Transcripts For CSPAN Today In Washington 20101004

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> white house spokesman robert gibbs will hold a briefing today. he'll lightly touch on the recent departure of chief of staff rahm emmanuel, we'll have that live for you at 1:00 p.m. eastern. here on c-span. later we'll have more campaign 2010 coverage for you with a debate between candidates hoping to replace retired republican senator voinovich. also here on c-span. our coverage of campaign 2010 will continue at 8:00 with three more debates. first the race to be the next congressman from new hampshire's first district. an hour later the focus is on the oregon governor's race. and finally we'll show you a debate between the candidates for connecticut's next senator replacing christopher dodd. the c-span networks, it provides coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history. it's all available to you on television, radio, online, and on social media networking sites and find our content any time through c-span video library. we take c-span on the road with our digital bus and local content vehicle. bringing our resources to your community. it's washington your way. the c-span networks. now available in more than 100 million homes. created by cable, provided as a public service. >> a look now at changes in leadership in north korea from today's "washington journal." in continues. >> john par isith the u.s. institute of peace where he's a senior research associate focusing on northeast asia. thk you for joining us. guest: thank you. host: big development last week when ruler kim jong il named his son as a four-star general and we finally got a glimpse of this young man. tell us what you gleaned from that? guest: we have been anticipating something called the party conference. it was originally scheduled for early september but delayed. the speculation that it was either due to the floods in north kariya or kim junge ill's house but eventually did happen . he is maysry character. until it was released there were no official photos. we were basically dealing with the anuncement. i think we have to keep in mind that in addition to the military ramificions, the north economy is heavily militaryized so being a four-star general has you in -- rts sort of hard to imagine not seeing an image of kim jong il's son. you mentioned kim jeong moon is 27 years old, we think. we're not entirely sure. how are they so secretive about the family? guest: it's amazing. with respect to the inner circle of the family, they are cocooned and the security apparatus is very much geared towards making sure they are very well protecve. we have to make sure that the eldest, kim unge un and the youngest by many points of view the successor, the official successor, they were all educated abroad, trained during the early years. so tse three sons are simply of a mystery and enigma. host: why educate them overseas? does it seem like a mark of their intelligence or seen as maybe something that's a little bit questionable because it is relying on an outside influence? guest: a lot of watcrs view that as a very effective way to protect the sons. another explanation source is looking at the sons being educated abroad as a way to groom them as leaders of a new generation, hopefully a korea that will be more integrated with the international system. there is explanation of y they were educated abroad. when they did come back the father made sure they were educated in north korean universities? host: tell us about the rest of the family and also kim junge ill's sister? -- kim junge il's sister? -- kim jung ill's sister? guest: they suffered an event with their mother passing away. he's reported to only rely on his sister. en he suffered a stroke in august of 2008, he relied very heavily on his sister and many believe that she was a big power broker behind her father -- home run brother was convow lessing but also working closely withler other brother. host: why have other men's of the family who are in that older generation elevated at this point? how much faith is given to this son and how independent can he be? itertainly seems like he will be advised and guided for the next few years. guest: you have to remember he's all of 27 or 28 years old. when we look at the poignant of his aunt and uncle, i think it's very important to view them as something as a cocoon and in that cocoon he would grow in the leadership role. host: john park and we are talking about north korea. republican, 202-737-0001, democrats, 202-737-0002, and independent callers, 202-628-0205. we'll get to your calls in a moment but there is rumors that kim jung il's health is not good. we don't know nearly much about him as many north korea watchers would like to. guest: correctly. what we know about his health is something we've pieced together as well as media reports, japanese media, in particular, has been covering him for a number of years. so piecing those reports together he's suffering from diabetes, has been suffering from that ailment for a long riod of time. as i mentioned earlier in earlier of 2008 he had quite a severe stroke. so he was out of action and out of the scenes for a few months. and the was a lot of explanation of whether he was actually dead or incapacitated and the decision of a nuclear state. north korea views itself as a nuclear state. there was a lot of concern. and the notion that the country was involved in trying to make sure there was a safe dealing with the passing of kim jonk ill, there was a lot of -- kim jong il, there was a lot of meetings that they were trying to discuss this. so there was a great dealf receipt sense on the part of the government. north korea has been described as the black box of information. but interestingly now they're a group of defectors in sth korea, some of whom used to work in these north korea trading companies. you're hea and able to piece together a system that's involved quite a lot of kim jong il and the pagging of his father. another is a look at what government officials are looking for because the career workers party has a very close relationship and that's something we monitor closely. host: let's hear from arie from san francisco on our independent line. caller: i wanted to understand more clearly why we view -- why the u.s. views north korea as such a dangerous country when the u.s. views nuclear weapons against another civilization? guest: that's a very important question. if you look at a lot of the formulations