tv Tonight From Washington CSPAN October 4, 2010 8:00pm-11:00pm EDT
>> the candidates will provide responses to a series of topics. i will moderate a discussion between the candidates. some of these questions came from our listeners. we tossed a coin to see who would go first. that goes to carol shea porter. >> welcome. last week the first round of regulations of the new federal health care a lot went into effect. how you see these changes affecting new hampshire businesses in the way they provide health care for their employees were to march again this health care plan is going to be good not only for individuals, because we know it
will allow them to get insurance and insurance companies will not be able to throw them off of policies. this is good for business is also, especially for new hampshire business. 80% of new hampshire businesses will be able to apply for tax credits to help employees get this insurance. >> thank you. the health care insurance reform will add 32 million insured and an additional cost of $88 billion over 12 years. are there ever stick control costs? >> health care costs are strangling the economy, keeping individuals of policies. the system is collapsing under the weight of the costs. before we enacted this bill, bits of premiums jumping 37%. >> and nike. welcome, mr. guinta.
how you see the changes in the health care bill affecting new hampshire businesses? you did when we first guarded this debate, the unemployment rate was around 10%. two years later, six months into this passage, and we're still roughly a 10% unemployment. the fact that congresswoman shea-porter says that this has suggested the -- helped the economy, we've not seen the evidence of that yet. we do not feel in new hampshire that this is going to do anything to help businesses grow. they feel there is -- this is much more onerous. they're frustrated with the 3% additional feed that insurance carriers are now implementing for people to have implementation costs. and most owners i talked with about the 1099 provision, where
any business under spending more than $600 to a vendor has to now 1099 that the vendor, that does not do anything to create jobs or help small business get out of the recession we have been in for the last two years. what it does is stifle the ability to try to expand their business. it forces them to make decisions about where else in their business plan are they going to cut to pay for the costs and regulations. >> they queue. these tax credits that congresswoman shea-porter mentioned, businesses are twice as likely to be uninsured as large businesses. the health care reforms are supposed to help 15,000 small businesses in new hampshire. >> is worth trying to reform health care and reduce the costs for certain employers and
employees. that is what many americans wanted when we began this debate. what we received is something very different. people feel it is unconstitutional, number one, to force someone to purchase something. it is a trillion dollar spending spree that we have not identified how will it -- how it will be paid for in the current deficit. and small businesses in new hampshire say that they need more access to capital, more of their own personal resources to put back in their resources, and they have claimed to me that this is not helping them either provide insurance for their employees or to reduce their own cost. which is at a press conference with 15 business owners last week, all in the first district, saying that this need to be repealed. it is doing nothing to help small businesses in the venture. >> i wanted ask you about that
1099 provision. this is come up in the last week, that under the health care law, businesses have to report any expenses over $600. we've heard complaints about this. what does this have to do with health care? agreeable andtly we try to fix it and we have built but the republicans blocked it because there was another way to pay for this. this is one of the ways that it was paid for. that's $600 is unreasonable. we tried to change that to take away tax advantages and subsidies for companies overseas, sending jobs overseas. republicans would not have that and so we did not get that bill through. i am upset about that also. the reality is that we did try to fix this. this bill is paid for. that is the biggest problem that we have here. and this is one of the ways that they intended to make sure that
companies were compliant with paying taxes in a way that they could check. i think it is onerous, too heavy for small businesses. >> mr. guinta, a follow-up for you. the republicans offered their plan, repealing this set of policies. but this is only going to cover a couple of million. the democratic plan will cover 32 million. how you respond the republican measures so far have not met the mark? >> let's go back to the beginning of this conversation. congresswoman carol shea-porter has -- she feels that this is a constitutional bill and that it is good for the country. i completely disagree. one of two things happened when she voted for the spill. either she did not know the 1090 that provision was included in the bill and voted for it or she knew it was in the bill, needed
a way to pay for, and this taxing small business owners in this country. when you want to talk about republican plans, let's remember the republicans are in the majority -- minority in congress have been largely shut out of this conversation over the course of the last year and a half. through my town hall meetings and other policies, let's talk with three specific things they will help new hampshire. a lot of small businesses to pool, allow them to purchase anywhere in the country, and help doctors stop practicing defensively. i would be this is non-partisan to get these things go in and then see how that affects this industry. i think that would be a good start but that is not where the democratic congress started. they look for sweeping,
overall, which is not supported by the majority of people in new hampshire. >> this comes from -- this question goes to mr. guinta. >> the congress passed the president's stimulus package. you think it has work? >> i do not think it does work. i think it is a failed program. in new hampshire, we of loss many jobs. to suggest that we had gained in new hampshire, that is a red herring. secondly, you do not stimulate the economy by spending through borrowing. the when you stimulate the economy is cut taxes for the people who do create jobs, the small business community here in new hampshire. and then you allow them to invest those dollars back into the run businesses, hopefully employ more people, who will then help the local economies as well as the national economy. we need to knowledge that this
is not work -- this has not work. i am understand that the congresswoman was at an event and a knowledge yourself that the very bill she voted for is not working now. i'm glad she and knowledge that but i wish it came at the beginning of the process, not at the end, now that we're in further debt -- explain the job losses in the venture. >> we of losses that began 4722 jobs. it is on a website. >> their many business and community and individuals that have benefited from the stimulus. you see people paving roads and building bridges. manchester was allocated $54 million of stimulus money. hasn't this economic injection into the city of man hampshire and new hampshire a good thing? >> route 101 has been " paid several times so it is probably one of the nicest paved roads in the country.
but it did not needed. it did not create or preserve jobs. as mayor, i said that we're going to get through this recession not through looking for one time money from the federal government, but tightening our belts, cutting spending, recognizing that we need to do investment as well as people in the room homes. that is what local communities and state community should be doing. what is happening is that the stimulus and it comes to the stated new hampshire, they're telling their budget holes, and they are down shifting costs to the local communities. the upcoming fiscal year in new hampshire will be devastating because this is one time money that was used. it is not go right public policy position to have. you need a better position to cut spending, tighten your belt, and in new hampshire we are used to that. if we had done that, we would be in better shape today. did they create jobs? >> in new hampshire, we would of
lost 4000 722,000 jobs. my answer would be we have not created net jobs increases. >> congressman carol shea- porter, a cure one of the members who voted for the stimulus package, get unemployment remains above 9%. >> let me correct something that mr. guinta said. i never said that the stimulus did not work. what i says it did not create as many jobs as i hoped for and that's certainly true. but it certainly did work. i like to remind him that we are actually losing jobs at the rate of 765,000 in december 2008 after the republican policy of borrow and spend was put into place. we had been losing jobs steadily. that was the reason for the stimulus. mr. guinta knows how one board net stimulus is because he complained in the newspaper about not getting the stimulus money fast enough.
one person sent an e-mail saying that his grandstanding about the stimulus. it helped manchester ended helped. we know that there is housing being built and small businesses are being held. the reality is that we were losing so many jobs as a we cannot totally turn things around. the chief economist for mccain's presidential bid said that if we had not done the stimulus, we would of lost twice as many jobs as we did. we lost 8 million jobs because of the republican borrow and spend. they had two wars going on. no matter how people feel about it, they should they put it on the books and paid for. they had medicare part d that they did not pay for, and they gave tax cuts to the top 1% and did not pay for that.
it left our country in a terrible shape. and then there was the bailout for wall street. it's wrong to say that this is the fault of the stimulus package. it's a reaction to the republican a ministration and the -- the republican administration. >> the stimulus is scheduled to expire. then what will happen crush margins and we have seen a growth in private jobs. it is not as robust as we want. manufacturing has been up steadily. the stock market is doing better. but we still have high unemployment rate. family still cannot find jobs. i like to say the stimulus is pumping air into and economic matters that was pretty flat at the time. -- and economic mattress that was pretty flat at the time.
we want small business and big business to continue the progress that we're seeing. it is slow and it is difficult. >> i can come -- jump in, at what point bank do programs like the stimulus and the tax credit, at what point they to the sec -- to the stimulus policies hurt because it gobbles up economic activity? >> i voted against t.a.r.p., the bush bailout, because i knew that it would be misused and it went to the big banks and it was a big problem. the bush plan for the auto industry i actually supported because we needed have manufacturing in this country. and u.s. companies have turned around and protected the manufacturing base. and it's a security, we have to make things in this country. what we're seeing right now is recovery, but it is difficult,
still difficult. i think where we are right now, we need to get those tax cuts to the middle class. but we do not need to give them to the 1% right now because of the state deficits that we're talking about. >> mr. guinta, i think you're also opposed to the part bailout. what about the general motors part of that? which you have favored that? >> when you talk to viewers right here in new hampshire that employ more than 3000 employees, they will say that it is an abject failure. it was administered extremely poorly. the dollars meant for the cash for clunkers program was not coming to the auto dealers in a timely fashion. they had to put money out of front. what ended up happening is not americans being held, but foreign auto dealers were actually held. when you talk to all the dealers broadly across the state, they think it was a
terrible idea. it did not work in an hampshire and it put off the inevitable. >> i turn back to my colleague. you have the next question and it is for congress from and carol shea-porter. >> according to the recent federal reserve report, if u.s. corporations held historical the high amounts of cash for the first to none of this year, yet hiring has been weak. but government policies can encourage businesses to loosen purse strings and began hiring again? >> i think this is a problem since corporations are holding on to the money instead of hiring. a lot of that money that banks received was to lend to businesses to help. they have been holding on to the money as well, of great concern. what we have been doing now, which is passed into law, to put money into the hands of small businesses so that they will be a book -- small banks so that they can lend to small businesses. keep the money on main street and help small businesses. they are the backbone of our
economy. they create most of the jobs in this country. if we can keep this through this small business and ministers in, it will be more possible access the capital. we also need tax cuts for the middle class's and the businesses. a part of the advantage here is that we recognized that if we put the money into the hands on man street instead of wall street, we will be creating jobs. >> is there a psychological component to this? to people not trust congress? >> a lot of these large corporations are not just u.s.- based anymore. they are multinational corporations and they respond to stockholders instead of particular policies in the united states or elsewhere. some of that is that. with all the problems overseas,
when there were troubles in the greek market, some holding back or they hadn't planned. they had planned to invest more. and some of it is psychological. the concern that there might be troubles in other areas of the world. all the major economists are saying that we have in the recovery phase. >> the same question. what can congress do about hiring the congresswoman is giving you the classic big government solutions. she feels that the fda and -- sba and other federal agencies are the solution. the stimulus has failed. it also included $23 billion for tax credits for foreign companies in foreign nations -- american companies in foreign nations. you talk about taking borrowed money and trying to pump it into the united states economy
and she is moving it overseas. i am not even sure she realized that provision was in there. the way that you inject money back into a business is to take less from them that you're taking in the first place. she was the picks winners and losers -- she wants to pick winners and losers. she is saying that some should not get a tax cut, and the middle class should. let me tell you what is when happened. when any business owner who despite the extension of the cuts that could be voted on this week before they go out of session, every single one of those business owners is. have to pay higher taxes next year, which means they will have to cut expenses. that will cut those early employees that the congresswoman would like to say. the way to do it is not to pick winners and losers. give everyone the benefit of the tax cut. john f. kennedy did it in 1962 to save our economy. it worked.
