tv U.S. Senate CSPAN September 26, 2012 12:00pm-5:00pm EDT
groups, the most interesting part of the 990 for us has been the schedule i, which is coming even though these groups don't have to disclose who gives to them, they do have to disclose who they give to. so we have spent a lot of time on guide star with these. and almost by chance we found this particular organization which came out of nowhere and seems to be run by somebody with ties to the koch brothers, and we learned it was giving money to firms that did a lot of advertising in the 2010 election, such as the american teacher fund, americans for jobs security, americans for prosperity, the koch brothers group again. and we found that by attracting some other groups that get the money you then see that some of those groups are giving money to other groups. there seems to be kind of a turning going on.
i have to say that when we do this work it's sort of feels like, you know, when you are going to a dinner party and buy a bottle of wine. it has a price tag on it. is to keep price tag and you're peeling of the quarter. it tears a little bit. it is a total pain. that is what it feels like. we just get the little pointer here and there. and i don't know if we will ever get the price tag off. yes. the other parts of the 990 that is interesting is the officers and directors, which are listed. the top vendors have to list their top five, which can be interesting. but this is not an easy path. let's go to the next slide. abcaeight. so what we have been doing with the information that we do find is incorporating it on our website in to the pages that we have on a particular organization.
so this is americans for prosperity, and you can see that , you know, we do say that this is not reported any word to the sec, but we have found it ourselves by digging through iras filings. we do show information about who is giving to this group. again, though, it is historical, so it is going to be at least one year old. and we know we're only getting the tip of the iceberg. next slide. this is what i call the game the slide. our research on the 990 has taught us one thing which is that hillary clinton was right when she said in 1990 whenever that there is a vast right wing conspiracy. there is also a left-wing conspiracy. and on this light you can see the larger network of groups, the conservative network. and the smaller network is the
liberal network, at least what we have been able to find. again, this is not a complete picture. this is -- this particular slide is something we worked on with newsweek and the daily beast recently. and if you go online and find this graphic, it is interactive. you can click on any of the little dots and see what groups those are. it is a great, great little thing. one thing you notice is that a lot of the arrows are going in both directions, so groups give money, they get money. the center to protect patients' rights is kind of a big mayor center there. you will see pharma at the top, which actually gives to both sides which kind of reflects the business philosophy to kind of play it safe. but a lot of these groups on both sides are giving to each other. sloshing the money around in ways we don't really understand.
so how could we understand it? what could be done to shed light on this? well, that is something that would be up to federal regulators or congress. one thing that could be done is to pass some version of the disclose act, even a stripped-down version, but as long as it retained a requirement for group's staff disclose the names of donors to give more than $10,000 for use on political campaigns. the latest action on the disposal act i'm sorry to say came in july when it died by filibuster as some many things to these days. the sec could do something similar with a rulemaking, saying that group's spending money on political ads have to disclose the names of donors funding the ads. very simple. the groups could set up separate sec -- separate segregated accounts for donors to give to and know that their names would be disclosed as opposed to
disclosing donors to the whole organization. that would be up to the group, but the idea is that voters should know who is behind the ads. the money that some of these donors are giving to these groups is huge, and effectively it functions in many cases as a campaign contribution. which would, of course, have to be disclosed. there is really not much difference between the way some of these groups are operating and the way koch are operating, and koch, of course, have to a disclose their donors. the ira's to lower the threshold for political activities for these groups that is permitted. right now there is the 49% rule. that is the amount of political activity that the irs allows groups to engage in before it says, you know, you are no longer eligible for the tax
status. but 49 percent is not found in a law or regulation. it has simply been sort of rule of thumb for the agency. but to the irs, as anybody knows who has followed these groups, has not been very active in this area. so this is a problem yet unsolved. >> i will ask gary take you up the video because i want to play just the beginning of it that illustrate what we see as a problem in the way it was journalism is a covering the explosion of money. grease a story that could crush tries to say their is a lot of money here it and tries to report on finding secrets . in order to illustrate it runs the ads full screen and essentially journalism in that story ostensibly about money is
magnifying the deceptive power of the ads. if you can take it back to the beginning of that video, i don't know if you can't, we have done an experiment to find out what is the difference between the story that is running with the ads all but full screen in the background and the story when you put a multiple matrix of. you put nine or ten screens of adds up as you air the same story. in other words, can the journalistic exactly the same point without magnifying the power of the at? who would like to show you a little clip. >> advantage in one candidate over another and increasing the impacts. the solution, when airing stories about the impact of bad buys commercial multiple ads on screen at the same time. more than 68,000 times, nearly 80 percent of them, attacking mitt romney. >> unusually early flurry of negative ads. when debunking deceptive ads --
>> the rest of the video is about the visual grammar to do at watching. what we have seen across time is a broadcast network journalism increasingly adopting this framework for presenting news. they are doing it in various forms, putting an ad makes up, creating a fish-wide screens that are to stored images. there has been through no intervention that any one contract, a journalistic awareness that this is a problem, and we are seeing an increase in airport news putting the solution in place. we need to worry about full screen airing of at content. these kinds of stories tend to air, as they are produced packages, and broadcasts nightly news. we are continuing to see, however, answered for practical purposes completely full screen, although there is a network to stammer, so you can actually see that there is a network putting this up. as a way to tell you that the ads have appeared somewhere in the market.
and what that does is gives, first, a net advantage to whatever side has more at content. there is a bias toward airing the stuff that is more controversial rather than less or visually evocative rather than less visually evocative. there is an imbalance in what it is easy. sometimes you'll see something from multiple sides, but it is not engaged. as a result we are seeing, because they're trying to let you know that it is out there but have not figured out how to show it without being able to talk about it and can't really talk about it because they have not fact checked it, a move that magnifies the power of ads essentially gives free air time, so we would like to point out the problem and encourage those particularly in cable to think about ways in which they can dampen down the power of those ads and urge them to fact check before they air the ads. if they're is a statement that has been faxed checked before that is being recycled and they're putting that add up, we heard someone in the production structure to find that fact
check and just simply put those corrections up as part of that process. this is a problem that began to appear as soon as cable appeared and campaigns realized they could manipulate cable by putting it is silly provocative material in front of producers. it is creating an imbalance. more importantly it is magnifying the power of deception. full-eared screen airing is for practical purposes pay airing, and that is the first point i want to make. this is happening because of the explosion of third-party money. we are getting stories in part because is producing more of this video content being grabbed by producers for 24-hour cable. we have seen as a change in our data across time in our tracking of the third-party groups dollars spent on ads containing at least one deception. explain what that measure means? we usually see our data as well. we take that data and we watch
the offloading denominator because they are real estimating what dollars are constantly. hence our numbers sometimes drop for no apparent reason. it does not mean the had lost its power. it means the estimate was high and they have recalibrate. nonetheless we use that as our database. reelected the facts checking by the major groups of the third-party ads because our goal is to alert the stations to their existence and have our deception log available to the stations so that they can look at the accuracy and also increased the likelihood of fact checking. when we started this process in december we attract ford tough early june when we issued the report that said that 85 percent of the presidential ad dollars spent by the not disclosing group's 81 to 75 percent of the dollars were spent on an ad containing at least one deception as tracked by our fact checkers who were sitting in the first panel. and by contrast, 57 percent of the dollars spent by the largest
super pacs. there was one labor group that was technically not eight super pacs. so through that timeframe, december through june we were saying, a rising sense of alarm that the non disposers are more deceptive in their use of dollars, which is, of course, consistent with the idea that beck richard the level of anonymity the greater the likelihood that you think you can get away with deception which has been historically true in politics. historically most deceptive, most micra targeted. and so that seems historically consistent. and although it is difficult to get the disclosure and the donors out there with the other groups, the disclosing groups, at least the groups that are tracking that have done a pretty good job of tying back to some of those. the groups just don't have any idea. well, we see a change. the changes actually twofold. the first is that tracking forward now, and we are looking from the end of what we are declaring the primary season,
april 10th through the beginning of this time we are looking at right now, september september 20th. so april 10th through september 20th. three caliber denominator. we are seeing 278% of the dollars spent on third-party apps, 278% of the dollars are spent on ads that contain at least one dissentient. that is a big drop in the level of deception. secondly, we are finding no difference, no statistically significant difference between the disclosing in not disclosing groups. why is it that we are seeing a drop in the level of deception and why are we seeing no difference between disclosing in not disclosing? this is not based on content analysis. it is based on intuition and eyeballing. first, consistent with erika's suggestion, you see an increase in contrast and an increase in
accuracy. a different ad genre, but secondly, these groups through whatever magical process that they used to determine how they're going to advertise have moved to a different theme that is based largely on opinion and much less on in your face confrontational attacks. this is the, we are very disappointed theme that says, he tried, he's just not up to the job. it's okay to vote in a different way. now, statements on screen, but that is a shift that is tactical in the process. it has dropped the level of deception from the past. as a result, the number of dollars proportionally there being spent on ads containing at least one reception. some might take away is to fold. broadcast folks, you can magnet -- magnify the power of these ads. as you do, the store is about money. please continue to do as you are increasingly doing, multiple screens. it solves the problem. we can show that experimentally. when you get the ads and they
are a gift to 24-hour cable, boxed and down, put them on the screen command but disclaimers up to indicate that their ads and put as much corrective context as you can. we have the visual grammar of mine for you to use. third, we have seen this change. unfortunately we do not think it is because normal -- normally they have shifted to a different kind of democracy. active -- tactically ac advantage. questions? >> we will take questions. michael. >> i am at the center for public integrity. my question is for both of you kind of combining the theme of this panel with the theme of the day. as you well know, super pacs and the 501(c)4 typically play by
different disclosure rules or the disclosure for super pacs and 501(c)4 generally don't have to disclose. both in the press and in the political arena, that lexicon gets thrown around a lot. we had, you know, obama campaign manager put out a video saying that the koch super pacs was attacking the obama campaign. they talked about a secret money during the ama. obama talked about super -- secret super pacs money, and allow the press coverage has also may not make distinctions in terminology and in meaning. do you think that politicians and the press corps should be held to a higher level and that? do you see hope that, you know, the fact checking of those terms will be happening or is this the
definition of a word that was coined, just shifting of the debate? >> well, i think it is obviously important to distinguish between the two. in part because if you don't distinguish between the two and make a point of saying, you know, more than half the spending or however much it is is coming from groups that don't disclose their donors. the demand for disclosure is not going to grow, and we are not going to be able to get anything out of the policy-makers in terms of greater transparency in the system. >> but. >> point about a different kind of labeling. journalism, as it was covering the primaries did something at that was extraordinarily important. it refused to call these groups by the names they had made up to call themselves, and instead said the pro-romney super pacs.
the probing rich super pacs. they talked about them that way. in the process increasing accountability of the benefit candidate for the content. and they did it in the questions in the debates, and i thought it was an important journalistic move. it happened in print as well. it was as if the journalistic community somehow agreed, and i know that there is no group that just sits around and degrees of these things. the public really would be deceived if you picked up names such as perris usa and restore our future as if they had some meeting and gave them legitimacy in the process. and that translation which we continue to see when they talk about third parties, i think, is performing an important journalistic function as we at least try to figure out who benefits from the attack. >> do you think that -- is there any legal obligation or ethical obligation of the people that
are running that tv stations, running the ads that are receiving the money to run the ads. you know, should they be trying to find out that all who is actually paying to air these ads? or in forming their viewers that anything about whether it is known or not known who is actually paying for the ads that they're showing? and is there any way to approach it on that basis for, you know, the people that are actually receiving the money to air the ads, to have to take some responsibility for knowing or not knowing who is paying them. >> i think it would be pretty tough to do. i mean, i think that it was spoken about at length, the difficulty in finding misinformation. so i think, you know, requiring stations to do that would be -- >> well, they could. [inaudible]
>> the stations on product ads are supposed to certify to themselves at least that the integrity of the person who is bringing the product at to them. the language in that ruling was about advertising, not specifically about product advertising. and it is unclear whether or not it applies to third-party ads as a result. there has not been clear rulemaking on it. i hope the sec will engaging carol making. the statements also in the sec history of regulation, and you will find our faq sheet on the stand by your at project which is on fact check. there is also clarity about whether past rulings this say that with advertising, although the case was about product, the ruling did not specify product. whether they are supposed to have a positive application. and there is ambiguity because the rumors are handed down using the language of advertising, not specifically product
advertising, even though the cases were about product advertising. the stations could be accountable to the point at which they file for a renewal of license. and so one of the questions going forward is sense station lawyers will say, no, those things don't apply but lawyers for filing cease and desist notices and arguing, yes, at least you have to check the accuracy and the reliability. apply. the sec on this and where should it be. >> nothing that prevents? >> no. >> who is paying for this ad. >> these stations have the absolute right to reject third-party ads out right. they don't have to give a reason they also have the right, if they're going to choose to air, to insist on accuracy. and if they do and the ad is libelous or inflammatory, they are subject to legal suit and agreed candid it has standing to come against them.
>> interesting. other questions? how about right here. over here. >> get the kindle, university of maryland. this is addressing the, your hypotheses about why deception was less before april 10th and it -- the cs me, was more and decreased. now, 04 april 10th you had the primary. and so, had you thought of the possibility that in the primaries because there are so many candidates that deception is easier to accomplish. there is a little -- much less knowledge of these people, and therefore statements about them are less researched, more known. now you have narrowed it down to two candidates, one of whom is very well known and the other a much better known than the other primary candid that that may
have been that the ability that the multiple candidates and lower information level would, perhaps, encourage more deception. >> it is certainly possible. the only way to know would be to find a way to get inside the heads of the people who are creating. and so there is not a way to tighten down. what we can see from our survey is, their still is a relatively high level of public ignorance about a lot of things. and so you could say that that would elicit a higher levels of deception, there seems to be enough ground to plan right now for the attackers, even in a two candidate race. the answer to the question is, i don't know. other questions? over there. sorry, deborah. >> hello. the league of women voters. i am wondering if there is data, as we look at citizens trying to encourage the media to do the
right thing, do you have data that shows that the public is also, sort of, hungry for sunshine and openness and spotlighting on the money behind the ads. i know people becoming aware that there is this giant washer money, you know, the sending of for them. anything? i would just be curious about that. maybe it's not something you have your. >> we don't. >> no. >> we would encourage somebody to ask those questions. >> i would say -- i would comment that, you know, the initial service that came out right after the citizens united decision are overwhelmingly negative. so suddenly i think there is some evidence to suggest that the public wasn't happy with that. and i would infer that media coverage of all of the spending is going to further amplify that. that's a good question, and i agree, there should be more data. >> others? other questions to back now?
if there are no more questions, let me thank all the people who have participated today. let me thank you for joining us. let me thank our partners, the center for responsive politics in our sensors and encourage you to go to us back to check and e-mail your television stations to ask them to insist on the accuracy of third-party ads and fact check those that contain deception that our market and on air on on-line. thank you for joining this and have a good afternoon. [applause] [background noises] [background noises]
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> if you missed any of our coverage of this conference, you can see it in its entirety on our website. go to c-span.org. we do have more from the road to the white house coming up later today with president obama. he has a campaign stop in ohio this evening, will be speaking at a rally at kent state university. this will follow an appearance at bowling green university, which is happening this afternoon. you can watch his speech tonight live at 5:40 p.m. eastern and our companion network, c-span. and our campaign 2012 coverage will continue tomorrow with the debate between candidates for u.s. senate in nevada.
that will start at 11:00 p.m. eastern tomorrow night live on c-span. >> to foster work and enterprise in the middle east and other developing countries, i will initiate something of will call prosperity pack working with the private sector. the program will identify that barriers to investment and trade and entrepreneurship and entrepreneurialism in developing nations. and in exchange for removing those barriers and opening markets to u.s. investment and trade, developing nations will receive u.s. assistance package is focused on developing the institutions of liberty, the rule of law and property rights. >> we believe that freedom and self-determination are not unique to one culture. these are not simply american values are western values, they are universal values. even as there will be huge challenges to come with the transition to democracy, i am
convinced that ultimately government of the people, by the people, and for the people is more likely to bring about the stability, prosperity, and individual opportunity that serves as the basis for peace. >> next wednesday, october 3rd , but romney and president obama meet in their first presidential debate, moderated by jim lehrer of the news hour. watch and engage with c-span, including the live debate preview. the debate at nine, and after the date your reactions, calls coming e-mails command tweets. follow live coverage. ..
on direct tv. c-span, created by american cable companies a data among the candidates running to be the next governor. incumbent democrat jay nixon is seeking his second term running against dave spencer also libertarian jim higgs and it's raised as lean democratic. september 21st this comes to us from kmiz-tv. it's about an hour.
>> governor nixon. go ahead. >> it's a pleasure to see so many friends we have worked with for so many years one of the reasons i ran for the governor and the things i've done for the last four and a half years now, a lot of that goes back to the small town in missouri. i had an opportunity to see my mother and father actively involved in public service on the school board. my dad as the mayor and in the evenings when the phone would ring someone would call it a problem. i would often be the one that would head back to the kitchen table and plead the case of that person. what i saw with my mom and dad was a focus on making sure they help solve those problems in a positive way. they didn't ask whether the question can democrat or republican or from someone who supported him or not. they said what can we do to move our city, our area for word, and that is what i have done as your governor.
i focus on what matters, bringing people together to make sure we keep fiscal discipline to keep the credit rating and cut the budget when necessary and downsize government and difficult times to make sure we had that fiscal discipline that makes us such a great place to invest. at the same time making sure we have human capital that even the we had to cut the budget $1.8 million a thing of the dollars for the customized training. making sure we could college costs down with lowest tuition increase of any state in the country and expanding the program that provides a two-year scholarship for students' tuition free in the community colleges. all of that has begun to pay off. obviously since september of 2009 the first jobs bill went into affect the unemployment rate has been below the national average. this week's report on jobs shows we added 17,000 jobs and this morning's status shows that is the third most of any state in the country. we keep people working together, maintain our fiscal discipline, work across the aisle and keep the state moving forward.
>> thank you, governor. dave spence. >> i'm not a politician and that is my best asset. i'm running for governor for our kids and grandkids future. you know, as many of you know, i started a business here in missouri in 1985, and i was able to pursue my american dream. through hard work, sacrifice, passing paychecks, we grew from 15 employees to 860 and they are not just statistics, their families. i know that. we've been there through >> thick and thin, lost their house in a fire when they needed help with their education we were there and that is what families and friends do. i've been living in the real world, and as i have gone through what 114 counties, they are starving for honesty, someone they can believe in and
real little practical knowledge. we have to be realistic about where we are. 40-hour out of the 50 economic growth in the last ten years. we are 50th in the states in job creation since 2008. and 1 million missourians on food stamps out of 6 million. is this truly the best we can do is this a legacy that we will leave for our grand kids and kids'. two relatives one side the declaration of independence and one sign of the constitution john rutledge both from south carolina. my middle name as rutledge. it is a dishonor to our ancestors to find out where we are in missouri right now. we deserve better leadership, and i plan to give it. >> thank you.
jim higgins. >> the libertarian party has returned 40-years-old now last year. and i have been a libertarian for almost that amount of time. i first discovered the libertarian ideas and nearly 70 and i've been active in the party ever since then. in misery we got a worked petition to get the ballett for the missouri party in 92, and we have had access ever since then. we've made progress, steady progress, slows the progress, not as much as we had hoped, but people are starting to listen to our ideas. so we have a platform -- we are when hundred% across-the-board freedom for the inevitable. we believe in civil liberties and we shouldn't try to pursue.
we are strong believers in the free-market the balance between the supply and demand and price is the best way to allocate the most resources to the most people. it is a hard and fast rule and politicians constantly try to improve on that, and they feel every time. we are against the lower taxes and lower regulations which also includes no tax subsidies or tax credits for business. that amounts to welfare for the rich so that doesn't work either so the government has grown 30 for the last 30 or 40 years, and if it was a solution, it would -- we would have solved all the problems by now.
we are giving the libertarian party a chance. >> thanks. it's now time for the questions. we heard some statements about the economy already in the opening remarks. so let's start with that. as governor nixon noted, the jobs increased 18,000 nearly from july to august. but the number of people in the civilian labor force, those working unemployed but actively working fell by 11,000 during the same period. so let's start off with this question. do you believe that the economy is improving or lagging behind, and what three specific things would you do to create more jobs and misery. governor nixon, your first. nixon: we are seeing that progress necessary to move forward once the jobs bill got into effect in september of 09 we have had an unemployment rate below the national leverage and today's numbers showing not only this last month gaining 17,900 jobs but also that means the third most new jobs of any state in the country shows we are
beginning to make progress and it is built on a solid, solid rock of fiscal discipline, holding the line on taxes, focusing our attention on industries to make a difference. for example, that is why i call the legislature back into the special session because we had an opportunity in the auto industry and that is why we are very proud that they made a $1.4 billion investment on the kansas city side to bring the vehicle back to misery that is only being made in europe and on the eastern side of the state gm has made 380 million-dollar investment and is going to add another 60 jobs to build the chevy colorado there. as we move forward, making sure that we keep the cost of higher education low, that we expand the number of the folks coming to school, we target our resources on things like the auto sector where we can clearly get growth coming and we build on the solid progress we've made on exports. we've had record years in exports, 32, 17 and again in the record years of exports, selling the zero products around the world at another way that we are going to continue to see progress in this economy.