of the government when it comes to threat perception, i'd say the biggest concern is that noirt korea, having -- north korea, having produc plutonium is now a source of concern when it comes to command and control, who is corolling that material? if north korea is in desperate straits, will they try to sell it or if there is an instability problem, how might that material get out of the country and potentially in the hands of terrorists? so if you view it from that angle there is more of the clear and present danger. the traditiona assessments is based on the delivery systems and many intelligence agencies believe that north korea is far away from weaponizing, actually miniaturizing a warhead. host: recent story in "the financial times," they plan to strengthen rather than abannedan their nuclear diterrence in the face of the u.s., the foreign vice minister told the u.n. recently. so what is there -- what do we know about their reasoning and their ideas and goals about having nuclear power? guest: there are a lot of theories out there. i think one of the dominant views is north korea, before launching into period of negotiations, launches a lot of these type of threats. and if we see the north korean negotiating record, by elevating these tensis, their hope is to perhaps enter into a more favorable bargaining situation. but for many outsiders, when you look at the situation with an unstable pleerp with its very early succession, probably going -- leadership with its very early succession going to the very young son, it's probably not that strong. host: democratic caller. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning. i have a question. the third son is the heir apparent. do we anticipate or think there would be a power struggle after kim jong il dies? i'm really interested in that because history shows that the is constantly a power struggle when a leader dies. guest: that is a question on the minds of many leaders not only here in washington but in asia as well. right now kim jong il's situation is one where there's at the very big concern. as i mentioned, looks like the idea is to form a cocoon, a collective leadership with the aunt and the uncle playing a very important role and giving enough time and space for the third son to be groomed and for him to learn the ropes as if were. but frankly that is the plan. as we know with plans they can go wrong. and so we're looking very closely at the different moves within the power elites in pong i don't think. we -- pyongyang. if these trading companies are falling under certainly leadership, it may be indicative that that group advising. it's good to read it in a more substantive manner. host: john park is part of the u.s. institute of feas where he focuses on europe andsia. we have a question from twitter. why do china and russia insist on supporting them? guest: iran is a ry unique country for north korea. there is a great deal of cooperation, specifically on long range missile development. i think the point is iran launches a long range missile, you have to treat it as north korea launching a long-range missile. there is a lot of information sharing, it looks ke. with respect to the broader cooperation between the two countries, there's nothing that binds them, ideological, ethnicity, those things don't have a match. it looks like both countries have a focus of greater amounts of sanctions and scrutiny by the international community to change their behavior, they're depraun and compelled to cooperate more. host: ti kp in kentucky. good morning, tim. caller: gd mornin how well are you? host: we're well, thank you. caller: i have a question. i know they haven't maybe, you know, been watching it closely. we're always talking aut north korea is a totalitarian dictatorship. but if they're always looking for maybe nuclear, biological, something like that, but more of a conventional attack? have they really checked and seemed like the 38th parallel, you know, le in the korean conflict? and what will be the guards to make sure there wasn't more like a conventional, you know, invasion, maybe south korea, something again, a repeat of history because, you know, a lot of times when -- we know with leaders like that and sometimes that instead of going with what they do they're so secretive that they may go a different route and thank you for taking my question. guest: tim, there is a great deal of concern that there can be miscalculations with north korea. i would say one way to address your question is with north korea there is a great deal of uncertainty already before the leadership success announcement and this whole notion that kim jong un would be groomed. with them trained on seoul and also heavily militaryized d.m.z. where you have over a million man situation facing each other, this is something where it can be volatile. i'd return to this combination of miscalculation and atmosphere of greater uncertainty and all the mor reason why i think the government is paying combra attention. with the secretary of state for east asian and pacific affairs, campbell, and leon panetta, are trying to read the tea leaves of what happened with this leadership conference and this succession. guest: having a younger generation start to be groom and take -- host: having a younger generation start to be groomed to fake power, is there diplomacy or making enroads? we know he went to a swiss boarding school at least for a little while. has there been a look into relationships he's had with westerners? guest: one hopes there is a greater emphasis on the new leadership group, there may be opportunities -- excuse me -- to engage them. i think we have to look in a comparative way of what the united states is doing and doing what the chinese have been doing. it's one based on north korea coming back to the six-party talks and living up to their obligations under the six-party talks. there is an agreement cald the september, 2005, joint statement that all six countries, the two koreas, the united states, russia, china and japan signed that north korea stops in the implementation side of that agreement sometime in the early farther of 2009. and so we see the situation where there's a great deal of concern with its current leadership generation iat. i would quickly note with the chinese, they've been engaging the north koreans through this party-to-party meck anythings and president hew onto you looks forward to -- mechanism and the president looks to this party-to-party relationship. host: let's hear