it absolutely work. why congresswoman shea-porter would be against this policy that president kennedy implemented, the republicans are now trying to implement, it is beyond me. perhaps he does not understand how business locally is working. >> what do we need to do? >> we need to cut the corporate tax rate. we need to cut payroll taxes. we need to let everyone who is stimulating the economy, which is business and small business here new venture, which is representative of 85% of our economy. we're going to have efficiency by not adding bureaucracy -- bureaucratic requirements like the 1099 provision, us and you can use money to invest in new businesses, and then they will hire local jobs. i have visited company upon company and they are also in the same thing. new hampshire provision metal,
they are all asking predictability and consistency. they're asking to keep more of the runway. as their representatives, we should be listening to them. and these policies have not been listening to those local requests and local demands. >> our next question. >> mr. guinta, turning to energy costs. many businesses say that higher energy costs is a major concern for them. what can you do in congress to lower costs? >> we need to have what people have been asking for four years, a long-term sustainable energy policy. we do not have it. i do not think that we should save one type of energy is bad or good. we need to continue fossil fuel engagement. we need to have nuclear research. we also need to look to alternative fuels. we are not there yet, and that is part of the problem. in the last two years, but the federal government and what congresswoman carol shea-porter
focused on is a health-care bill and the stimulus bill that did nothing to support the economy. other areas where we need to be injecting money back into the economy, they have not even addressed. and they're going on break at the end of the next week not addressing energy, not addressing the tax breaks. the one thing they want to do is pass capt. trade, a national energy tax, the from the minute you wake up to you when you get in your car, putting fuel into your vehicle, that is going to impose a tax increase on every single american. those in the policies that supported by people in new hampshire. these of the policies that we need to be replacing in november. >> should the government subsidize businesses that create green jobs? >> the government should be -- first of all, that government needs to understand that it is not the entity that creates
jobs. in the last two years, the federal government has hired 150,000 employees. the federal government. first of all, we should put a hiring freeze and a spending freeze in place to try to get the debt and deficit back in place. we should not be picking winners and losers. if we want to support a particular industry, we should provide tax cuts to every single industry. let the market determine and dictate which companies are going to be successful. companies that are green-based will succeed if they have the same basis as every other company and the venture has. >> congresswoman, what actions would you take a lower energy costs? in the stimulus act that he has been knocking so hard actually gave tax breaks to small businesses and gave the largest tax break to the middle class in history. we've given state tax breaks to
help small businesses. i just need to correct the record there. but we do for energy? the chinese have been investing in renewable energies. and we're arguing with ourselves about whether we can do this or not. we have to have energy in order to run our economy. they know that they needed. there trying to buy up natural resources and energy. we need to be doing that as well. i sit on the armed services committee and the department of defense comes in and has concerns about what would happen in renewable energy as well. t. boone pickens says that we can do a number of things. we can use when, solar, geothermal -- we still have to use or right now but we should try to wean ourselves off of it. their countries that do not like us and do not plan to do well by
us, and yet we are totally dependent on them. and as for the cost of this, it is simply untrue to say that we're going to be taxes all day long. the reality is that the cost of a postage stamp every day, we can get economic and national security. it is time to do this in the people of this. the best thing for all of us to do is to stop partisan politics and start dealing with these issues. the issues are about economic security and national security, that we simply must develop more energy. >> could you also address the question about whether the federal government should subsidize the creation of green jobs? >> the federal government has always held businesses to grow. it is certainly in our national interest and security and economic interests to help these companies start up. i think just like i support these tax incentives and breaks for every other industry, they receive them.l
>> let's talk about that for a moment. but sit in on to the north in new hampshire start a green company and that on to pioneer in three years starts making $280,000. could that business. that is an entrepreneur creating jobs. but congresswoman shea-porter was to do is tax that person who created the green job, created the green company, trying to help the local environment, by depressing the amount of money that he or she can make on their return in investment. by point is that this is not the way to stimulate an economy. let's treat everyone the same. it was 1952 when this country needed an economic stimulant for recession. what he said was that we need to provide tax cuts for everyone. that policy is not a policy being considered by
congresswoman shea-porter. she is looking to pick winners and losers. to say that she supports a green job implore and the mosque attacks that same person, it does not make economic sense and it is not good public policy. you talk about partisan shot, we can talk about public policy. are you clarifying that she would support and then tax the person to what? >> right now there's a tax cut in 2000 won in 2003 that need to be extended. otherwise every american will have a tax increase. they are on break at the end of the next week. they could take a position. i would like to see my member of congress who represents me take a leadership role and say, conservative democrats need to say that we need to extend all of these tax cuts. the businesses are stifled. they do need that infusion of cash.
>> i will let you jump in and then we will move on. we're holding a lot of things together. >> is definitely following the republican leaders, they're talking points exactly. we gave the largest tax cut to the middle class and we'll also give small businesses a series of tax cuts. but he does not want to tax anybody. he wants to abolish social security, abolish the department of education, the department of energy -- and so if you're abolishing everything, then you do not need money. but if you continue to provide social security and medicare and take care bridges and roads and the infrastructure, if you plan to educate your children, then you have to have some money. the thing about the republicans right now in washington, they are saying that it is magical. you do not have to worry. you can have all. this is how we got ourselves into trouble.
new hampshire people are too strong -- too smart to believe this. the borrow and spend that they did without paying for it, mr. guinta was working for the former congressman at the time and i don't recall him saying anything, he does not even the knowledge that he was a federal employee that he worked for a congressman. during that era of borrow and spend, why did you not say something? now he wants to continue borrow and spend. if we take that money from china, we will put a $700 billion into debt and 80% of the borrowed money will then coat to people earning $1 million or more. that is not spending for the middle class. >> we're going to pick up the tempo even more this portion of our forum, a lightning round. in this part, we will ask the candidates a series of questions that can be answered simply and
decisively such as, yes or no. we ask you simply to do your very best. >> mr. guinta, congress is sent for the total of $40 billion bill to help businesses obtain it easier credit. do you support the bill? >> not as it is currently written, no. >> yes, absolutely i support that. small businesses need access to capital to grow business and hire people. >> congresswoman shea-porter, house republicans have unveiled a new pledge to america promising what they would do if they win back congress. a key promises to freeze government spending. is that a good idea. >> i fully support of freezing except that we need to leave some flexibility in case something happens in case of war or other problems. we should take a hard look. i ran in 2006 complaining that
these tax deficits were going to absolutely destroy us. our debt is too high and that is why i supported the bipartisan committee to take a look at the debt. >> same question. and i supported spending sprees -- >> do they support a spending freeze? and yes, i do. i supported several when i was mayor. our deficit was around $500 billion when she entered congress. now it is higher. i would like to see this kind of leadership four years ago and i would love to see our member of congress introduced something before she goes home on vacation to stop the spending. >> a reminder that in a lightning rod, keep the answers quick and decisive. and if you could, talk about what you do as members of congress. our next round comes next. >> yes no, should the tax cuts
be extended? >> you cannot say yes or no. they need to be there for the middle class. they should not be there for the top 1% because you have to borrow that money from china. we would have to take care of the middle class. >> it is an easy answer, yes, everyone should be allowed to keep more of their hard-earned money. >> mr. guinta, president obama has proposed our research tax credit permanent. do you support this? >> yes. >> yes. >> mr. guinta, do you support or oppose the employee free choice act which has to do with how unions are formed? to get i 100% oppose it. it will create more of the tax
burden in this country and it is going to take away boaters' right to have a private, personal blood. obviously my opponent supports this. she is a co-sponsor of a. >> i do support it. it is not voters rights, it is workers working for something. they were limited to choose how they would do a private ballot or the other way. it is saying that businesses can no longer a deterrent. they get -- workers get to decide if they're going to be a union and how they will do it. >> congresswoman, should social security reform include means testing? >> know. we know that we have means- tested programs, and they fail and people did not want to be them. in order to have a robust program, the kids all people
from falling into poverty, keno that more than half rely on social security, you have to have everybody paying in and everyone receiving as well. it also takes care of disabled and children and widows. everyone needs to be in because everyone will benefit. >> we have to start with the premise that our country has made a promise to you, the country needs to honor it. whether it is financial reform was. anyone receiving benefits, paying benefits, they should receive them. but there needs to be a dialogue how to solve the problems with social security. it has been rated and it will be insolvent by 2015 if we do nothing. taxpayers will be paying $12,000 per family into the system. it clearly needs reform. let's make sure that we honor the obligation a promise of the people who are receiving them. judy no means testing.
>> no means testing. he is incorrect. it is fine until 2037. and it just is between to keep it strong. looking a long- term solution. that one component needs to be part of the discussion. you cannot say yes or no to that one component. >> congresswoman, should other private businesses be told to stand on the run? >> the need to take care of themselves. what happened on wall street created a great fiasco. no one was paying any attention and so what happened. i was against the bank bailout because i do not believe in too big to fail. i did that they have to be responsible for themselves. i voted against there should not be any industry too big to fail.
if we believe in a limited government, if we believe in a free-market enterprise, and i do, we need to allow businesses to xl and succeed on their own, and if they do not, allow that entrepreneur or that of ingenuity to be picked up by someone else. that is what creates our great economy. i think the federal level, we have seen the too big to fail mentality by this congress. they are picking winners and losers. they have done it in the past and they have done it already for future public policy. >> some agreement there. there should not be too big to fail. >> i do not think we agree on this issue. >> the issue here is that he forgot it was the bush bailout and i did not support the bush bailout. and i didn't think that these companies should have received that. >> what about general motors? >> general motors was a different story because we have to have manufacturing in this country for national-security
reasons -- i sit on the armed services committee. we have to be able to create trucks and vehicles and weapons and we need to protect our manufacturing base. there were so many jobs tied in with the auto industry and all those different companies that depend on the auto industry. the auto industry has come back. >> i could just interject -- the industry is too big to fail, in your opinion. ford is not, and gm is. that is picking winners and losers. >> should this be a larger part of our energy supply in the future course for margin yes, should -- in the future? yes, it should. we should be looking at everything including nuclear power. france does it. they have done it safely. their energy costs are among the
lowest internationally. we need to start looking at these alternatives to try to deliver the lowest cost product in our country. >> congresswoman shea exporter. >> nuclear power is the most expensive source of energy. the french kerry has the least subsidize that. after the united states subsidize the beginning of the industry, you cannot have it both ways. you cannot face the government out and then call for the subsidies. there is subsidy money in the energy bill to help build its nuclear power plants. what we need to do is take a large revision and recognize that we have nuclear power with us. we recognize it has a crucial role right now. we also know that it is expensive. cheated in the spirit of the lightning round, let's go back to a lightning round question. keep it brief. >> an expansion of our passenger
rail will cost $250 million. is that too high a price tag were george >> at this point in our economic crisis, we need to cut down. you have 38 realigns in the country that are not profitable. until we see a metric their root -- provides profitability, we need to look at other ways to engage our economy -- so, not now. >> if you set roots and a profitable and making money, it's like saying our highways to not make money. of course they do not. you have to invest in this basic infrastructure. the above problems with congestion and be know that this would be good for businesses and easier for them to bring their products back in play. absolutely we should be investing in commuter rail and every other kind of real. >> congresswoman, should the congressional savings freeze the
budget until it is imbalance which emergent i voted against my pay raise every single time. i think that is reasonable. >> i think the pay raises are voice votes. i think that if you have a voice vote opposing it passes, it does not do taxpayers much good. we should cut it. we should cut the franking privileges to save money. we should eliminate the pension system for members of congress. it is not an enticement to become a representative. these are all things that could be done at any time predicted be done this week. i love to see you propose a before you go on vacation. >> and we conclude their lightning round here. we're. a switch gears yet again with a more open dialogue. i will moderate a discussion between the candidates on a broad question. the question for the first district candidates is about housing. has both of you know, many analysts have seen recent
recession starting with a housing crisis marked by risky mortgage practices and borrowers getting in all over their heads. and when all know how would turns out. the question for both the u.s., and we will have a broad discussion here -- what lessons have we learned from this and what lessons have we not learned? >> we had at wall street reform and we learn critical lessons, because when the party gets to what, it's time to take away the punch bowl. but we learned on wall street was total lack of revelation. i think that they failed at that. the fbi spoke to the bush administration talked about evidence of fraud and they needed help and they didn't get it. we learned that we need to actually pay attention and past too big to fail regulation, so that they have to pay for the run to get -- for their own
death. we also need someone sitting at the table talking about what about the consumer. >> what have we not learned? >> i think we're still seeing some activity that makes people concerned. about where the money is an how we unfortunately did get quite a lot of money to banks and we did not seem to learn that unless you said but they had to do with it, which was to help out homeowners, that they were not going to. i am not sure that we learned about that yet. >> but think we've learned is that the unemployment rate has not sufficiently changed in new hampshire or the country. we have learned that the stimulus spending and the bailout mentality has done nothing to improve our debt and deficit. on the contrary, they have made them worse. now we have a government that has created a problem trying to fix the problem. opposition has been, let's get
government out of the way, put our faith in entrepreneurs and people that create jobs in new hampshire and in the country. listen to what they need in order to create a better environment. that is something that has not been tried by our member of congress here or her leadership in washington over the last two years. it is about time that we did try and help small business owners. you talked about getting government out of the way. for longtime republican and democratic demonstrations have promoted the american dream of home ownership. is this something the government should no longer do? is this strictly a private sector thing? to get one my wife and i got married, our dream was to buy a home. that was not government, that was our dream. i think it is innate in all those that we want to succeed for ourselves and for our
children and grandchildren. we do not need the federal government telling us that. >> it's interesting that people like mr. guinta think that they did everything by themselves, went to school on their own, bought a house and the room, not even acknowledging the federal government that in order to succeed you have to have investing in schools and you have to have investment and housing and industry. so you get the government out of the way, that is the trouble with what happened in wall street. there was no government there it all. what mr. guinta is proposing is what got us into this trouble. we the people are the government. he looks it is it as some sort of separate entity. we the people of the government and we need to have the government watched on wall street to make sure we do not have a fiasco like this again. i don't know what he does not listen to the chief economist. he can look at mark zandi, the
chief economist for mccain, and he said that we would have a double the numbers of jobs lost and he has also set the stimulus has were. he talked about the role of the government there. i am astounded at this total anti-government, no role for government that we're hearing from mr. guinta. >> that sounds like you believe what john mccain has been saying. the person who knows something about our country. right now and our economy, john mccain is in the stimulus did not work. we need to return to a limited government kind of approach. i was the first one in my family to go to college. the federal government did not do that. my brother who worked in a small business for 40 years, he gave me the ability to excel in an educational environment. i took that and made something of a.
