>> public like to comment on mr. blaine's personality. i am particularly in interested in central and america. i was born in cuba. toward the end of the 20th century, the cuban resolution was just larding. i was wondering if mr. bland ever went to countries outside of the united states. what his opinions were on the colonialism or other countries. if he did anything or have any feelings about those types of the divisions? it is a great show. i will hang up and listen. thank you. >> the question is so timely

because it is time for us to spend some time learning about his years as secretary of state. he served three presidents. some suggest we look at plans legacy. it is really in the area of international affairs. can you speak to the influence? >> maybe i take the first one first. i do not believe he went to south america. europe, yes. he traveled several times to europe. indeed. the twine -- in the period between the time he became secretary of state in the mid 18 80s, he spent quite a bit of time in europe. that time was with a very close friend of his. in terms of his significance with secretary of state and the development of policies, they were really primarily focused on

central and south america. this was a very progressive thing to be doing in american foreign policy. those areas, -- he was very concerned that britain was having an unusually strong influence on some of the countries -- particularly argentina that many of them were fighting among each other. he felt in order to have a stronger and safer america, you also need to have a strong and safe neighbors to the south. >> before you answer, we have another political cartoon. >> this is from the judge. it shows a bland as an old western scout on a horse. >> look at all the people of the world looking at him. >> exactly. this is bland as secretary of

the state. he is actually leading the people of central and south america into a new world. he is giving them leadership. in many ways, it is creating what became the pan-american union -- the opportunity for people to meet diplomatically in both hemispheres. >> where would he have gotten these ideas? >> i think it goes back to the moderate doctrine. he was trying to revitalize the hemispheric unity and also dissent. something i find interesting is the notion that he did feel it extended as far west as hawaii. he had his eyes on why even though he is talking about the integrity. he also had an imperial stick strain. >> this is at the very end of his life. he does not even live long enough to see hawaii and next.

he said to emplace by sending his old friend -- who was involved in the journal with back in the 1850's. he sends enhanced this special to format the revolution. >> one of -- envisioned a historic american base on its increasing wealth. you mentioned it had an american centric view. >> the very much -- he would have been very supportive of the consolidation of capital and the growth of american wealth and its expansion around the world. >> the interesting thing. we had a caller much earlier on and there was a very strong difference between plan and his world view and agreed who resigned from the house can after the spanish war because he

was so concerned about the imperial listed direction he perceived america going in. there were very differing views in a america about the direction of a nation as a world power. >> you were serving under president harrison. how strong the president was he? >> he was generally perceived as a -- this is reflected >> the author was distending garfield has been powerful in their relationship. he was defending it against traditional people sang it was really glad he was running the show as well. >> this is david. >> hi, david. you are on. >> i was wanting to know did he

have any influence? the political party that would be, -- up until the 1900 or 1910? there is a lot of policies that we still live by. workers' compensation and workers' rights. did they have anything to do with employing anybody in wisconsin? >> not that i am aware of. >> think we are talking about the next generation of politics. we are talking about the teddy roosevelt as the progressive era -- air from the early 1900's. do forms you are talking about and reforms that extended to other states as well our post 1900. >> i would think he would be

very pro capital. we are talking about workers' rights and so on, he was with the millionaires. he was not committing the laborers to see. >> could you give us a brief history of the house that you are in about how the state of maine was able to acquire that from the donation? also, the death in washington d.c. and his subsequent burial 20 years later back and agusta? >> is sorry going to ask you not to ask about the death because we will show a little bit of the gravesite. >> the house was built by a retired sea captain in 1833. our state house right across the street had just been finished in 1830. this was a strategic location for home. the house was acquired in 1862.

he died in 1863. the house was really inherited by their surviving children. but then in the 19 teens, the house went to his grandson. walker was tragically lost in the last month of world war one in 1918 in france. the house went back to carry it again. she in turn gave it to the state of maine in 1919 as our governor's mansion. it was restored and remodeled so it could be used as the home of maine's governors. they are the 21st family to live here since 1920. >> let me introduce you to another gentleman we but like to bring into the discussion. let me show you as we start here

a biography he has written. his book is "continental liar." he is joining us from inside the governor's mansion. how did you get interested in blaine to read a biography about him? >> basically, i had been involved in the house since 1966. i was assistant to the governor. i knew all about the blaine house. later on, another governor asked me to be the co-chair of a group called friends in the blank house. i was spending a lot of time here. there was a little bit about him here. there really was not much. there was no up-to-date biography of him. the previous biographies were about 70 years old.

there have been two of them written in the 1930's. i thought it was high time that this fascinating character who came within a whisper of being the that it's -- from being the president of the that states should have a biography. but to set fascinating. what are some of the other advocates words he had used to describe blaine? >> could you repeat that? >> what are other words you would use the site's fascinating to describe him? >> on the use a lot was magnetic. they called him the magnetic man because he had a magnetic personality. apparently when he would walk into a room, he just felt that room. everybody flocked to him. he was a natural in that regard. >> and you have been listening to our conversation. do you have a favorite story we had not told tonight? >> i did not hear everything that you said.