from john, democratic caller. good morning, john. call: good morning. just two quick questions. what did the son study overseas? what was his course work like, was it economics, foreign repolice stations? and second question, does china or do you per receive that china -- perceive that china sees north korea a future threat to stability? and will there ever bea chance of north korea turning on china? guest: john, thank you very much. kim jung un' looked like a regular curriculum as a high school student. it is documented that he had learned foreign languages, european languages. so this aspect of being a little more cosmopolitan than others in his family is focused count korea is that seen as a strength or liability remains to be seen. the second point abou china. china has viewed northorea as an instability variable in the way they look at northeast asia. they've been trying to deal in a concerted manner to stabilize north korea and facilitate a situation where north korea can underfake reform and opening. but the fact is with the chinese-north korean relationship, it's a very suplex one. when we see a senior chinese officials meeting with pyongyang and meeting with his counterparts, it has a relationship with allies and alliance that looks quite enduring. there are many fractured areas. what the chinese is trying to do is steer north korea away from their focus on nuclear weapons development and more on economic development. the chinese it appears that they're pursuing what the progressive governments europe did in 2000, the whole notion of sunshine policy. so with the chinese pursuing this engagement aspect, we have to start wondering, what does this mean, what are the implications for denuclearization? because it looks like in a chinese-north korean relationship, it's not linked to this deepening economic developmentctivity. host: let's go to democrat line, fayetteville, north carolina. go ahead. caller: hi. i need your help on explaining something to me. i know there's onc in our history where north korea, north vietnam, now paktan and iran was our friends. what happens that we always have the problem of turning our friends into our enemies? help me out there, please. i know about marie and i was in korea and all that. explain wh we had a good relationship with north korea, what happened there, please. guest: with respect to north korea, the united states has basically had an adversaryial relationship from the very beginning. there was hopes as a divided korean peninsula developed after the end of japanese colonial rule in 1945 that electis would eventually see the foughtering of a north korea. what we saw in a boston-world war ii period is --ost-world war ii period is where they had the soviets over the 38th parallel and the southern part with a great deal of support with the american military government we see the beginning of the division of the korean peninsula. it's in 1950 after months of efforts by kim il sung, the young leader of north korea seeking support from stalin and mao to basically reunify the korean peninsula that we see the beginning of the korean war. so unfortunately there has been no peace between the united states and north korea in a technical sense as well as a literal sense. but with the efforts in the six-party talks, the hope is that negotiations would form the basis of a peace regime, a peace treaty. nylly the resolution of a situation -- eventually the resolution of a situation of a peaceful north and south. but at the end of the six-party talks, it's frozen. efforts are under way to try to restart it. but the future of the six-party talks remains uncertain. host: our guest, john park, is a senior research associate at the u.s. institute of peace. he co-directs the institute's korea working group -- rather, you direct that workin group. you're co-director of the u.s.-china crisis. a little bit about mr. park's background. he holds a ph.d. from cambridge university and did predoctorial for science and international affairs at harvard kennedy school. let's get back to your calls. richard, independent line in massachusetts. good morning caller: good morning. i -- talk about north korea with the nuclear facilities and stuff. i can't see why we just can't have like a group of people from north korea and a group of people from the united states sit down and talk instead of taking -- the united states, they want to bring on four, five more countries to talk with them. we're the ones who are worried about being attacked by all ese people. you know, that's what gets me aggravated. we blackall everybody and then we wonder why everybody hates us. guest: well, richard, with respect to what you're advocating this idea of engaging north korea, there have been numerous attempts on a bilateral as well as a multilateral basis. and so we see things likehe 1994 u.s.-north korea framework that was concluded under the clton administration. in terms of implementati, you know, certainly there was a stop and go dynamic to it all. from there we move on to the six-party talks. we've had successive rounds of those and various agreements. as many the north korea watchers would point, implementation is tricky to do. there are many agreements that countries have signed with north korea. but the implementation record is quite weak. so when it comes to an evaluation of who's at fault, there's a healthy group that points to north koreaa and the lack implement- north korea and the lack of implementation and others blaming other countries because of lack of policy. we're in a situation where with the six-party talks, as i mentioned earlier, there is a september, 2005, agreement that lays the foundation of accords that were signed with north korea. but the current state of it is north cree c.i.a. not coming back to the talks -- north korea is not coming back to the talks. host: the "financial times" talks about the -- the reporter, christian oliver in seoul writes leadership of north korea could be a coury of chalice. it's so hard to know because we don't know too much about the family and the son, kim jung un but how likely is it that the family retain control and how much of a sense do we have that the family's really interested but a sides kim jong il maintaining the dynasty that he established because it was his father's as well? guest: pointing out that this dynasty has undergone a lot of transformation under kim jong il. when kim jeong sung passed away, the elites were privileged, it was a one-state type of country where the