the federal government did not do it. i did it. my folks did it. other people in my country recognize that -- in the country recognize that as a sound, stable tradition in our country. this notion that government has to provide everything, this notion that you feel that government is the answer, it is just not the solution. >> did he use school loans to go to college? >> no, i did not. no, i went to assumption college in western massachusetts and did not use any school loans. >> nothing. nothing back by the federal government, nothing. and university cannot receive a single penny in federal funding. >> you attack ask the people at the college. >> i know that you said that he would join the tea party caucus in washington if you got elected. and that is their stance of no
government anywhere. if you look around, the government has a role. it should not have too heavy a hand. i completely agree with that. we understand this. but the reality is that we do not have any government of all, and i saw that in katrina, and volunteered for a month, it is not pretty when you do not have any organization fighting for anything. the reality is, and you and i both understand this, the reality is that the federal government in state government and local government, and you have worked in government for all of your life. >> all of my life? i just turned 40 yesterday. >> at the local level, at the state level, and now you're running for congressional office. it tells me, having been on the government payroll all those years, that you felt the government did some good things
he wanted to be part of it. judith i am not sure about what government payroll you're talking about. i served congressman jed bradley for two years. yes, i served in his office for two years. >> we will get to the resin made part of the discussion little later. imc is a big philosophical differences between the two of you. this will go to the congresswoman. it said there was no government oversight at all on wall street and that is why all the bridge lending practices happened. that is why the mortgage crisis happened and so on. to you agree with that at all, that there was not enough government oversight on wall street corridor margin there was regulation. there was specific things that got out of control and out of hand. the idea here of congresswoman
carol shea does porter is now to create more regulatory authority and a new regulatory agency. i just do not believe that that is the right approach. there are certain things like derivatives and others that we can look at. it would be good for the marketplace. but do have a new sweeping agency now -- but to have a new sweeping ages in a. >> it is a bureau. >> what is the difference between a bureau and an agency? a largereve in creating federal government and i do not. >> i do not believe in creating a larger government. i believe in and up effective government versus you believing in no government. the consumers are the ones that are hurt. [unintelligible] >> your quick decline that they
were not paying attention to the airlines, making sure that that followed certain federal regulations. if we did not inspected all, how far would you go? >> do you believe that the government has to be involved in every section of our lives? >> and we're going to wrap this up there. and i'm thrilled that we were treated to the third round. this is very interesting. we're going to move down to the final portion of our forum. this is where we return to our panelists. they will ask one last question in the candidates will have one minute. one minute. and the first question comes from phil. >> mr. guinta, says this is on the deficit and the economy, what in your professional experience qualifies you best to address the economic stagnation of the country? >> after i graduated college, i
was my own personal business -- i was in my own personal business helping people cut costs and burdens compensations liabilities. i have seen for a town house small business owners have been hurt -- firsthand how business owners have been hurt by the extension of taxes into their personal lives. i have also run the state's largest city where we had a balance budgets, make tough decisions about whether we would have spending and hiring freezes. i have done those things. i'd think that is the leadership right now that people from new hampshire are looking for, especially considering the last two years did not produce a better economy and a reduction in the debt or the deficit or expansion of jobs here in new hampshire or in our country. >> you want to know what my background is? >> but personal experiences that
qualify you to help move the country out of the economic stagnation? >> i come from the middle-class. i have worked my way through college. i a understand the struggle there and i recognize the problem in the economy. my mother and family -- my mother and father had small businesses and i understand that. i also had demanded several offices of budget and keep track of my money in my bank account. i recognize that we're all having to be responsible. i have a master's to republican ministration and i know from looking back from when i got my degree to know, the what they talked about being economically responsible is not what happened during the bush era, where be spent and spent and spent and borrowed and borrowed and borrowed. we're going to have to help small businesses, we have to give tax cuts to the middle
class, and when the companies get the money, they will be able to create jobs to meet that need. we will have to invest in our people. >> thank you very much. the last question goes to you. >> congresswoman, please name one private employer and explain how you helped them? >> i am not really sure that that is an appropriate for me to say. let me indicate a particular one because i do have responsibility for privacy. let me just say that what i have been doing is when companies come with good ideas, we have tried to help them either get the money that they need this dark a line of private industry and also industries when they come looking for grants in order to run some program to help their people.
there been many private companies. we're very happy to have a summer campaign website and we do. i would suggest that they could go and look there. i think from my government service. >> can you name one client with whom you were? >> in manchester, there's a group in downtown manchester that has about 300 small business owner members. they approached me when i was an alderman and also mayor to improve infrastructure downtown and try to get to downtown tax rate to those honors. i can also tell you about a company approaching me now ask me when i become congressman, can i help precision metal. appeal asking if we can -- repeal obamacare and asked me
to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to ensure that his company remains liable. he is indicated that he called our current congresswoman. i work with in town manchester for years on behalf of almost every downtown business. we've also had specific businesses asking for tax relief in for parking, infrastructure improvement, all those things that you're responsible about as mayor. we have created a much better environment in manchester but to date. >> talking about congressional earmarks to create help. we have made sure that this had the earmarked to help and get the money for research and development and all kinds of defensive equipment, etc. definitely have a role there if
you're talking of an actual earmarks but i cannot answer those questions without privacy. what companies come to you for help? one company which wanted to come into manchester, they asked for help with the process to start with a company. it's not cut four employees in he is looking to expand in other areas -- he now has four employees and he is looking to expand in other areas. help them downtown. there are numerous examples that i can cite were always trying to improve the local economy. >> you can go to our web site and look up earmarks. >> that is a good thing that we have both done. you but you won't tell them a specific company. >> we will have to wrap it up. to get you're asking about personal information. >> i want to thank our panelists and you, our
audience, and to you watching and listening at home. especially thank you to our candidates, carol shea-porter and rob portman. thank you very much for being here. >> my pleasure. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> the candidate forum has been sponsored by lincoln financial group and produced in partnership with the new hampshire business association, the new hampshire "union leader," and others. >> we continue our political coverage and a moment on c-span. coming up, a look at oregon's next governor.
later, connecticut's state attorney general richard blumenthal and republican and the met may end face one another. -- linda mcmahon face each other. for more, go to c-span.org/ politics. our debate coverage continues tomorrow night with the illinois governor's debate. that is at 8:00 eastern. then we will talk with deborah wasserman-schultz about her race and democratic prospects nationwide. later, a candidate forum on new hampshire is second congressional district. after that, a connecticut governor's debate.
>> hello there, high school students. enter the documentary competition. pick a fight to 8 minutes video on today's theme. talk about an issue, event, or topic that helps you better understand the role of the federal government in your life for community. be sure to include more than one point of view all along with c- span programming. download your video by january 20, 2011 and you love a chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. their $55,000 in total prices. this is open to all students grade 6-12. >> the only televised debate between the oregon candidate running for governor. democrats john kitzhaber is running against republican chris dudley.
the candidate took questions from reporter and anger tracy bury it and a student audience of undecided voters. this is about an hour. >> a critical debate in a critical election with oregon's economy on the ropes and the budget on the brink. who is best fit to lead oregon into the future? tonight, the first and only debate. republican chris dudley and democrats john kitzhaber ticket questions from reporters and the public as they fight for your vote this november. this is a decision that the 2010 special. >> good evening, everyone. thank you for being with us tonight. we are very pleased to be able
to bring you this debate. to help decide, the candidates will be answering a number of questions. later, a group of undecided voters here in the studio will give a chance to ask questions. a special thank you to mike riley and riley research associates for helping us find those undecided voters. we have asked him to help us keep the candidate on time. with so little time and so many
issues, we want to get right to it tonight. for this first section of the debate, candidates will get one minute to answer a question. the nippon ham will get 30 seconds to respond. -- the opponent will get 30 seconds to respond. chris dudley, your first question. >> a good evening, gentlemen. the letter is the next governor is going to have a monumental task in front of them with a $3.2 billion budget deficit. some question your lack of experience. they point to the fact that you have never been elected to any office, you have never managed anything. can you tell us what your qualifications are to be governor and what can you say tonight to convince voters that you have what it takes, that you are ready to solve the problems? >> thank you for having us here for this debate. let's start off with the premise of experience. our last two governors said that
over 60 years of experience and yet to reset. 47 -- 42nd in job growth. we need experience from outside of government. what i offer is a vision, a vision of how to take or again for words. i have -- to take organic for word. i have an 18-point plan on education. we have to get out of the mind set that we have been on for too long. that the answer to all our problems is more taxes. the answer is more jobs. more jobs, more taxpayers. it is my vision and experience and we need leadership to take us forward and i am looking forward to offer that leadership. the biggest challenge we face is putting the private- sector economy back to work.