i was want to start by talking about -- the first time he was secretary of state. i do not know how much you got into his relationship with our field. >> that is okay. tell us a little about it please. >> garfield was like a prohibition of his. he helped him get to a real tough patch and congress when garfield was accused of corruption and taking some saki could not have taken. he got in on that. they were very close friends. in 1881 blame was running for the second time, he kept -- when blaine was running for the second time, he did not have the force to get nomination himself. he turned his votes over to garfield.

that is help are filled who was a very dark horse when the convention started happened it to end up as a republican nominee. the sort of quid pro quo was when the number one job of the cabinet was to be secretary of state. it was understood between them that he would become secretary of state. >> us take another telephone call. we have less than 20 minutes late. >> high. the historic curious about lanes relation. both radical republicans before and during and after the civil war. it might be particularly interesting since he was chair of the senate foreign relations committee. >> thank you very much. is that something you can take? >> land made a name for himself

when he first was elected to congress by taking on steven chu everybody was afraid of. i do not know exactly what his relation ship with sumner was, but he was not a radical republican. he was a moderate in that regard. he still wanted to build and the republican party in the south. that is why he was so strongly for suffrage for the free slaves. he was not for tremendous punishment for the south that some of the radicals were. >> we talk about the life and times of james blaine.

grover cleveland was a successful candidates. we believe he had an influence on american history and are learning more about that tonight. >> hello, how are you? continuing on about james of bland personality, i would -- i was wondering, he is certainly a larger-than-life character. >> at me ask briefly if they seem embodied -- giving them a little time to think about it. >> i do not think so. he was considered a very congenial person. he came from a way as we say here in maine. he came up here as a young man. immediately he was accepted by people here.

he was so good with people. he was sort of a combination of various people that we had now. i do not see anybody that has his intellectual depth. he was a very bright guy. he was very well read. i just read about him going to parties in washington and being described as being surrounded by people because he was reading the poetry. >> >> of either of you read about comparisons to today? "i thought about bill clinton. >> in some ways, that kind of great personal style, larger than life -- very commanding -- my understanding of bill clinton is when he walks into a room, he takes center stage without trying. >> and very bright. clearly a very intellectual figure.

the other person i thought of was lyndon johnson in terms of him being a party man and being able to gather people together to do what he wanted. >> and to work the system. but send a little corruption here and there. we are alive inside the governor's mansion. we have 50 more minutes. sean, you are on. >> good evening. i was wondering. is there any connection between mr. blain and the southern robert? >> we will take it in here. but was that? >> we will take in this rep. presidents in washington, d.c.? >> in 1881, when blaine became secretary of state, he decided

to build a large mansion on dupont circle. that house is still standing today. it was a house that he only kept for a few years. in the post 1884 election, he and his wife traveled a lot. it was at that same time after giving up the washington residents that they built another big gilded age victorian cottage here in maine. then when he became secretary of state for the lost time, he actually acquired secretary of state's house near the white house. that is the house he died in in 1893. >> he was there for a very short time. he had one of his daughters who died there. his wife hated the place. it is absolutely mammoth. it is still standing on massachusetts avenue. >> interested in james blaine

and like to see that period of history. about 12 minutes left. hawaii stanley. >> high. -- hi. are there any books that they might recommend for reading in regards to mr. blaine? but i would suggest the but you are holding right there. if you want to know about the time. or the state in addition to this, some other books to can recommend it? >> i would agree. neils book is the most recent and up-to-date and comprehensive lkof blaine. yet to go back to the 1930's to have two biographies for him. neil is also an author to turn to their. he has done and over view of the

state of maine. >> he is getting a lot of that valentines in this room. what we are talking about houses. in this book, you described the scene when blaine learns he is successful in obtaining the republican nomination in 1884 and he goes to the front door of this house to greet his supporters. will you tell us about that time? >> when it the news first came, the people were gathered down on water street which is right down by the river. around the post office, his biggest crony was the post office are down there. they were putting up signs about how the land -- how blaine was doing.

also, the blaines have a telephone. they were probably one of the first in the nation to have a telephone. the phone rang. his daughter picked up at dawn that she won. she ran out into the front lawn where plan was learning -- lying in a hammock. she said, you have one father. you have one. everybody marched up the hill from water street to greet their hero. a huge crowd gathered. then it started to rain. you heard a voice yelled out from the crowd -- we have been waiting 11 years for this rain. blaine said they were all getting soaked. he gave his speech then. everybody started pouring in

here from all over the country. they had a train come from california which had the california delegates to the chicago convention. people started coming from all over the state of maine. all over the united states. john eventually called him black jack logan spent a few days with blank. >> i want to thank you for adding to our rich knowledge of james blaine. one more thing before we say goodbye to you, continental liar from the state of maine -- it is available wherever you buy books. our guest is part of our program as we learn more about this for a colorful and intellectual man from the 19th century known, only around the united states but around the world. >> i would like to ask you, what

is blaines relationship to chamberlain? he was a republican. what was their relationship? >> as you mentioned, joshua chamberlain served four terms or after the civil war. chamberlain was a very independent individual. she was not comfortable with elaine's brand of politics. i think there was ample evidence they did not get a long that will. there were not close compatriots in the party. chamberlain did not go for their in politics after the governorship. he became president of the college. later on, he became collector of the port of portland. >> we had a collar that mention the towns that were named for james. we did a little bit of research.