elites did benefit from that structure. under kim jong il, they're noting that he created a two tier economy. a royal economy and a general econy. the reports we hear of the general economy, the currency reform of november of last year being a disaster causing hyperinflation and difficulties for the people, those point to a gentlemen economy that isn't well administered. but frankly if you look at it from the perspective survival of the kim jong il leadership and regime really depends on the health of the royal pal ace economy so with this type of elite economy there is a big emphasis on how these trading companies are run. it is linked to the korean workers party as well as the military. what looks like a succession platform put in place for kim jung un', the focus on running north korean, incorporated. so with the difficulties and certainly the challenges of leadership on a stand-alone basis i think north korea would have undergone tremendous fuents and perhaps the brink of collapse. but the role of china in all of this, it looks like a bailout hub of their counterparts across the border there. so the situation n is one where the workers party of korea, is receiving a tremendous amount of assistance from the communist party of china, both in terms of political capital in support of this new regime structure that is getting ever more solidified as well as this whole notion of helping north korean, incorporated out. host: jack from new orleans, good morning. you are on with john park from e u.s. institute of peace. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have a two-party questn. has there been any explanation over whether the presumed succession of kim jung un might accelerate the reunification efforts on either side of the border? and my second question is, are there elements within south korea that have openly questioned reunification is really in the best practical interest of the south given the size of the project they may be taking on? guest: sure, jack, with respect to the first question, this whole notion of the succession process in north korea is such an early stage that priority is intern consolidation. and within north korea there is a big emphasis on the year 2012. it will mark the 100th anniversary of the founder, the 70th anniversary of the birth of kim jong il, the current leader, and the 30th anniversary of kim jung un within the 2012 year there is a formula in north korea called a strong and prosperous nation being unveiled in 2012. the strong part is an area where the north korean elites feel they accomplished. and october of 2006 and may of 2009 are a clear indication for the elites that they are a nuclear weapon state. . we'll see what happens after 2012. with respect to your second question, there is a great deal of concern in south korea that reunification would be very costly and traumatic for south korea. the south korean government and people look very closely what happened to the german unification situation. if you look at one particular statistic, there was a 4-1 ratio in the german case, in the instance where the economy was four times larger than -- my apologies, when the costs that were assumed by west germany were in the area of 4-1. when you look at a similar type of calculus it's a 10-1 ratio. the population would have to sustain for reunification situation. many prefer the gradual approach. host: we talked earlier about king jung ill's appointment -- he's become a four star general, did he have any military thing before that? what do we refer to that as? promotion? do we know if he was involved in the military? there is a standard all men do have to serve in the military in north korea. do we know what he's done so far? has done so far? >> he was enrolled in the north korean military university. there were rumors that he had received a title as the brilliant lieutenant. there were other promotions alonthe way, but when you hear the big focus on the "brilliant ieutenant" -- transportation and trading activities are controlled by the military. it is the role played by the generals. they are also big actors. one way to also look at that is that as a president or ceo of a subsidiary of going into a leadership role. it is on the job type of experience. >> there is tension between the ideology and the military. >> there are concerns. with something like the party conference, i think it is impoant to look at the deals made beforehand. given the level of interaction with the chinese, the chinese leadership most likely got wind of the independence before hand. it is a product of a lot of deal making. a lot of question. is the united states giving serious consideration to pulling guest: thank you very much. with respect to your first question, u.s. troops have in fact moved away from the 30th parallel. the de mille tarized zone -- demilitarized zone. that's completely controlled and manned by the south korean military. this is part of an overall movement and realignment of u.s. troops away from u.s. military camps scattered around south korea to centralized area camp humphreys. about an hour and a half south of seoul. eventually the u.s. military headquarters in downtown seoul will also move to camp humphreys. with respect to your second question how this will impact korean relations and prospects going forward, in the initial move of those troops, there was a lot of concern from north korea, we saw that through their official statement, that this is a prelude to some kind of attack. that the movement of u.s. troops away from this area which was traditionally called the troop wire, cleared the way for military action on north korea. there are others who view this is a positive sign and also a reflection of a very mature u.s.