that kind of experience is going to be essential today. we did not have a lot of time. we have a $3 billion budget deficit. we need to understand the nature of that budget. we cannot afford that. >> as part of your jobs plan, you say you want to launch a massive what the resolution efforts for schools using state bonds that would be repaid through energy savings. how are you going to do that? >> karr first of all, these would not be ordinary general obligation bonds. they are paid for with actual
savings by energy-saving during the initial by end. the idea at -- and i do agree with the treasurer. these are more like a revenue bonds and the way they are structured. the result of this would be the creation of significant middle income jobs throughout oregon. if we intentionally used products and other sources, we could increase that ripple effect. this, to me, is a no-brainer. it puts people back to work. it generates additional tax revenue. you have the opportunity to continue that job growth and those resources and revenues coming in for a decade. >> the answer to your question is no, it does not make sense when our credit card is maxed
out. it does not make sense to borrow $100 million of 4 100,000 of temporary jobs. that does not restore capital confidence. this is a difference in philosophy. my opponent believes that it is government and politicians that create jobs. we need to create a better environment in which to create jobs and we have to do so right away. >> good evening. i understand your reasoning for wanting to lower the capital gains tax for businesses interested in investing in oregon companies. explain to voters why you think a trust fund a baby who lives off of stocks and bonds should be taxed 3% of their and, when the average working person from oregon pays a 9% tax on their wages. >> we have the highest capital
gains tax in the country. we are at 11% and washington is that zero. the need to create an environment in which people will invest in oregon. 11% of the zero is zero. we need to keep revenues. we need to keep capital and our states and we need to do so quickly. better ranking of the 500 fast as companies in the united states. that is a disaster for us long term. another article talking about what would happen in california. why you taught? -- why utah? we need to create an environment where businesses will come to our state.
by doing this, we'd will have more revenue for schools, our roads, and our hospitals. >> let's look at what this is proposing. he is proposing an $800 million set of tax cuts that will help the wealthiest oregonians. the fact is, we do need to improve the environment for reinvestment in oregon. but the way you do it is not by simply giving away money to people who least deserve it great you do it by creating jobs for middle income workers. he has not proposed immediate job creation plan that does not support putting back to work. >> you are seeking an unprecedented third term as oregon's governor. critics say you have had your chance. they blame you and the state's democrats for the bad economic situation. will you spell out clearly for
us why you want to be governor again? why do you deserve another four years? >> we are at a point in oregon's history where we need a governor that has the experience and shares of oregon's values. i think i am the right person. i can get my arms around the budget crisis. i am the only candidate in this phrase it has actually created private sector jobs and brought businesses into the state of oregon. i am the only candidate in this race it was actually manage big enterprise and has balanced a large budget. furthermore, i share the values that most oregonians share. i am concerned about the plight of the frail, look -- frail elderly, i want to create jobs today, not tomorrow. i am concerned about our environment and women's rights
to choose. those values need to be reflected in how we prioritize our budget. those are the reasons i feel like i am qualified. i believe people loved based on my qualifications. >> we share many of those values you just outlined. but when you talk about the experience, we cannot go back to the past. we cannot defend the status quo. spending went up by 57%. did not stabilize our education. and did not establish a rainy day fund. you walked out saying that this state is ungovernable. we cannot go back to that. we have to go forward and a new direction. we have to take advantage of the incredible assets that we have here in this state. we need to push it forward. that $3.2o back to billion budget data sets and how you would solve it.
most analysts agree that it will take something really big instead of just shifting money around. give us an example of three things that you would cut its that we can no longer afford. >> i reject the premise that we should not address labor costs. of course, we have to do those things. the -- right now, we have a $4.2 billion budget. -- $14.2 billion. we cannot increase it by the amount that we want to get to staying on the same path. that is why i have outlined certain areas where we have to look at where government is. we have to get away from automatic budget increases. we had to get away from the idf -- the idea that a department spends -- we have to talk about
the elephant and a room, labor costs. labor cost in this state make up 75% of the general fund. i will not scapegoat workers. state workers, police of the stairs, teachers are great people. states cannot afford this. we have to look at that. at the end of the day, it is a bad job growth. >> i think we need to recognize that 93% of the general fund is spent in education, public safety, and human resources. the cuts subordinate. the question is not how we cut the budget. the question is how we take the money we know we have and suspended from going forward. -- and spend it differently going forward. i proposed a very detailed plan to do that. the cuts have been made. we have a flat funded school system. we need to be very innovative in
making those decisions and priorities. >> i have to continue this discussion. i did not here either of you say, you know, here are some services we had had. during the good times, things that are state has been finding that we simply cannot afford. you start saying things like, we need to list some cable-tv channels or something like this. are there anything that we have to learn to live without at the state level? >> again, most of the budget is involved in three large areas. we're not going to cut out education or present or stopped taking care of people in the medical care. the question is reorganizing the dollars that we have. we need to provide the school system with the amount of money that they can count on every year.
not knowing for months -- from month-to-month, as money will have makes a very difficult. it is not as simple as just finding a specific program. the big dollars are in those that have to be addressed. >> a program that in 2007 was projected to cost $10 million. these are dollars for we found out that dollars were being wasted. we were spending $5 million tax credits to a company in texas that did when% of its business in a state of oregon.
-- 1% of its business in oregon. >> depending on who you talk with, man-made global warming -- warming threatens the long-term future of the world or is this camp perpetrated. it's not really important for oregonians to know whether you think global warming is a real threat or not? so far, you have not said how you feel like that -- how you feel about that. what is global warming? >> my thought on global warming is this. global warming exists, man contributes to it. how much? i do not know. let's go where we can do a
consensus. it makes sense for our state and our country to be independent energy wise. it makes sense for us to reduce our carbon emissions. i embrace alternative sources and i think we should bring everybody to the table. focus on the areas where we can do a better job. we should embrace -- we have hydro today. it is a great advantage for the northwest. we should look at different ways -- solar -- and go forward. it is something that we can find a common agreement and go forward on that basis and do so in a manner that does not raise rates or lemonade jobs. that is the bottom line. >> i do believe that global climate change is human cost. i think it causes an enormous threat to our country. i do think that we should banned
oil drilling off the oregon and coast. those things just makes sense. oregon is in a tremendously powerful position to do that. there is a new industry there for us that we can export to the world market. >> this week, president obama held and educational summits. he said the bad teachers should be terminated. in the past, he proposed merit pay for teachers. some say that you are beholden to the teachers' union. what is wrong with rewarding good teachers and finding a way to weed out the bad teachers? >> there is nothing wrong with that. it depends on what your basis for measurement is.
i do not support the value in teachers based on a performance of a single standardized test. there is a whole host of factors beyond the scope of a classroom teacher. we need to test the performance of model, how much the student has ground. that needs to beat -- that needs to be used to assess both teacher and student performance. we need to get resources to teachers in need additional professional development. if they do not follow that professional development, they do need to be eliminated. we should remember who these people are. they are not the enemy. we ask them to do an enormous burden and we need an honest way to evaluate their work. we need to reward the good ones and for people who cannot cut the mark, they need to leave. >> as someone who has to reach
children in public schools and came from a family of teachers, yes, i was disappointed that corrigan's application, we were application,egon's we were graded an f. we have to look at reform. when you were 33rd, you have to look at how you change it. i would embrace that. this is about treating teachers as professionals, not just employees. give them incentives to help them they can be possible -- the best they possibly can be. >> and the primary debate, u.s. admitted that you bought a home in washington to avoid paying some oregon taxes. how do you respond to critics who say that you turned your back on or again to save money at the expense of supporting oregon schools and other services in a state that you now
want to lead? >> that is an unfair criticism. you pay taxes on every game that you play in the state of oregon. everything i did in oregon, i pay taxes on it. i did not turn my back. i give will avert another million dollars to oregon charities. i and very involved in the community. i think it is ridiculous to say that. it is unfair that sometimes during the political season, those things come out. i was the one that brought it had to make a point. taxes matter. there are over 95,000 people who live in washington and work in oregon today. thousands of people come from washington and california to shop in oregon because there is no sales tax. taxes influence behavior. we have to change our environment so that people will stay here so that we do not have to have companies to leave and
go across our state and then make the sale. it makes sense to recognize that taxes do matter. >> i have no response. >> in 1999, you and your then wife got an unusual call loan from a stock brokerage. the company had only one other home loan on its books at the time any later appointed the honor to the oregon investment council. why not simply get a conventional home loan it? it raises questions about your ethics. >> let's go over the facts. in 1999, i bought a home. i took at a loan from a company that i had been in a vaulted with 10 years. i paid market great interest.
i paid the loan off. i nominated a very qualified individual to the oregon investment council, an unpaid position. he was examined by the republican legislature. both of these two questions reminds me of a " great you can keep the -- if you keep asking the wrong questions, you need -- you do not need to worry about the dancers. -- the answers. those are the questions i think we need to be focusing on in this debate. >> i agree. but the question is, how do we restore trust in government? the fact that you got a loan that no other oregonian could receive. that, to me, destroys trust. it is something that we should
look at. it is unfortunate that it happened. when i am governor, that will not happen in my office. we will be completely transparent. you have to disclose everything because people need to know that when someone is appointed to the highest board, it is done for the right reasons. >> forget all the mumbo jumbo about the particulars of land- use law. i want to hear each of you give me a concrete example of how land is being used or not used in the state. disney an example of a development that you do not like seeing in a certain place. give me an example of land that should be developed but is not allowed under our current zoning rules. be specific. >> i have to think about that one. development that i do not think should be here. the one thing i have found as i have traveled the state is that time and time again, i came
across one set of rules that did not apply everywhere. i think it is important that we defer in g8 between the different localities and the needs of those points. as far as development, we want to make sure that development is restrained. we also want to protect property rights. i cannot think off the top of my head about one specific area that i would not have wanted built. going forward, it is important that we have a clear set of rules. we also have available land to protect property rights. i will have to get back with you. >> i do not want to see the casino built in the gorge. that is one. [laughter] i also think that the pattern of development down around the
would burn area is not optimal. the thing we have to do their land-use program is integrate it with housing policy in transportation policy. i do think we need to look at much more integration of these decisions as we go forward to ensure that we have robust economic development. >> you will have the last question of this round. >> because of money lost in the bad economy and the market conditions, or again taxpayers are now looking for an extra billion dollars to help fund the retirement of public employees. why don't you do more when you were in office last time to avoid the situation we are in now? if elected again, what would you do now to make it sustainable? >> we created the second tier
while i was governor and we began to address that problem at that time. today, we have both a short-term and long-term problem. i have been very clear it would be public employee tunes that we will take that on and resolve that. both of those issues will have to be addressed. we should address those in the 2013 by end. we have a lot on our plate next time. we will also have to reduce overall compensation for public employees. it is a sequence step, but i am committed to having its fair and sound and sustainable. i think it is also important to recognize that we are talking
about middle class oregonians who are very important citizens. >> it is an issue that we have to address together. we have to be on a sustainable path. i think it is important that we look at total compensation. it is slated to go up by 13-15% over the next two years. the state cannot afford that. we have to talk about this and a fair and reasonable manner. it reminds me of talking to a negotiator for the union sued over to corporations. the corporation would tell them that we can pay a $2 an hour increase. we can divide it up however you want. that is the model that we have to get back on. we have to bring that back. >> thank you. we will move on now to our audience. each candidate will get a one
minute to answer the same question from the audience member. joe, we will start with mr. dudley. >> first question comes from portland. >> please tell me what you will do to advance comprehensive tax reform in the state of oregon. please discuss the income tax, property tax, and sales tax. >> in one minute. [laughter] >> i have outlined breathing down the capital gains tax immediately. i think that will -- is a little over 2% of our overall revenues. i think that could have a dramatic impact on getting businesses started. what i have found as i have travelled across the state, people do not want to hear about more taxes. they do not want to hear about
the revenue side. they want to talk about the spending side. they want you to get your house in order. after you did that, we can address the revenue side. the revenue side is something we should have a comprehensive look at, but the processes is that we will get the spending side first. reduce capital gains and get business is slowing. -- did business is slowing. we cannot afford the quality of life that we want here if we do not have the jobs. >> i am going to answer the question. at the local level, we will have to review provisions because many cities and count -- counties are in compression. they are having population growth and is difficult for them to provide the services. on the state side, we have two
issues. we have an income tax system, 93% of our income comes from personal taxes, which makes it extraordinarily volatile. our per-capita income is gradually eroding. we need to deal with a 2% kicker. we need to build ourselves a big savings account. i tried to create one during the 1990's, but the republican legislation refused to adopt it. i personally believe that it is time to diversify our tax base. there is a variety of ways to do that. >> joe, your next question. >> it comes from keenan. >> i wanted to know would now be the time to consider repealing
the kicker, in your opinion. >> i would not support repealing the kicker. it would be nice to have an economy that gave us that opportunity. it does not make a lot of sense to prevent the state to save resources during good times to tide them over during bad times. i do support modification of the kicker to create a very well- capitalized savings account with very tight controls on how you access back to ensure that is used for specific purposes. i think that is just the first step. the larger problem is that we have a volatile tax base. everytime there is a hiccup, the bottom falls out of our ability to perform the services. education is the cornerstone for a economic growth and prostate -- prosperity.