we found a number of cities and towns -- rather counties and towns named for james blaine -- mostly after the time. around his death. can you talk a little bit more about honoring people -- especially james g. blaine in the communities around the country exports one thing i heard what i've learned about that -- i thought about the fact that several of them are out west. i thought about his whole push for the western part in the 1879 -- 1880 hoping to build that the chinese exclusion. i thought maybe he really dead do some favors out west. i do not know if there is any connection. it is interesting that this republican figure from maine, well-known, there was some clear support. >> san francisco, up next -- jim. >> thank you. most of wainscot history was during reconstruction.

wasost of blaine's history during reconstruction. the you know what degree he negotiated or southern whites? >> i am sure that he would have said that he stood firmly against the real shearson -- reassertion of power by southern whites. he was a moderate. he was in line with those who believed the nation should move forward. the radicals were really holding it back. the radicals were in favor of punishing the the white southerners -- the rebels as best they could. i do not think it would have been in any way good politics for him to step up for white southerners. i do not think he was released wrongly going to take the position that they should be punished. >> in that regard, can i ask you -- what would have beat

spots in the bill that would exclude citizenship? >> when he was throwing his hat in the ring he sponsored a bill that said that all of the remaining confederates, former confederates who had not been given amnesty should be given amnesty except jefferson davis which is interesting. >> it provoked a great fight in congress. people felt -- some people felt it was great because they felt he should -- this idea that you should hold jefferson davis accountable was great. others thought that plan was doing what they called waving the bloody shirt again. reconciliation seem to be moving forward. >> we have about five minutes left. >> , and joshua chamberlain,

ulysses grant, william mckinley, blaine had no military record in the civil war. his running mate had won and was the first president of the grand army of the republic -- the great republican organizations throughout the states. lo and give us a memorial day. candy to speak to the fact -- was that a ticket balancing move in some sense? did it cover the fact that b laine had not served? what's the think there is no question that was a political balance on the ticket. logan was very well-known. the veterans vote was a very powerful force in the post civil war. in america. blaine because he was very much involved in a emerging political career. when the civil war broke out he was speaker of the house in maine.

he was about to run for congress. he did what many men did at the time. he actually bought a substitute. it cost about $300 to have someone else go instead. cleveland had in the same thing. it was a very interesting situation that prior to the 1884 campaign, you always had someone in office and in the presidency -- grant and hayes and garfield, who had been the civil war officers. blaine and cleveland were not. >> whatever had won, it would have a break in that generation. >> we have a viewer who asks about his death. will you tell the story about his death? >> as it has been mentioned, he was a man who was prone to illness author his life. i think both real and imagined.

there was always mention that he might have been more of a hypochondriac and reality. but at the same token, by 1892 he was exhausted both physically and mentally. in fact, the campaign of 1892 was looming. it was some talk of him being nominated for president. he really was not up to it. keep out out. he gave only one speech during the campaign. it was on behalf of the reelection of harrison. early in 1893, he died at his home in washington. >> where is tiberi? >> buried in augusta. originally buried in washington. the state of maine bought their remains back to a customer. date resign in a beautiful blaine memorial here in a

customer. >> we have very little time. we have a local college. -- we have a local caller. >> what was the relationship between mr. blaine where the native population of the state? we know there were natives in the civil war that had it there are regiments in the south. >> i am but to stop their speed is our time is short. >> i am not sure i have a quick answer for that. >> is that right? any place to go for that? is there material available? >> we definitely look to niels' book to start with. >> i would like to close. we have just a minute left.

i'd like to ask you the question. what was the legacy -- what is the importance to america today of james g. blaine having been a politician here? >> is his desire to build some kind of cohesion. >> i think there is bad and if you look at his career in public life, he is one of the key builders of the republican party. he is there at the beginning in 1854. he is still there almost 40 years later as their most powerful and most identifiable figure. >> the congressional democrats. the state legislator is all republican. >> we are out of time.

thank you for hosting us at the governor's mansion tonight. the staff has been fabulous. we have been setting up over the past few days and we really do take over the place. and they have been wonderful. for allable affiliate's their help and support in bringing c-span to this community. we will close the program with the same way we open ditch. we will look at the campaign memorabilia. they saying in 1864. thank you for being with us tonight. ♪

>> the contenders features profiles of key figures to run for president and lost, but changed political history nevertheless. you can see tonight's program again at 11:00. our live look at the contenders continues next friday. we will travel to lincoln, neb., talked to historians and take your telephone calls. the series airs live at fighting nights at 8:00 through december 9. -- live at friday nights at 8:00 through december 9. for more information, go to c- span.org.

that is all at c-span.org/the contenders. >>, former pennsylvania gov. discuss tax levels and transportation needs. after that, palestinian president on palestine's application for united nations membership. the c-span series, the contenders, on key figures to have run for president and lost. tonight, from maine. >> on this constitution day, a reminder, our news didn't camera competition is under way. the constitution and you. open to middle and high school students, $50,000 in prizes. the deadline for submission is in its january.