-south korean alliance. where the south koreans are increasingly in a greater leadership role. eventually in april of 2015, according to current plans, there will be something called up con transfer, where operational control will go to south korean military. if war to break out, south korean troops would come upped the command of the u.s. general there. so there have been movements and changes, but with a lot of these movements you can see how statements come out on either side of being a very positive development or negative development. a positive development or a negati development. host: he directs the career working group. you can give us a call and talk with him. kevin is up next in pittsburg on our independent line. you spoke earlier of a alliance between north korea and another country. you said that they have allied on economic development. are you in agreement that u.s. foreign-policy encourages terrorism? guest: it is a delicate question. with respect to u.s. policy there is a clear goal. with respect to thearlier comment that i made, the two countries have been sending technicians back and forth, monitoring the tests. in fact, there have been failed shipmes of north korean missile components to iran. with respect to u.s. policy, there is an effort right now to make sure that iran does not make the -- does not become the next nuclear power. there is the feeling that sanctions done in the proper way with close coordination with friends and allies may help us to chge iranian behavior and that help them move away from nuclear weapon development. the north korea connection, that is one whe the two countries seemed to focus the policies and find a way to cooperate. you can as syria to this connection. most of the defectors we have been able to interview point to the fact that the north korean, iranian, syrian transactions had been the oldest and the most enduring. -- most enduring. >> caller: with our tight economic ties with china, does north korea not realize that if they step on us, china might step on them? guest: there has been a great deal of focus on chinese influence in the north. other countries need to monitor rate -- other countries need to moderate their behavior. if we were to seal the border today, we would have a lining up of two chinese lines on the chinese side of the border. that is very important to chinese energy security and the three provinces bordering north korea. they are among the poorest in china. from the chinese perspective, having to do through the economic development relationship with the north korean provinces is very important. it is an economic tool of cutting ties, trade, and aid. there is a great deal of concern right now that the level of cooperation is such that that kind of impact would be difficult. host: has the aba mus approach been similar to the bush administration? -- cal has the obama administration's approach been similar to the bush administration? guest: in the process of implementing those, north korea seems to be the ones living up to their obligations. with respect to the emphasis on the six-party talks process, there is a great deal of continuity. there is also a great deal of eight continuity on economic sanctions. an executive order will basically put a lot of emphasis on the notion that companies that do business with noh korea is essentially can be cut off for the united states and the international community at large. what area of change, i would say, is looking at the focus of what will happen in north korea. that is always the change variable. all of the parties are very vigilant host: let us go to thomas in baltimore. caller: my question is the european members of the six- party talks and what kind of impact they have had on the reason negotiations over the past couple of years. we rarely hear of their involvement. guest: the european union is not an official member of the six- party talks. the countriesnvolved are the twooreas, china, russia, the united states, and japan. the overall goal is the peaceful demilitarization of the peninsula. we have seen how these delegations consulted from time to time on the progress with this overall goal in mind. they are very supportive of this effort. there is a big concern about human rights in north korea, but the eu is not currently a former member -- is not currently a member. guest: caller: does the u.s. predict that there might be a change in the top military leadership of the national defense commission or the north korean army, specifically maybe be stepping down of the general who is thought to be one of the most powerful man? what do you think? guest: rhester much. one quick point. the position of president no longer is available for anyone to take over. when his son died, he was the president. the constitution was revised in the 1990's to reflect that he would essentially be the eternal president. there will be no successor in terms of a north korean president. when it comes to the leader of north korea, it is the chairman of the national defence commission. it became a vehicle for power following the death of his father in 1994. we saw a lot of this in the 1990's. with respect to the training companies, the more profitable ones are affiliated under the nbdc. what we saw as a party conference in 2008 was the rehabilitation of the korean workers' party. the delegates to arrived -- some of them had died. the amazing thing in north korea is that the generals did not retire no matter how old they are. with respect to the rise and fall of certain groups, these power centers can be monitored, but i take there has traditionally been a block. can perhaps monitor in a little more detail. host: have you been able to cross the border? guest: i get a few times a year. i would to a copp's two years back. the north korean message to our group was that they only wanted south korean nationalists on this tour. unfortunately, the others in our delegation, we did not have the chance to go. these are unofficial gatherings where government officials interact with others. host: the dumbest thing about try to understand or to react? guest: when information does come out, the whole question is why it happened. when we look at something like the communist party of china interacting with the workers' party of korea, these are deals that have been announced. >> coming up later today, white house briefing with spokesman robert gibbs. we expect him to field questions on chief of staff rahm emmanuel's departure next week. we are planning to carry that live for you. later we'll have more on campaign 2010 coverage for you with a debate between candidates hoping to replace retiring republican ohio senator, george voinovich. that's live at 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. and our coverage of campaign 2010 continues at 8:00 with three more debates. first, the race to be the next congressman from new hampshire's first district. an hour later the focus is the oregon governor's race. finally, we'll show you a debate between kentucky's next senator replacing retiring democrat christopher dodd. "the hill" newspaper today has a story about democrats fighting back against millions of dollars in ads spending by conservative friendly third party groups. the democrats believe threaten to drown out their campaign