>> right now, we're looking at the business kicker. i think it has been overblown what impact that will have. it will be $40 million. it will not make a big impact. we need to get away from the answer always been more taxes. we have to look at our spending. we need to look at how we budget, just like families do. establish a rainy day fund. our budget system is extremely volatile. and it always will be. when times are good, you have to take dollars from the top and put them on the side for when times are not as good. you're spending does not share that same volatility. i have that overwhelming the response from people that get spending under control first. that is the direction i would go. they are expecting government to
get that under control. >> the next question goes to mr. dudley. >> my question is, what would you say is the biggest difference between you and the other candidate? the size -- besides size? [laughter] >> i passionately believe that we need to build a new direction. we cannot continue doing the same old thing that got us here. john is one to defend the status quo and go back to what he did before. we are 42nd in employment, 43rd in education, number one in homelessness, number two and hung there. the verdict is an -- it is not working. we as oregonians cannot afford the quality of life we want here if we do not have the job growth to support us. as long as we are at 10.6%
unemployment, it is not going to work. we have to take steps. instead of an afterthought, it needs to be priority number one. my number one job will be to create jobs in the state of oregon. get our economy going. >> i think there is a difference between a new face and new ideas. chris is certainly a new face and a member faced than mine. but his ideas, from the george w. bush. over half his proposal spend money that have no clear way to be paid for. these are the same policies that led to the systematic national disinvestment and our system of education and our basic infrastructure. it is not enough to have a new
face. you have to have ideas that are in the 21st century. it created a great boom economy for 10 years. now we have did think about the changes we have to make. i have done that in the past. i have the experience to do it again. that is the huge difference. >> we will take one of our online questions that came in. there are some fantastic ones. it comes from peggy -- what did we learn from the last recession that will help oregon get out of this one more quickly? >> we learned that we should have sent a robust savings account during the 1990's. we failed to do that. the second thing we learned is that we got to diversify our
economy beyond just durable manufacturing goods. we have to capitalize on our expertise in environmental technologies. create a whole new business cluster. the third thing is that although we support our trading sector industries, we're not done a good job of keeping those resources here. part of our strategy has to be developing local supply chains. using the data can nectary based. -- connectory base. >> we have to establish a rainy day fund. there were opportunities to do it, but we did not do it. we have not been able to resist
the urge to spend every dime in the building. you cannot turn economic development on and off. we are in the midst of a 14-year losing streak. our unemployment rate has been higher than the national rate for 15 years. when you are 42nd in employment, there are 41 states that are doing a better job. we need to learn from that and we need to create an environment in which jobs are created. i would like to go back to something earlier that john said that is not true. i have never said i wanted to reduce the minimum wage. in the story. -- end of story. as far as capital gains, that is different than personal income taxes. it is only 2% of revenue. there are ideas that will get us forward. we cannot keep defending the status quo.
>> we are out of town. -- we are at a time. i have spoken to many young people who feel disenfranchised by oregon's political system. they are intelligent and independent a pursue are excluded from voting for many of us is a primary election simply because they do not choose to be with both of you commit today to supporting an open primary system in oregon? be very specific. >> i know this is an issue of great importance. it is something that washington has done. california has done. i am open to looking at and embracing. it makes sense for us to look at different ways. it is something that i would
certainly look at, look at what is the best way to go about it. one thing i was disappointed in that did not get our balance was a redistricting. to eliminate the gerrymandering that happens now. just how the lines should be drawn up by not impartial third party. i guess something that i wish we had done. hardy makes a great point. we need to get rid of the partisanship. we need to be able to work together. being able to reach out to both sides, connect and build a consensus. >> you will commit to looking at it, not to supporting it? >> i would have to see it, but i endorse the idea. >> the concept is pretty simple. you just legg independence vote in the primary. i strongly supported. i was very active in the ballot
measure last year. if you look at the franchise of voting in america, it has always been to include more people, not fewer people. i think by excluding 25% of oregon electric from the process, it does create that sense of disenfranchisement. i think we should open up the primary, allow everyone to vote. the top two candidates would be running in the general election. it is a very important concept and it will go a long way to reducing the partisanship. it will continue -- i will continue to support that. >> we're going to go back to audience questions now. >> it comes from david of portland. >> there are competing schools of thought about how to jump- start an economy. one is to put money in the form of tax breaks. the other is to leave more money
in the hands of the greatest number of consumers possible. what is your method of stimulating the economy? >> i think you have to take advantage of opportunities that are there to create jobs in the front end. this is the first half. my proposal to put people back to work through large-scale energy efficiency programs does create jobs in the short term. it puts money in people's pockets. i think it is a very, very important foundation. i also agree with mr. dudley about the capital gains -- capital gains tax. i do think we need to create a climate that encourages people to reinvest those resources here as long as there is evidence that it will create jobs in oregon. it is a combination of both
immediate job creation and creating a climate that keeps more organ dollars here. cox -- oregon dollars here. >> my answer would be both. i have also talked about giving small businesses credits for hiring people off of welfare or off of unemployment. it also helps in decreasing the amount the government has to support. i think it is both sides. at the end of the day, when i look at this, it is for how do we help the average oregonian? that is the bottom line. we have different schools of thought, but i want to be clear. we cannot continue to have businesses leave our state.
we have to revert -- we are trading at a climate that is not conducive for business. we make it even tougher for business. we have another revenue shortfall. we are going backward. >> joe, the next audience question will go to mr. dudley. >> where do you stand on taxation of food and beverage? and tobacco and liquor? >> in addition to what we already have in place? >> yes. >> i have not brought a change to what we have in place. i think we should continue its. that is something that our cities and counties rely on as well. it is not something that i had thought about changing. >> and i would continue to
support increases in the cigarette tax. there is a direct correlation between the price of cigarettes and the kids that do not start smoking in the first place. i do support the current structure of taxation on hard liquor. that provides important resources for our county'ies. i note mr. dudley's supports privatizing the agency. it reduces private sector jobs. there is a budding micro distillery industry that is creating real jobs out there. while we certainly need to get the economy going, the state should not be taking steps that destroyed private-sector jobs in the middle of a recession. >> i just want to know your
thoughts on the $110 trillion federal deficit. if your -- if you are governor, what will you do to prepare arrest -- to prepare us? >> you have touched on the biggest problem facing our nation. that is the runaway deficit. the national debt increasing its medicare and medicaid. the solution has to do with resolving our health care system. the federal debates last year -- or again has a tremendous opportunity to get waivers when those new resources coming to the state and create a big pilot project in health care delivery system reform. it is really where the disease brittany is. -- a disease burden is.
it would help us with the national debt, it would make or again a tremendously competitive place to be. or again or some stable have to lead the way. -- or again or some other state will have to lead the way. >> i agree with your concern. as a nation, as the state, we have been spending money that we do not have. we have to stop. we absolutely have to stop. that is why we presently face a $3.3 billion shortfall. our rate of spending has been unsustainable and is out of step with the jobs that we have been creating in our state. it is something that we are very concerned about. i am concerned that from a federal level, we will continue to get handed down unfunded mandates. that is something as governor that i would look at. does it make sense to take this program if it will cost our state more money in the long run?
if it does, we will reject it. that is something that we have to be aware of. we have to have some fiscal responsibility. the time is now. i have three young children and i do not want to hand off to them. it is not fair that we're having a step down the road. >> this comes from and joan. she is so direct. what is the point of all those negative ads? >> it is unfortunate. john, you had said that you would rather lose an election and then run negative ads. since august, it has been all negative ads. i really was hoping that.
this is obviously my first election. i am new to the process. i have been disappointed. all the negative ads, personal attacks, misleading statements, will not create one more job. all the negative ads, personal attacks will not help one more child graduate on time. i would like to talk about the policies. i would like to talk about the 26-point plan. i would like to talk about our future and how great the state could be. that is where this election should be going. >> i would say that we are running more comparative ads than negative ads. in most normal collections, both candidates seek out opportunities exactly like this to demonstrate the differences between the candidates. this is an unusual collection. this is the only opportunity that we will have to do this.
when you do not have that opportunity and winter -- and when mr. dudley has spent $3 million defining me and himself on television, the only alternative is to step and and provide the other side of the handshake. fortunately, we still have time. i would like for you to ask you to join me next friday. we can have another opportunity. >> are you going to the city club? >> i would like to invite a -- john to a debate. >> clear, they want to get together. [laughter] >> there are many reasons to
support renewable energy resources. however, these, they cost. how can we meet our renewable energy goals and still keep energy available at affordable for all oregonians? >> conservation first. the northwest power planning council report indicates that we need about 85% more expensive energy increase through conservation. i do think the are positioned with -- with a tremendous portfolio of renewable energy. we have a budding industry in oregon that is creating jobs by making us more energy independent. furthermore, i think we have a significant opportunity to began to engage in utilities and private money markets in conservation by beginning to create a kilowatt conserve.
pge can meet part of thits rps. we are in a great place in oregon. we can reduce the cost of living in oregon through energy conservation. >> going forward, i would agree with the conservation been the cheapest way to address energy needs. i have spent some time with the governor of hawaii. they have an ambitious goal to get renewable resources. a 35% is from conservation. that is a key component. it is also embraced in other areas that we have. doing so anyway that is reasonable to ratepayers. we have to be careful of what we are asking ratepayers to pay
for. i think we have to be very clear. this is something that has not always been done. we have to clearly articulate what the cost will be to ratepayers, to jobs, what the transmission lines are going to look like, and make sure we have spent all outlined so the choices are clear to the public when we go forward. i think we have incredible resources here, incredible opportunities. or again is known as a green state. we should embrace that, but we should do that any reasonable way. >> personally, i think we're just getting warmed up. we are out of time for questions. thank you to all of you who came to ask questions here and to those of the sentiment from home. we will move now to the closing statement. mr. dudley won a drawing before the debate. you have one minute and 30 seconds. >> are you happy with the fact that oregon's unemployment rate is above the national average?
are you proud of the fact that we are, on the national leaders in a hunger and homelessness. is the answer to our problems for more years of the same policies that have brought us to this point? if you answered yes to those questions, and if you think this is the best at oregon can do, but i respectfully suggest that you vote for my opponent. if you believe, as i do, that or again can do so much better, and if you believe that we have to move away from the partisan politics of the past, and if you believe that we need a governor who will lead us in a new direction, then i asked you for your vote. turnaround or again it is not a job for one man. it is a job for all of us. together, we count showed that
or again -- oregon can be unstoppable. >> every election is a choice. i have led an and blood to oregon for most of my life. for middle-class families, for a woman's right to choose, standing up for our environment. those are values worth fighting for. we need jobs. i have actually created jobs. more importantly, i have a plan to create thousands of new jobs. mike -- my opponent has a plan to provide tax breaks for the wealthiest oregonians. how will we pay for that? taking money away from education, health care, social services. over half of his proposals to
increase spending that we do not have. this is no time to raise taxes, no time to spend money that we do not have. we have a great state. we have a bright promise for the future. it will take a governor who can start on day one creating jobs for the unemployed. those are the things that i have said for all my life. those are the values that i believe in. i will continue to fight for them every day. you can count on that. our best days are still ahead. i am john kitzhaber and i am asking for your vote on november 2. thank you very much. >> that is all the time we have for today's debate. we want to thank our studio audience, all of you at home for watching. thank you for making this happen. we will need to work on your schedules here. your ballett needs to be in by 8:00 on november 2.