>> former pennsylvania gov. debate deficit reduction and infrastructure investment. the discussion is moderated by congressional correspondent major garrett. president obama has called for infrastructure spending in his newest jobs plan, which would be paid for in part by limiting. >> i want to give you a quick rundown. i want to give you a quick rundown of this morning program. we will start with the debate.

>> he has worked for cnn. >> good morning, everyone. it is great to have you here. welcome to our c-span audience. what we're going to do is we will have a lively debate and discussion. i will not act as any some of it -- sort of formal procter here. i want them to engage and feel free to engage each other directly. about 9:15, i will take the

questions that you had written down or submitted via twitter or facebook. without further ado, i will not spend my time or your time introducing these two gentlemen. you are here and you know who they are. gov. -- they have defined an element of the political carina. -- are arena. the governor knows what it is like to win and he knows what it's like to lose. he has dealt with a lot of infrastructure issues. it will be very viable to have his perspective. grover is incredibly well known in washington. what i will do is i will put a broad question before the two of you as it relates to the president's jobs act.

i will ask the question differently to both. governor, is it big enough, doesn't do enough on infrastructure and what would you tell centrist democrats who have not yet warm up to the president's proposal? grover, since the president indirectly called you out and said, some of you in this audience have signed a pledge not to raise taxes. you should not extend the tax cuts that occurred last year. i know that is not directly related, but it is part and parcel to the larger debate. >> let me begin by a thanking everyone for being here. i am honored to be here with some new i described last week as the most powerful person in washington. as you know, 236 people have

signed the taxpayer protection applied to. members of the house and 41 senators. grover has an absolute majority in the house and can block any legislation in the senate. i think one of the most embarrassing moments in the history of this great country of ours was when many republicans went to grover and asked for his permission to vote to reauthorize at the current levels. no offense to grover. he has done a great job advocating for his position. we have elected officials about to get a permission slip from a private citizen to vote to reauthorize a tax that is essential to keep this country moving. it is embarrassing. it is flat out embarrassing. i am sorry, major, i will answer the question.

maybe grover will say some nice things about me. [laughter] probably not. the problem with it and the structure being part of stimulus bills, it works. in pennsylvania, we received $1 billion in the first stimulus bill. we tracked. clearest -- we attracted very carefully. we tried the jobs that were created on the construction site and the jobs that were created in the manufacturing plants. every vendor on each job, we asked, how many people did you rehire? for that $1 billion, we produced 25,300 jobs. it does produce jobs. but when you do it for a year or 18 months, those are temporary jobs. it is better than nothing. the economy needs a shot in the

arm. those people earning good wages. they spend money with the money they earned. construction and manufacturing. they are the two most challenge parts of the economy. it is a plus, it is a good thing. building america's future, the organization that i had with mayor bloomberg, believe that it only works to revitalize the american economy if we did for a 10-year period. if we did $200 billion of additional infrastructure spending, if we did all of that, and the cbo said that $185 billion of additional infrastructure spending would be economically justified and would have a benefit that would exceed the cost, if we did that, it

would produce 36,000 jobs for every billion dollars of infrastructure spending most experts are a little bit more conservative at 25,000. if we did that, we would have 5 million new jobs. recommitted doing that for 10 years -- if we committed doing that for 10 years, those 5 million jobs would be there for each and every year over a 10- year period. we would enhance and revitalize american manufacturing. these are jobs that are -- that cannot be outsourced. the problem with the stimulus proposal is that it is too short term. it is not his fault, we need to make a long-term investment. every business that has grown successfully has invested in its own growth and we should, too. >> if the government spent

money, can it create jobs? what happens with road construction? the folks who advocate other kinds of government spending have misused the road building industry and planned a scam or they say, -- playing this game where they say it -- you cannot possibly have driven past insufficient roads if you came in from northern virginia. we had to massive tax hikes that are going to fix that. they may have spent the money on other people's pensions, giving perret's is to people who do not build roads, that is what they did do. when they keep doing that and people come back and say, let's build roads, understand that taxpayers say, we played this game before.

we are not falling for it. to the first point, if the government takes a dollar from somebody who earned it, and gives it to somebody who is politically connected, are there more dollars in the room? if obama and nancy pelosi walked over to one side of the lake and day put a three buckets of water and they take to but it's out, and they bore the three bucket's back into the lake. -- they announced that their project is to stimulate the lake. you laugh and -- in a room full of taxpayers, everybody laughs. what happens? we will do this 800 billion times. oddly enough, it does not work. there are more people unemployed than when we started stimulus one and a stimulus to.