>> moderator: thanks. dave? spence: when you're up in election year and you can make and sell whatever they want to say and what we are working through. also this past week, we pass over the 100,000 mark of people out of the payroll. people have given up looking for work. you know, of the jobs that were created in august, 9500 of the more government jobs. i don't think that is the direction that we ought to go. we need private sector jobs. i'm not going to take anything away from the efforts to get them back to work. that is my main focus as well. the things we need to do our bold. they are bold initiatives and it is and plaine defense. we need to go on offense. we need to enact the right to work and we need the troup workers' comp reform. true toward reform that doesn't get overwritten coming and we need to get paid to play out of our government. >> moderator: jim higgins? higgins: i don't know if we are compared to other states.
i think that we are doing about average. it has to do with the national economy as a whole, so i, you know, i'm not going to say we are ahead or lagging behind. but the things that we can do and misery is to just simply get out of the way, and get the government out of the way, and government jobs come on the agree with dave, they are not the answer. all they do is drain money, public money from the state, and when you have government employees you really don't know. you don't know how, what they are paying and what their value is or how to employ them. so the free market decides that, supply and demand again, that tells you what to pay employees
and aware to hire, who to hire and how to hire. the less you can get the government to step aside, the better. >> moderator: let's turn to the panel and questions now. hilary come in your first and this will go to dave spence. >> funding for higher education has been cut several years now in misery. the use of for the tobacco tax increase on the november ballot, and do you think the state colleges and universities need more money? spence: i don't support the tax increase, and i will tell you why. i travel all 114 counties, the nicoe families with despair in their eyes worried of gas, putting food on their tables, worried about tomorrow, were read of their job is going to be there if they can give a better life to their kids. so no, i don't support any tax increases at this point. on higher education we've cut it
three years in a row. that is cutting the sales force when the sales are down. i would fight for the restoring country installing the higher education cuts that our governor has done three years in a row. i know we had to increase tuition this year because of those and it puts more on the back of the hard working misery families. they are struggling already. i think it is a matter of priorities and looking at the tax credits. look up every rock in the state and see how we do things. we take an $24 billion, and we can't fund our higher education? there is something wrong. >> moderator: jim higgins? higgins: okay. education, the tax increases, no. i don't think so. you know, that's considered, you know, tax on tobacco is considered a sin tax and we shouldn't try to influence behavior with our tax policies, our tax policies are to generate revenue. it shouldn't try to influence
what people buy and what they don't. so, you know, the tax, sales tax on tobacco should be the same as any other. and the schools -- the more -- it seems like the more we subsidize the school the higher the tuition goes up. they don't pass on free subsidized schools too much. they don't pass that tuition savings on to the students. they just increase the bottom line. so, the need to -- the high year education needs to come up with innovative ways and creative ways to cut the costs and deliver a quality education. but they shouldn't have to rely on the state to do that. >> moderator: jamieson? nixon: i don't think it is the appropriately to fund our higher education. that being said the public
deserves a vote on it. on matters such as this it is important for the public to have that vote and to have their voice directly heard the ballot box and we will await their decision in november. as far as higher education, we have done some very strong things. we tell our tuition increases to the lowest in a nation. we have expanded dramatically our a-plus program more than 150 schools have been added to that scholarship program. 65 more students now can compete for those two year tuition free scholarships. the smart kids that have an opportunity to stay here in the show me state we're out there recruiting them to get them and we have worked hard to get strategic funding into the higher education since yesterday i announced an additional million dollars of nursing dollars that is where to go to expand nursing facilities, and noticed what we've done in the last three years carrying for the missourians initiative $40 million to get over 1,200,000,000 more medical degrees for jobs that exist
right now. so strategic investments like the innovation campus which is insured and the time training for tomorrow and more health wins focusing the dollars we have and getting funding in the schools that can get a direct output is important. let's go to the next question for bill miller and this will go first to jim higgins. >> good morning, gentlemen. do you think the newspapers and misery are fair and reporting the candian activity and positions on issues and your record, and have you asked for and believe in the newspaper editorial endorsements? higgins: they don't cover us enough. we are out there trying to run campaigns and working hard. we don't have the money that these guys to come of the major parties to.
but we have solid platforms and good ideas. we have fought them through. we have something to offer, and it's getting a little better. they are giving us coverage, a little more this year and misery and around the country. but in my opinion it needs to be better to read and i think -- i don't know, i personally haven't asked for editorials or anything like that. no, not yet. >> moderator: jay nixon? nixon: i look forward to working with ms. beavers and outlets and the state not only to cover the news, but also to seek their counsel and advice and support. i do think that we are blessed to have a state which has a rich diversity in so many ways. this is a very, very diverse state. the regions of the political positions and what not and that
is why i ran for the governor to say that we are going to continue to work for about the state and we are going to go all across the state in the deal with the folks in the communities coming and we have. so i think that the strong independent press especially the diversity in the small communities people still listen to those voices of the newspapers, the radio outlets and others, and i look forward just as i have as the governor to interact on a regular basis with folks and also to ask them for their assistance when we need to get out the key information. the newspapers have been very helpful to us on the two programs on the show me heroes program to make sure we get more employers signed up to make sure we can get more veterans tired. the state park which has put the kids in the parts in the summer to make sure the parks are improved. you know, to get the folks signed up for those and to get the businesses involved has been required to help the newspapers and others across the state and i think you for your help in that regard and i look forward to working with you for the years to come.
>> moderator: dave spence? we need to move on here. dave spence. governor? the time is up. we need to move to the next answer here. dave spence. spence: i will give a political answer because i'm not a politician. i think it is spotty to tell you the truth. small-town newspapers have been very fair. everyone has welcomed us with open arms because the communities are looking for a difference. the communities have lost a factory. town squares are have boarded up and they rely on the economy in those towns to pay for the ads and pay for the newspaper. and small towns and misery are hurting. i've seen though all and they are hurting. let's talk about a factory to move away. the metropolitan papers, that is spotty. the concentrate on my done wrong and what i've done right and i have done a lot of right things. we've been generous with the
family. i am giving them myself to leave for the state and i told the truth and sometimes they don't print it. so, the jury is still out on a major metropolitan newspaper. they have been very fair and we are blessed with great newspapers in the state and a lot of entrepreneurial newspapers that have to deal with workers, and some of the issue is going on in the state. they have to deal with one of the easiest states in the nation. so, i've been very pleasantly surprised and thrilled with the coverage of the major newspapers. there's probably a reason they are getting smaller. >> the next question comes from jeff fox and it goes first to governor next-gen. >> good morning. should the state expand medicaid as envisioned under the federal affordable care act? and if not, does the state have any obligation to help that particular population get health coverage?
nixon: first of all i think the papers have been fair and we appreciate the relationship we have out there and have the need to discuss that and they've been open to discussing that. it's it passed a measure that i had some serious problems that i laid out problems with at various times. that being said the supreme court has upheld the and the goal was to make sure that we get the best fit from missouri. the goals are very clear. we need to make sure your using taxpayer dollars well we have to improve health care in the state. there's going to the challenges and opportunities in this regard, and i look forward to working in a bipartisan way to the we have with other majors the government has pushed down on us the views to the taxpayer
dollars effectively to expand health care options and protect the health care network that is out there and to make misery healthier. so their challenges and opportunities in this regard and it's going to require a great deal of attention and we are going to continue to work with policymakers in the capitol as low as democrats and republicans >> we don't want to see any of our neighbors and fellow citizens slipped through the cracks. as i go around the state your of the rampant fraud in medicaid and a year of other abuses and if i can be assured that we are running it as well as we possibly could and there were not abuses i am jury open to helping our fellow citizens. but we are perilously close to
not meeting the basic needs of the state as it is. we're $16 trillion in debt as a nation. we are too wondered million dollars into the rainy day fund already in our budget started on july 1st. that shows we have cash flow problems in in this state. our work with the legislature, i will try to -- we can't be everything to everybody. we have to get a safety net. but the first thing we can do to bring down health care cost in the state is to go from the sunni state to the show me state again and that is where we are to be one of the easiest states in the nation to get sued and you don't think that as a factor on health care cost in the state? you're not hearing the truth with to to pay $4 trillion from plaintiffs' attorneys fear dictate the policy on health care in the state. it's not right. it is not right. we need to protect or citizens and give them a safety net.
we are perilously close to not meeting the basic needs of the state that our citizens expect to read >> moderator: jim higgins? higgins: no, we should not expand medicaid, and we should resist any federal mandates as much as we can. there is abuse in the system both on the medical side where the doctors overcharge and citizens take advantage of the system. oftentimes the bureaucrats know about that. they know what's going on but they don't, they don't do anything because number one it's not their money. they don't care. member to come if they do complain or something, then nothing gets done about it so the system perpetuates itself.
so, we should try -- whenever you try -- again, whenever you try to subsidize something, it gets -- it doesn't reduce the cost. one story someone told me he went into a doctor -- this was a long time ago -- he went into the doctor and he said the bill would be $50 car and then so the guy says this is a true story coming and he says my company will pay half of it. okay in that case it is $100. so, and that -- he told me that is the truth so that's the way it is. >> moderator: governor mix and we will give you an opportunity for a rebuttal if you like. dave spence announced to receive 2.4 million from the trial attorneys is the way you phrase
that and if you are dictating your health care policy and also alleged that the medicaid program under your administration is poorly run, would you like to respond to that? >> we have worked hard just this last year taking over $170 million out of the provider rates to get in there and work hard on making sure that we have a cohesive team fighting fraud when it's appropriate and have gone after making sure we are making progress in those areas. people know how independent ibm and people know that we will focus on the right things and continue to move forward and to work in the wake of the legislature with the dollars that we have to make the most efficient and effective health care system that we can and the external forces that are out there. but people know how independent ibm. i have been at this for awhile, and there is no -- i feel very
strong that we will continue to move this date forward. >> moderator: dave spence you have ten seconds if you would like. spence: the facts speak for themselves. i've watched the campaign contributions and make you sick. labor unions, 2.2 million. we are suffocating the state and there you have that. they're 40 and economic development. jay nixon isn't living in the same world as you and i iran. we are in the real world, aren't we? we see the hurt and the despair and people putting $5 of gas in their tank because that is all they have. people making a tomorrow in the news is no worse than today and it is no way to live your life. it's okay for him. he's on the payroll for 26 years. he has a penchant for the rest of his life that we are going to take. i'm sorry. the real world is about results and the results are where we
find ourselves and the ceo will be fired. >> moderator: let's move on to the next question. the next question goes first to dave spence triet >> columbia and other universities are struggling to close the achievement gap of the children of different races. statewide data also shows clear racial disparities on many socio-economic indicators such as employment, education, homeownership and business ownership. what do you make of that, and as the governor, will you do to address it? spence: it's all about jobs many people getting a paycheck versus an unemployment check. we know the taxpayers and people are living off the government. you know, my wife and i have given so much back to the simplicity schools of roosevelt high school for the past six years. we have been need deep in the problems in our city. by the way, we have 50,000 kids
now going the other day and the unaccredited schools. 50,000. the busch stadium. we need more people employed in the state. we need more opportunity. we need more dreams to be fulfilled, and we are simply languishing at the bottom of the beryl almost every economic category. you know, a lot of education is leadership coming in deserts of the top. i think that there are some really well-intentioned people. starting to show signs of progress in st. louis. we have been in there in the trenches for six years we've been down there trying to find a solution to the problems. kansas city there is a racial disparity in the state and it all comes down to economic opportunities and jobs and the best gift we can give somebody is a career. >> moderator: jim higgins? higgins: okay, the -- one of
the most inefficient things you can do with your education dollars is send it to jefferson city and let the bureaucrats deal with it, and then send it back and let the community keep their own money and not have this trail of money going back and forth. we need to allow parents to have more decisions in their schools and we need more school vouchers and charter schools, and when the money comes back from the state there are lots of strings attached and mandates. so the school district, every school district is a little different. the of different needs we have more flexibility and innovation, competition, that's -- it works for cars and computers and will work for education.
we can't have devotee jump through the same hopes and every community. we've got to sui allow the free market to work and innovation and competition to work, yes. >> moderator: jay nixon? nixon: early in my tenure we supported increasing the common core standards so that we would have a challenging bar for the students to meet to compete in the education world that's going to deliver and we support public education as well as the folks that take the high calling serving in public as teachers. that's why even though other states have seen dramatic cuts in funding this year we will have record funding for the classrooms at a time in which we have had to make very challenging decisions on the budget. that's why we have worked to expand the a plus program which not only provides that two-year scholarship, it is a school improvement program that 150 more schools across the show me state have met that rigorous
requirement to rise to the level and we've been out there working with them. we have to get more comfortable in the charter schools for the measure in a bipartisan way. we will get much more accountability so we don't see the failure financially of the charter schools that they are propping up and moving forward in the state. but ultimately what does for the public education to read and ideas, radical ideas like vouchers taking public money and sending them to the schools for their dollars for their education just won't work. we have to take the limited resources we have and put the resources with the public schools as the governor has we will continue to see the solid improvement. it's one of the test scores of the kids have gone up and more kids are going to school. the next question comes from bill miller and to jim higgins. >> if elected, would you do about the transportation needs in misery?
would you work with the assembly on a plan for the tax increase to raise revenue for transportation? would you help provide the leadership in pushing for a vote to raise the needed revenue for transportation? higgins: well, we need to make better use of the tax dollars. we've got -- i guess there was a plan to expand on the interchanges and put in the rolls over the contractors that's not the thing we should do first. we have to maintain the rules that we have gotten and obviously maintain the bridges, but you know, keep the gas tax the way it is now coming at it more efficient use of the money that we have got. maybe contract out more little
things and if you give the contractors a bonus for finishing earlier that seems to work, so things like that we would do. >> moderator: jay nixon nixon: we have a long history in our state. and so, we look at doing a couple things and we are now in the process of implementing as we move forward. the first was to expand some of our design and build capacity as a beacon of the roads built efficiently and effectively undercut model and we are moving forward in that area and get more dollars into the construction and get more productivity out of it. the second thing we did is we knew we had to have a much more modern, so we are in the process of downsizing that agent by over a thousand employees over half a billion dollars, $512 million that have been going to the
overhead now going to the roads and bridges and repairing the roads. that kind of significant structural change had been fought for years and we were able to push that through and would mean half a billion dollars more to repair come improve and build roads in the state of missouri. but as we look forward, the method of funding roads in the gas tax as cars get more miles there are fewer dollars that come and per my letter driven, so we have living in front of us and significant discussions. any of those will ultimately have to involve the public and i look forward to working to be a leader to improve, maintain and improve our transportation system in the upcoming years. >> we have over 32,000 miles of roads in the state. we have a challenge. i would say as we speak to become a matter what you say the roads are in decent shape.
there will be some that will dispute that they are in decent shape. we just came on last night and agreed addition to northern missouri, a great part of the economic development. i7 become i55. probably pass to their warranties, but we can't do it all. this year the budget for the highway department is as much as the people are saying it is 600 million or 550 million, it's over to under $50 billion. it's a lot of money. we have big projects like by 64. the mississippi bridge, the daniel boone bridge that is coming from st. louis county to st. charles and lots of other things on the horizon. you have to look at the five, ten, 15 year horizon. it was good for the state and brought us up to speed. i would like to look from the inside out to see if 2 billion really is the right number or a little more than that before we talk about any tax increase or another amendment or anything. i think it is time that we've left at every rock in the state and see how we do things and if we can do it better, more
efficiently or if we should do it at all and that is the fresh eyes and division i bring to this race. >> the next question comes from deadbeat jeff fox and goes to governor jay nixon. >> this is a follow-up punches tradition. high-speed rail was coming to the midwest. illinois is already building the spine of the system. should missouri be more aggressively pursuing his potential within the system? nixon: first of all, things for the question. we have worked hard to try to make sure that we keep a robust industry in the state as most folks know st. louis and kansas city have been significant rail centers for the sending and producing and transporting of huge amounts, so the rail economy is important to us. in misery we have a strong industrial process where we move a lot of goods across the state. we have worked to improve the system to get rid of the bottlenecks. for the sample in the river where we are now in the process
of building a new bridge so that we can get another lane so that we don't have the slowdown. the first step is to make sure we don't get a slowdown so when we look to more possibilities for the passenger travel, that we have a system that can deliver on time so we are looking at that. we also work with illinois because anybody that looks at the bigger picture of the country will see that getting the first step of that from the chicago to st. louis is important if we are going to be able to attract the resources for high-speed rail across the state. so that's why we have worked with the state of illinois and the first to get the initial project completed while at the same time working to improve our not wish to delete a network here on time. all of that is a part of the long-term transportation focus that will continue to provide us a competitive economy. >> moderator: dave spence? spence: it's good in concept but who was going to pay for it? we are $16 trillion in debt in a
national basis. we are barely meeting our needs in a citywide basis and into the emergency fund guerini de fund. i think it sounds great. doesn't it sound great? but who's going to pay for it? i don't think the taxpayers want to pay another dollar for it. illinois has three governors in prison and a 15 billion-dollar deficit if they want to pay for it that is their problem. missouri has to be responsible and make the tough decisions to read should be put in the mix of what we do the high-speed rail? it's probably in the mix but i don't think that is before us right now. i want to see with a factor would be. that's my world. i want to see supply and demand. if it's not there we are not in the position to build it and they will come. we are just not there. >> moderator: jim higgins? higgins: okay. i am not a transportation expert, and i don't think that these guys are either. i graduate from school as a civil engineer and i worked five
years as a civil engineer but i haven't lately working on computers. why should a bureaucrat decide, which, what mode of transportation is the best? what we have rail or highways it got a central in the beginning. we build all of these highways. we overdid it on the highway. now we have our pollution and gas consumption because some bureaucrat decided that we needed highways. now we are trying to find other things, mass transit and other things. so let the market decide. don't have the bureaucrats in the city and in washington decide the transportation is. supply and demand is a powerful
thing. maybe mass-transit or high-speed rail. people have to use it and people have to get out of their cars first. >> moderator: the next question is for what the and goes to dave spence. >> all three of you promised to strengthen or defend the second amendment. please explain exactly what you mean by that. spence: i'm a strong supporter of the second amendment. i was in favor of concealed carry in the wild west. it's not a matter of guns, it's people pulling the trigger. there are a lot of avid hunters and agreed citizens and misery. that our gun lovers and they are not criminals. everybody wants to paint somebody is a criminal. they are going to get guns no matter what. the economic disparity is going to push them to commit crimes.
in my world i will defend the second amendment because it is our god-given right and it is in our constitution from the very beginning. >> moderator: jim higgins? higgins: yeah, i think -- i really don't think there should be a debate over this. the second amendment is an inalienable right to self-defense. you have a right to consult very and to defend yourself and your family come and gun ownership are mixed and it depends on who you believe, but the gun ownership oftentimes deters crime. a gun is a tool or an instrument , and adamant instrument to be used by people and it can be used for good or
bad, and we need to protect our self-defense and our right to self-defense. >> moderator: jay nixon? nixon: we need to support gun rights and use them in a very sportsmanlike way. as the governor when it's come time to deal with these issues we were to make sure that we have expanded the right folks and kept the training that was out there and made sure the military folks had the opportunity. we've made the necessary changes to strengthen them to allow more people to defend themselves. but ultimately this ties to the conservation heritage in the state. and as most everybody here knows, i have been involved in hunting and fishing and outdoor activities my whole life and i look forward to continuing that. september 1st of this year is a great way in northeast missouri with many generations in the state a big part of the we are
as missourians. we have a strong conservation program, strong solid water programs and all of those are built on the strong programs that allow us to have excellent education for kids. we started now beginning the governor's we have had those now over the last three years. we want to pass on the conservation and i think also pass on the training so the kids that qualify for that to do the essay and when the constitution, they get half the day at training and then some time to spend with them and then we take folks out on their own property and allow them to haunt many of them for the first time, so to expand this conservation and the state is something very, very important and something that is a value that we share and one that i look forward to protecting. >> the next question will come from bill miller and go to jim higgins. >> do you believe the operating plan for the missouri river
takes into consideration what is best for the land owners along the river? is their something lacking in the core plan as to missouri? higgins: that is a good question. i haven't looked into that much. there is always a conflict for something like the rivers that's owned by the public that's really hard to determine the best use of their ad. there is always conflict in interest and stuff as far as the corps of engineers i'm sorry, i don't know that much about it. >> moderator: jay nixon? nixon: it's important to the state of missouri for many reasons. first of all, it provides a transportation arm for us to
keep that competition between the rail, truck and bars so that we can get our product to market more cost effectively. the land right by the river all the way across. 67 miles across the great state is some of the most vibrant agricultural product of the agricultural land we have in the state cropped up next to it. i discussed with the corps of engineers who continue to in misery's interest. i feel the upstream states and the reservoir upstream feel as if sometimes the river should be named in north dakota for the south dakota river of montana and we work hard to protect our rights and make sure that we are trying to move up the gage marks and upstream reservoirs we get more flood control down here downstream as well as get rid of what i think is not
scientifically based spring rise which can cause the floods because the natural hydrograph of that particular river. i work really hard on the river issues. the floods of northwest missouri or the wrongheaded decision in southeast missouri. they are tied directly in the river and the governor with a deep understanding of how we can fight for our rights. >> moderator: dave spence spence: it lacks total common sense and everybody will tell you that. sometimes we get regulations in front of common sense. it's time the we change it around and that is what i bring to the party. i understand we need to protect the surge and there has to be a happy medium out there. we need to have pendulum swings for the shut down commerce don't dredge, shut down the traffic and shut down the barge traffic. there's got to be a happy medium you've got to communicate with them and the last two years i don't live along the missouri
river how lever everybody i've talked to that does is it to be tied that our federal government and the corps of engineers has lost their mind. i would get in there come a deal with them and have a governor that stands up to the federal government and lack of common sense and the continuing rise of bureaucracy and regulation. i will fight tooth and nail to see what is best for the 5.9 million missourians. >> this will be the last question. will come from jeff inigo first to governor nixon treat stomach the foundation formula for public schools is complex and remains under funded. should it be overhauled, and if so, how to the estimate we have worked hard to work with a legislature in the changes they've made in the past as well as the methods that refund in the k-12 education. we will continue to put dollars there. last year at the beginning of
the year the focus was on me to ensure that we preserve the funding for k-12 so that we have a certainty of their dollars unlike other states the record spending investment on the k-12 education as we move forward to working with folks to make sure that we get the necessary tweaks to the formula because of the growth across the state and shift population and assessed valuation it's something to work for. but it is a very complicated rubric and i think that it is very easy to talk about how things might be different but the bottom line is the legislature has sometimes in the last month said pushed through bye senator shields and others and it focuses on the right things and we will look forward to working with them if they're necessary small changes to be made. but the basic formula making sure that we get an equitable distribution to the dollars is
something that has been pardoned for many, many decades and will continue to work ticket to become a kid as effective and as fair as possible. >> moderator: dave spence spence: it is a slippery slope because no matter where you go in the state some people feel like they don't get enough and the ones that are getting it want to hang onto it. i'm going to look at it. i'm a problem solver. we have a lot of problems in our state if people feel like it is a problem i am willing to open it up and look at and surround myself with people that are unbiased and look at it and see if it should be fair. but also in our state we have a funding problem that's called lack of taxpayers. money isn't always the answer to every problem and education can they take their business model? absolutely that is common sense and good business sense. but we need to look at the number of taxpayers and people on unemployment that have given up hurting hour over alleged actions system because the tax base is dwindling.