message for the coming midterm elections. senate finance committee chair democrat max baucus written a letter to the i.r.s. looking into groups for americans for prosperity and jobs security are in compliance with the federal tax code. the issue is whether the nonprofit groups are primarily engaged in political activity under federal law groups primary purpose cannot be political if they wish to maintain their tax exempt status and keep their donors anonymous. we have more campaign 2010 coverage now with the debate between new hampshire's senate candidates, republican state attorney general kelly iat, and democrat congressman paul hodes. this took place september 22 at the studios of new hampshire public radio. monitored by the host of the radio program "the exchange." the new hampshire union leader, and public television, as well as the business and industry association of new hampshire. who organized this debate. the american research group poll released september 27 shows ait leading hodes. this debate is courtesy of new hampshire public tv and radio. >> public radio, this is the candidate forum on business and the economy. sponsored by lincoln financial group and produced in partnership with the new hampshire business and industry association. new hampshire union leader. new hampshire public radio. and new hampshire public television. >> hello, everyone. welcome to the candidate forum on business and the economy. i'm laura canoy host of the exchange on new hampshire public radio, we are coming to you from studio d here at our concord studios. for the next hour the two candidates for u.s. senate will engage in a discussion about some of the major economic issues facing us all today. we will press them to talk about what they would do as members of the u.s. senate and refrain from spending valuable time attacking each other. and now let me introduce our candidates. they are former attorney general and republican kelly aia. and democratic congressman paul hodes. our panelists are john destazo and phil vaughn from new hampshire public television. we talked yesterday -- tossed the coin yesterday to see who would receive the first question. that goes to kelly. we begin with john. >> good morning. the state office of economic stimulus recreptly reported that through june 30 the state has spent about 58% of $613 million it's received in stimulus grants. and that's since the beginning of the program about 8,300 jobs have been created or saved. there was another 313 million received for contracts and loans. do you believe these jobs figures are real and can be attributable to the stimulus, and doesn't this show that the expenditure was actually a worthwhile investment? >> well, john, the problem with the stimulus package is it's not the government that's going to create jobs in this country. it's our small businesses. it's the private sector. and many of the so-called jobs created under the stimulus were essentially temporary jobs, government jobs. not private sector growth. and -- we are a member after small business family. my husband has a landscaping business. in my view the stimulus when you look at where we are in this country, we have lost 2.5 million jobs since that stimulus package was passed. it was a big government funded program, but it didn't allow the growth in the private sector. the best thing we can do in the private sector is really to cut taxes for businesses, to create a positive climate for our businesses. rather than these jobs which are temporary and again the cost of the government administering it was not an efficient use of our taxpayer dollars to stimulate the private sector. >> do you believe, then, there is any responsibility of the government to spend more, to create jobs, especially in the private sector? or is it more of a get out of the way, less government? there must be some role for the government in terms of additional help. >> the role of the government is to create pro-growth policies that allow our businesses to thrive. and that's through tax climate that lower taxes on our businesses. regulatory climate where they can go out and create and expand their businesses. there is a role for government but it's not in creating the jobs. it's the small businesses that are going to create the jobs. just an example from the recent health care bill, that bill contains a requirement that every brings now file a 1099 form for goods purchased over$600. that's an example where the government passed regulation that is make it more difficult for our small businesses. so the role for the government is actually to create a positive climate so our business can create jobs in this country. >> thank you. congressman, what do you think about these job figures? it comes out to nearly $74,000 in stimulus grant money per job. is that a worthwhile taxpayer investment? >> it was certainly necessary to stabilize an economy that was in absolute free fall. we have a house of cards economy on a foundation of sand that got swept away. at the time the recovery act was passed, we lost almost four million jobs, the financial markets were locked, the economy was in free fall. so nobody wanted to make those investments, but it had to be done. it was an emergency situation. in fact some of the good things that happened were the recovery act gave middle class families the biggest tax cut in history, $500,000 -- 500,000 in new hampshire folks got $300 million in tax cuts. it created jobs, and saved jobs for teachers and firefighters. today there is a teacher at the school in manchester, she's teaching our kids, thanks to the recovery act. there are thousands like her all across the country and all across the state. so there's a lot more work to be done. we got to deal with our deficits and cut wasteful spending. we've got to make sure that we build the middle class on a firm foundation. and we've got to invest in our small businesses. we've got to give them the tax help they need. my opponents say, i have some policy disagreements, she believes that tax cuts for shipping jobs overseas will create jobs. but i believe that we need to stop tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. we need to make sure that small businesses have the tax help they need right here in new hampshire to create jobs because our small businesses are the backbone of our economy here. >> what's your personal formula or balance point for investments such as this versus deficit? should there be, for instance, another so-called stimulus? >> i think it's