-- stimulus 2. it is the old story about the definition of insanity. i know that -- i went to college and they taught me the multiplier. i thought it was one number during the obama administration. we find out it was six different numbers. if the government takes a dollar from you and gives it to somebody else with food stamps, at the entire economy increases by $1.70. we are told so by mark zandy. if i give it to the city of philadelphia, it only increases the economy by $1.36. increasing and the structure -- infrastructure -- increases gdp

by $1.50. the original effort was a promise of four. they were going to have more government spending. that was a multiplier of 4 for the first $800 billion project. the governor was kind enough to say, grover, and you and the pledge have tremendous power. no. the taxpayers in the united wield tremendous power. we have made a commitment to the taxpayers, not to me, i promise

to the voters of my district and a nation that i will not raise their taxes. we put this together to help enact the tax reform act of 1986. it is very clear that revenue- neutral tax changes -- you want to raise the gas tax to build more roads. you could have more wars and -- you could have more roads and stops caring people. 9.9% corporate income tax in pennsylvania. the pledge says, no net tax increases. as long as it is revenue neutral, overtime, then it is

not a problem. the first question, if the government takes a dollar from somebody and gives it to somebody else, have you created jobs? we tried this during the hoover recession, which turned into the great depression. obama has not had the tax increases, but hoover and fdr bump it up to 90%. people point to this as the model of what we ought to do more of. can government employment create jobs? no, you are just moving -- i see somebody over here working on saturday, i take $100. i give it to the guy was not working.

i have done two things. i've told everybody was thinking of working on saturday that there is a cost to that. it discourages work. savings and investment. i told the guy over here, if you wait around long enough and remember to vote, there will be some sort of benefit. you are subsidizing not working and you're discouraging savings, investments, and work. it is not that you took $800 billion and moved it from here to here. it is worse than that. you damaged economic growth. i think there is a very important conversation to have about those of you who built roads. the rabbit that all the little towns -- hounds chase after.

i am old enough to remember when barney frank was in the legislature. the government unions, which drive the cost up, when you tell people you were taking their money for roads, and they know you are not. they know where the money is going to go. they do not believe that anymore and they do not believe it because there were not born yesterday and they have seen what the virginia democratic governors did to them and they see what has happened in other states. >> i want to respond to a few

quick points. the original stimulus was not a hundred billion dollars in spending. $350 billion of it, 40%, was tax cuts. >> refundable tax cut. >> i did not interrupt you. pennsylvania's corporate income tax is stated at 9.9%. are affected rate is under 4% because 74% of our corporations pay zero. 0. you can look it up. you can go to harrisburg and looked it up. taxpayers do favor spending money on infrastructure. in the 2010 election, the single most conservative anti-spending election in my lifetime, a 64% of transportation referendums called for either borrowing, taxation passed. when people believe they are getting what they pay for, when

it is transparent and they know what they're getting, they want to invest. actual jobs, i can tell you. grover is talking theory. i know what happened in pennsylvania. we got a billion dollars and we spent $1 billion on roads and bridges. we tracked the people on the construction side and we went to every manufacturer with a contract for the repairs and we said to them, did you hire people? did you bring people back? we got 25,000 jobs for that billion dollars. >> obama has used the tax code to create refundable tax credits, which means he writes a check to people.

conservatives talk about their tax expenditures. if the government fails to take a dollar, it just gave you the dollar. i reject that notion. if the government is writing you a check, that is a tax cut. if you were going to make the case that you need more roads, and the structure -- in this structure is not to building roads. what you call it infrastructure if you mean roads and bridges? if you mean it roads and bridges, say roads and bridges. join with those conservatives in congress who say, let's reform the gas tax so that if you are taxing people to use of roads, it does not get siphoned off to subway systems. it does not get siphoned off to imaginary high-speed rail that

in the 160 miles per hour, and trying to look like china or europe. we are not -- the united states is not laid out the way poland and moscow is. that is not the way we are structured and not the way we want to be structured. you know where everybody is at all times. differentiate between what people -- the other question is, why are we paying for -- i talk to one of the leading guys on capitol hill. that law needs to go.

when politicians tell me, we should raise gas taxes to pay for more roads. whatever the number is, it is more than zero. that was the conversation of the floor of the congress when they passed it. let's get rid of that law. it was put in for racist intent and it maintains that intent. of davis-you get rid bacon and get all the money that you want? that is not 50 years ago, that was last year. ok? let's get rid of davis-bacon for many reasons. do not tell people, we have cut everything to the bone except for davis-bacon. let's get rid of it. >> i will put a couple of

questions to you. kroeber, back in 1982, president reagan proposed raising the gas tax by 5 cents. he said it would create jobs. we would do it anyway even if we were not in the midst of the recession. it was the first time the gasoline tax was raised since 1959. if reagan was for it, as a way to maintain what he called the best infrastructure system in the world, why isn't it a good idea now? why would an inflation adjustment built into the system, why would that constitute a tax increase? i wanted to address this question of inefficiency driven by a inefficiency in road and

bridge construction in general. >> reagan endorsed a pledge that i developed in 1986, campaigned for people on that basis. people said, he raised taxes from time to time. george washington lost the battle of new york. he is not in favor of losing battles. you do not always win. reagan got jammed. he was working with the new democratic party and the old republican party. it was not his call and he told me the 1982 tax increase was the biggest mistake of his presidency. i am not concerned that if reagan came back and said, here