to get out and vote. for more on the debate, log onto our web site. i hope you are taking notes. in just a couple of minutes, we will have analysis of this debate. thank you. have a great night. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> our local content of vehicles are traveling the country. as we look at some of the closely contested house races leading have to this november's midterm election. >> thank you to our firefighters,
police officers, our military, all of those who are fighting the fight of freedom. >> we have to get the deficit under control. that is one of the first things that we need to do. >> the 24 congressional district is a new district trading after the 2000 census. it includes a lot of volusia county. it is one of the most government dependent congressional districts in the united states. that is because of the space program. with the winding and down of the
space program, there is a lot of unemployment there. it was really carved out -- the first to win the race at a time the district was created, he was the speaker of the state house. he had a key role in carving out this district. yet it is only barely a republican district, at 20% of the vote -- and voters are independent. she was able to when this district largely because of ethical problems. his association with jack abramoff kurt him in the election. running as a moderate democrat, winning the votes of independence, pushing the ethics charges, she was able to win that race. as a member of congress, she has sparked a moderate stance. she did vote for the obama health care plan.
she voted against the house version of the plan. in the end, she voted in favor of the senate bill. she has been cagey in the way she campaigns on that. she does not defend the health care plan as of hall but selective way defense aspects of the health care plan -- but selectively defense aspects of the health care plan. -- who won of very contested republican party race, where there was only a 2% difference between the candidates running. herself, somewhat moderate as well. she comes from law enforcement. which was first elected, she was elected as a democrat. so she has used her background and a law enforcement to present herself as tough on crime,
someone who is pro military, has a strong self presentation as a candidate. >> all in all, we all have the same concerns and that is the out of control spending, the debt of our nation, the deficit, and they want somebody to actually take control of that, someone who will listen. they do not feel that their representatives will listen to them. >> it there is a strong local issue that is felt strongly by voters and that is, what about all of the displaced workers here who are mostly skilled workers, retraining for them, new employment opportunities for them, and what national legislation the candidates will support or grants they will procured? there she has an advantage, as a democrat, a democrat white house, a democrat majority maybe in the congress, she is in a good position to deliver the
goods, to address the job needs in the district. >> congress to improve it the benefit of veterans. i am very happy to say that we have brought $71 billion -- in a that v.a.attle to get dea center built here in orlando. it will be right here in central florida. >> because it is a republican- leaning district, it is rated r- 4, which means barely republican. had a history of republican representation. to the republicans, it was a fluke that he lost. and he lost only because of ethical issues and not because of a change in political thinking on the part of the
district, the district becoming more democratic. they think it is a their district, and they want backs. contentn's local vehicles are traveling the country as we look at some of the most closely contested house races leading up to this november's midterm elections. for more information, visit our web site c-span.org/lcv. >> on tomorrow as "washington journal", we are joined by florida representative debbie wasserman schultz. then a discussion on the federal deficit with matt welch. later, a look a congress and the banking industry. bill swindell is our guest. "washington journal", each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. later in the day, a white house
summit on community colleges. the vice president joe biden will moderate the event at northern virginia community college. we will also hear from education secretary arne duncan. live coverage at 12:15 p.m. eastern. >> we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books and american history. it is all available to you on television, radio, online and on social immediate networking sites. fayed are content any time through this c-span video library -- find are content any time through the c-span video library. it is washington you're white. this c-span networks. now available and more than 100 million homes -- it is washington it your way. >> now a debate between zer ohio's senate candidates.
they are running to replace retiring governor voinovich. the debate takes place at a high school in toledo, ohio. this is about an hour. >> this is the ohio u.s. senate debate. now here is your moderator diane larson. >> welcome to tonight's debate, the first of this campaign season in the ohio. i am your moderator diane larson. we are proud to bring you this debate tonight. featuring our candidates appear. lee fisher, a democrat, and rob portman, a republican. thank you for being here tonight. the ohio newspaper organization has inspired this debate.
eight newspapers make up the group. both campaigns have agreed to the format of this debate and it will feature questions from our four panelists. those panelists are the politics writer from a "toledo blade," laura, a reporter for the dayton daily news, and the chief editorial writer for the cleveland plain dealer. each candidate will have two minutes to respond to questions. the other candidate will have one minute to respond to those answers. a coin toss was used to determine who would go first. lee fisher won that coin toss. he will begin with a two minute opening statement. >> ohio, washington.
main street -- wall street. export goods -- export jobs. i begin this way tonight because this is a very clear choice between is someone who has traveled to ohio fighting for the people of ohio and someone who has spent the last 20 years fighting for special interests. as attorney general, i closed the drug houses throughout our state. as the head of the center for families and children, i helped struggling families get back on their feet. and as lieutenant governor, i have been in every corner of the state in the middle of this unprecedented economic storm working to save and create jobs. what about congressman portman? you would never know what listening to him tonight, but
here is who he is. he was a lobbyist for a foreign country. she was the congressman who supported the regulation of wall street. he was george bush's trade adviser and budget director, supporting policies that gave tax breaks to large companies, that ship jobs overseas. "the washington post" has described him as mr washington. if you want to know who we're for, take a look at who is forced. rob portman has received more money than any candidate in the country from a lobbyist. he has received more money from the insurance industry and he is number two and wall street money. but do not worry, he is on his way to being number one, because he is one of those to lead the fight to repeal wall street reform. i think it is time that congressman portman tonight to a
responsibility for his role in helping cause this recession. he knows better. this is not a state recession. this is a national recession. and mr. washington had his choice and now it is our turn. >> thank you. mr. portman, two minutes opening statement. >> thank you to the organizers for giving us the opportunity to differentnsent two visions. it is great to be back in toledo. i wanted to come to to lead up because it is a part of the state that is often left out. i have been back over a dozen times since, for factory visits, meeting with small business owners. i have done that all over this great state. and what i have seen will not surprise you, because you feel it. our state is falling behind the rest of the country. we have lost 400,000 jobs in the
last four years. our unemployment rate has nearly doubled. in fact, right now, ohio has one of the top-10 highest unemployment rates in the country. we have lost businesses to other states. we have lost some of the best and brightest young people. for the last four years, my poopponent has been a lieutenant governor, responsible for trade and jobs. as you just heard from him and you heard his attacks, and all of those attacks are partisan and are discredited, and a couple of them are downright false. he will do it all night. and i think he is going to do it because you want to distract us from two things -- one, his record. hard to defend that. and second, the federal policies that he is supporting. he is a strong supporter of washington's health care law. the stimulus package that is not helped ohio. i running because i believe
ohio and our country are headed in the wrong direction. the status quo is not working. i believe there is a better way. there is a better way and health care, on taxes, on spending that is out of control. on energy and regulation, to help get private sector jobs back. check out our jobs plan at my website. i was born and raised in ohio. we have raised our kids in high appeared ohio can come back. but we need to turn things back in washington to help ohio get back. >> thank you very much. our panel questions now begin. we start with tom troy. >> mr. fisher, in this campaign, you have been very critical of international free trade deals, and yet during the most recent 12 month period, ohio export trade caps $20 billion. wouldn't a protective trade policy reverse ohio's growing prominence as an export state? >> exports are good.
as the director of development, as lieutenant governor, ai work to promote exports. we counseled countless businesses in northwest ohio, helping them to access 14 different markets which ohio has state offices. the issue here is not whether exporting goods is a good thing. the issue is whether or not we are exporting too many jobs and we are paying that price. when you have a fair and balanced trade, you can do both. but when you have a trade deficit, that means that you are saying that we will export goods even if it means that the price we pay -- that the price we pay is a jobs leaving his a state at a record number. that is not a price any of us should be willing to pay. the bottom line is that we are selling to a little, we are buying too much, we are producing too little and producing what we do in china and other country.
it is eighth four parts solution. you increase your exports. you reduce your imports. you bring production offshore back to america and you bring incentive to america to do more production in ohio. so i want to make it clear i want more trade, not less. i want more exports, not less. but i want it to be fair. i wanted to be balanced. and i do not want hard-working people who have spent their entire lives in manufacturing, in technology, losing their jobs, not to mention the businesses and industries we are losing almost every month to another country. >> thank you, mr. fisher. you have one minute to respond. >> you have it exactly right. you cannot have it both ways. lee fisher decided to run an anti-export campaign. the cleveland plain dealer yesterday and endorsed my
candidacy. one of the reasons is that lee fisher's is demogoguing on trade. 25% of ohio workers have their jobs because of exports. we need to expand exports. and yet, although, attending governor fisher said a second ago, he is for exports, he is not. he does not support the trade open agreements to help ohio factory workers. he has said he is helping for come -- he is for helping companies state in america. you know what? he would put high taxes on small companies and big companies. he supports the washington approach to high regulation. this will make it more difficult for us to keep jobs here. yes, trade needs to be fair. we need to expand our exports. if we do not do that, we will hurt ohio workers. >> thank you. joe asked the next question of rob portman. >> mr. portman, even those who
believe free trade enriches the u.s. economy conceded that certain sectors or individual communities can be decimated by foreign competition. what do you say to people who have lost jobs to foreign countries and what responsibility does the u.s. government have to assist those people? >> thanks, joe. again, trade should be about two things -- ensuring that we have a level playing field, and forcing our trade laws. i sued china, the first person ever to do it as the u.s. trade representative. and we want. it helped ohio. we also started other cases that are now being successfully prosecuted against china. i have been there and done that. second, we need to expand exports. ohio is dependent on exports. by the way, export jobs pay more in they have better benefits. we cannot allow ourselves not to
continue to give all our workers, farmers, service providers this opportunity. i agree with what joe just said. sometimes trade has a disruptive effect. we need to minimize that. when it happens, we need to make sure that the government steps in and provide worker retraining. i am for reforming the system. ohio is 44th in the country in terms of worker retraining. that money is not well spent. we need to coordinated better and work better with the private sector and get the bureaucracy out of it in columbus that takes too much of that money. so that ohio is not 44th in the country, but we are first in the country in getting workers to retrain. >> one minute to respond. >> congressman portman, if you go to several factors, it is
hard to look those men and women in the eye and say there is not damage done when we have free trade. because of nafta, 50,000 jobs have been lost. because of trade with china, 100,000 jobs have been lost. think about this. at the end of the bush years, the trade deficit in the united states was about $800 billion. what does that mean? they are selling us $800 billion more dollars of stuff than we are selling them. that does not make any sense. the bottom line is that we can do both and we must do both. when congressman portman was the trade adviser, he refused to put quotas on steel pipes despite the fact that manufacturers asked him to do it. his record is not what he says is. >> thanks much. laura from the dayton daily news
asked the next question. >> mr. fisher, your lieutenant governor when ohio lost nearly 400,000 jobs, and the unemployment rate climbed. why should voters in this economy send you to the united states senate? >> in the middle of a national economic storm, that has affected every single state in the country, whether it has a republican or democrat governor or lieutenant governor, states have two choices -- baking good down in the basement, but a cover over their heads -- they can go down in the basement, but a cover overheads or they can do with the governor and i have done. whether it's goodyear, bridgestone, firestone, we have worked to save jobs one job at a time. if you are unemployed -- and there are too many people unemployed -- the unemployment
rate is not 10%. it is 100% . i know that. it is not a state recession. it is a national recession. only one state in this country has received recognition for bringing in the most private capital investment. three times, in 2007, 2008, 2009, and that is ohio. recently we were named the sixth fastest-growing cstate in the country. we are working harder than other states. we are not giving up. you want people leading you who when the wind is in their face, they do not go to the sidelines or down into the basement or up in the stands, they keep moving down the field. if you go to the company's i talked about, cooper tire and rubber, they will tell you that
we step in and saved 1000 jobs. and there are too many people who have not benefited from our work in our successes, which is why our work is never done. but let's always remember is a national recession brought to us by the policies of george w. bush and congressman portman. >> one minute to respond. >> i think it is an insult to woody hayes's incredible record at ohio state to compare him to what is happened in ohio. we have been losing the game. we lost 400,000 jobs. just in the toledo area, we've lost jobs. since this campaign began, four companies left toledo and went to indiana. we are falling behind. these guys have not done the job. now lieutenant governor lee
fisher once take this record to washington. i have been to a lot of the companies that he has said he is helping. i have been to several plants and factories in the last year and a half. they do not want a higher health care costs, they do not want the higher taxes. they want to be given a pro- jobs, pro-growth approach. that is what i am offering to take to washington. not a failed record. on source release, the lieutenant governor does not deserve that promotions -- unfortunately, the lieutenant governor does not deserve that promotion. >> the next question goes to mr. portman. >> your budget director under george w. bush pacific -- whose administration increase federal spending. what would you cut? what would be off limits? what would you or any other republican have credibility on this issue? >> i have always called for less spending. when i was budget director, i
propose a balanced budget. i was there for about a year. it was the first balanced budget proposed six years into the administration. they should have done it sooner. should have at the present a veto spending bills sooner. he never vetoed a spending bill. a month after i got there, and sent the first letter saying that the president would veto a spending bill. guess what? the spending under control. when i was there, we had a 50% .eareduction in spending i proposed a balanced budget. today's deficit is nine times higher than that. think about that. we are looking at doubling the debt in five years, tripling the debt in 10 years. this is unconscionable for our kids and grandkids and leaving them with this incredible burden, and mortgaging their futures. we need to stop the spending now. we need to put a freeze on domestic spending. that is why our plan for jobs is so important. we need pro-growth ideas.