critical that we walk and chew gum at the same time, john. we have a long-term deficit crisis and immediate jobs crisis. in order to build the middle class, on a firm foundation, first we've got to deal with wasteful pork spending. and i think that washington has some real disconnect about what's going on. i voted against the wall street bailout, for example, because i didn't think it focused enough on small businesses and helping people who were in foreclosure. and that's where the focus really needs to be. so in cutting wasteful spending, we need to cut the tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas because small businesses here in new hampshire need them. we need to make sure that the tax breaks for the wealthiest americans, which would cost $700 billion to the deficit, which my opponents says i support, are not perpetuated. we can't afford that to our deficit. it would double, it would basically double the deficit. we can't afford to do that. we got to cut wasteful spending. i proposed cuts all over the board. i have give up earmarks, $15 billion. i proposed that we hold the line on correctionary spending and bring back the gramm rudman budget controls. i say take all the wall street bailout money and put it back in to reduce the deficit. that's where we need to go first and create the policies that grow our middle class. >> thank you. >> if i could just quickly follow up. and get a response. you said that kelly ayotte favors tax cuts to encourage companies to shift jobs overseas. real quickly, what is that? >> miss ayotte has signed on to a tax pledge that says she won't change the tax code and she has espoused policies that say that the wealthiest taxpayers should continue to get tax breaks. the cost of those tax breaks for just the top 2%, who have enjoyed great growth while the middle class has been clobbered, is $700 billion. for companies that ship jobs overseas, current tax law would allow them to defer at the same time in taxes on that income and actually, actually allows them to deduct the expenses of shipping jobs overseas. and the result is that a company like exxonmobil doesn't pay any taxes or minimum taxes here in the united states for access to the greatest market in the free world. >> our panelists have questions about the tax cuts. i did want to get on that specific. >> we have to shift that and make sure that we are providing the help for small businesses here in new hampshire. >> do you favor tax cuts for businesses that ship jobs overseas? >> this is -- what congressman hodes says is false. what i have said is no tax increases on our businesses. unlike congressman hodes, he wants to increase taxes on people here in new hampshire. including our small business owners because that's who those tax increases are going to impact. and the tax increases that he wants to impose as the economists said yesterday, at the manchester forum, is $300 million hit on new hampshire. those tax increases are going to impact half of the business income in this country. including many of our small business owners, the entrepreneurs in this country that create jobs. so his policies are actually going to hurt our economy. we will lose jobs in new hampshire because he wants to increase taxes. i have been very clear. i don't want to increase taxes on businesses. i want to decrease taxes. in fact, we have the highest, second highest corporate tax rate in the world. many of our corporations locate elsewhere because we have not created a positive climate. >> we'll get more into the taxes in a moment. for that tax cut for jobs overseas, you're saying, you don't. >> absolutely false. i want to make sure that we don't increase taxes on businesses and we keep jobs here by creating a positive tax climate. >> i need to hand it back to my colleague phil. >> mr. hodes, the bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire at the end of the year. president obama would like to extend those tax cuts except for individuals earning $200,000 a year or more and couples earning $250,000 a year or more. do you support the extension and how it would create jobs? >> given the problem with the deficit that we were left by policies that gave those tax breaks in the first place, i mean the bush tax cuts drove us into deficits along with the failure to regulate wall street adequately and aluge wall street to run wild, we can't go back to those policies. we simply cannot. we had a balanced budget in the federal surplus in the year 2000. when obama took office a $1.3 trillion deficit. we've got to deal with it in a fiscally responsible way. it is simply reckless, it's fiscally irresponsible to allow the tax breaks for the top 2%, where all the wealth has gone while the middle class has been clobbered, to continue. that's $700 billion. in fact, my opponent has favored policies that would extend all of the bush tax cuts. in fact she signed on to make them perfect. that would double the deficit. it would double the deficit. we can't afford to do that. that's not fiscally conservative. that's not fiscally responsible. so we've got to end the tax breaks for the top 2%. now, i disagree with some of the economic policies of the administration. i think that we need to give a greater exemption on the inheritance tax, for instance. it's critical that our small businesses, our families farms not be penalized. i favor $5 million and $10 million exemption with a lower tax rate on and after that. i think it is appropriate, especially when middle class families have been clobbered this hard, to extend for a period of time some tax help as we did in the recovery act and as i have supported. >> how would the extension, as you would support, create jobs? >> what's really important is to make sure that we are putting money in the pockets of people who will spend it. if you give tax breaks to the very wealthiest, one thing is clear, they hold on to it. they don't spend that money into the economy. when we give tax breaks and tax help to the middle class, recovery act did, you can see the impact. it comes into the economy. part of our problem right now in this very, very fragile recovery is that the structural deficiencies of too much debt mean that the middle class really has been left without some of the buying power we need to help propel the recovery. so by making sure that we extend the middle class tax cuts, we give them the power, middle class folks, the power to spend in our economy and help propel the recovery while we put in place the important