are our options, he would say, the thing to do is raise taxes. the challenge we have is when people say, how about raising taxes to pay for -- my question is, if you got rid of davis- bacon, if you got rid of the money diverted imaginary stuff like light rail or to all these various subway systems, pensions and benefits -- if you tell me you want to put more in, but it keeps getting siphoned off, my argument is, stop siphoning it off and we can think about having a conversation. we cannot have a conversation about raising taxes to give you more money when we know that it

gets siphoned off. you can pass some things on the ballot -- 94% of american support mass transit for other people so they will get off their highways. they want other people to ride it. >> what about the idea of inflation adjustment for existing tax policy? >> look, the tax pledge is very simple. the change in the tax code designed to raise revenue is a tax increase. certainly, that is why. >> i admire grover because he is never constrained by the facts in what he says. let's consider ronald reagan. he repeated it 10 more times, he

raised taxes 11 times. look it up. grover says no one rides. there were 868 million trips taken by americans on a mass transit. in one month, at 868 million trips. consider what erodes would be like if 1.1 million people were on the highways, roads, and streets of washington. you cannot get around washington now. can you and imagine? it is one of be a valuable things we can do from a transportation standpoint, quality of life, it is very important. he is wrong about mass transit, that they cannot be used for pensions. bill clinton -- right now, the

federal government only gives money to mass transit for capital needs. it cannot go into the operating budget, it cannot be used for pensions. maybe that was in the past, but. we have to get the inefficiencies out of the system. there aren't too many in pools of money. issued the broken. we should have more flexibility. we should get rid of your marks. i agree with all lot of what a kroger has said in the past. i think it is important we stick to the facts. the charge of political spending, first of all understand that in every state in the union, we are required to

bid for transportation projects. the bid has to go to the lowest responsible bidder. the government has no say in picking back. it is the low bidder that twins. it is illegal to require the winning bidder be union. i do not know what he is talking about politicians picking transportation and bridge projects. it cannot happen. it is not anywhere near the 30% cost people say. it probably has been raised about 5%. i am always impressed by conservatives who want to save money by reducing wages on working people. it want to save money. they want to widen the gap between the middle class and the

rich by dumbing down wages. grover said let's let hispanics and do it. maybe there are hispanics who need jobs. there are whites who need jobs. there are african-americans. why are we always trying to drop down what working people make. we're not interested in the profits made by business. there's a great to rate of profit than ever before. their tax burden is the lowest in decades. we pay less in taxes as a people and we did 50 years ago. we are always interested in driving down wages. it is astonishing to me. >> that you want to weigh in on this? >> yeah. and originally this conversation was about economic growth.

spending money on government infrastructure projects. you had me down as a deficit- reducer which is not my argument. i can give you my argument and the argument of paul ryan and the guys who run the house now and will run the senate in a year and a half. we ought to have to metrics of how we do -- economic growth and the size of government. government spending as a percentage of gdp. we want the government to spend a smaller percentage of people's lives and be in a smaller percentage and have a smaller percentage of control over their lives and the way they live with their families and communities. we want to have lower marginal

tax rates, have more economic growth. care are some democrats who have figured out we have a corporate income-tax -- 35% corporate and cent tax -- income tax. i was in pennsylvania. they're not in the second highest tax state of corporate tins -- income taxes. they think they are. which you have is a 35% corporate income tax. the european average is 25%. stupider than france is not where we want to be. a nice trip to move investment here before you run into office but it ought to be permanent. not this and depreciation we have in the present system. let's go to lower rates and broaden the base is.

. ands get the lawyers out not have that kind of dead weight loss on the economy. those are the lines to economic growth. taking a dollar does not create growth. my argument to those of you who build roads is when you walk in the room you have a lot of unsavory characters behind to that to raise the cost of the road did you say you want to build. that includes the environmentalists, labor unions, all of the various things and make it difficult or expensive to build roads and makes you a less credible advocate when you say if you give me a dollar will build a road as opposed to giving money to environmentalists. >> i was going to criticize a

couple of facts but he's right about the last part. environmental studies take forever. they take far too long. if we are going to stimulate the economy, we have to find a way to shorten those studies, restricts their scope without hurting the environment. if you tell people to do it in half the time, it is amazing. they find a way to do it. i agree with that. let me correct a couple of things grover said. he is unencumbered by the facts. corporate taxes in america. let's talk about the effective tax rate. 38% of corporations pay zero corporate income tax. the effective tax rate once you a factor of deductions and loopholes is 13%. there's something called the oecd.

their tax rate is 16%. u.s. corporations pay less than foreign corporations do. they pay less. i think grover is in favor of getting rid of the loopholes, reducing the corporate tax rate that is something that is a viable rate. let's get your -- let's get rid of the loopholes. the lower marginal tax rate will produce job growth. it is not supported by the facts. in the last 60 years, the highest periods of growth have been when we have the best years when we had a 70% marginal tax rate. the next 10 or when we had a 50% tax rate. out of the last 13 years when our tax rate has been a 3.5% or

lower, only one of them has been in the top 20 years of job growth. when bill clinton was president, we had the highest tax rate of 39%. we grew 3.8%. six -- since the clinton, we have had the tax rate lower. our growth has been 0.4%. those are the facts. if you raise taxes on job creators you're going to kill the economy, we can debate whether bill clinton's tax increase did anything to stimulate the economy or not. but it sure as heck did not kill job creation. it was the best job creation. in the last 50 years.