we need to look at the entitlement plans. i know the lieutenant government refuses to do that, but every other person who is looked at this, republican, democrat, independent, says that we need to have a bipartisan approach to entitlement to get our country back on the right track. these are all things i will do it should have the honor of representing ohio in the united states senate. >> mr. fisher, a minute to respond. >> we agree that the deficit and the dead are out of control, but he is leaving out a bit of history. when bill clinton left office he handed a record surplus to george w. bush and what did george w. bush hand over to president obama eight years later -- a record deficit of $1.30 trillion. and what was that budget deficit when congressman portman was the budget director. it was around $500 billion.
>> no, it wasn't. >> when he was trade advisor the deficit ballooned to $200 billion. he tells us we are spending too much money but he wants to give $700 billion to millionaires and billionaires as opposed to using that money to reduce the deficit and create jobs. that does not sound like fiscal discipline to be paired >> thank you. and we ask that the candidates like the other finish. if you have a dispute was something he said, the next question when it is your turn. we have the other questions. >> building on your last answer, why is it a good idea to extend all of the bush -era tax cuts except those on the wealthiest americans?
wouldn't a tax cut and anyone quicken the recovery? >> those who have been hit hardest by this recession has been the middle class. that will continue to be my focus in the u.s. senate. those tax cuts for the middle class should be extended. but here is why the tax cuts for the many years and billy norris should not. for some all, the economists will tell you -- here is what the tax cut for the millionaires and billionaires should not. you want that money to go back into the economy to buy certain needs. middle class does that. the wealthy put it away. $700 billion is a lot of money that we could be using to create more jobs in this recession. the amount of tax cuts the wealthy are getting is a disproportionate. we are talking averages of something like $100,000 per person.
it makes no sense. it is not all or nothing when you are a legislator. you pick and choose what your priorities are. my party is the middle class. >> mr. portman, you have a minute to respond. >> we are seeing very different visions for the future of our state and our country peripatetic govern. attended governor fisher wants to raise taxes on companies and individuals. he talked about $700 billy and that somehow people the government. this is by raising taxes. we would pass pro-growth legislation to reduce health care costs, to ensure that our energy costs are stable -- not the cat in trade that democrats passed in congress. we should be putting out regulations that make sense, so that companies like the one i
visited in toledo today are not burdened and are able to create jobs. we need to control spending, which has increased 84% just in the year and a half of this administration. that is when you include stimulus and supplemental. 84% increase in that kind of spending occurred. >> mr. portman, if elected will you try to repeal the new health care reform a lot and start over or are there parts of the log you would like to keep? >> the health care costs in this country are too high. what is happened with this legislation is now they are even higher. this legislation is a great opportunity for us to get control of costs. it helps our businesses to be able to compete. also ensures that we have health care costs we can afford so there are fewer people who are uninsured. and yet, the legislation went
the other way. i have toward six or seven factories in the last couple weeks. have a small business roundtable last week. the number one issue is the cost of health care. these businesses see their health care costs going up this year, higher than last year because of the health care legislation. they are very concerned about uncertainty. a business owner told me in toledo today, we do not know what is coming. there is so much uncertainty, we are afraid to hire somebody. one guy said i am going to pay time and a half overtime rather than hiring new people because of the health care legislation, the increase in health care costs. this was an opportunity to get health care costs under control, and it was a missed opportunity. if elected, i will try to get costs down by putting sensible reforms out there. we should find a common ground up there. lieutenantgovernor hunt governor -- attended governorf -
fisher has a lot of relationships -- >> mr. fisher, a minute to respond. >> i think it is irresponsible to say that when you like some parts of the bill and you did not like others, you will repeal the whole thing and start all over again. congressman portman was in washington, d.c., for 20 years. he had his chance to do something and he did nothing when it comes to health care reform. and now he wants to go back and repeal it and start all over again, even though he had that chance. it is far more responsible to take a look at what works in the bill and what does not. if you were to repeal this, you are putting insurance companies back in charge, exactly the wrong thing to be doing. today, if you have a proper medical condition, thanks to this law, they cannot deny you coverage. now if you want to get a mammogram, you do not have to have a co pay any more.
we cannot go back to those days. are there things that we can improve and the bill? of course there are. there is no question in my mind that we should not be taxing health care benefits. we should have a better physician reimbursements, but those are things we can do. but you meant it. you do not end and appeared to repeal it is irresponsible. >> thank you. our next question goes to lee fisher. >> house minority leader john boehner drew a lot of heat from democrats for suggesting that social security's long-term viability could be preserved with basic reforms, including means testing, raising the retirement age for younger americans. do you think these ideas should be off the table and, if so, what would you propose to insures social security's long- term viability? >> i do not support cutting benefits or raising the retirement age, but what i do support is getting it out of the
firing line on the floor of the senate and house and getting it into a bipartisan commission, were smart republicans and independents and democrats, who do not have to run for election can give us their best recommendations. i am o.k. even with an up or down vote on that. the least that way, we will get the best thinking. as long as this is a political football on the floor of the senate and house, given the hyper partnership that makes me we willd discugusted, never solve these problems. my attitude is is a sacred promise for the seniors of our country and there are ways we can solve this. one of the ways is not to raise the social security trust fund, as congressman portman did -- not to raid the social security trust fund. >> it is a sacred promise to our seniors. we need to strengthen and
preserve social security pyrrhic it is heading toward insolvency. everyone agrees with it. i know it is getting close to falling, but i would ask lee fisher to stop scaring seniors about social security. if you gave a more -- he gave a more reasoned answer because he is not on the campaign trail. he said rob portman wants to take away your social security. not true. seniors have earned it. no one should be testing. we do need to look at strengthening and preserving it. when lee fisher was talking to a group of seniors in cincinnati, he gave his scare talks about social security. at the end of the conversation, one of the seniors as the question -- what are your solutions to social security, because i am worried about it. his answer? elect me. a political answer.
we need to approach this problem in a bipartisan way. >> thank you. our next question goes to rob portman. >> mr. portman, given the threat posed to the world by al qaeda wise foraliban is i t the u.s. to begin withdrawing troops from afghanistan? >> thank you for that question. we also saw on television that there are additional concerns, particularly in europe, about potential terrorist threats. the war against terror continues. and i hope the administration continues to view this as a true war, because it is. they are still after us and all freedom loving people should be worried. president obama has supported a withdrawal from afghanistan on an arbitrary deadline. that it just gives comfort to our enemies. the taliban and al qaeda will
simply wait us out. that is what the people in afghanistan are saying, including president karzai. they are worried that america will not be able to protect them and us against terrorism. if we have an arbitrary deadline to withdraw, again, they will wait as out, and afghanistan will again become a safe haven. it will become a platform for another attack like 9/11 on our country. we simply cannot allow that. as we look at the news today and as we realize that the terrorist threat is a very real, we need to be sure that we do not trade that safe haven in afghanistan for them to attack freedom loving people all over the world, including here in america. >> thank you. a minute to respond. >> there is no issue more important to any member of the u.s. senate or congress than our responsibility, as to whether or
not to send young men or women into battle and to make sure that when they are there they are safe. these are not easy decisions, and they should not be political. hopefully, they will not be. i just happen to believe that iraq was a misguided war. afghanistan made lots of cents after 9/11 and i supported that. but we took our eye off the ball. as a result i do believe it is time to bring our troops home. but i want to make something very clear -- we never, never, never, to give up the fight on terrorism. but if we have learned anything since 2001, it is that you cannot fight them conventionally. it must be strategic with elite forces, predator drones. if anything, we should step that up. we should put less of our men and women in harm's way. >> times up. thank you. i just want to get our panelists
a heads up that we are doing wonderfully on time, so we will likely have the opportunity for two or extra questions. our next question goes to lee fisher. >> as you know, lake erie is critical to the economic vitality of the state. how would you advocate for swift action from the federal government to keep asian carp out of the great lakes? >> first, i want to go back to one thing that congressman portman said. i do not want to disappoint the coming because he said he liked my answer but he is not like other answers -- i do not want to disappoint the congressman because he said he liked my answer but he did not like my other answers. what the people should note te uiis that one of the most vocal proponents of privatizing social security was, as menpo cn
portman. they could put it in the stock market. imagine what would have happened if congressmen portman and president bush had privatized social security during this economic recession. it would have been a disaster. now asian carp. we are next to the largest body of fresh water in the world. there is no greater asset in america, perhaps, and certainly in ohio, then the great lakes. with the white house saying to them that i thought there were not being tough enough in dealing with asian carp. these large fish are literally eating other fish all throughout the great lakes. we are allowing them in because we have not closed the locks in chicago. we should close those immediately.
we have been very clear to the obama administration that they have been too slow and thin be to focus on protecting lake erie, in particular, because lake erie is the shallowest of all the great lakes. so we are the most in danger. first, you stop them getting in, and then you put all your energy in making sure you get rid of them, so that we can keep the great lakes is the beautiful, recreational source is, not to mention a source of great drinking water. >> a minute to respond. >> this is a huge issue. and it is a jobs issue. there is a $7.50 billion industry in the great lakes that is commercial fishing, recreational fishing, and it is threatened by this infestation. i think it is great that the lieutenant government called his friend at the white house and told them to get on it. he had better call them again, because they are still not there. they have now discovered asian carp within 6 miles of the lake
and they have discovered dna of the fish. the administration needs to be much more aggressive. in terms of the attack, another partisan attack moment ago, it is not accurate. i do not support privatization of social security. what i do support is strengthening social security for the future. look, i know the lieutenant governor would like to distract us that in his tenure, as development director, we lost 400,000 jobs. again, our unemployment rate is one of the 10 worst in the country right now. he wants to distract us from the health care legislation. he supported it. he supported the public option, a bigger government role, and the stimulus plan. >> thank you. our next question comes from joe. >> mr. portman, mr. fisher just mentioned the hyper partisanship that grips the congress, and i think that all
ohioans hope their two senators were work together. in this campaign, you have been harshly criticized by ohio's junior senator, democrat brown. if you win, how would you work with him, given your fundamental differences on trade and job creation? >> interesting question. senator brown is the other senator and he has been very partisan. i do not think in the history of our state we have not had a senator who was not running for election who has been as active and partisan in this campaign. i suppose that he is trying to make up for the fact that he chose not to lee fisher support in the democratic primary. i have spoke with senator brown about this. i told them i was looking for to working with him. he has said he looks forward to working with me.