so the best thing we can do is encourage more jobs to come to misery and their businesses to expand, give more tax payers, and then you know what it is a nice problem because you have funding. but right now we are trying to squeeze from the state, a lot of farmers know what that means, and we just don't have enough taxpayers to truly fund our k-12 at credibility so that everybody is happy. >> moderator: jim higgins? higgins: there's always a battle with the lescol formula. we spend some of the money to the city and put in a big pool, and then we spend a lot of time and effort. school administrators spend a lot of time and effort and bureaucrats spend time and effort trying to figure out how to distribute it back to the school. why in the first place? let the school districts keep their own money and use it the
best way they see fit. and again have charter schools and the vultures and parents make choices for their children. right now parents don't get involved in the schools because they don't have any choices. the only choice they have is flowers you can plant in the front of the school or something. but if there were doctors and parents had more financial resources to spend that they could spend their own money on their children's education they would make better choices than the bureaucrats would. >> moderator: jim higgins raised the issue of the vouchers for education. we have time for a 452nd rebuttal. would you like to address vouchers for education? nixon: we have the basic understanding of missourians that the public schools are supported by the public. i just think it is a clear values issue that we should not take public dollars and send
them to private schools. the only way -- there have been efforts to try to do that. and both of my opponents have been in favor of doing that. i think it is not the right way to go for the state to i think the public education needs to be supported by the public. you need to have the connection with the communities. it's a long tradition of the state. it is an important part of the public education means, that direct tie, taking public dollars giving them to the public schools is a significant, significant shift for what we have been as the staid and wrong on policy. >> moderator: dave spence do you support the use of outreach and education? spence: i think would be mass chaos to tell you the truth of the only thing that is great to improve the system and the education systems that are feeling the 50,000 kids in the state is competition. the families and kids deserve better. missouri should expect more. sometimes those business models
are broken and we need to tear it down and start over. our education system we tend to dwell on the negative. 97% of the schools in the state are working really well. however, the most impact will people in the state are the ones in the unaccredited strikes and we are losing a whole generation by not putting every effort and whatever it takes in this includes school choice, that is what is going to be because we need to get those people graduating to dream verses a life of property. >> can use a more about the vouchers if you like? >> moderator: it is time now for the closing statements and we will start first with governor jay nixon. the have time for a closing statement. go ahead. nixon: it's been a privilege to serve the people as governor and i look forward to the opportunity of people on army with a continuation of that ability. you know why it's been for years but we have had a good week. you look at yesterday we finished the day down where we
were able to announce it for the third straight year in a row the compensation rates are going down. they are going down because we are getting competition in the market and workers are better trained so with of those workers we are very proud of them. earlier in the day i was here announcing we have exceeded our goal carrying for more help your education delivered in the state because we are efficiently and effectively delivering what it takes to move this date forward. just a couple days before that i had a chance to walk through the brand new plant in kansas city which is going to be the most efficient and effective although plant anywhere in the world. i made a decision to appoint the task force and save the auto industry of america would start right now here in the show me state. when people's jobs for online and the legislature didn't get it done on time, i called them back and i brought democrats and republicans together and in a fiscally prudent way i put together the necessary package
to get that investment in the state, and because of that, ford is investing 1.1 as the comanche and invested in three and a 80 million, thousands of jobs coming our way. the rebirth of the parts industry i think focus on what we can do. bringing people together. we are making real progress. that's why we have seen the jobs report showed the unemployment rate below the national average and one we have seen this morning's number confirm we created the third most job of any in the state creating 4900 new manufacturing jobs in this state this month alone. we are headed in the right direction and we need to keep moving that way. >> moderator: dave spence? spence: i will give you one name in history. you probably won't know what it is. edward smith. the captain of titanic. he was down party and with the guests on the boat while he ran into an iceberg. i feel like we are running into an iceberg in the state. we have a million on to the stamps, 48 and economic development, we have rampant pay to play in the city, the
governor's office is for sale, and it's not right. he is beholden the special-interest. look alana terrie trail -- monetary trail. it's not the state deserves and as i go around the 114 counties they're looking for honesty, they are looking for integrity, yet they are looking for somebody to believe in that will fight for them and fight for their jobs. not fight for his job, fight for their jobs. it's time for the career politician to go home. it's time for true leaders to come in and straightened out of the politicians have made the call our governor the invisible governor for reason. this is about leadership, this isn't about polls, it isn't about the next election, they're has never probably been a bigger
contrast in the governor's race in our state. we have not had a business person run the state since 1937. i don't want a lobbyist money. my votes are not for sale, and my opinions are not for sale, and missourians, we need to raise the bar and a dream big. i have been doing that all my life and we have accomplished all of those dreams. i want to get missourians back to work. we have lost our optimism in the state. we really have. all corners we have lost optimism. we are not growing. three years in a row of 0% growth. that is not momentum. i bring fresh ideas and energy and a fresh set of ideas and i want azeri to join me in getting missouri back to work. >> moderator: jim higgins? higgins: $24 billion. that is what the budget for missouri will be next year.
the state income tax money, some of it comes from the fed, but it is $24 billion of other people's tax money sitting in the city. we have a problem with the revolving door where the legislature when the term is up the turnaround and become lobbyists. why do we have the problem? $24 million of other people's tax money. the major problem spends millions of dollars on their campaigns. why is that? why did people contribute millions of dollars to their campaign? because whoever wins will have control of the $24 billion. of other people's tax money. the special-interest groups spend a lot of energy and resources. you know, school administrators, special-interest groups, contractors, corporations, they all spent a lot of time and effort trying to influence the
registry church to get back to $24 billion it's a waste of time it's a big game to everybody except the tax payers that have to support its. the state his obligation to provide basic services but it doesn't need that much money to do. people and families are pretty savvy and they can spend their own money on the things they need much better than a bureaucrat can spend for them. and in missouri, the governor has a lot of discretion to cut the hon necessary things from the budget to be if i were governor, you could trust me to cut a lot of fun necessary things from the budget. >> moderator: that concludes the gubernatorial debate today.
>> next wednesday october 3rd mitt romney and president obama meet in their first presidential debate moderated by jim lehrer from university of denver. watch and engage with c-span including live debate preview at 7:00 p.m. eastern. the debate at 9:00 and after the debate your reaction, e-mails and tweets. live coverage on c-span radio and c-span.org. you are watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. weeknights watch the public policy events and every weekend latest nonfiction author and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get schedules that our web site and join in the conversation on
social media sites. more campaign 2012 programming out with the debate between candidates to represent california's district of the house of representatives. dan lungren is facing off against ami bera. at the news can studios. they ran against each other in 2010 with dan lungren winning with 50.1% of the vote. of political report raised this race a tossup. this is an hour. >> moderator:: welcome to 1-hour conversation about the issues that matter to sacramento and the nation in a debate between the two candidate in the seventh congressional district. john myers from newsstand is moderator of this debate sponsored by capital public radio. let's look at the candidates in this race.
let's look at dan lungren and ami bera. this race yesterday california's third congressional district redrawn by the state's independent citizens' panel to a much more compact seventh districts solely in sacramento county but what hasn't changed other two men who want to represented. dan lungren is represented in the region in congress since 2005. represented in the 1980s and served eight years as attorney general. ami bera never held political office. he is a physician who served in sacramento county's chief medical office and professor of medicine at uc-davis. they squared off with dan lungren winning by seven points but there were five people on that ballot this year and the the new election laws. there are only two and the race is one of the most closely watched in the nation. we are joined in studio by the candidate in the seventh congressional race. republican lungren and democrat ami bera. thanks for being with us today.
i want to introduce my colleagues from the other news organizations sponsoring this debate at the table with the. dan smith the drizzle capital bureau chief of sacramento and senior reporter and anchor at capital public radio. we are also joined by a small studio audience at news and and i am asking these folks to keep their reactions to themselves as we do this program. they're welcome to offer applause at the end but it is all about the guys on the podium. here are the ground rules agreed by lungren and dr. bera. an opening statement of 90 seconds. each candidate will have a closing statement at the end of the debate. candidates will have 90 seconds to answer questions. their opponents will have no more than 60 seconds for a rebuttal. we will try to keep time and that will work out well. where is the question coming from? most from myself and, journalists at the table. candidates have not seen these questions in advance. some questions are from the
people of the seventh congressional district which were submitted by social media to each news organization. at the midway point of this debate each candidate will have the chance to ask their opponent a question of his own choosing. the order of the opening and closing statements and opening statements was determined the old-fashioned way by a coin toss and dan lungren won that pause and he will deliver the final closing statements and we begin with you opening statement as ami bera begin that. your opening statement. >> bera: i thank the moderators for putting aside and those watching on television and working on a broadcast. thank you for joining us. congressman, thank you for joining me for this debate. i believe in america because i believe in the american dream. i am a product of the american dream. my parents came here in the 1915s with little more than that dream. i have been married 21 years to my wife who has put up with me for that long. we have a life in el growth.
that is where we raise our daughter and this is a great community. what we have seen over that time is things have been changing a little bit. things have been drifting. she is a doctor and we have been working clinic long term in the free clinics around this community and white has gotten hard. three weeks ago we were working in one of the three rocks and we noticed every patient we had seen was someone who had been laid off. these a middle-class folks. these were folks looking for work. they were struggling to get the necessary care and that is what congress has failed us. they failed to get jobs to get the community working again. they failed to relieve the middle-class. i believe in the american dream and i'm running for congress because we have to make sure every child in this country has access to that dream the same way i did. >> moderator: thank you. congressman lungren, your
opening statement. >> lungren: on 9/11 i was in washington d.c. with the fourteenth street bridge an hour-and-a-half before it was hit -- the pentagon was hit on the other side of the fourteenth street bridge by those who attacked us in our country. i lost a friend that they. i lost a law partner that day and one of the young men who had grown up with my children, went to school with him, and the family went to church with us was lost in one of the twin towers. that change america forever. i about the car had the opportunity to go back to public service i would still like to use the experience i had as an attorney general and member of congress to do what was necessary to try to ensure that those who attacked this would not succeed and we could use the
tools necessary to protect us and at the same time not allow them to defeat us by having us give up our civil liberties. i have been doing that every day since i work on the issue of jobs and taxes and spending. the reason i went back to congress and the reason i hope to stay in congress is to continue to protect the american people against those who would destroy our way of life and they are still there. >> moderator: thank you. let's begin questions here. reminder to both candidates the rules have been agreed to. 90 seconds for answer and 60 seconds for rebuttal. first question from capitol public radio. >> dr. myers, dr. bera begins and hundreds of job cuts in our area. you talk about jobs in the opening statement and congress failed to create jobs. we solicited questions from viewers and readers. the oveiding issue was job creation that people made it
clear they want you to be specific. can you give us some concrete examples of how you create jobs in sacramento county? >> bera: there is no greater issue in our region. we are facing the 11% unemployment. comcast will move 300 jobs. the service plan is threatening jobs because of a decision by the health insurance exchange. we lost our only fortune 500 company. we have to stop losing business and bring businesses to this region and we can do that if we are smart. when i talk to small business owners they are ready to start hiring but one problem they have is getting access to loans. let's get banks lending. we need a tax policy that will reward companies in sacramento and in america. we need to close tax loopholes that allow companies to ship jobs overseas. let's build in america. let's have the infrastructure build. here at home we have levees that
need lots of work and thousands of construction workers out of work. if we could have the infrastructure bill if congress would pass that bill we could put people to work immediately. that is how we build jobs. i am a product of public schools and education. investment in education long term is an investment in jobs. our kids have to compete in the twenty-first century. this is about building jobs. this is about bringing those companies here and building the assets we have in this region. we have to get to the work of doing it. >> moderator: about jobs and be specific about jobs. >> lungren: congress doesn't create jobs. congress can inhibit or promote an environment in which jobs are created in the private sector predominantly with small business. i spent a good deal of time talking to small business people in this district. one of the things they find of great uncertainty is the rash of lawsuits they receive under a d a. i have a bill that would change
that. get it serving its actual purpose which is access under litigation. speak to small-business people you will find they are talking about the uncertainty created by taxes coming forward on january 1st. i have supported not allowing those taxes to go up. my opponent has opposed that. year-and-a-half ago when president obama said we ought to this extent tax cuts he oppose it. i supported at that time. we need to do it once again. regulatory reform. i had a number of bills for which i voted. 20 so far this year that have gone to the senate. we need the senate to act. >> moderator: second question from me for you. your party's candidate for president mitt romney has been trying to explain what he meant at a florida fund-raiser when he said there are 47% of americans, quote, dependent upon government, believe they are victims and the government has a responsibility to care for them and that they are entitled to
health care, food and housing. is that how you see the country? if not tell me where you differ. dirksen senate office building 0 -->> lungren: made a major mistake saying people want to be victims. he pointed out there are 49% of people who don't pay income tax at the present time. very different categories of folks. some dollars because they have paid all their lives and their retired. i would not search they are trying to be victimized. others because they have a low income and don't qualify paying taxes on the federal level. what are supported all along is tax reform that will require more people who are working and making real money to pay taxes. our tax system is rife with all sorts of exceptions sometimes called loopholes. i supported legislation on the floor, budget for which i voted this last year. specifically talks about tax reform which will expand the
base, expanded tax base, eliminating many loopholes and requiring both businesses and high income individuals to pay their fair share. the problem is we need more tax payers, not more taxes. that is how you increase the ability of the government to function within its own revenue and the other thing we need to do is we need to attack the spending that is out of control on the federal level. [talking over each other] dirksen senate office building you would raise taxes on some people? dirksen senate office building 0 -->> lungren: any more people to pay their taxes and not utilize attorneys and accountants to pay it. we don't need to have a high tax rate if we in fact would eliminate many of those exceptions which about people not to pay taxes. >> moderator: your thoughts? >> bera: americans don't look at themselves as victims and 40% of americans are not victims. they have worked their whole life and save into medicare and social security. they are folks out there -- and
-- they just have to have that. we broaden the tax base the way you broaden the tax base is give people jobs their part of the system. that is how we always functioned as a society. when i talk about the american dream is giving people opportunities so when they work hard and play by the rules they can climb one or two rungs on the ladder and leave their kids better off. we got to honor the promises we made, they work their whole lives and that the health care they need and medicare that they need and solving the social security system. >> for the seventh congressional district, for dr. bera. >> they're running tv ads hammering you and other
democrats for supporting the president's health care overhaul. specifically what they say is a dangerous cuts to medicare. $700 billion reduction over time and lowering payments in the medicare advantage program. do you support that aspect of the health-care overhaul? and if so what do you say to seniors in the seventh district who are worried about their health care? bera: they have been saying democrats want to cut $700 billion out of medicare. you know that is not true. in fact you voted for the same thing yourself twice. that $700 billion never lees medicare and extend the life of medicare. sacramento looked at this and said that was entirely false. congressman, you know the truth. you voted for the same legislation twice. we have to get serious about medicare and this is what i tell
my seniors in this district. as a doctor i sat with them where they had to decide between one medication and another when they needed both and could afford both. we have to secure motive--medicare. let's get rid of fraud and abuse. let's negotiate on a fair playing field. let's make this about patients and not the health insurance industry. let's practice prevention. prevent the heart attack and diagnose cancer early to save the life. not only good medicine but will save lives and cut costs. let's cut bureaucracy. let's make health-care and medicare about taking care of patients. those costs are not benefits. those are cuts in costs and payments to help insurance -- you know better than that because you voted for that they same thing twice. lungren: just because you say something is true doesn't make it true. look at the medicare system before the house and budget committee ask whether or not
there are cuts. president's obamacare. they said yes. they admitted they are counted twice. once supposedly to help the survivability of the trust fund and to pay for the additional programs under medicare. you can double count even if you are a doctor. the fact is it takes it out of medicare. specifically take it out of medicare advantage. in this district the seventh district we have one of the highest percentages of senior citizens who opted in for medicare advantage in the entire country and under the formula contained in a program that he supports the seniors in this district will suffer a larger cuts for their services than those in florida. nonsense as a result of the fact the we have lower cost per patient than they do in florida. i did vote for it and proud i voted for it and look at the testimony under oath before committees of congress that
state you are absolutely wrong in what you said. ami soo -- >> moderator: we have some consensus. the republican plan also targets the same amount of money. that is one of the problems in this political campaign. we're talking the same amount of money. in that -- bera: any cuts stay within the medicare system under the republican plan. undemocratic plan as proposed by the president and admitted under oath in testimony before congress they take that money out. do not keep it in medicare but use it for new programs established under the president's program. it in danger is medicare. it doesn't leave that money for that purpose. that is a testimony before congress under oath. you can say it is not true but check the testimony. we are happy to make that
available. >> moderator: say something before we move on. bera: the bigger question is let's look at the plan for medicare the congressman supports. he supports a budget that would privatize medicare and make a voucher program and leave seniors without necessary care breaking a promise we made over a generation to parents and grandparents and seniors. it would privatize it and add thousands of dollars to the cost of medicare. >> moderator: we may talk about it some more. specifically go back. lungren: it is not a voucher but a premium support program that was first presented as a bipartisan proposal under the clinton administration commission that is not a voucher. a premium support program and patterned after the health care plan that is available for millions of americans -- bera: doesn't cover the cost of care seniors need. we need to put patients first.