the republicans, it is going to kill the economy. we're going to have a major recession. >> one second. say let meallowed to correct you and redefine the term. i said the marginal tax rate is 35%. you talked about the effective tax rate. >> that is what they pay. i am talking about what check the companies gives. come on, admit it. be honest. they do not take a 35%. -- pay 35%. >> i assume you understand the difference between a marginal tax rate and when a company earns an extra dollar they make decisions. the whole story that you cannot drown costing -- crossing a

river of to introduce -- two inches is not interesting. >> how about to those who pay zero? >> the guys who did not make any income? >> the guys have so many loopholes that a zero. >> 38% of companies show no income. if you have no income -- >> it is not income. it is because of deductions and credits. >> they show no taxable income. >> they make huge profits and showing come. keep it up. >> to say you said something that is not true and say something is different, you did not -- you tried to shift the conversation. you're talking to a room full of guys who pay corporate income taxes in. they would notice is 35% as the top marginal rate.

even the democrats understand they're getting talked to people who deal with international trade. we're getting damaged because of that. the modern democratic party does not understand the importance of marginal tax rates. you're losing the senate. >> we're talking about what they pay. not the rate. >> that is what you want to talk about. >> the people want to know what they pay. they want to know what general electric pays at a time when they made $13 billion in profit. they paid zero. >> i object to someone saying i misspoke when i said something that is accurate. it is not misspeaking to focus on something other than what you wish to. it is insulting to suggest some allied. >> i did not say you lied. i said you were an accurate. >> that is a life. i was accurate. >> i want to talk about

infrastructure spending. to you think a dollar is a dollar and the spent in any other way. or are there benefits enjoyed by those who pay taxes for better roads and bridges? >> sure. i am used to the lack going, you are anti-government. cancer doctors object to cancer sales. taxpayers subject to wasteful government programs and spending. we need a government to keep the canadians on their side of the border. that is what the army is for. you need roads and bridges and stuff like that. the question is, to what extent has the government gone over the banks? i would argue that those of you who build roads need to

understand that when a politician says -- you run into this with prisons, education, and roads. a politician says my top priority is still in the blank. the only way to fund it is to raise taxes. that politician has looked to in the eye and told you his lowest priority in the world is your program because there is nothing in the federal budget that should be displaced to pay for it. nothing in the local budget to be displaced. a politician who says he can only help you if he raises taxes has told you you are the least valuable project in the world today. he has insulted you, not told you he is your ally. he wants to pay off his friends and the roads may or may not get built.

this game gets played. i work in all 50 states. those counties a deal with the government. you hear this again and again. back when prisons or big, we spend it on education. we would spend it on the department of education. that is not the same thing. the department of roads is not the same thing as rose. -- roads. calling something -- we cannot cut defense. we cannot cut pentagon spending? let's be careful and not run on labels. when somebody tells you if you help me raise taxes seeking it you money, and he is told you there is nothing else in the budget less important -- he

cannot fight them, he would rather fight the taxpayers. you're not going to get through the taxpayers. help us reduce the government and we can take those resources to build roads because building roads is a constructive thing to do. number just to know where. >> governor, you have raise taxes. you have cut spending. i am sure you have an appraisal or a response. >> again, it is hard to argue with what he said. as my years of governor we cut the cost of operation of pennsylvania by over $2 billion a year. our general government operations klein was less in my last year in 2010 than it was before a became governor eight years earlier. less in raw numbers. i believe corp. -- grover is right. the first responsibility is to

maximize the efficiency of the dollars we get. folks, we're going to have to continue to invest. that means raising revenue or prudent borrowing because only through investment and to businesses grow and can we grow as a country. we talked about roads and bridges. infrastructure is more than roads and bridges. infrastructure is having a system that is capable of getting small businesses to be able to compete in the global marketplace. we do not have that. we rank 15th in our broadband system. infrastructure is the electrical grid. if we do not build out our grand our competitiveness is going to go through the toilet. infrastructure is important in everything we do. we have been rated best in the world in 2005. now we're 15th in the air transport infrastructure.

we're behind countries like panama and malaysia. port infrastructure, we're 18th. rail, the 22nd. that is embarrassing. this country used to be the greatest in the world. i believe it still is. but we met our challenges. we knew what we had to do when we did not worry what was going to cost. we worried about how it is going to benefit our people. there was not someone saying, we kind of for to build the erie canal. we can afford not to do it. if we stop investing, if we stop investing in making our infrastructure first class, roads, dams, and levees, the army corps of engineers asked for a small amount of money to rebuild levees before katrina. we did not give it to them.