i know he is supporting my opponent. i spoke to governor voinovich today. he is choosing to leave the united states senate, but he has reached across the aisle to get stuff done, as i have done. during my tenure in the u.s. congress, 12 of my bills were signed into law by president bill clinton. but i can defend each one of them as fiscally conservative pieces of legislation that helped move our state and country for. that is what it would do if elected. i would work with senator brown, anybody, democrat, republican, independent, who wanted to help me help ohio. we need to turn things down -- turn things around in ohio. it is unfair to feature generous ratioations. taxes are going up on small businesses all over ohio, making it harder to create jobs. we see regulations. we see more burdens. we need to go the other way. we need to give small businesses
more help. and i will work with anybody who wants to work with me to help ohio and help small businesses. >> mr. fishes, a minute to respond. >> i do believe is very important that you work across the aisle and work with members of the other party, just as i did in the state legislature, but i think it is also important, more important and that is that you not be a rubber-stamp for your party, the you will be able to stand up to your own party when you think they are wrong, as i have done many times in my career and many times, even while president obama has been president. but watching congressmen portman i cannot see any time when he has departed from john boehner and the republican playbook. but i can tell you who did depart -- governor voinovich. he stood his ground. he opposed the tax cuts for the wealthy billionaires' and millionaires and he supported a
strong, reasonable, small business jobs bill that congressman portman opposed. i would suspect that that was being or rubber-stamp for the republicans. it seems to me that if you are going to be bipartisan, you have got to show it. >> thank you. our next question goes to lee fisher. economy need's another drolled of stimulus money from washington? what you think realistically might pass in the next congress when republicans might hold more seats than they do now? >> i think we all know that the stimulus has not been enough, bottom line. john mccain's own economic adviser has said that without it we would have lost another 8.5 million jobs. but the bottom line is making progress is good, but it is not good enough. so here is what i think we should do. number one, we should end the tax breaks that rob portman
supports to large companies that ship their jobs overseas. number 2 below, we should have a new national job creation tax credit, modeled after the one in ohio that is a powerful incentive for businesses to create jobs right here in ohio. we should make the research and development tax credit permanent. it is ridiculous that it remains a temporary and every couple years has to be extended and is a political football. we are in innovative state and nation. we should be planting those seats now, lieke we have on the state level. finally, it is outrageous that we have bailed out the wall street banks but we have shortchanged the small businesses. the small businesses that we see everywhere that are 90% of our economy, and even if they do not miss a single payment, cannot get along. that is why i have supported and congressman portman opposed a
$30 billion pool of money to go to community banks with requirements that they get that out of the door to small businesses to help them survive and to grow. i don't care what you call it, whether it is a stimulus or anything else. i want to make sure we create jobs and do it by giving incentives to create american and ohio jobs and get rid of the incentives that actually encourage offshore and outsourcing and shipping jobs overseas. >> mr. portman, a response? >> we just heard from attending governor fisher. he thinks the stimulus was not enough. that is what he just said. so $800 billion was not enough. this was the stimulus package that was sold as taking unemployment under 8%.
ohio has lost almost 150,000 jobs since the stimulus package was signed into law. he wants more of the same kind of stimulus. he wants to put tax increases on u.s. companies at a time where we are trying to climb out of this recession. that does make nick-- that is not make sense. that would cost 17,000 more jobs. we have already lost 400,000 jobs. we do not need to lose another 17,003 >> our next question goes to rob portman. >> you have been critical of the cap and trade energy bill that passed the house, but what would you do to reduce u.s. dependency on foreign oil, a gold articulated by both parties and to improve the environment in this country? >> it is really an exciting opportunity for ohio to take
energy and convert it to jobs. let me explain. the cap and trade tax that passed by the house of representatives, strongly supported by democrats in congress, would cost 100,000 jobs in ohio. in the alternative, if we develop new thank you power, a nuclear power, if we move forward with clean coal technology, with green technology, being not just hydro, but solar and wind, we can create thousands and thousands of jobs. there are several factors i have visited. wilcox makes nuclear power plants. it is a number to be for us to use the best work force in the world, ohio workers, and to take that manufacturing capacity that we can use and create more jobs and opportunity here in ohio. that is the alternative.
guess what? when you do that, you make us less dependent on foreign oil, which is important to our national and economic security. finally, it is a cleaner environment, because you are using nuclear power, which is emission free. you are using natural gas and clean coal technology, which takes the c02 out of coal. if i'm elected, i will be focused a lot on energy, not cap and trade because that hurt ohio, but on these great opportunities to move to ohio for. check it out on our web site, robportman.com. >> a minute to respond. >> 53 years ago to the day, october 4, 1957, the russians sent something up into space that was called sputnik and it -- it was a reawakening in
america that we were behind. we are behind today. the solar panels and wind turbines are being made in china. there are not enough of them being made in america. we are depending on countries that hate us and sometimes even want to kill us for our oil. now is the time to have a new sputnik. and gather around, as democrats republicans, liberals, independence, conservatives and say, this is our time. now is the time to move to a clean energy economy that focuses on wind, solar, nuclear and clean coal, and focuses on what we teach our children -- to be self-reliant, not to rely on others. it is exciting. i can guarantee you, of these last four years working with manufacturing companies building component parts of wind turbines, we absolutely can do it. >> thank you. we have the bonus round now. we will ask some more questions. your question will go to lee fisher.
>> if you win, one of your duties would be to vote on nominees for the supreme court. i am curious as to what criteria you would bring to judging a nominee, how much difference the chief executive deserts and the nomination, and if you could quickly go through the four recent nominations? would you have a voted for john roberts and alito and sonia sotomayor and kagan? >> i had the great honor of clerking for a staunch republican judge of law school, appointed to the efforts of ray bliss. i admire the fact that he hired me knowing that i was a staunch democrat. he taught me a lesson. he taught me that the law ought to be blind to politics. first of all, i do not have a litmus test.
whether or not this person, when they put on the road, they understand they have to, at least for that moment, become one of the most powerful people on earth. we have seen that with some seminal cases. i want to make sure they are bright. i want to make sure that they also have practical experience in life and they are not just purely in academia. i think it is fair to say that we need a divorce court in every respect, in terms of gender, in terms of race, even in terms of the kind of law schools they go too. i would have voted for elena kagan and sonia sotomayor. with regard to roberts and alioto, i have not paid enough attention to their confirmation hearings for me to say automatically i would not. i know that most democrats voted against them, and i probably
would be skeptical, but i will not tell you today that i would have voted against them, because i do not have enough information. when you are senator, you get your information. i did watch the recent hearings you referred to -- president obama's appointment. i did not at the time. i was running the center for families, and i did not watched those hearings. i am not sure what i would do in those cases, despite the fact i would probably be skeptical third >> of response. >> thank you. the senate does have a solemn responsibility and that is the confirmation of judges. i would only confirm those judges to one, had the right judicial temperament and tobago, do not legislate from the bench. that is the job of legislator. you are elected as legislators to be accountable to people. governor voinovich opposed elena kagan's nomination because he felt she did not have the experience. i think she did not have the
experience. i did not believe that she had the right judicial temperament and experience, and i think her record indicated that she was going to legislate from the bench. i hope i am wrong. i hope she will be a better supreme court justice. i think this is the criteria we ought to be using in looking at supreme court justices. >> the next question goes to rob portman. articulate your view on financial reform, cleaning up wall street? would you want to repeal some of them? if so? why? >> i appreciate your asking that question because earlier, i counted six inaccuracies in terms of the partisan attacks from lee fisher and that was one of them. i am very disappointed in what passed in the united states congress on financial reform, because it did not solve the problem. everybody knows the housing market triggered a financial collapse in october, 2008. barack obama has said as much.
and yet, this legislation does nothing to help on that issue. these two organizations -- fannie mae and freddie mac -- and debt backed up the mortgages and give banks the ability to sell these subprime mortgages, they were not touched in this legislation. why? because the democrats are very close to fannie mae and freddie mac. my understanding is that we $200yers up artists bent ovehat billion. i do not think the legislation went far enough with regard to how it dealt with wall street. the big wall street firms, including goldman sachs, supported the legislation that lee fisher supported. the community banks in ohio did not support the legislation. why? because they are concerned about the new legislation making it harder, not easier to get credit. that is what i am seeing. companies are having a hard time getting credit.
community banks are feeling more and more pressure from the mandate. i was at a company today, where a guy said, i made my payments. we would like to expand. we would like to create more jobs, but i cannot get along. we need to be sure that when we are talking about legislation, we are talking about how to create jobs in ohio, and that means being sure the community banks in ohio have the ability to make a loan. lee fisher actually would have government by the stock of banks. this is like a mini tarp. even the new consumer advocate for president obama says that is a bad idea. >> mr. fisher? >> i had a law school professor who once said it is better to have eight fans at the top of the cliff and then an ambulance below. -- a fence at the top of the cliff than an ambulance below.
as far as i know, all of the big wall street firms are thrilled with the fact that congressman portman wants to be one of those who repeals reform. i think having a consumer agency that looks out for consumers, everything from having credit card rates that are outrageous, to the derivative trading that occurred when banks played with middle-class families money and lost it almost as if it were some sort of a gambling casino. that should never happen again. and congressman portman, and by the way, democrats did, too, they voted for repealing the glass-steagall act which basically said you banks can start speculating. >> time is up. at this point, we have closing statements.
two minutes for each shot a man. this is reverse order of our opening statements -- two minutes for reaceach man. >> thank you. i want to thank the organizers and the reporters for giving us a chance to talk directly to ohio voters about the key issues we face. what you have seen tonight are two very different approaches. what i heard tonight from lt. governor lee fisher is that he is proud of his record at a time when we lost 400,000 jobs. he is proud of some things that happened, and those things are ok, but other things that happened, he does -- he wants to blame someone else. in terms of job-killing legislation, it will make it harder for ohio to get back on
track. i am running because i believe we are headed in the wrong direction. i think ohio and our country are headed in the wrong direction. the status quo is not working. we need some fresh ideas. check out our jobs plan, the one-year suspension of the payroll tax. it will help small businesses be able to get the credit they need to expand their businesses. our great state and the workers of ohio deserve this. i was born and raised in this state. i raised our three kids here. i want to make sure ohio can get back on track, and we can do it. this is a great state with innovators, inventors, and the entrepreneurs. we need to create a climate for success. that is why i am running for the united states senate. i ask for your vote tonight, and i hope to see you out on the campaign trail. thank you. >> closing statements. two minutes. wives and i havfe oue our here tonight.
i want to read knowledge that my wife peggy is here. we have had a lot of facts and figures here. i want to take -- tell you a quick story. one day i got a call from the mayor. there was panic in her voice and she said, i do not know what to do. the bank is about to close down the furniture store. i canceled my schedule for the rest of the day. i drove out there. i spent the day meeting with the mayor and community and business leaders. we convinced the bank to back off, to reconsider and give the company a second chance. we gave the greaet company a loan. and could -- and people in the community stepped up and more than matched that loan. we saved the company. we saved many of the jobs. one of the