>> moderator: the voters will hear from both of you on this. let me go to some questions from the community. from the seventh congressional district. the first is from sacramento. dan smith. >> congressman lungren. here is her question. global warming. is this an issue that concerns you? why and what steps will you take to minimize potential impacts to the country and your district in particular and she means water supply, flooding, greater fire danger and route. lungren: no doubt there is global change or climate change. who causes it and is its cause predominately by human activity? seems to me we need to take reasonable steps but not steps that so put us in a disadvantageous position economically that we will have less jobs. there are those who cry about their concern for jobs but support the very things that would absolutely destroy jobs.
we have an example of that. the current administration supported by my opponent to try to basically ruined the coal industry in the united states losing as thousands of tens of thousands of jobs instead of pursuing the cleanest technology in the area of coal. my record -- chairman of the house administration. we got rid of the program. the former speaker gave us the savings of equivalence of carbon emissions of one car per year. we have the results in on the program i established which is waste energy. it produces enough energy to light 250 homes 3-year. it reduces that which would go to landfill by 5,000 tons and the number of car equivalence it takes off the street in terms of carbon emissions is almost 900. that is a pretty good record.
bera: you are suggesting global warming change we are seeing may not be caused by man-made sources? lungren: my point is we don't know to what extent it is and what moves we would take on our own in the united states will have an effect. at the same time it makes good common sense to attempt to try to reduce carbon emissions where possible. >> moderator: you want to talk about climate change? bera: the climate is changing. we are seeing extremes happen. talk to folks in new orleans. we have seen these. we can go about this a smart way in a way that creates jobs. we should never doubt american ingenuity when we put our mind to something. there's no reason we can't move forward and become energy independent country. that is what we need to do because this is a national security issue as well. we need to move off of dependence on foreign oil and start reducing our own energy at home and putting folks to work.
the original question is how does this affect us at home? affect us dramatically. we depend on our agricultural sector and we gone through drastic drops. as the climate has been changing our snow pack is melting and the reservoir -- we have to address this. we can debate what causes it and what the human impact is the effect of the matter is the longer we wait the worse it is getting. >> moderator: another question from the community from capitol public radio for dr. bera. >> from su asset. how do you or would you propose to work across the aisle to prevent or ameliorate that disastrous sequestration pushing this country over the fiscal cliff. tell us the most important way you personally will work towards common sense compromise. bera: we need to roll up our sleeves and take these issues seriously. congress has a fiscal cliff over its head that may go on recess
for seven weeks. that is unconscionable. we have to learn how to set aside political differences and find common ground. as democrats and republicans we have more in common than separates us. we all want our kids to succeed but right now political parties are getting in the way. ronald reagan could work with tip o'neill. bill clinton could work with newt gingrich. we have to get back to that context when it is not about political party but taking care of people and moving forward. leadership is not about blame. it is the house's fall for the president's fault. leadership is about rolling up your sleeves and locking yourself in a room and leading by example. congress has not been able to come of with a budget in 2,000 days. that is ridiculous. let's come up with a budget. there is legislation that is bipartisan. no budget no pay legislation
says if congress doesn't do its job and have a responsible budget they don't get paid. that is a step in the right direction. my pledge is i will co-sponsor that legislation which is bipartisan and holds congress accountable for doing with their job which is passing a budget and they haven't done it in 2,000 days. has the no budget no pay legislation. >> the question is about compromise. give us another ec would be willing to compromise on. bera: there are many of us who thing no child left behind is going in the wrong direction. i will stand against my own party and the president. i don't think race to the top is the right direction for education. we can find those issues where i am willing to stand against my party. >> moderator: back to your rebuttal. can you work with democrats on the sequestration if he returned to washington? lungren: i have worked with
democrats my entire life. look at my record. whether it is immigration or criminal justice or things like gun laws. i have worked across the aisle. if you will check with members on the other side, come to me for some support. ron white came to me before he came to vice-presidential romani -- nominee ryan. i was involved on issues dealing with terrorism so i could work on that one. if you look at my record i probably have as many pieces of legislation as bipartisan as any member of congress and the idea of no budget no pay. how about the budget no job? i voted for a budget. i have worked -- i put my budget on the line. i don't know if you are arguing dianne feinstein should not have a job this year. your campaigning against her because she hasn't voted for a
budget in the last 2,000 days. let's look at the record. >> moderator: did you vote for the budget in the democratic rain? lungren: i voted for the alternative. >> moderator: back to the journalist question for dan lungren. >> back to health care more specifically the affordable care act. california and a lot of other states moving forward with many physicians including the health benefit exchange and the online insurance market place. how should the government handles states like california who are moving in this direction and getting people lined up for the medicaid expansion with the expectation the money is going to be there. lungren: we can't afford obamacare. it will put a several trillion dollars above debt that we already have. will bury us to death. you have to have as many exemptions we are given as were recently given in the thousands to certain employers because it
wouldn't work it might suggest maybe this doesn't make sense. when you have testimony before relevant committees of congress that would projected to be provided to providers, not insurance carriers but providers will reach a cliff so you will have a lessening of the number of doctors and hospitals and medical systems that can treat people. what i have suggested is we not only repeal obamacare but replace it. i co-sponsored h.r. 6283 with dr. burgess from texas. a practicing physician. that will create new incentives for states to create high risk pools to make sure no one is denied access to quality care. ..
so, as a physician as someone that has dealt with these issues over my whole adult life and professional life we have to address the chair but the only way you do this by taking on the health insurance industry by taking on the pharmaceutical industry and making sure about patient so their plan doesn't do that, their plan continues to allow health health insurance companies to make those decisions. we have to put it in the hands of our patience. that is the direction that we
need to go. if you touched on any number of issues there is no way for us to get our economy going until we have addressed the cost of health care. when i talk to small business owners and large corporations, after payroll their second-biggest item is the cost of benefits to it for us to compete in a global marketplace, we have to get a handle on the cost of care and start lowering that and that has to be priority number one. again, that is why i disagree with the president's approach. he should have made the economic case for why we have to get a handle on the cost. >> something you want to get a handle on that comes the next question of the debate is for you, dr. bera issued statements about that tonight and you talked about the polls. those are a bit of difficult things to define for some people. give me one example of you could. there is wasteful spending and the local. bera: let's broaden that to the debt. so, wasteful spending is the 30 cents on every health care dollar that goes to the health insurance industry that has
nothing to do with patient care. that is wasteful spending. wasteful spending is the fact that the federal government is prohibited from negotiating on the pharmaceutical pricing. the bush drug benefits prohibit us to negotiate the best price. that is an 800 billion-dollar giveaway to the farmers of the gulf industry over ten years. that's wasteful spending. >> how about a loophole? speed a loophole allows companies to shift jobs overseas. it's not fair trade. it is moving jobs overseas and leaving the dollars over there. as opposed to closing the loophole that allows us to set the companies that build jobs here in america. >> moderator: i've heard you use that term. congressman lungren was a loophole to you? lungren: with a loophole is an idea of an example of waste. it's the kind of program that my opponent has supported in the past. it's a way for us to get out from under a global warming. we ought not to use our -- we ought to use our common sense
when we look at these programs instead of throwing money to the wind. corev all has been the largest boondoggle that i have seen since i have been in congress. we finally got rid of the subsidy but there is still a terrorist on the product that is made from other sources coming into the united states. that is in my judgment not only an improper loophole, it also happens to be immoral because it has as a direct impact on a particular food that is utilized as a staple in by its around the world. i can't see why there is no common sense. it doesn't make sense from the standpoint of the taxpayers, and it frankly is a moral with respect to the food available to people around the world. >> moderator: for congressman lungren. >> congressmen, iran says the are not developing a nuclear
bomb but the reports as early as last month show they are stepping up the nuclear enrichment activities. just today president obama told the u.n. that the iran situation is not a challenge that can be contained. tell me at what point is military involvement necessary in the linus and? lungren: iran is a nuclear capability and i can say that without talking about any classified in relation whatsoever. the fact is that's happened. our intelligence, the israeli intelligence do not differ in my judgment on the surface and the question is how do you analyze that. i think that we analyze it in similar ways the the next question is where do you draw the line. i think israel is trying to tell us we need to draw the line now. i support drawing the line now. it's totally unacceptable for iran to have a nuclear weapon. but, you have to look at what
the administration has done. this president has pointed to the feeling of israel before the country and around that would basically threaten. one of the worst things you can possibly do in the middle east is to show weakness. show some divide between your country and your strongest allies. that is what this administration has, unfortunately. we are not on the brink of a decision that has to be made. it is unacceptable when we say it is unacceptable we must have all options to stop the development of a nuclear weapon. some will say that might get us into a conflict. we would be a conflict one way or another. and if they have a nuclear weapon, the consequences will be devastating not only for israel but for the entire middle east and the entire country. >> moderator: the congressmen said the president has been weak on iran. bera: without the threat of
military intervention is not real diplomacy, and iran has to know that we will never let them acquire nuclear weapons. i stand with of the congressman and i agree that would destabilize the region. that would put israel, one of our closest allies in harm's way, and we have to stand with israel. the greatest threat is destabilization in the middle east is a nuclear-armed iran. we cannot let that happen again we have to let our diplomacy work. it has to be diplomacy with meaningful the understanding that we will invade if we have to. >> moderator: we are at the point of the debate for the congressional district where each candidate is going to get to ask the other candidate in question. these are consistent with the rules we agreed to in order we are going. so, dr. ami bera you were the first to get to ask a question of the man would like to replace, congressman lungren. bera, you sent out a tax payer
funded mailer that says you would lead by example on the issue of the national debt. now, leading by example, which one of your to taxpayer funded pensions would you be willing to give up to help us pay off the debt? lungren: i would have expected a question like that from you. i do not qualify for the pension so long as i remain in the congress from the congressional if you are successful, i guess he would make me eligible for the pension. i'm going to try very hard to make sure that does not happen. second, i would just say this. i have worked as hard as any member of congress on trying to control spending. i chair the committee that oversees the expenditures of the congress of the house of representatives for two years. for two years i've brought to the floor cuts to the contras, cuts to my budget, the budget of every single member of congress, cuts to the leadership of the budget, and that is not the easiest thing to do. they are going to spend less
money and cuts to every single committee in the process i cut my own committee more than i cut the other committees. if the whole federal government would have cut its budget by between 11 to 12% that we have cut to the house of representatives, we would be well on our way to establishing a path towards a balanced budget. so, my actions speak louder than words. >> moderator: you have 60 seconds. bera, to become your actions you are taking a full pension from the state of california. of over $50,000. at the time that you are taking a full salary over $75,000. we are going broke in the state. that is double dipping. use by your pension on the way out. that is exactly the wrong direction we need to go. we've got to get serious of these tensions. we have to get serious about leading by example, and putting ourselves out there. that is why we make the pledge
that we have made. i am not cling to take a pay raise until unemployment has been addressed in this region. that is leading by example. i am not going to take a pension until we have secured medicare and social security for the next generation. how can we advocate cuts to seniors when we are not willing to talk about ourselves house leaders wax congressman, you've proposed privatizing social security and giving the way to wall street. that is in the direction that we need to go. we need to make the decisions ourselves and tighten our belt as leaders. >> moderator: congressman you get to ask a question but feel free -- lungren: doctor you have just articulated a number of things that "the sacramento bee" have said or falls in the last campaign, and in this campaign. obviously you think is appropriate to continue with falsehoods. look, four years ago a mutual friend of ours was called by you to go to a lunch so you could announce you were going to run and you asked him to give me a message that you respected my
service to the public and you were going to run a different campaign. you were not going to have any personal attack. you were only going to talk about the issues. subsequent to that i have received from you personal attacks, question my integrity and honesty and sincerity, questioning my motivation. my question for you is this. when you said that and he is here to tell people that in fact you said that to him or you telling the truth at that time or was it a cynical political ploy or as some of your friends have told me is it that you couldn't hold up under the pressure that he received from the washington establishment to run a campaign against someone personally instead of the issues? bera: this is about putting your community first, and that is the promise i make as a congressman. so, congressman, when we talk about leading by example, it is
leading by a example and making the sacrifice in the communities better off. it's by giving and working in the free clinic and volunteering. congressman, when you take a full state of california pensions, when you raise your salary by 25% in the last month of the attorney general so you have an extra the $11,000, that sets a wrong example. we have to address these issues. our cities are going bankrupt, when you double dip and take a full salary as a congressman, and the pension from the state of california, that is exactly the wrong. those are the facts. it is a fact to "the sacramento bee" you have privatized social security. we can fact check that. it's the fact that i'm glad you admitted that he voted for the same $715 billion of you are talking on. those are facts.
>> moderator: dr. bera that is the time of the rebuttal. i want to remind everyone that we have closing statements in a few minutes in this debate for the candidates. we still have more questions of course the reminder that we will be coming up on the hour but right now we want to go back to the questions from the panel. marion has a question for the congressman. >> congressman the trust fund will not have enough money to pay off its full benefits within a couple decades of the current model. federal commission urged several changes in putting increasing the retirement age, raising the payroll tax. do you support either of those? if not, what would you do? lungren: we saw an example of how well bera will work across the aisle with people. questioning the motivation, misstating the facts, continually misstating the facts that have been shown to be untrue but the analysis by "the sacramento bee" doesn't bode well for someone that wants to
work. look, i was around last time we had to face this. at that time i worked with those in the congress that the compromise of ronald reagan and tip o'neill, which did increase incrementally the age of retirement, and as the major factor in attempting to try to keep the social security voluble that has actually worked for the last quarter of a century. the question is now we have the courage to reach across the aisle and talk about those things at exit three difficult. when you were talking about those things to have your opponent and his supporters criticized you because you voted to raise social security age back in 1983. i thought that is what they talked about whenas dr. stifel took the great times of tip o'neill and ronald reagan working together across the aisle. i worked across the donald. we stabilized the social security system, and now dr. bera criticized it and how
does that get us anywhere closer to solving the problem? one of the things we have to do is ensure those people that a 55 and under are not affected as we have already said going forward. >> what about the accusations he would like to privatize the social security? lungren: it's untrue. i've allowed programs to support a portion of what ever you have to be, whatever your particular county is to be invested as you see fit. and here is the reason why. everybody remembers we talked about the lock box al gore said we need to have a lock box to protect social security that's been written by the government and other places. this is the only way that you protect it. you give someone an actual amount of money that they can invest. >> moderator: congressman, i need to set things again keep moving. dr. bera went ahead, please. bera: can you imagine if folks moved their money out of social security into wall street in this recession? we would have had millions of seniors in poverty. social security is a sacred program.
we've got to address it in the broad context of the debt to get here is the problem with the debt. we have to understand where it came from. it came from the war that was underfunded. it came from the tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. it came from giveaways to wall street, giveaways in the oil companies, giveaways to health insurance companies. and congressman, you voted for all three of those and you are not done yet. you voted for a budget twice that is going to have over $3 trillion to the debt. that is ridiculous. trusting congress and lungren on the debt to address these issues is a trustee burglar to house it for you when you go on vacation. >> moderator: thanks, dr. bera to read the next question, dr. bera is for you and from me. i want to talk about immigration for a moment. it's come up in the campaign nationally and in this election year. as you know, president dhaka, acted by executive order that in june to allow 1.7 million undocumented immigrants that came to the uss children to stay if they meet certain conditions.
did the president do the right thing? bera: i would have supported the dream act. these are kids that came here, you know, this gives them the chance to become citizens in a country that they loved by serving in the military, by going to college. immigration in the broad sense that is an issue of security. the first thing we have to do is to secure our borders. the next thing we have to do is actually take the law that we have and enforce them. third, we have to address immigration as the son of parents with emigrated here in the 1950's, we want the best and the brightest to come to the country. we want them to get their education, and then we want them to build their companies here because that is an issue that moves our economy forward. >> moderator: should we keep all of those people here in the united states? bera: we should have those that have successfully bridged the from college that can apply for their extension of their visas and then over time the should be able to become citizens so they can build their companies here. that is our history and that is
our legacy as americans, and that has propelled our economy forward. >> moderator: congress and lungren? a 62nd rebuttal. did the president made the right decision coming and if he did not, what would you have liked to see differently? lungren: as the floor manager of the last major reform of immigration could you have to be committed to it. we spent 30 days of the conference before the house and the senate every single day. that is every single day the converse was in session we were unsuccessful and i came back the next time and be succeeded in doing it. look, if this president wanted major immigrant reform that is the disappointing thing we were willing to work with him on that and he never extended his hand. the idea of having the treen act sitting out there, this thing he did, six months or less than six months before the election, come on. that is pretty cynical. i support teams like this last week's voting to get rid of the diversity exception to 55,000
visa program that was originally established by tip o'neill to help the irish get in. it has nothing to do with the skills people have come it's a violation of the quota system where we have people from all over the world coming. look it is the following wall, the immigrants from africa. >> let me be fair. would you send folks back here that are illegal or would you do something different? lungren: of course i would read the other foot across the border yesterday what right do they have to be in the united states? we have to as the motion program in which we figured out those people have some roots in the community and you don't have to put them on a pathway to citizenship. i guarantee it will be reviewed as amnesty in devotee understands if you cut in line there is something wrong. i have had a program that i have proposed that would allow those that have roots in the community not to have a halfway to citizenship but have what we call a blue card for a five-year period of time there would be able to stay in the united states, but they would not be on the path of citizenship. they would have to go home and sign off and get behind the line
like everybody else. >> moderator: i have to go next to dan smith, the congress and a question. >> congressman lungren, you issued a statement denouncing the fellow house republican comment about, "a legitimate rate. but you did co-sponsor a bill with the house republican that said only, quote a lot forcible rape pregnancy should be eligible for the federally funded abortions. do you then think that there are different kinds of rape? the point is does that influence how you vote on whether the federal funds can be used for abortion? lungren: the work force will was taken out of it. i was the one that went to the two major co-sponsors of the bill. chris smith of new jersey and congressman bit of pennsylvania told them that i would not support that unless they took the word forceful out because the language that they had without forcible was the language that had prevailed for 30 years of the conference known as the hyatt amendment. it had support in both
democratic and republican administrations and had bipartisan support in the house and the senate committee it was law to reply told them you should not change the language with one word because the would change the state of the law. so in fact if you are talking about in the state -- the mistake they made by was the one that pointed out to read on was the one and i assume 80 some others but after i went to them i told them i couldn't support it if they didn't take the word forceful out that they changed it so rather than changing the law, i worked to make sure that we maintain phill lot and that it stood the test of time in terms of what is known as the hyde amendment. >> moderator: dr. bera, your rebuttal. bera: you know, rape is rape and we don't need to debate what it is. what we do need to do though is make sure that we protect individual liberties, that we protect a woman's right to choose. as a doctor, i was to sit there with my patients, to answer their questions, and then to uncover them to within their faith, their individual
circumstances and their family circumstances, to make the decisions that best fit their life. this is about individual freedoms. as a doctor i don't want the government coming into my exam room making those decisions for me. i want to empower white patient to make the decisions that best fit within their family circumstances and their individual circumstances. and this is about the individual liberties and individual freedoms. we don't want the government in our exam room. >> moderator: on to another question on the debate. >> doctors because despite the positive news the market continues to be a major drive of the sacramento county economy and elsewhere of course. in your opinion what role should the federal government play in trying to change that? to use for the tax credits and other incentives or not? bera: is another area that i would criticize, not addressing the housing crisis because it is a drag on our economy and we will not recover. here are some things. as i now they're talking to voters and talking to folks that
live in this district, there are many of them that are trying to provide things and they are paying their mortgage their homes are now under water. they are not asking for principal debt forgiveness. what they want to do is sit with the banks and now that the interest rates have dropped, they would like to refinance their homes to read the facts are not doing it to be i do think that it's appropriate for the federal government to work with the banks to start getting the banks helping these homeowners and allowing them to start refinancing their homes. these are folks that don't want to get out of what you're doing. they want to do the right thing, the need help right now. >> moderator: congressman lungren quickly on the foreclosure issue. lungren: a couple things. number one, for some people who have been foreclosed upon or have short sales, the amount of forgiveness they have is taxable under the law. we have had exception to that for the last three years. that is going to expire. i have a major piece of legislation on the republican side to make sure that that does not occur.
number one. number two, with respect to first-time home buyers in our own area i have been told by the realtors and first-time home buyers of the head into the opportunity to purchase houses because investors have come in and have taken those out from under them that while it is completely legal, you wonder whether there is anything that can be done on that regard in the third, i would just say there are any number of people in the constituent who we have personally felt in their quest to have the banks follow the law and to look at their circumstances to see whether in fact they can be refinanced. so why do think that there is a place for the government to play in that. >> what could you do about the investors coming in? any idea? lungren: i don't know maybe except exposing this is the fact that it's undercutting. i have realtors' tell me that they have had folks that have qualified and have had to make applications on as many as 19 homes, and then investors come and take them out from under them. ..
president behind, and immediately they are attacked by the executive branch. i don't put people in those categories. at the is unfair to talk about bringing the majesty of the federal government down on someone who is trying to present their case. it doesn't matter whether there are the wealthiest or the poorest. what does make a difference is the transparency in terms of lobbying, making sure that everyone knows when it is done, how is done, under what circumstances it is done and then let the people decide. we ought to have -- we have have to understand, the first amendment is based on the proposition that the more that is said, by more people of all stages of life the better it is. you mean a line with the truth, some misguided notion with a better notion. this idea that somehow the federal government has to tell us camino, we think you should not be talking some much. we think you are a favored operation and you are a dissevered operation.
of what the government to be involved in that sort of thing, so frankly i would not even answer your question because it would suggest that i as a member of congress would punish someone moderator: so there is nothing wrong in washington, congressman? c-span2 i did not sit at all, but you want me to point out those that are the good guys and those that are the bad guys. the fact of the matter is, the rough-and-tumble politics and government allows people to say what they have to say and then let the people decide c-span.org let's let your opponent, dr. bera, said what he has to say. bera: i think the biggest source of an plus right now is the citizens united ruling, the unleashing of millions of dollars that will corrupt our democracy, the unleashing of corporations. i'm glad to hear the congressman said he wants to see transparency. we should know who is donating to these campaigns, who is funneling these millions of dollars into races. we are going to see these out here. that is going to undermine our
democracy, and that truly is, in my mind, something that we have got to address. we can do it. there is legislation, the disposal act, which does suggest how we move forward so we, at least, no who is donating. i think that is a step in the right direction. congressman, i think he should put that forward. it is in your comedic. moderator, both gentlemen. we are short on time. i would like to answer in 30 seconds if you could. it is, as you may know, california has a plan for a high-speed rail train system from san francisco to l.a., maybe one day to sacramento. it requires congressional money. , would you find that program? thirty seconds. bera: no, i would not. i would invest that money in infrastructure. the levees, the -- to be our family safe. now is not the time for that investment to be placed. moderator: and congressman tom i think we may have agreement. lungren: we had what was
supposed to be a debate on state public radio, two years ago, you were for it and you criticized me for not being for it, that very program that now you're against. i guess you were for it before you were against it. maybe later on he will be for it again. lungren: that might make a nice tv ad. bera: you had your time. >> moderator: 302nd answer. we are coming close. lungren: the disclose act had disparate treatment of different groups. that is where the government goes and does what i believe is against the spirit as well as the letter of the first amendment's. >> moderator: i know you want to say it, but you better -- bera: i will say is quickly. >> moderator: thank you katie now is not the time to be addressing those. >> moderator: very good. we have had a spirited debate. now they have the opportunity to issue closing statements here in the seventh congressional district debate.