we of paid a 1000 times more in federal dollars because we did not do it. governor christie just noted that the dunes in new jersey that were paid for by the taxpayers, those dunes helped to withstand. we would have spent 10 times the amount of money if we did not replace our beaches. you spend money to build the infrastructure, to make it safe. to increase our economic competitiveness. stop doing it, and we are destined to become a second-rate power. we do not want to see that. let's get going. [applause] >> that was during a time when you had a stimulus spending when there was a net increase in

government spending on a federal level. it might be argued that it suggests there's too much inefficiency in the system and that those dollars, if we go from 5 to 15 -- >> first to 15. we did not boost money. state and local bear most of the burden. because of the recession, state and in local went down. the overall spending on infrastructure was way reduced. the surface transportation committee, congress is on committee, said we are spending $82 billion on our infrastructure. they recommended, these were all business people, their recommended we spend $220 billion. >> i have questions from those who sent them in. if you want to participate,

#njdebate. if we increase system where all pay their fair share, would you consider that a net tax increase? >> one of the key questions about a tax increase, if you're asking is probably so. it is obvious that if you have changes in the talks code cannot increases -- tax code that are not increases, if it is to raise more cash for the government it is a tax increase. you will have more luck working with taxpayers to reduce other government spending and redirect that toward roads and the necessary infrastructure then you will hearing on your back the-lists and the labor union

pensions and the guys who make tolls on the pennsylvania turnpike for how many hours for how many years. you carry all that on your back and you ask why people do not think which it came to them to talk about, roads, is what you're there to discuss. shed that stuff. fight for roads and help those of us who want to reduce other unnecessary spending. to reform some of the pension structures that they having governments that are bankrupting. you cannot maintain this pay-as- you-go benefit pension that organized labor has put together. keep that going and build roads. gee, we haven't been spending enough on rose. take a look at the state and city and federal budget. you can see the money that might

have gone to rhodes got sent to other places. all of the politicians voted to do that. they are not your friend. the governors of virginia raised taxes and sent the money to other than roads are not the friends. they used to like a human shield to get cash. that is what needs to and. i cannot stop that. you can. >> they do not remember the rate but it is and 24 cents for diesel. they want to know, how much would you raise that. how would you campaign on that behalf and overcome resistance from those who read -- i believe they speak for those who are economically challenged who pay a disproportion. >> lemme begin by saying that position is that we should raise

the gas tax but not now. we should raise the gas tax when the economy recovers. it is a position -- that is what the states do. i think we need a capital budget for sure. let me finish. the u.s. chamber commerce has endorsed increasing the gas tax. we do need to increase the gas tax. it has not been raised since 1993. think back to what your salary was in 1993. half of it went to the trust fund. think back to what your salary was there. you could not exist on that. 61% of the americans fought to the gas tax went up every year. it should. we should increase the gas tax

by phasing in 10 cents and once that is done, it should be ticketed to increase by inflation. it is the only way we can keep pace. do people hate bank taxes? yes. will they pay if they think they're getting something? you are looking at a living example of that. our race the second highest tax package. unlike prior governors who waited until their second term, i did it in year one of my first term. three years later i got reelected by a margin of 21% in a purple state like pennsylvania. people knew that we gave them concrete beneficial changes. we gave them better roads, safer bridges. we gave them a better education system. we give them economic growth.

today the unemployment rate is 7.4%. it happened because we invested in our own growth. >> uh, i would oppose raising the gas tax unless there was an offsetting tax cut of the same dollar amount somewhere else. that is not going to happen. if your of structuring your plans, it is not going to happen. you could work in coalition with us to come up with a package that would shift federal resources from other things to roads and buildings could not as a net tax increase. that is not going to happen. you can have a conversation. i know the chamber of commerce has a lot of people who work for it who make a living off of certain government programs jury it the represent the entire

business community. i love them dearly but they're not a touchdown for were the modern tax a movement is on that issue. >> we have three technical questions i'm going to merge together. how would you view separating the money that goes to the highway trust fund and siphoned off only for highways and bridges and create a separate mass transit funds? what did you think of the model in indiana leasing a state highway? you think higher user fees are an efficient way of finding expansion or maintenance of roads? >> separating roads from public transportation is an important

first step in giving more transparency and honesty in government accounting. that is helpful. i am an advocate of phasing out most, if not all, of the federal gasoline tax and allowing tax to take -- states to take those resources. when they see the guy doing -- syphon off to subways and to bypass and what not. they do not know what they can believe with the dollar that was supposed to go to roads. the extent you can turn those cards face up and say this is what we're spending on roads, this is what we are spending on public transit on the subway system, here is what we're doing. not in your neighborhood.

transparent is very helpful. step one. >> the highway, and direct user fees more economically efficient to fund construction or maintenance. >> leasing in indiana made sense. i know there was an effort to pennsylvania. that would have made sense. you could have had $20 billion without of those other restrictions. that would have been helpful. there would have been money for roads. yet to talk to the politicians about the importance of having their cousins hired by certain government programs. go fight to them. do not try to mug the taxpayers. we're not going to lose this fight. go fight the politicians who are

defending their cousins and uncles and want to keep shops going on the massachusetts turnpike. i am from massachusetts. that is a huge step forward. you have to fight someone, the politicians, not the taxpayers. tolls on new roads, and tolls on bridges, no problem at all, tolls on things paid for, problematic. the others are always a good idea. >> i agree with grover on state assets. we tried to do it in the pennsylvania turnpike. we got a bid up -- from citibank to adjust -- the legislature turned it down. this is one area where he is right. right.