it's an important function of the ncpa and the yen tommy franks leadership camp. all you have to do is ask eileen or any of the ncpa staff and we'll give you more information about that. it's an important initiative. now to today's program. erskine bowles and senator alan simpson are co-chairs of president obama's national commission on fiscal responsibility. mr. bowles is the former chief of staff for president clinton and while he was there was a pivotal negotiator in securing

the first balanced budget in several decades. i think if you accomplished nothing else, that was a great thing. senator simpson served from wyoming for more than two decades and while he was in the senate, he forged a well-deserved reputation as being a forceful voice for common sense in public policy. i believe his wife ann is with us today. we appreciate you being here. our moderator is president of the ncpa john goodman, the " national journal" and "wall street journal" called him the father of health savings account. his blog has 1,300 reader every day, we'd like you to be among them. he often appears on cable network news and his columns appear in several national newspapers and other online media. would you please join dr. goodman and the staff of the ncpa in welcoming mr. erskine bowles and senator alan simpson. >> thank you, richard. even though it's snowing outside and sleeting outside, i'm glad

we can give you that warm dallas welcome. alan simpson, you're a republican, erskine bowles, you're a democrat. in the time we've been here today i have not noticed a single cross word between the two of you. why are you two so different from everybody else in washington? >> when you're associated with someone and especially in a time of tension and trauma, you learn about friendship. when we started this, this was a suicide mission, still is, and erskine finally said one day, you know, what are you doing in here? how did you get in this? i said, biden called and said, i got a real deal for you, al. i said, thanks, joe.