by the order of the coin toss, dr. bera, you have the first closing date to i want to thank the moderator's and those joining us on television and listening to us on broadcast. four years ago we faced an unprecedented economic crisis that took us into the creek recession. today we face a level of political dysfunction that threatens to take s right back there. you have heard two different visions. the congressman who first went to congress in 1978, he is part of what got us into this mess. he puts forth those same policies that got us into this mess. he has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from wall street's, big oil companies. who do you think he will work for? he has voted on a budget twice that would add over $3 trillion to debt that is crushing our kids. now, i am a doctor. the oath i took was to put my patients first. the pledge and make is, we have to rebuild america by rebuilding the middle-class. we have to make sure every child has the american dream that i am
a product of. here's my promise to you. i pledge not to take any salary until unemployment in sacramento is below 5%. i pledge not to take a pension until we have secured social security and medicare for the next generation and our seniors, and i will co-sponsoring a bipartisan no budget legislation that says if congress does not do its job and pass a responsible budget they don't get paid. that is my place to you. by putting people first we can restore the american dream. i would be honored to have your support and vote on november 6. thank you. >> moderator: democrat, congressman. as we move to the closing statement of the incumbent in this race, dan lungren. lungren: we face serious challenges in this country. that is why i am in congress, to face those challenges. i have voted for budgets, put my name on the line with respect to what needs to be done in order to put this country back on a
fiscal path. my opponent's party and those who support my opponent disagree. they want us to continue on the path of more spending and taxation. listen to what my opponent says, he is for the status quo. i am opposing that. i am working against that. not just working against it, i have a vision of the future of america that comes out of the promise of america. the idea that you can be the best that you possibly can be with god stalinsk, not encumbered with a government that tells you, they know better, not a government answers all situation where jobs are created by the federal government, where every answer is given to you, where every obligation is imposed on you but rather in a country that is in the spirit of america, the spirit of the foundation of america that understood that a limited government is the best government, that a robust
government does not interfere with the people. i have faith in the people. i have always had faith in the people. i think that i have an obligation and you have an obligation to give to our children and grandchildren the same greatness in america that our parents gave us the. >> moderator: dan lungren, thank you for your statement. i want to thank both candidates. we have talked about a lot of issues, and there are a lot of issues facing the voters. i wanted thank everyone involved in this debate, our media partner and all the folks at the three news organizations. i want to tell you also that you can continue to find and permission online through the time at all three news organizations at news10, cat radio. and of course, the most important thing for you, as folks here in the seventh congressional district is to get out and vote. election day is on november 6 and your vote does matter. thank you again. thanks for watching, and thanks
to our candidates. [applause] ♪ >> you have been watching one of the dozens of political debates we are airing during this campaign season. if you miss any of this or would like to check out other debates you can visit us at c-span.org / campaign 2012. also, the latest events from republican presidential candidate mitt romney and president obama from the campaign trail. visit our social media session where you can see with a candid it's political reporters and other viewers are saying about the presidential race on sites like facebook and twitter all available at c-span.org / campaign 2012. we have more from a president obama campaigns in ohio.
this follows an appearance at bowling green state university. you can watch the speech live at 5:40 p.m. eastern on our companion network c-span. and campaign 2012 coverage will continue tomorrow with the debate between candidates for u.s. senate in nevada. that starts at 11:00 p.m. eastern tomorrow night live on c-span. >> to foster work and enterprise in the middle east and other developing countries i will initiate something i will call prosperity pacs, working with the private sector. the program will identify the barriers to investment and trade and entrepreneurship and entrepreneurialism in developing nations. in exchange for removing those barriers and opening their markets to u.s. investment and trade, developing nations will receive u.s. assistance package is focused on developing the institutions of liberty, the rule of law, property rights.
>> we believe that freedom and self-determination are not unique to one culture. these are not simply american values or western values, they are universal values. even as there will be huge challenges to come with the transition to democracy, i am convinced that ultimately government of the people, by the people, and for the people is more likely to bring about the stability, prosperity, and individual opportunity that serves as the basis for peace. >> next wednesday, october 3rd , mitt romney and president obama meet in their first presidential debate, moderated by jim lehrer of the news hour from the university of denver. watch and engage with c-span including a live debate preview at 7:00 p.m. eastern, the debate at 9:00 p.m., and after the debate your reactions, calls him a e-mails command tweet. follow live coverage on c-span, c-span radio, an online at c-span.org. >> we under estimate how much we
forget of our own ideas. we are just terrible. even those of us to have good memories will forget. particularly if an idea is this kind of fragmentary thing where it is just this fleeting sense that something is interesting and then it disappears. one of the things i found people do, and i try to do it as well is not just to write everything down, but to keep everything together. don't over organize your notes, don't put them off in the folders and things like that because you want to allow interesting conclusions for -- to happen between your ideas. the important thing is to go back and read all those notes, go back and look at your notes from six years ago. revisit that kind of past self and all of the ideas he or she had. that is what the commonplace book was like for most of the great minds of the enlightenment. they would stitch together these passages from books that they read that they were inspired by and what write their own notes and then go back and read this
book which was itself a kind of remakes kind of sample clippings of all these other ideas. their intellectual presence, their intellectual self was formed by this constant rereading entry imagining of other people's ideas. >> steven johnson will be our get -- guest next month. the science writer and columnist for discover magazine will look at the cyberworld popular culture and computer networking and politics. lives in their october 7 at noon eastern on c-span2 book tv. up next, a debate between kendis to be the next governor of new hampshire. the republican candidates unsuccessfully ran for governor in 1996 and was the republican nominee for the u.s. senate in 2010. democrat is a former new hampshire state senator who served as the majority leader.
this took place in manchester, new hampshire and comes to us from new hampshire public broadcasting and is about an hour. >> welcome to the candidates' forum on business and the economy. i am most of the exchange. we are coming to you from the television studios at the new hampshire is to to the politics that political library. for the next hour we will hear from new hampshire is gubernatorial candidates. we will press them to talk about what they would do as governor and refrain from spending valuable time attacking each other. and now let me introduce our candid it's. they are republican ovide lamontagne and democrat maggie hassan. our panelists. during this first half of our forum, the panelists will ask questions. then we will move onto a lightning round were candid it's will provide brief and decisive responses to a series of topics.
then i will take over and moderate a to-we discussion between the candidates. some of these questions came from our listeners, readers and viewers. each candidate will have two minutes for a response and if there is a follow-up question one minute for that. now, we tossed a coin earlier to see who would receive the first question, and that goes to maggie hassan. we begin with mike cody from the union. .. good morning. hassan: good morning. >> moderator: what do you see as the largest public policy differences? hassan: first of all, it's really great to be here. it is important that we have a strong and competitive economy and that, of course, starts with opposing an income or sales tax. i want to focus on making sure that our businesses can innovate and create jobs, and that starts with making sure that we have targeted tax credits like the research and development tax credit. it starts with making sure that we are providing technical
assistance to our businesses by using, for instance, the expertise of our university system to give that kind of technical assistance, and its starts with investing in education again and making sure our education system is meeting the needs of the 21st century economy. i should also add that it is really important as we think it was strengthening our economy that we defend the civil liberties and rights of every new hampshire citizens because we want to attract people of talent and energy to our states. that means defending our marriage equality law and making sure that women can chart their own destiny by making their own health care decisions .. i love the public debate between you and ovide lamontagne. has been on social issues. any that you disagree and, how much impact they have on the economy and the impact -- business of new hampshire? hassan: i was on a plan last spring and i sat next to a young man who recruits for a major new hampshire business. he was telling me how important the marriage equality law that
we passed was to his recruiting efforts because young people were more interested in coming to new hampshire to work here because we were committed to treating all of our granite staters the police. similarly for women the ability to make their own decisions about when to have families, about what kind of balance they want to seek in the workplace, finishing school, all of those things relate to their ability to control their own health decisions and control their own destiny. so i think they are intertwined and very, very important to the future. >> moderator: can you clarify a little more? hassan: i have an innovation plan that has been up for a while, and it really talks about, among other things, the importance of improving standards in our schools at all levels, particularly science and math because we need to make sure that our young people are not only getting a good education in those areas, but have hand-on curriculum and that we want to invest in the university to begin restoring
those cuts that the legislature made. but in exchange for that freezing tuition at the university system and also making sure that the university system is holding more slots open for new hampshire residents some middle-class families can afford to stay here and their kids will stay here and become the next generation of talent for our economy. >> moderator: tell me about your economic policy differences? lamontagne: thank you very much. first of all, new hampshire public radio. sponsoring this first debate of this general election cycle. and i am grateful for the opportunity to speak to new hampshire voters across our state in these various mediums. i think the policy differences are fundamental and vast. when it comes to jobs and the economy and we are forming state government, and that is what is on the forefront of most people's minds. all the way over to portsmouth and everywhere in between. and the resounding word is that we need jobs, we need a sound
economy. my plan is called the prosperity agenda on our website. stands in stark contrast to my opponent's record. my opponent was the majority leader for the democratic controlled senate and oversaw spending increases way beyond the cost of living. so for 99, tax coffee increases, and an increase on small businesses, the tax reform plan actually as component -- has components to it that you opposed as a state senator, things like extending the be t credit and so forth. so mine is very comprehensive, business oriented. i'm a business owner. i have worked as chairman of the board. i have a lot of experience. pro-business, and our policies differ quite dramatically. >> moderator: let me jump in here, if i could. you mentioned that news10 was majority leader while, you said, the democrats spent waiting on the cost of living. i want to give you a chance to respond to that in 30 seconds
and then, ovide lamontagne, back to you as well for 30 seconds. hassan: i'm very proud of the record we put together. actually balance the budget in the worst economy since the great depression. we made very tough decisions, but you know, if we overspent to the degree that he says we did a, detectives legislature slashing the university by half, cutting funding crossbills by $100 million to balance the budget? there is no support for the notion that we overspent. we were the first legislature to actually cut general spending in literally decades of new hampshire governor's republicans and democrats. so i just think that what is not said about his agenda is what it will do to our essential infrastructure. there is a cost to. >> moderator: we will definitely get into it this hour big differences of opinion, interpretation of the budget, the status of the numbers, how you interpret them, but i want
to give you 30 seconds on that. lamontagne: well, forming state government begins with reforming our legislative process. we reduced spending by 11 percent and plug in $900 million holdup was left by the prior legislature. and it took real mass, not new math estimates of revenues very close to where we are. we have dealt with a significant problem, and we need leaders in the governor's office. i propose to bring that. >> moderator: back to you. >> moderator: you disagree on some social issues. tell me about how much of an impact have on the economy? lamontagne: i don't think that's relevant at all. as i travel around the state the focus is jobs, economy, reforming state government. that has to be the primary focus. these are critical times in new hampshire as well as this country. we need leaders that understand that jobs are created in the private sector. what it takes to create an
environment for job creation here in new hampshire is the primary focus. that is what my campaign has been about from the beginning, and that is what we will continue to be as we go for intestinal election. >> moderator: abcaeight. over to you with the question. >> moderator: the next governor will decide whether to expand medicaid. would you support this? lamontagne: this is where my position is. i have been outside general counsel to a major hospital. i know of the health care field. i have seen the impact of the federal government on our current health care delivery system. i think we should do as a state is go to the federal government to do a couple of things and get a maintenance of effort waiver on medicaid so that we can have more flexibility. number two, demand of the federal government block grant the enhanced dollars and will be paid under the affordable care act star state that allows to create a high risk people working with a private insurance exchange program, not taking additional lives and bringing
them into the medicaid system that is not designed for healthy individuals, designed for individuals with special needs, poor women and children and elderly citizens that don't have access to health care. medicaid is a particularized insurance plan. it should not be used as the vehicle to bring in uninsured. the affordable care act is the wrong direction, but clearly it's a way we can work with the federal government to make any hampshire solution to health care reform happened here. >> moderator: don't expand medicaid. lamontagne: that's right, but work with the federal government to have a new hampshire based solution to our challenges. >> moderator: it is predicted that an additional 50,000 recipients would be enrolled in medicaid. if they aren't all those costs then be passed on to the businesses jack. lamontagne: there might be. there will be a tax assessed. that is what it has been called. those employers that don't offer insurance plans. this is a cost, a job killing
program, this affordable care act and take $750 billion worth of medicaid money, medicare money from our system. it is the wrong direction to go, but there is flexibility now because of supreme court is saying we don't have to go this way. we don't have to be compelled to use medicaid is the expansion at it. we can actually opt out or use that position to leverage our negotiation with the federal government to have new hampshire based solution which is what i would strive for as governor. >> moderator: i think the concern among some businesses, as we heard, is that if the 50,000 folks are made uninsured than their costs to come to the emergency room or wherever are shifted on to businesses and those of us to pay full freight. i think that is the cost concern that you hear from some folks. lamontagne: that is the current situation. if there are 50,000 uninsured lives the way they get health care is by going to the emergency room. we need a new hampshire based solution to bring them into the private insurance market which is what we can do in new
hampshire. i do not subscribe to the belief that washington is telling us how to care for our patients. we have to know where to do it. >> moderator: the same question. would you expand medicaid? hassan: it's important that every state has access to quality and afrdable health care which is a principle every governor has to honor. i am concerned when i hear him speak about his plan because it does not give the full picture. in addition to saying he wants to block plant and privatize medicaid he also wants opt out of the federal medicare system and give the new hampshire legislature the power to provide and regulate health care for our seniors, something that i think would be a terrible mistake for our state if for no other reason , just imagine what it would mean for new hampshire senior goes down the florida for the winter not eligible for medicare and a florida hospital and they need care.
there's a lack of practicality with the proposals. in terms of the affordable care act what we can do it working with the federal government is expand the number of people covered by medicaid. we need to find ways to increase the medicaid reimbursement rates that are too low in the state. i were terry artist the senate to make sure we have transparency in health care financing so we can understand what is driving our underlying health care costs up. the other thing i need to point out is that the pledge was signed this week for cornerstone research group which is a place that he will promote some of the social issues he just said he was not going to pay any attention to as governor, but part of that pledge also says that he will work to completely deregulate private health insurance in the state of new hampshire. that means no ability by the state or consumers to know that their health insurance plans under the kind of program he is talking about but cover things like mammograms or whatever very
basic care like hearing aids. so there are real consequences to the plan that he is really not talking with people about. we need to understand what they are. >> moderator: before you follow up, i need to give you 30 seconds to rebut that. you support the health care system in the state. lamontagne: i don't. i don't know where that came from. i've been very consistent on where i stand. it is in new hampshire approach we need. to the extent that we can have our programs designed year, that's why we seek waivers for federal programs command that is why we should have a new hampshire approach, but i'm not sure what you're referring to. on our website you can find my health care position. it is much more detailed, and that actually works for new hampshire and is the one i will stand on. hassan: signed a pledge for cornerstone research this week. it was announced yesterday.
you get the agenda is says he would support the regulating insurance companies. >> moderator: in this era, maybe we can all. leave that as it is for now. go ahead. you have another follow-up. >> moderator: getting back to expansion of medicare, the government said it will pay for all or part of it in coming years. but in the past the government has neglected or does not send payments to the state. is that a concern of yours? lamontagne: first of all, there is always the -- you have to get back to the principle that it is more expensive not to insure people or cover people and get them good preventive and primary care them not to cover them. but i think the federal government has committed to 100% coverage of medicaid expansion for the first three years. they have a real interest in doing that for a variety of reasons, including the fact that it will lower cost billing for
word, but the other thing is, if we fail to do this, there is a real cost as well because of the disproportionate share program that the federal government helps us with, the payments for the uninsured that they currently make goes away under the affordable care act. so if that payment goes away and we don't accept the medicaid money, which we should do in a way that allows to cart to a chart its own course, we need to work with the federal government to make sure we're doing it in a way that is right, but i certainly would not do what this legislature has done which is reject federal money so that we could be planning to chart our own course of the affordable care act. i think it's really important for us to understand that there is a significant cost to our hospitals and medical providers for not participating in the medicaid expansion. >> moderator: another question from you. >> moderator: as new hampshire called itself business from the? and yet has among the highest business taxes in the country. so isn't it important for you to
lower business taxes or improve social services? which one of those who do pay? hassan: you have to f focus on her job development. you need to look at our overall tax picture and climate. i'm very proud of the fact that serving with the governor in the worst economy since the great depression we balance the budget while keeping the overall tax burden one of the lowest in the country's raided our nonpartisan business groups as one of the friendly as places to do business in the country. so i am very focused on preserving and improving that climate. what we know is that a recent ranking by cnbc took us from tenth in the country the 304th in terms of our economic standing, and they pointed particularly to the cuts in our education system, the university system, this legislature made a
50% cut to our university system and to the infrastructure cuts. $90 million in cuts for our roads and bridges. and those things are things that we absolutely need to find a way to invest in or we're going to continue our economic decline. those are things that this legislature supported and did and is what we need to make sure that we are focused on reinstating. >> moderator: what do you think is more important? reducing business taxes to help the business climate or improving some of the social services that use a suffered under the republican leaders? take one. hassan: i think you could and do both, and you have to because businesses suffer when there are people who should be working and cannot find jobs and can't find people to fill the jobs. we have a real skill gap in this state. when you talk to companies about what makes them come here, what attracts them to new hampshire, they talk about our small and flexible and responsive government. they talk about the fact that we
are willing to train workers or the jobs of tomorrow. talk to folks at albany international in need about 400 high skilled folks. we need to be investing in job training. i'm very proud of the fact that in this case and i was one of the sponsors are job-training bill. that bill has created 14 -- job training for 14,000 workers as we passed it. those are the types of programs for me to be focused on. >> moderator: back to you. hassan: you have to look at what kind of economic growth you are having. it all starts with the economy, and you have to make sure that you have the platform and infrastructure possible so that businesses can create jobs. if we don't have save roads and bridges, if we don't have broad brand infrastructure, if we have, you know, this legislature passed the largest tax hike in the last decade by taxing hospitals essentially, hundreds of millions of dollars, if we don't have basic infrastructure in place, businesses cannot
flourish, and they know that because when they talk to us to talk about the fact that they like us to reinvest in infrastructure. they would like us to help train workers for the 21st century. we have people need jobs and businesses need workers that can find them. that is the perfect role a partner in with businesses so that they can create jobs and lead us economically. >> moderator: same question. reduce business taxes or improve social services? lamontagne: first of all, it's not an either or question or scenario. you can and must do both. we should not be business friendly. we should be the best in the country to do business. we begin by looking at our business profits, text, structure. my plan lowers our business profits tax from 85 to 8 percent over the course of two years, puts and job -- for example, credits for job creation, the tax credits which maggie opposed
and suez a state senator. it continues indefinitely, the tax credit which she opposed in the state senate. and actually, she has proposed suspending that tax credit against the bp t in 2009 at the depths of the recession which would have raised $80 million from business at exactly the wrong time. there is a fundamental source here. it was a fundamental difference in approach. we're going to support social services by reforming state government and making it more efficient, bringing us into the modern age to my affirmation technology. we're in a platform that is outdated that, frankly, is outdated by a lot. if we move quickly to modernize our information technology systems i'm told we could save 100-$300 million per year to simply in bureaucratic cost. there is plenty of opportunity in reforming our state government in order to find the needs that we have while addressing the business tax. >> moderator: before you go on
and we have another question and then give you 30 seconds to respond to the charge to you make it exactly the wrong choices at exactly the wrong time in terms of taxes. thirty seconds. hassan: what we did is balance the budget and a tough economic time and make tough choices. he worked with the business community, with the hospitality community on that budget. what is not being said is the consequence of his cuts. we are down 23 state troopers in the state of new hampshire because of this legislature is budget, this legislature. twenty-three states -- state troopers down which means if you make a call in jefferson new hampshire for a response it can take an hour for a public safety officer to respond. our busins is the public safety. our businesses need health inspections. they need the services that government provide so that they can attract people to our state and create jobs and drive the economy. so it is really important to think about the consequences. >> moderator: we will have
time later on to get into that, but i need to give you again 30 seconds. cats for example, state troopers. an opinion that it is bad for business. people want the reliability. lamontagne: public safety is job one of government, safe neighborhoods and ability for business to to -- to flourish, and we will meet that need. this weekend maggie was interviewed and proposed raising taxes and have to find some of these things as identifying. i would say savings lies in reforming state government, and that is where we will find the resources to fund those means. >> moderator: 15 seconds. hassan: a follow-up. >> moderator: you pay yourself into a corner fiscally? lamontagne: absolutely not. i was born with an anti broadbased tax seen in my body. i was not a candidate who and
when you set up for an income-tax like maggie did in 2002. run for governor and decides against it to read it is not boxing yourself in a corner by promoting the new hampshire advantage. fellow citizens, this is not negotiable. we will work within the existing tax structure that we have within the existing delivery system, and that thing that is what will make as exceptional going forward. >> moderator: 15 seconds. in 2002 did you support -- hassan: i opposed one and would veto one as governor and have kept that promise for three terms in the state senate moving forward, unlike my opponent who is still trying to promote this same outdated ideas like kindergarten is bad that he did in 1996. >> moderator: and we're going to go now to mike cody from the union leaders. >> moderator: this is a question from an h-p our listener. the new hampshire legislature voted to cut state funding for the university system by almost 50 percent. higher education, but not only
here but in the country. what is your position on state funding for higher education in general and the university system in particular? >> well, first of all, they made the decision in the last legislation. i got to prioritize funding, for example, for individuals with disabilities as opposed to funding, creating more funding for the state university system. i think we need to continue to look at reforming our delivery system there. it is still too bureaucratic. i think working with our leaders at the university system level. on the other hand, to the extent we are augmenting dollars from the stated should go for tuition support to provide access to students who are of modern means. that should be the priority, not funding more bureaucracy which would be my focus. i will try to restore the funding we have had. people should know that essentially the new hampshire went from 8% funding from the state to 4% in the last budget cycle. is not like we have taken half of the money. it is a relatively small
percentage. it is significant about we have to prioritize our spending. what we need to do is target those resources to provide tuition support for our students. >> graduate with the highest debt loads and the nation from student loans. what to use it to families whose children want to go to school? lamontagne: we put in that tax credit to help with that process. i also support renewing and restarting the unique program so that families have a chance to invest and plan for tuition payments. in the end, we need to work together to come up with the best delivery system possible so that our students graduate from high school ready to move on to higher education whether it's at the two-year college of will or the four year degree program. and we need a comprehensive approach. >> moderator: just to clarify the fall we go back to mike, would you try to restore that 50 million or not? lamontagne: i would try, but in light of the other priorities that are called for in the next
budget cycle. >> moderator: back to you. >> moderator: what is your position on this issue? hassan: difficulty with all of the other things he has in his agenda because he keeps talking about further cuts as opposed to further investments. i would restore as much as possible of the $50 million in conjunction with the university system freezing its tuition because i do believe that tuition matters. there is no substitute for affordable tuition at a really good public college university or community college, and that is something that we really have to focus on. we are losing students from new hampshire to massachusetts in particular because their tuition at a state in some places has become more affordable for our families and our own institution that is unacceptable. also means that once we lose those young people to other states that don't come back here to find jobs and to start
families. so we really need to focus on this. it is absolutely a priority because it is also important that we work with our university system to tap their expertise to help our businesses. we want their expertise in marketing. we want their technological innovation expertise. we want to take things like the green launching pad and develop it into an innovation launching pad. we need to help our companies learn how to export more to my work more with international trade. we need to create more and more job training programs in partnership with business, and we need to focus on targeted tax credits, things like the resear and development tax credit that brings businesses to our states to really be on the cusp of starting new industries. that is the type of focus we should be bringing to the entire education system because when we do that, when we partner with our educators we will have the right kind of work force. it will be the best in the nation.
>> moderator: how do you restore the funding? hassan: you start by looking at some of the bad decisions that this legislature made and start, for instance, by looking at the cigarette tax. you can look at reversing some of those bad decisions and restoring money that way. elected the fact that they laid off about 30 percent of the auditors and the department of revenue. that means we have lost somewhere in the neighborhood of 15-$20 million in revenues just this year because we don't have a collection system that is fair and complete. and if you look at those things and if you look at the growth we are seeing and one high end highly regulated casino that might be able to bring as between 60 or $80 million of revenue, you begin to have the revenues to be able to do that. this is an ongoing step-by-step process. what this legislature has done devastated this state, and it's going to take time and effort
and partnership in collaboration to bring us back, but we can. >> moderator: thank you, and we will wrap up that segment and now move on to the next portion, the lightning round. this is where we ask a straightforward question that should be answered quickly and decisively as in yes or no. a congressional candidate struggled with this. let's see how gubernatorial candidates too. we have tightened the rules to assist them. so ten seconds, please. our first lightning rod question comes from the oak. >> moderator: is your economic philosophy or if your economic philosophy could be found on a fortune cookie will would it's a? lamontagne: prosperity. >> moderator: same question. hassan: help businesses innovate and create jobs. we do that through a targeted tax credits and education.
>> moderator: would you eliminate the 10-cent cut on cigarette taxes? hassan: yes,. >> moderator: same question. lamontagne: ee and tax increases and. >> moderator: just raised tolls on highways. with a pledge not to raise tolls? lamontagne: yes,. hassan: we need to find a way to complete 93. if our transportation infrastructure, we need to have a discussion about how we will fund the transportation of a structure. >> moderator: said the state pension system change from the traditional defined benefit plan to a401k style. hassan: it would cost the taxpayers millions of additional dollars, and it's a bad idea and a risky idea. lamontagne: we should move from a defined benefit plan to the defined contribution plan let the private sector has done for new employees and move to reform our pension system. >> moderator: doing great so far. he said new hampshire liquor stores be allowed to sell beer?
lamontagne: no. i preserve the status quo. hassan: we agree on that. >> moderator: would you oppose the northern pass project if it proves too costly to bury the parlance? hassan: if it proves too costly and we cannot get community support for another proposal, yes. lamontagne: we need to like what the actual cost benefits are of the project. they should be buried, and that's what i'm looking for in the next proposal. >> moderator: do you support the regional greenhouse gas initiative known as reggie? lamontagne: no. hassan: i was proud to be a sponsor of that energy efficiency program because it has save businesses millions and millions of dollars and created over 400 jobs. >> moderator: who is one business leader you admire?
hassan: joe malone at albany international. lamontagne: marion verona. emigrated to makemie with a passbook and $5 now employs 350 plus people in the company that he built, no one else but that. >> moderator: would you sign the veto legislation making new hampshire right to work day? lamontagne: this is an important initiative. employ the freedom of choice. hassan: i don't think the government should interfere with contest between employees and businesses. so i oppose right to work. it will drive our standard of living down and it will hurt our middle-class families. >> moderator: new hampshire is gas taxes have not been raised since the 1990's. would you veto any increase? hassan: again, it is important we find ways to fund our transportation infrastructure. this legislature cut $90 million from that.
i-93 needs to be completed. we have business is waiting to start in that part of the state that cannot because of what this legislature has done. environmental permits are running as we speak. we need to find a way to fund it. don't know that the gas tax is the best way to do estimable we need to have a discussion. possibly. but we need to have a discussion about a gas that is really iraq out. >> moderator: this is not the time to raise taxes and including the gas tax. i want to give a big cheer. making it to that lead me around. well done. [applause] thank you very much for that, and we are now going to switch gears for a longer form moderate discussion where i ask the candid it's one broad question begin the dialogue going on this question, and we will see where it texas. i will jump in only if necessary to make sure we don't go too far astray in terms of the topic or
in terms of the time. and the question is, the decade of the 2000's has often been called the lost decade with stagnant economy and low wage growth for the middle-class. my question is, what is the state's responsibility to the middle-class in these times? i'm going to start with you. i want to give you a minute to kind of ponder this question and then i really do encourage you to adjust face each other and talk about what responsibility, if any, the state has to help of the middle-class. go ahead. one minute. lamontagne: it is a very good question and it really underscores what has happened over the last decade. as a percentage of the gross domestic product here in new hampshire, the state's share, the taxpayers has increased well beyond the national average. we have seen governments grow too far and too fast. as a result for new hampshire families, particularly the middle class there has been squeezed from business in terms of the pressure on business and
a squeeze on jobs. and economic prosperity is the future to supporting the middle class which means government has to create that environment for competition to occur. for new businesses to be created to offer new opportunities for our citizens, and that has to be the focus going forward. i refuse to let new hampshire be part of the national decline that we are seeing currently as a result of the great recession. still 30,000 jobs shore in new hampshire from where we work in 2008. that is unacceptable. and our unemployment rate masks the real pain in the nordic country and throughout our state. new hampshire does not have an economic development plan. anyone but the village of the regional assets of our state and then we need to brand the state. i want to be an ambassador in chief to let the world know that we're open for business. if it comes to canadian trade will go to canada and speaking their language and left another should be in new hampshire and not maine. >> moderator: i would certainly hope so. one minute and then i encourage
you to talk about your vision for governments in the middle-class. hassan: the great recession has been a terrible thing for middle-class, and one of my concerns and one of the things i hope people will think about and listened to as much of what is being talked about, a return to the very economic policies that brought on the grid recession. we need to make sure that our middle-class families have opportunities said that they can compete. that is why i'm running for governor. new hampshire has this great way of including my son the best disabilities. so we need to have the strong public education system. the voucher plan that was passed by this legislature over the governor's veto is diverting millions of dollars from our public education system while manchester has as many as 40 kids in class from the private and religious schools. that does not help our
middle-class families. we need to make sure that our middle-class families can afford you in a to another state system schools. right now that 50 percent cut is making them harder and harder. that was a huge tuition increase. that should matter. we need to do is give people tools to compete and work and they will do that, but that is also why it is so important to preserve the ability of workers to negotiate with their employers. the state should not interfere with that relationship which is what right to work does. so those of the types of things we need to be focused on, how to make sure every family, no matter what its challenges, as opportunities. if we do that the state will take off. >> moderator: that is interesting. both of you are describing government creating ecosystems or that the question flourished with different ideas about what makes that healthy. go ed. to get off, but then i encourage dialogue. lamontagne: i sense a lot of anxiety, particularly among
workers about the future and their concern about whether or not they will have a job next week or next month. experience the same thing. hassan: and they're worried about whether their kids can afford to go to college, worried about whether they can afford or their employers can afford health insurance. so one of the things that is of great concern is what you do if you want to deregulate health-insurance, what it's going to mean for families that actually have illnesses that a private insurer can decide on when there does not plan to cover. those of the tight. but the anxiety, i said, is about the entire ability from the next generation to move ahead. that ability, you can't have the best work force in the nation if it isn't a healthy work force. you cannot have people compete for jobs that employers need if they don't have access to education system with strong math and science standards.
lamontagne: give me a chance to talk about. hassan: can i finish my sentence to back the woman whose said to me when she first moved here she had to drive her child to massachusetts to find public in the garden because there were no options that are part of the state but attention of tear. now she's worried about the same ciao tuition at un hpv that's what i hear that diners and retell stops along the way. they are concerned about the regulatory environment. when regulators come in. it's not just the business owners. it's the workers in manufacturing businesses. they have the power and that courage of their convictions to make a go of it at our society and what freedom and liberty to
realize the american dream through the new hampshire avenue. i am concerned that we are not giving them a fair chance, fighting chance to as the americans and small families and people working in our state to deal to realize because we are out of control. the fact that these individuals get up every day wondering whether or not the bottom will fallout today is not fair to them and deprives them of not only the american dream but making sure the next generation will have the educational system that they should be entitled to whether it's some schooling, your family's fortune that you have had, a wonderful school, but it is not a public school. i want every child to experience what i do and i went to st. paul's school. they took high-school students from public schools as well as catholic schools and give us experience of what a boarding school was like. i want that for every child. that's why i support choice.
that will empower children to realize that things that they conspired to. hassan: if i could jump in here, and i apologize i want to ask you both about a headline that came out yesterday which relates to my question about the middle class. mitt romney campaign, as you both know, struggling with the release of videotape yesterday where he commented that there is 47% americans who in his words see themselves as victims who deserve handouts. this has sparked a lot of discussion about the government's role in our lives. are too many americans including the middle class dependent on government tough make their lives better? hassan: i want that family to do more than wonder when they get in the morning. i want them to be able to go to our community college and get retrained the whale -- the way a worker who was laid off told me
he was going to college. that takes some help from the state government. the legislature that you supported, the tea party legislator. that the community college system budget. you cannot have it both ways. if you want a vibrant system, a vibrant place so that our people can show what they are made of which is, the strongest, best work force, work ethic anywhere in the country, they have to have that kind of opportunity. that is our job, of course people, more and more paying federal income tax because the recession and income gap in this country and because people have fewer and fewer opportunities to go to a place like a community college or afford tuition at the university system so that they can better themselves and make more money because they get the kind of job training at the albany international's of the world, the new company's common next generation of business needs. that is what i am committed to
it. i just want to say a couple of other things. >> moderator: let him jump in. hassan: well, he made a couple of comments. they were -- they were -- you know, i just wanted to say that when we talk about the elsie tax , it was designed with the support of the bia said to a particular thing which it didn't do, so we repealed it. i think that that shows people that i look at facts, make the best decision possible to of a forward, and it is important that we have a governor who will look at facts, not help our folks if we are peddling ideas from 16 or 20 years ago. lamontagne: if i'm the governor, will not only look at the facts, but apply common sense, common sense approach is based on freedom, liberty, conservative approach to limited government and this responsibility cannot the kind of government that we
suffered under, frankly, under your lead in the state. and so this is a real choice year, and the reference of the tea party, i'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. asks the board members, the boy scouts, and other organizations i have worked with whether or not they think that works for them in terms of the trying to label me, but in terms of the question that was last, i have been clear from the beginning, i have been criticized for it. i want to be the governor of all the people. i will check my party label at the state house door and go in there and do the work of the people, whoever comes to me with the problem more solution. i don't care whether they're libertarian, democrats and republicans, independents. they will have a place at the table so that they can share the world. now that i can walk across the aisle and i will commend it will be a partisan government. the government of new hampshire is to be a government of all the people. 47 percent, every citizen deserves to have a responsible government, one that understands
the limits of the constitution can lead us into a new era of prosperity. >> moderator: ten seconds and then we will wrap it up to 11i have a record of reaching across the aisle but you can't be the governor for everybody in new hampshire if you deny a woman the right to make her own health care decision. it's an economic issue. lamontagne: the law of the land and as the governor i will be duty bound to enforce the law of the land, and i will. hassan: come to your desk to ban abortion. lamontagne: the law of the land provides. >> moderator: when you come on my program, the exchange, later on i'm sure we will talk about that. thank you very much for that. i want to turn now to our final segment where we return to our panelists for a few final questions. now, for this segment you will have two minutes to answer. if there is a follow-up call one benefit that.
first, we are going to turn to fill with a question. >> does the exeter hospital have a need for additional state regulation and oversight? lamontagne: its is the need for a national database that enables the states in our country to know when an itinerant worker, a fellow who was working in a number of states, we know what the true background is of this person before they're hired locally. that is really where i think the failure came. now, i don't know the extent to which the response was added delayed or denied and who knew what went, but i do know that it was a failure of the information process that we should have had notice in new hampshire of this person's background in other states and apparently some real threats that that existed that we were not aware of. this is why we need to work with other states and develop the kind of information flow that we will need to ensure the quality of our health care system going forward.
>> did the exeter hospital live up to its response abilities? lamontagne: i don't know the end of the story. we still have not heard all the details, but i can commend them for taking the responsibility that they have to test of their patients, or quit the state deliberately. no suggestion that i am aware of . it just is that cirque @booktv at tragedy, a terrible thing that happened, and we should learn from it instead of looking backwards. we should learn how to avoid this going forward and protect the integrity of our health care delivery system for all of our citizens. >> the same question. does the crisis showed a need for more oversight and regulation? hassan: it has been at a devastating situation for so many people in our area of the state. my heart goes out to the families and victims of this terrible crime, and it really was a crime. i also have experience as a
business lawyer and particularly as in-house counsel for major teaching hospital where i practiced for three years. so this issue is a very near and dear to me, and i understand the complexity of it. we do need to make sure that as a state we have a system working with other states to keep track of health care workers and their records. that's critical. i also think our department of public health these to have the resources to make sure that they are doing the kind of training with hospitals to make sure that we are doing everything that we can to protect patients in all aspects of their care, and that requires, you know, a modern public health system and a modern public health department with appropriate resources. again, you know, you cannot shortchange safety. >> to you believe that editor hospital live up to this is a possibility? hassan: again, we don't know all the facts yet, and they're is a
lot of litigation going on about it. i think it is really important that our hospitals are as transparent as they can be about the way they provide care, but also about the way the investigate all aspects of medical mistakes or wrongdoing in their facilities. >> moderator: before we go to mike cody, one quick question. i will give you two minutes to respond to this if you would like. what about the state department of health and human services? there was some criticism about how it handled the response. lamontagne: again, we don't know all the facts. having practiced law for 14 years as on-site general counsel to a major hospital, it's complicated the way you deal with issues like this. and i believe however that at this point we have a case study that can help us improve the system we have in place in new hampshire for people coming to our state to work as a professional health care providers and then to move
forward with their rapid response to identifying patients that were served or affected here. this should be a template for moving forward, and i think we can have an opportunity to do that. health and human services was caught flatfooted. in terms of the communication plans if nothing else. >> moderator: and there was some confusion. lamontagne: and that is acceptable. learn from that so that we have the rapid response program in place for this sort of incident, which is very serious. the last thing you want to do is shake the confidence of the citizens in the health care delivery system. is that it for them, business, the state as a whole. >> moderator: very scary times for those folks. could lead to you, the state department of health and human services. flatfooted or not? lamontagne: still wanted to find out more of a particularly happened, but let's realize department of health and human services along with our hospitals have been designated by budget cuts that this legislature put in place. the largest tax in our state's
in december to january have these go back to the steering committee, and then go out for the faculty input which is ann portend part that the faculty in the institutions have ample time to review these because they are the owners of the general will education program at their institutions and so we want to
ownership there at one point. this will be a fascinating project because when you look at universities that in some cases have should we restructure some of the administration of the commission i'm not sure the commission panel is the best way to go at it. but we need to continue to make sure that the commission has the ability to operate like a business. but we also need to make sure that we have the kind of
oversight so that some of the questions we are seeing about the commission right now are rectified because we certainly as with any business can support illegal or corrupt behavior by any administrators or officials. >> moderator: lamontagne: this is an important issue taken on. it's an important revenue driver in new hampshire, and we need to have it run like a business so you don't put them at the head of a business like this. it should be one commissioner, it should be a streamlined system so it's accountability. it stops at one person and ultimately we need more control it looks like in place to move to put this into more of an enterprise fund and it's allowed for some gaps in the problem and so we need to look up the delivery system yet again. >> moderator: i have one last question and it's kind of a fun one so we will end with that. both of your business lawyers but if you could slide over command ms. lamontagne i will
start with you if you could start over your career and open your own kind of business what kind of business would it be? lamontagne: i was a teacher in high school, high school social studies teacher and my study related the other night she decided to defroster freezer using an ice pick and realized the ice pick in the freezer don't go together and as a consequence of that i saw a side job of construction with the guidance counselor. we formed a business called s and l construction and if i were to do it again, i would be a contractor. i love using my hands i have experience with it, too. >> moderator: ms. hasan, you, too please. hasan: i would either open a jim or i would raise dogs. [laughter] you know, when in doubt, get a dog, right? [laughter] anything with animals. i would start every day with walking my dog, and it's one of
the best parts of the day and i have just always loved working with animals. i also just love exercising and bringing people together to bring to the to field about themselves. >> moderator: with the legislature i've heard of cats. [laughter] that's all the time we have. it's been great. i really want to thank you for joining us of the new hampshire institute of politics and political library finance read to you at home for watching and listening, and especially thank you to the wellbeing of candidates who stay on target on time. republican lamontagne and democrat hassan did you can watch the forums here on the web site at nhptv.org. thank you. [applause]
>> now, i understand mauney opponent has been spending some time here in ohio lately, and he has been talking tough on china. have you been hearing this? he's been talking tough about china to but he says he's going to take the fight to them to give he's going to go after the cheaters. and i've got to admit it's better than what he's actually done about this. [laughter] it sounds better than talking about all the years he spent profiting from the companies that send our jobs to china.
[applause] so, you know, when you hear this new-found outrage, when you see these ads to get tough on china, it feels a lot like saying we need more secure chicken coops. [laughter] it's not credible. >> a little bit of the president today at bowling green university earlier. you can see the entire event online at c-span.org. and we have more from the road to the white house coming up later today.
to foster work and enterprise in the middle east and other developing countries, i will initiate something i will call prosperity working with the private sector. the program will identify the barriers to investment and trade and the entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial was on, in the developing nations. and in exchange for removing the barriers to the investment and trade, developing nations will receive the u.s. assistance packages focused on developing the institutions of liberty, will fall and property rights. we believe that freedom and self-determination are not unique to one culture. these are not simply american values or western values. they are universal values. even as there will be huge challenges to come in the transition to democracy, i'm not convinced that ultimately the government of the people, by the people, and for the people is
more likely to bring about the stability, prosperity and individual opportunity to serve in the basis for peace in the world. it changed america's life and then goes through a power point presentation which is going to outline with the account it has transpired that day. a lot of things happen very quickly. i'm going to do my best not to
play on the line and go too fast, so i would ask you to sit back, clear your mind, put yourself in that room and you'll get a sense of what it was like to be at the top of the food chain, the national command authority as a nation of 300 million americans were attacked by 19 al qaeda terrorists. in new hampshire's second district incumbent republican congressman charlie bass will face democratic challenger ann mclane kuster for the second time in two years. congressman bass defeated ms. kuster the 3550 votes in 2010. he is seeking an eighth on consecutive term in congress. the state, hosted by the hampshire public broadcasting is about an hour. >> hello everyone and welcome to
the candidate for one business and the economy. i am laura host of the new hampshire public radio the exchange. we are coming to you from the television studio at the new hampshire institute of politics and political library st. anselm college. we will hear from the candidates for the second congressional district and press them to talk about what they would do as members of congress and refrain from spending valuable time attacking each other. and now, let me introduce our candidates. the our incumbent republican charlie bass and democrat ann mclane kuster. our panelists from the new hampshire public television, and might from the new hampshire union leader. now, during the first half of the forum, the panelists last questions, then we will move on to the lightning round will candidates will provide brief and precise responses to a series of topics. then i will take over and moderate a to a discussion between the candidates to give some of these questions came from the readers, listeners and
viewers. each candidate will have two minutes for a response, and there is a follow-up question, one minute for that. we tossed a coin earlier to see who would receive the first question. and that question goes to mr. bass. and on the panel we will begin with mike cody from the union leader. mike? >> mr. bass you have been in pushing of the busheir tax cuts however it started with a major tax cut and income growth for most people stagnated during that period. what does that say about tax cuts? bass: thanks for the question and to the sponsors of the forum and the opportunity to get together. i will preface by saying i have known my friend, ms. kuster for all of my whole life and i do hope the next hour can be a discussion about substantive issues and differences that we have and will get to a personal level. i don't want to see that happen. as far as the bush tax cuts are concerned one needs to remember that back in early 2000's, the economy was in danger, nothing like what we are facing today.
but certainly after line 11 there were issues associated with the ability in the united states to recover from the situation that was in, and i supported those tax relief measures, and i think they were partially responsible at least to the economic boom that we had in the mid 2000's. i do support extending all of them. however, i also believe that what we really should do is to fold the issue of extending the bush tax cuts into a much larger debate about fundamental tax reform. fundamental tax reform bill would make the nation more competitive globally, that will make it possible for us to make the tax is simpler, may raise some rates in areas and lo wer in others. but to have this campaign dogma about raising taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year really doesn't help the economy recover. but it certainly does create a
good campaign fodder. i believe that we need to act in a bipartisan fashion, working with republicans and democrats together understanding our differences on this issue and try to come up with a more fundamental plan for tax reform that will make the u.s. more competitive globally >> how does the deficit reduction fall into that plan? bass: tax reduction and deficit reduction go hand-in-hand. i think the comprehensive bipartisan plan for deficit reduction that addresses for the first time in 30 some odd years the issue of entitlement reform which is 66% of total spending that they have to be lived together because in the past some have wanted tax increases without spending reductions and others have wanted spending reductions without tax reform. i believe the to have to go to get there but let me emphasize that it isn't going to happen. either the republican way or the space way. has to happen with those of us working together.
>> ms. kuster, many economists suggest it pre-tax is on affluent households, they will cut back on spending which will further stagnate the economy to reach also, this may discourage small businesses from hiring. so is this the right time to raise taxes? kuster: the truth is -- and again, thank you all the sponsors and i appreciate it. yes, congressman, the campaign is not -- is our point of view that is different and and where the country is headed, and this is really one of the fundamental differences between us. my sense is that these are challenging times. we have to get serious about the deficit and that it is not serious to get billionaires' and billionaires' an additional tax break. and i think that we do need to cut the deficit. we can't afford a trillion dollars in the tax relief to the wealthiest members of our society. everyone will continue to the tax break of to to under $50,000 of income. and frankly in new hampshire
that is a comfortable style of living, and i think above and beyond that, millionaires are willing to contribute, and they need to. the other piece about this is you cited the reality is we tried this, and for congress than bass or any of the republicans to double down on the trickle-down, we know it doesn't work. if it worked we would not be in this position. we've had these tax breaks for millionaires for a long time now, and so they are not creating jobs. 98% of americans will get tax relief and 97 per cent small businesses get tax relief but honestly frear series about cutting deficits we cannot afford the trillion dollar rate for millionaires. >> on the same subject of the individuals need to pay more, about how much? president of lummis is just raising the tax rate to 39.6%. is that a fair rate for the african-americans to pay? give us a number. kuster: i would go back to the
clinton era tax rates in which we had a big boom in the economy at that point. we created 23 million jobs, and so i think most americans would be very comfortable returning to that tax rate and making sure that, you know, if they say everyone in the economy will get the tax break of to to under $50,000 of income coming and that is a comfortable standard of living here in new hampshire. and beyond that i think people are going to pay their fair share. >> moderator: okay, mr. bass? bass: isn't just millionaires and every body else. it's about getting the economy turned around. and i would only point out that raising taxes in the middle of this recession without having any comprehensive plan to turn the economy around is a bad idea. and their needs to be a bitter debate about comprehensive tax reform and the dogma of the campaign about the rich versus poor, this is about the economy coming and we are here to talk about getting the economy turned around. and i've only point out that the
president's tax hike proposal, is not a tax break is a tax hike to 39 plight 5% would only pay for about a fifth of all the spending proposals that he has proposed so far this year. it's not about the deficit reduction. it's about paying for bigger government >> moderator: ms. ann mclane -- kuster: yeah, here's my issue with the congressman's position. if these resources were being used to create new jobs, in the business wouldn't be paying the taxes, that is a deduction. if you are hiring these people, that's a deduction. taxes are paid on the net. the point is these people with this kind of an come right now are not putting the money back into the economy. they are not hiring new people so they are not even buying a new goods. we know that this money is outside of the economy right now. it is on hold and it is the uncertainty from the congress that is causing people to stay
out. >> moderator: the next question comes from phill on of national public television. ahead. >> ms. kuster, the biggest manufacturing employer could be hit badly if automatic defense spending cuts go through. if you to save those new hampshire jobs and keep those contracts coming, where specifically in the defense budget would you cut? kuster: first thanks for bringing out bae one of the largest in the congressional district. congressman bass and others voted for the sequestered, and i was particularly surprised to see them at bae last week worrying about the defense cut, knowing that they had voted that way. where i would cut if we need cuts in the defense budget which i think we do in order to attack to be to tackle the deficit, i would cut the redundant weapons systems and i would look at the 800 sites we have all around the
world to see if we can afford that location at this point. but i would not cut the services and the goods that are created at bae that have to do with protecting the troops. i think we need to protect the troops personally i do not want us to go to war. i want to bring the troops home from afghanistan and the nation building right here at home plate but i do believe in the goods and services that are created that are about protecting the lives of those that are in harm's way. >> president obama and jean chretien both supported the budget control act. did they make a mistake. kuster: congress is broken and the american people know that. it's the lowest approval rating in the fiscal cliff. people are not taking the deficit seriously and they are kicking the can down the road and creating the crisis conditions to make common sense
solutions. >> ms. kuster did president shaheen make a mistake by signing on to this? kuster: at the time people thought would work but they needed to sit down and work since then and the reality is speaker boehner has refused to sit down and actually have meaningful discussions and negotiations that would get us where we need to be and this particular congress we have been in the crisis mode every single week. >> moderator: all right, go ahead. >> obviously you want a contract to continue to bae where in the defense budget would you cut? bass: first of all, i can't believe you would have voted against the budget control act any responsible legislature. we all have our own views. i believe that the specter having the u.s. coming into the fault would have been much more
serious than they could have come and the sequester was designed to try to get at the process of cutting spending. republicans appointed i think pretty good people to that so-called super committee the committee and the republican congressional campaign committee to the most political positions in the whole congress and frankly it was doomed to failure of the very beginning i would point out that my willingness to co-sponsor the first bipartisan budget in the history of the budget control act, the simpson-bowles budget would have the sequester issue in a timely manner of people had been willing to understand that the time has come to stop the fighting and begin working together on resolving these issues. now as far as defense is concerned, the simpson-bowles budget plan calls for the defense spending at the gross domestic product - 1% for the
next ten years. and that -- those spending decisions would be left of the armed services committee on the authorization side, and the appropriations committee on the appropriating side. but, as again, the issue here is not specific program he would address but what is the big problem here. remember, the congress is controlled by senator harry reid who is a democrat, and john boehner, the speaker who is a republican and the president is a democrat to read too out of the three seats are held by democrats. the only way to get to these big issues is to start with a budget. we have proposed in the house the two budgets and i've been the subject of nasty ads about my willingness to stand up and bring something to the table. there hasn't been a budget in the senate for three and a half years. that's not leadership. speed if i could jump in -- >> moderator: go ahead. kuster: congressman likes to talk about the simpson-bowles plan, and i will let knowledge a
broad approach like that is probably the version we need to go, but the reality is he voted for the budget both before the simpson-bowles, and within 24 hours of the simpson-bowles vote and the ryan budget has deep cuts to everything we need to get the economy moving again. education, innovation, infrastructure, roads, bridges, highways. we know how to get the economy going. we know you have to invest an opportunity today for the prosperity tomorrow. and at the same time, the ryan budget isn't serious because it adds an additional 265,000-dollar tax break for millionaires. we can't afford that. and we have to get serious about the deficit reduction. >> moderator: 30 seconds. i will give you 30 seconds to respond and then we will go back. bass: i voted for the ryan budget.
again, the simpson-bowles budget because they came up on the same day. the point is, ann, to get to the negotiating table to resolve the issues. i support the deficit control plan not appropriations, that is dccc rhetoric but as the framework to reduce the size of the government by approximately $6 trillion over the next ten years. bring it to the table. how can you bring it to the table with there is nothing coming to the senate. so why also voted for a compromise budget, which i think will move the ball forward and i guess you don't support this kind of compromise. it's regrettable. we have had enough of this in the corner fighting with each other, not being willing to come to the table and work these problems out. >> moderator: probably that theme again at least once if not twice during the debate. i do want to return to phill vaugn with a question on health care. >> how has the rising cost of health care affected your
company? and what you think should be done about it? bass: first of all, i haven't been involved in the company now for well over two years or a little less than two years i guess. so i don't know what -- i'm not familiar with the internal. but health care costs are going up. and i guess if this is an entree into the whole issue, health care reform as it is well known, i am a very different view about where this nation should be headed in health care reform. and i believe that one of the biggest single impediments to the economic recovery in this nation is the uncertainty that employers, many of whom are sitting in front of us this morning feel about what is going to happen next year and the year after when it takes effect. the one thing that is absolutely certain, and that is that health care premiums are not going to go down with the question is what is going to happen. very few people know what is going to happen. the agencies have no idea how many thousands, tens of thousands of pages of regulations are going to come. how these exchanges are going to work. it is the worst possible time to
be completely revamping. whether you support the measure or not. the health care system in this country and i would suggest that one of the quickest ways we could start this economy turning in the opposite direction would be not to repeal necessarily all the way to support that, but to at least defer the implementation of this health care, this new health care law which is a bureaucratic boondoggle until such time as the unemployment rate gets under control. as a, down by 2%. because i can't tell you how many small businesses i have visited over the last two years who have said we are running second shift and third shifts and overtime because we have no idea what the payroll is going to be. even if they have less than 50 employees. it is an enormous element of uncertainty. it represents a fertilization of about 1/5 of our entire u.s. economy. it is a move in the wrong direction. and i do have specific ideas about how we could have done it better.
speed i'm sorry, could i just jump in there? because as a small-business shareholder myself, i've been in the law firm for 25 years, and we have double-digit increases year after year after year. it's unsustainable. every small business in new hampshire knows that. so, the point is 96% of small businesses have employees under 50, and they won't be impacted at all. the reality is that the inflation has dropped. the last couple of years the studies are showing down to two or three or 4% of health care inflation. what we really need to do this tackle the issue of the cost of health care and congressman bass has had no solution to that. >> moderator: i want to go back to phill vaugn that has a follow-up question. >> you said you had some specific semite. bass: sure. well, first of all, i don't believe that the system that existed before is the best system that we could have and three or four years ago i wrote an op-ed outlining six or seven different proposals that we
could have undertaken. first of all, health care insurance is employer based. there is no reason for that. it came about as a result of the price control after world war ii. health care premiums should be universally deductible so if you are working for yourself or working for business, you get the same tax treatment. ..
>> moderator: you said the affordable care act federalizes large chunk of the economy meaning of the health-care sector and those on the other side say it does not. this is based on private markets and private insurance. they didn't go for the public option or universal coverage. bass: you don't even need 15 seconds. i think health insurance companies and hospitals will turn into regulated utilities or the equivalent thereof through these exchanges. welker that controls the cost or reduce the quality of service who knows? my point is we don't know what this new law is going to do. it has new taxes and the employers in this state will pay higher taxes. i know a medical device tax will affect a number. these are the things -- we don't need this new law right now.
>> you mention your partner in a law firm. what challenges? kuster: we can't keep up and no small business in new hampshire. i have gone to small business all over the state from tire companies all the way to the paper mill and everyone is struggling. they want to provide for their employees and it is unaffordable and unsustainable. what i think we need to do is tackle the costs side and we haven't gotten there and the republicans have no solution for that. they're talking about privatization where they love to go. they would love to go there with social security and health care but it is very expensive because then the consumer not just paying the administrative fees but marketing and profit and cutting into that health care dollar. what we need to do is focus not on volume of care which is what
we pay now but on the value of our care. we need to focus on prevention, take the most expensive illnesses in our society like heart disease and diabetes and obesity and make sure we give people the preventive tools they need to stay healthy and that is what it is designed to do. focusing on wellness rather than sickness and injury. the research came out of new hampshire from dartmouth and has been effective. >> small-businesses in new hampshire say this will be too expensive and they won't be able to afford it. kuster: any company under 50 does not have to participate and over 50 are already seeing the checks to help them pay the insurance. the reality is with sixty million uninsured, those people show up at the emergency room. the most expensive place to get
care and the least effective in terms of preventive care we all need so we pay in cost shifting all across the district and every single one of them will tell you it is unsustainable. we have defined coverage for the uninsured so the rest of us can afford care. >> moderator: you said we need to tackle the cost side. one of the main critiques of the affordable care act is it does not tackle the cost side but access not cost. kuster: i agree. it is access, quality and cost and we need to go after cost and this is where my republican friends come in. listeners know i was born bipartisan. my family was republican when i was growing up and i believe in the principles of competition and that the consumer should have the option so that we can choose which setting is best for our health care.
if we go to an outpatient clinic and get health care at a lower costs and believe the quality is sufficient we shooting gauge in savings in that. right now both the health care provider and consumers are disengaged from cost of care and that is part of the problem. >> go ahead, mike. >> the manufacturing sector faces the constant shortage of workers, the skill gap is a serious problem and how did they in sure they are the workers they need? kuster: i have represented the new hampshire college and university counsel and worked with the business community including many folks in this room and worsening to bring people together on the skills that are needed. there's a wonderful program in our community where they sit down with the employer and
determine what is the skill set that the new jobs they are able to bring in will need and they can focus learning on the skill sets. this is why i am so concerned about the ryan budget congressman bass voted for. ten million students will lose their pell grants. deep cuts to research and development. you have seen the state of new hampshire make a 50% cut to the university system budget. that is not sustainable for us to compete in the twenty-first century and trust me when i say china and india are not cutting their science, technology and math budgets. we need to invest and keep up. >> how would they keep those workers here? >> new hampshire workers are talented and it is one of the reasons we had a low unemployment rate compared to the rest of the country. i have been impressed with the manufacturing plant in the
connecticut river valley where workers are highly skilled in manufacturing. what i am concerned about is the incentives out of congress have been to ship jobs overseas. congressman bass has voted for tax breaks that reward companies that ship jobs overseas. i want to close those tax breaks began to bring companies and jobs back here and help them invest in new hampshire workers and we need to see tax incentives for creating jobs right here at home. new hampshire lost 16,000 jobs to china. as a percentage of our population it is number one in the country and that is not what we want to be number one for and that has to do with a vote on this favorable nation trade to china. i want to make sure we invest here at home in the company's, create this dynamic with education so that we have the workers trained for the job. >> moderator: just to jump in.
direct, and toward congressman bass. miss kuster said you voted for bills that encourage companies to ship jobs overseas. have you done that? bass: of course not. the business of ten million people being oftel grants is the analysis where they take a budget number and divide it by all the programs and select the one across the board bases they think will be most devastating and applied that number. budgets -- appropriations are not appropriation documents. this is why harry reid didn't want the budget in the sediment. he didn't want republicans to do the same thing. we have to meet in this country and we need a budget. as far as the health-care law is concerned i appreciate the point that it does nothing to control cost except to establish a slush fund of $13 billion under the secretary of health and human service which is subject to
perpetual appropriation of $1 billion a year so on that tax break for moving company's offshore there are no tax breaks from moving companies off shore. moving company's offshore is that we don't have competitive tax code. our corporate rate is 30%. canada lowered its rate to 15%. we have the highest taxes in the world and we tax income twice. that is where we need to get tax reform. >> moderator: back to mike cody with another question. >> what is the federal government's role in fixing the get? bass: i support training funds when paper mills closed down and also worked when i was out of congress on getting the old burgess mill converted to a renewable energy 75 megawatt power plant that did involve some interaction with the management of the company with
opportunities that make us at the state and local level for financing. the relationship between an employer and its employees is a special one and not necessarily derived from washington or some federal program. small employers look around in the community. to provide education -- wholesale grocers had internal training programs to recruit people in to their companies and they get to deduct those costs from their taxes. i certainly think it is important to have a level of federal involvement and retraining but the real relationship is not the federal government providing the opportunity for the new jobs through some sort of program from washington. it is a combination of these things and it really involves employers.
i am a manufacturing myself and we have gone out to look for people to work and work with technical schools and other schools in the area. i will never forget when i got involved in high standards in new hampshire they had a program, a carter era program called civilian employment training administration. just give somebody a hammer and you got $50 from the federal government. that won't improve the economy. what works of programs that are run at a local level and provide necessary training needed to keep the employment force as vital as it is today. we have unemployment for two or three reasons. we export and we have good, skilled labor. >> moderator: who is to blame for the widening skills gap? bass: i am trying to stay away from the blame game.
i have not been entirely successful. we have a bad economy based on a lot of uncertainty and it is hard for people to spend the time and resources necessary to be properly trained when the economy is bad and they are worried about food and education and so forth. the number one goal has to be to get the unemployment rate down below 8% and get deficits under control and quite honestly to stop fighting as republicans and democrats and start working together in the interest of the american people to turn this economy around. [talking over each other] >> 5.4%. with to have the skills that you're talking about so the reality is i completely agree private sectors where jobs are created but it is a partnership and community technical colleges can help to bridge the skills
gap but not with cutting programs by ten million students. you have to invest in the next generation in order to stay competitive in this economy. >> moderator: we will have a chance to dig into these concepts a little more but that concludes this segment. we now move into the lightning round portion of our forum where we ask a straightforward question that can be answered quickly and simply as in yes or no. extra of points for the candidate able to do that. first district candidate struggled with this of bit. let's see how the district contenders do. our first lightning round questions come from fill. >> the new plan to buy billions of dollars in mortgage bonds actually help the economy recover. kuster: i believe it will. bass: it will be hard because interest rates are so low buying back treasury notes that are only 1% or 2% above what
short-term notes are but don't provide much incentive. the real problem is not with the federal reserve. they have done everything they can. it is the administration and congress not providing leadership. kuster: they needed to act and keep interest rates low. we all know that or how that will help consumers and everyday americans and it was an important step. >> should social security retirement age be raised? bass: the issue of social security's solvency should be a matter of what i would consider to be a very big debate that includes both parties. republicans and democrats. social security administration and trust fund is not going to make it through the generation without some sort of reform and i believe by the course of this debate every issue should be on
the table including raising the retirement age. including making benefit structure work better. i call on my democratic colleagues to be willing to come to the table and say i am willing to listen. [talking over each other] dirksen senate office building quick response. kuster: you are saying maybe. bass: the only way to save this is to have a plan both parties can agree on and the only way to get to that is to be willing as individuals to say that you will put every single issue on the table. kuster: there is a bipartisan fix if we increase the cap from $106,000 because as it is middle-class families a 100% on social security withholding tax and wealthy people do not. they pay a fraction of their
income. we don't need to change the age. it is a quick fix that is sustainable in definitely. >> moderator: keep it lightning. we started out good. [talking over each other] >> president obama has accused china of exports. as the administration done enough to protect business against unfair trade practices from china? >> they can do more. i am glad they jumped in on the issue about the tires and the issue about the cards. i am concerned about new hampshire losing 16,000 jobs and i think congressman bass is on record with the special trade status for china that is very threatening. dirksen senate office build >> the trade vote is one that is over a decade ago and it is important because it assures the
great success china plays by our rules and not the other way around but i do agree such issues as currency debate ought to be resolved and i condemn this administration of doing virtually nothing proactive to deal with the issue of china competition. >> the postal service is losing $50 million a day and proposed cutting saturday service. bass: i break with my republican colleagues. a miscalculation by the office of personnel management on their retirement contribution but once you take that issue and put it aside which they should do we still have a postal service running at a loss and i think we should have a combination of different issues including reducing service but also
potentially changing the structure of postal rates so they are more competitive with other services working their moved by mail. kuster: my answer is no. it cut saturday service. >> moderator: the next questions from fill. >> define middle class and. give us an income range. kuster: i would say the hard working families in new hampshire are almost entirely middle-class. i was interested to see that these people who earned $1 million in income trying to understand who would be hurt by the paul ryan budget and new hampshire families are 99.9% below that. it is 0.1%. 349 in my district so the middle class for me, most people consider themselves middle class if they are making up to
$100,000 with two in comes but some people with incomes over that if they have children going to college my husband and i find these college tuition payments breathtaking. >> 50 to 100,000? >> depends how many are in the family. there are people making 25 or 30 but there single landfill comfortable. bass: i agree with ann and also that college tuitions -- the reality is -- a dual income household. people two or three paychecks from bankruptcy if they get laid off absolutely terrified that unemployment has been over 8% nationwide for four years and no end in sight for this economic recession and these other key people who will decide whether or not we have more of the same,
the new normal. no economic recovery in the next two or four years. kuster: so go back to the -- [talking over each other] >> any dollar amount. bass: i believe the income average is around 50,000 right now. ann is right. >> mr. bass, you both touched upon this. of bipartisan group is working on a new simpson-bowles debt reduction plan. if that includes a tax increase on the middle east--middle-class would you oppose it? bass: i commend judd gregg and other of my colleagues including me on the periphery because i am obviously involved in the campaign for the next 49 days. the effort to reduce or find a bipartisan solution would be the
top priority. doesn't have to be a tax increase on the middle-class. what it will include is simplification of tax rates. increases in some but most likely not -- [talking over each other] bass: that is hypothetical. i find it unlikely will include something like this. [talking over each other] >> the federal government subsidized wind power? kuster: the federal government is subsidizing fossil fuels to an extent that is unsustainable and we cannot afford it. congressman bass has voted over the years for oil and gas subsidies, $40 billion for subsidies for coal and nuclear and as an aside not to be personal but the fact that his campaign is funded almost
entirely from those companies. my feeling about wind power and all of these is we need to level the playing field and we should have no subsidies for any energy at all in order to have competition but if we can't get rid of the oil and gas subsidies that we can't afford then we need to create a level playing field. >> moderator: so sorry to do that to you. kuster: they are great ideas but financially they are not viable because of allah tax breaks for fossil fuels. bass: my campaign was not funded almost entirely by any group. you know that. the total amount of money i received in 14 years is approximately -- less than 1% -- $114,000. the democrat reporting colludes
johnson and added an extra 20%. that is different from the national liberal money bun dollars. hundreds of thousands of dollars into your campaign. wind subsidies are important. i point out two things. plan to have the general accountability office do a complete study of subsidies in america where wind is the biggest subsidy of all of any energy source. i am not opposed to that. i support wind and have written letters to the ways and means committee in support of continuing the investment and/or the production tax credit. >> moderator: that concludes a light round of lightning. we appreciate your passion and interest in the issues. we will move on to the other part of our forum. this is a logger moderated
discussion. won broad question. get a dialogue going on this question and see where it takes us. i will jump in as needed to make sure we are on target with the topic itself or the time and unquestioned to both of you is president obama was roundly criticized for his you didn't bill that comment this summer and led the debate over how much credit government or business each deserve economic growth in america. that is what we want to discuss for the next eight or nine minutes. to kick it off i want to give you each one minute and share ideas. we will start this segment with miss kuster. how much credit does government or business deserve for economic growth in america? kuster: i believe it is the private sector that creates jobs. i have been in the private sector for 25 years and i have created my own strategy which is a consulting company for
non-profit fund raising but i believe the government does create an environment for business to grow. that is what tax policy is all about. the types of tax breaks congressman bass voted for were encouraging the production of fossil fuels energy. i believe what we need to do is give incentives such as growing the economy here at home and incentives for shipping jobs overseas. we need to end the uncertainty which flows from the deficit. we need to get serious about the deficit because companies are not investing or making capital investments or investment in people because of their concerns. there are any number of things the government can do but it is the private sector the drives job growth. kuster: my first reaction was i
was offended. in the early 80s i used to drive a 16 ft. straight with panels to deliver chalkboard companies to massachusetts. my brother and i struggled to make our business work successfully. i don't quibble with the idea that the system of taxes and certain government programs, small-business administration and tax credit on the other side and expense of capital equipment matter and they are important. the biggest problem business faces is an explosion of the federal government and regulators getting into everything. i can tell you about a business in the connecticut river valley. the family is in the business of smoking meat and cheeses and they have had a federal bureaucrat during august in that office for three straight weeks looking over their shoulder. there wasn't any reason for
that. they have to comply with sanitary conditions but this is the kind of thing the federal government is doing and it is creating an element of fear. almost as if this federal government thinks government, business is a necessary evil in a society that provides revenue to fund more and more government. businesses going by entrepreneurs who risk and work very hard. the president's assumption is subliminal that government is responsible for the economy is really wrong. kuster: the truth is the federal government grew during eight years of the budget ministrations 7.7% and daring of the almost four years of the obama administration only 1.7% so i agree the federal government is too big but you are laying of that in the wrong
era. small businesses growth from an entrepreneurial spirit. we have known entrepreneurs who have had great ideas and been successful but even if you tell that story about who drives the truck but to build the roads or the bridges or the highways and it is basic civics that practical people, common-sense new hampshire voters understand, we had some come into the state and don't want any government at all. bring your grievances to congress but don't drive on our highways. the reality is businesses need an educated work force from the public schools and public university and public community technical colleges. it is a public-private partnership. that is what i spent my career doing. bringing people together from the business community and the non-profit community to the extent that it is necessary to
have legislation. often it is not. the projects i would like to think i worked on our medication bridge program and college savings program. neither of those required any government expenditure. not a single tax dollar. it helped distribute free medicine to families and help families, middle-class families save for college. the business sector stepped up and we can bring people together. doesn't matter if an idea is republican or democrat. >> moderator: many businesses were upset by that comment you didn't build it. kuster: it was taken out of context and more americans will be upset by the comments of mitt romney about 47% of american people mooching off the government. that is not true clearly. people are hard-working. i have been all over this state
and hard working families but so are firefighters and teachers and police are hard-working people and they have been maligned by arguments that have been made. bass: there is this attitude in washington that has arisen over the last four years that the government is the answer to everything. i am a principal republican and ann and i disagree. there's a role for government providing necessary incentives to move the economy but not everything. when president obama says the government is responsible for the vitality and hard work of small business people and big business people for that matter and employees and everything based on washington it is a sad day for america and we are a country based on entrepreneurship and opportunity. to the extent the federal
government can provide some incentives is helpful but the problem we have right now is businesses -- ann makes reference to mitt romney's remarks and every american wants to do better in the world but it is awful hard when the government -- the size of the government goes up by $1 trillion in four years and the debt of the -- more than the debt of the nation when i entered congress in 1995 and the only platform the president has for economic recovery is limiting tax deductions for retraining for companies that may be moving out of the country and raising taxes on small businesses which of the source of most of the economic vitality of the state and not to reduce the deficit but to pay for more government. where does it all end? >> moderator: where did the two
of you see eye to eye on the role of government and business working together to boost overall prosperity for everybody? what do you think? kuster: this is supposed to be debate. [talking over each other] >> moderator: everybody -- [talking over each other] kuster: congress acting as though the government is the entire problem. the government is not the entire problem. i don't believe the government to the entire solution. we support on tour for northship and small-business. that is the heartbeat, backbone of the new hampshire economy. where we differ is i don't think we need tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires that we can't afford. we need to take the deficit seriously, bring the deficit down so companies can grow. bass: the politics of envy is a
sad chapter in politics and i would only suggest as i have said earlier and earlier, bring it to the table. if president obama and ann kuster's idea of reducing the deficit and raising taxes on corporations and individuals with incomes of $200,000 a year bring them to the table. i will consider it. show me where you will find the $4 trillion to get the budget balanced in the next ten years. kuster: with $1 trillion in new tax breaks. >> moderator: i want to move to our final segment. that is all the time we have. we will return for a few final questions. each of you will have one minute. if there is a follow-up question, 30 seconds and for the first round -- that last round. >> do you think any changes in
federal immigration laws are needed to benefit the business community? kuster: what i have heard in terms of immigration are high end technical employees that they would like to bring to new hampshire as well as in the agricultural sector there is an issue about bringing in part-time work and an apple orchard and bring people in for picking the but in a general i have not heard of any immigration issues in new hampshire. new hampshire has a long history in the mills of welcoming immigrantss. my family were immigrants and came from scotland building cabinets and went on to have a successful -- enjoy life in new hampshire and welcoming of
people coming here. >> both parties are working on the bill to make more green cards to foreign students in science and technology. why are we doing this and what about american workers? kuster: my younger son is an engineering student. and in new hampshire the community technical school came into the public school and helped to get them started on engineering in seventh grade and that is the type of program we need to encourage because new hampshire students are capable of science and technology and math. they need the training and education for it. >> any changes in federal immigration laws are needed? >> there's an immigration issue but if you are in the hospitality industry or the
landscaping business you can't find guest workers in the summer because the system doesn't work because it has 60,000 individual cats and all the tourist industry get picked up those individuals in the wintertime. i propose two things. when is the guest worker and one is highly skilled and once you get to america and have properly sponsored and he illegally with your sponsors and in the case of high skill worker you are called upon to return. if the need is still very you could remain and do a second floor. this creates a path to citizenship that is legal. i oppose illegal immigration and don't support it. some do and i don't. there's a way to do this and that is to allow the h 2 bs to become citizens the legal way and that would relieve the immigration and workforce issues that we have in new hampshire. >> the same follow-up question
on the increase in green cards and foreign students. first of all, the increase in green cards for highly skilled -- these people are educated in new hampshire in a higher education system and what do we do? send them back to their native countries and then we complain about forcing. i think it is that the idea and the market should be able to compete in. >> moderator: last question. supershort. 30 or under. >> the clock is our enemy. give an example of new hampshire's business you consider socially responsible and why. kuster: timber lanes. many socially responsible businesses. what i love about new hampshire as public/private partnership. every nonprofit i have served on in new hampshire.
many business people serving and they find as we did at our law firm it is great training and the way to make a high quality life for the business community and -- >> moderator: you want a supershort telos why? bass: businesses care about communities that are part of local civic organizations that have a real civic involvement and important because employing people and making profits is not everything. there are many instances. >> moderator: with it at lincoln financial. >> moderator: thank you very much. that is all the time we have. i want to thank you beleaguer and our audience for joining us and to you at home watching and listening and especially thank you again to our candidates. republican congressman charlie bass and democratic challenger ann mclane kuster. thanks for being here.
[applause] >> you have been watching one of the dozens of political debate aaron in this campaign season. if you missed any of this or would like to check the debate go to c-span.org/campaign2012. the latest campaign events from republican presidential candidate mitt romney and president obama including president obama's remarks at bowling green earlier today. here's a brief portion. >> i understand my opponent has spent time in ohio lately and he has been talking about china. have you been hearing this? he has been talking about china and says he is going to take the fight to them. go after these cheaters.
i have to admit that passage is better than what he has actually done about this thing. it sounds better than talking about all the years he spent profiting from companies that send jobs to china. when you hear this new found out rage, when you see these ads to get stuff on china it feels a lot like the fox saying we need more secure a chicken coop. it is not credible. >> president obama from bowling green university earlier today. watch that entire event online at c-span.org. or go to white house coverage when president obama continues his swing through ohio. he will speak at kent state university at 5:40 p.m. eastern
on c-span. campaign 2012 coverage continues tomorrow night with the debate between candidates in nevada. republican dean heller against shelly berkeley at 11:00 eastern tomorrow night on c-span. >> to foster work and enterprise in the middle east and other developing countries i will initiate something i call prosperity tax. working with the private sector. the program will identify barriers to investment and trade at entrepreneurship in developing nations and in exchange for removing those barriers and opening markets to u.s. investment and trade developing nations will receive assistance packages focused on developing institutions of liberty, rule of law and property rights. >> we believe freedom and self-determination are not unique to one culture.
isn't that simply american values are western values? universal values. even as there will be huge challenges with the transition to democracy i am convinced ultimately government of the people, by the people and for the people is more likely to bring the stability, prosperity and individual opportunity to serve as bases of peace in the world. >> october 3rd mitt romney and president obama meet in their first presidential debate moderated by jim lehrer of newshour. watch engage with c-span including live debate preview at 7:00 eastern. the debate at 9:00 and after the debate your reaction, follow live coverage on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> we underestimate how much we forget of our own ideas. we are terrible. even those of us with good
memories forget particularly if an idea is fragmentary where it is a fleeting sense that something is interesting and disappears. one of the things the lot of people do and try to do is not just to write everything down but keep everything together. don't overorganize your notes because you want to allow interesting collisions to happen between your ideas but the important thing is to go back and read those notes. look at your notes from six years ago and revisit that past self and all the ideas he or she had. that is what it was like for most of the great minds of the enlightenment. they would stitch together passages from books they read and were inspired by and write their own notes and go back and read read this book which was a remixed sample, clippings of
these other ideas and intellectual kind of presence and intellectual self was formed by a constant rereading andrea imagining of the people's ideas. >> steven johnson will be our guest on in depth. the science writer and columnist of discover magazine will look at the popular culture and computer networking of politics live sunday october 7th at noon eastern on c-span2's booktv. >> you are watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. week nights watch the public policy events and every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get schedules on our web site and join the conversation on social media sites. >> join us tonight when we show
you mahmoud ahmadinejad's speech to the united nations. he was there earlier today with other world leaders. watch that at 8:00 eastern, 5:00 pacific on c-span2. >> the center for american progress has a new report on the presidential election titled the path to 270 revisited. the report and this discussion examine how demographic changes and voter perception of the economy and ideology affect the campaigns and their strategies. panelists include ron brownstein and reiham salam. this is just over 90 minutes. >> thank you for joining us. the role of demographics, economic and voter registration and voter ideology in the 2012 election and i wish you a happy administration day. i'm sure everyone is registered
to vote. make sure your friends and families are as well. this is covered by two fantastic teams like progress twenty-fifth the. we are a few weeks before the election and that may seem like a very short time but in politics is a lifetime. let's talk about the current state of the election and plenty of people have talked about the horse race. we interested in digging down to what is happening in the state. what trends are occurring and how people feel about the economy and who are the people who show up at the polls in november? we wanted a follow-up discussion about economics, demographics and implications for 2012. we are discussing a follow-up to the passage 270 released last year. the coauthors wanted to see what changed in the past year and what if anything it will mean for the presidential election. i am pleased to introduce my
colleague senior fellow ruy and teixeira which you can find an americanprogress.org. after this presentation you will read a conversation with our distinguished panel and look forward to hearing from all of you. for everyone watching online i encourage you to follow the conversation on twitter. ruy is at center fellow american progress and a scholar at the brookings institution where he has directed project on political geography and co-authored a series of papers with bill frye on shifting demographics. his recent writings include demographic change and future of the party and european paradox and decline of the white working-class and rise of a mass upper-middle-class. he will the degree in sociology from the university of wisconsin madison. in case you are green bay packers and i am sorry. join me in welcoming ruy.
[applause] >> thanks for coming. as daniella mentioned, this is a follow-up on the 270 that we released last november. obviously with the relationship between demographics and economics in the upcoming 2012 election and we are now in the heart of the political campaign and we felt was appropriate to revisit the discussion of demographic and economic adding in about ideology because ideology has been subjected forcefully into this campaign particularly by the republican side and it has become a very interesting race where we see a lot of trends we discussed in earlier reports building out in interesting ways so let me get to that. the first chart here is in title demographic shift in the 2012
election and the left two columns show you how minority college graduates and working-class voters voted in 2008. minorities for obama and white college graduates four point deficit and working-class and 18 point deficit. in the right hand column you see how much demographic change we have seen in four years based on current population survey eligible voter data and according to these data in the last four years we have seen an increase of three points in the share of eligible voters or minorities and the decrease of three points in the share of voters who are non college or working-class. that is a lot of change in a short period of time. let's think about what these figures mean, figures from 2008 and figures for today. even though it looks like the minority vote should go up let's say it does not but let's say
obama gets to 80% of the minority vote and again only loses white college graduates by four points. these are not implausible assumptions. it means to be competitive in this race mitt romney would have to get double john mccain's margin of 18 points among the white working class and go up to 36 points. it doesn't change among minorities despite shifts eligible voters are seeing. if this gets realized minority vote share goes up a couple points from 26% in 2008 to 28% in 2012 and again the minority support stays the same it means mitt romney would have to get a 40 point margin of white working-class voters to win the election and popular vote. let's take a look at where we are based on a recent poll that came out and set the gold
standard at the pew research center fold off and they do it right and have a 3,000 persons sampled. it is reliable and they give you a lot of interesting demographic breaks. this shows among likely voters that obama is leading by eight points. if you look at averages in the national polls is a bit high relative to the average which is 4 points. if you look at polls that do it right and call cellphones and not just robot called their up by five points. this is the distance of the averages and similar to ron brown in the heartland monitor which we will talk about leader. the overall top line of 5143 and the break out for race. look at the black margin. 91 points. that is identical with the obama margin in 2008. seventy-three 22 among hispanics a 50 point margin seems like a
lot and is a lot but not far off most other -- averaging 45 points margin for barack obama over the last three or four months. that means the idea that obama could get 80% of the minority vote is quite -- based on these and other data. that looks like what he is going to get to. if he doesn't get 80 people get 78 or 79 and at the bottom the breakout for college graduates and some college or less working class and as you can see on the right-hand figures of likely voters obama according to these is doing better among white college graduate voters than he did in 2008. two point margin closer to four points again and in the some college or less group losing by 13 points which is somewhat better than he did in 2008 when he lost by 18 so remember what i
was saying about the out way initially large margin mitt romney probably needs to be competitive among white working class voters to win this election. he is nowhere close. that is the bottom line and this is true across many poles. might see a margin of 20 points for mitt romney or 22 or 23 but nowhere do you see the outside margin that he needs to win the e election given how obama is doing among minority voters and how he appears to be holding support and then some for white college graduate voters so that is where we are in the national picture and as we know these elections we choose to have in the united states are not decided by just the popular vote. that would be a silly thing to do. instead we have this electoral vote system where everybody gets allocated and so on. you know the story. that means the election really comes down to the outcomes of a
number of swing or battleground states and this is the 2012 battle ground as we laid it out in three buckets. you have six states in the rust belt midwest area. pennsylvania and ohio and michigan and minnesota and iowa and three in the southwest. nevada and mexico and colorado and three in north carolina and virginia and florida. these buckets of states are different as we will see in a moment but the six stake in the midwest rust belt area are much more heavily than these other swing states and a lower level of demographic change and much more slowly changing than states in the new south with a higher level of minority voters and changing rapidly and states in the southwest where minority population particularly among hispanics is shooting up rapidly and they have a higher proportion of minority voters and more favorable to barack obama.
with that in mind let's look at some of the particular swing states in play at this point. more so than any other state ohio is believed to be the fulcrum on which the election might rest. it is a state believe to be accessible from mitt romney and if obama could hold he holds all six stake in the rust belt midwest area of. only four electoral votes to chart a victory. critical for the romney strategy to hold the state of ohio. that is not happening at this point. obama is asking about a four five point lead in the state. if you look at the data on the bottom you would see the worst group for obama was the white working class who he lost by ten points. his hope was he would expand the margin quite a bit. that is what romney's strategy was about and would not be a hard sell. some culturally conservative
white working-class voters hard hit economically and a lot of factory workers. you would think it would be an ideal place in which to sell the romney brand but that does not turn out to be the case. when we look at polls, non college voters romney is nowhere close to driving up that margin among white working-class voters. he is in fact at best two points better than mccain in 2008 and doing no better among white college graduates so that is one reason why the state at this point looking favorable to barack obama and carry it by as much as he did in 2008 and also if you look at it geographically obama is doing well in the columbus area in the center which is the string -- swing region and holding support where it counts and that is true with a lot of state. this is pennsylvania which if
the romney team could have put pennsylvania in play it would have been the key to a lot of things but the problem for them now is pennsylvania is looking very difficult. obama is running maybe ten point margin in the states. it is not happening for the romney campaign and it is back to what was their big hope to drive up the white working-class margin which as you see in 2008 was a 15 point advantage for john mccain but the polls out of pennsylvania again and again show romney is not doing any better and at some polls he is doing worse and making little progress among white college graduates. so the state is looking similar to the demographics, how the demographics translate into political support as in 2008 and the same applies to the geographical distribution of the
vote. you look how he is running in suburbs and so on. definitely looking like an advantage obama in pennsylvania. michigan is another state where the romney campaign -- is not happening at this point, michigan is decisively on the side of obama. looking at geographical pattern of the vote running in the detroit metro area 44% of the vote as he did in 2008. not much going on for romney. wisconsin is a state where if they were going to crack the midwest code given what was happening with ohio they thought they could do it in wisconsin. the problem is twofold. if you look at the level of demographic change in wisconsin it is quite startling according to the population survey data. 3 point increase in share of
minority voters and college graduates and 7 point decline among white on college voters eligible voters. these are huge changes that go exactly against what is in the interests of the romney team. maybe they thought if they nominated paul ryan they could take advantage of what they believed to be massive culturally conservative white working-class voter but doesn't seem to be happening. they are making some progress among white working-class voters according to the pole and some progress among college graduates but nowhere close to what is needed to take the state. they are not able to master the state in the face of demographic change and demographic patterns. florida is a state that if the romney campaign loses florida their chances of winning the 2012 election are close to zero. at this point the obama campaign is running a little bit ahead in florida by several points