fundamentals, the foundation of prosperity for the middle class. clean energy, health care, education, smart grid, broadband , infrastructure, and make those investments while the middle class can rebuild. >> thank you, congressman. to kelly. >> same question. do you support the extension? and address job creation and the plan you support. >> let's talk about congressman hodes' sudden desire to reduce the deficit. since he got into office the deficit has increased 525%. it's gone from $248 billion to $1.5 trillion. since he got into office the national debt has increased from $8 trillion to $13 trillion. last year alone in 2009, he voted for 9,000 earmarks. so when we hear about reducing the deficit, his actions as a congressman has been to vote for more and more spending and higher deficits for all of us. and now he also wants to increase taxes on our business creators in this country and our job creators. because those tax increases are going to impact half of the business income in this country, including here in new hampshire as three economists talked about yesterday at the manchester chamber of commerce meeting, all agree we should not raise taxes right now which is what he would like to do. that would be a $300 million hit here on new hampshire and will impact many of our small business >> would you extend for all? >> i would. basically if we do not keep taxes stable right now we are going to see an increase in january in capital gains, interest, dividends, reinstatement of the death attacked an increase in personal income taxes and those increases in taxes, make no mistake, they heard the small business owner. $300 million hit to people in new hampshire. >> of the congressional budget office predicts -- the congressional budget office predicts it is better to retire the tax exemption for the wealthy and send that money to states for aid. how do you respond to that? >> i think the best approach is to keep more capital in our small business owners pocket so they can expand their businesses and put more people back to work, rather than creating bigger government. again, the three economists who met yesterday all agreed here in new hampshire is the best move is to not increase taxes. i feet deep -- thing keeping the money in the private sector, more efficient use of our dollars to make sure we can create more jobs is the way to go. we are a small business state and these tax increases will hit our small-business owners. >> if i could follow up for a second. what is clear is there is a clear difference between us. but let's be really clear about what we just heard. ms. ayotte says she wants to extend all of the tax cuts that president bush put in office. everybody agrees that that would double our deficit. we can't afford to double the deficit. and it really is surprising that i am attacked by saying i would include -- increase the deficit but the policy she espouses would double the deficit. we need to stop the tax breaks for the rich and would need to invest the money and helping the states and our small businesses. on that we agree. we need to help small businesses. we can't do what we need to do to rebuild the middle class and help small businesses if we are doubling the deficit. that is absolutely clear. >> moving on to health care. >> there is a recent survey that indicates that rising health-care costs remains a top concern. you said you would repeal current health-care law. why? >> the health care bill was a trillion dollars government takeover of the health care system. this is an area where congressman hodes and i definitely disagree. because as a result of the health-care bill that was passed, cms within the federal government, center for medicaid services, is already talking about the premium increases that our businesses will see as a result of that bill. not to mention that it will also add to our deficit. in addition to that, i talked about earlier some of the regulatory requirements of that bill. at the new 1099 requirement that imposes on the small businesses, and the tax increases on at businesses here in new hampshire. we have 55 medical device companies here in new hampshire. one of the highest per-capita rates -- they create great jobs. i visited them on the campaign trail. and the new taxes in this health care bill will take roughly one- third of their research and development budget. that will further hurt employment but also we are seeing premium increases because this bill does not address the cost of health care. i am part of a small business family. i have been traveling around the state. so many small-business owners have expressed concerns about the cost of health care. we should allow private market reforms that will actually address the health care costs, that is not in this bill. >> you proposed some reforms that sound similar -- purchase pulling and electronic records and so forth. do you believe in scrapping the entire lot or amending it? >> i think on the health care bill, we have to start over. because if you look at what was passed -- again, $1 trillion healthcare, the government taking over health care. it is not the right approach to mandate individuals and businesses tax penalties. what we need to do -- private market reforms, open of the insurance market and allow small businesses to get better rates by pulling together, and toward reform so that physicians do not have to practice defensive medicine. they will reduce costs. the congressional budget office said that if we passed toward reform measures, that we could save close to $50 billion over 10 years to reduce health-care costs. those measures are not being put forward in this bill and this bill is the wrong approach. >> mr. hodes? >> u.s.-supported the health care reform with the public option. why is the public option necessary? >> what was important was to bring down health-care costs over the long term. the health care costs in the private sector and for government, which pays about 50% of all the cost of the country through medicare, medicaid, veterans, military, would clobber us further and sink deficits. we had to address the soaring cost of health care. ms. ayotte is repeating sort of a partisan phrases about trillion dollar takeover. nothing could be further from the truth. there has been a lot of misinformation. in fact, the health care reform uses private insurance companies and gives people access to the same health insurance that members of congress and the senate have, something i said we ought to do. there is no reason why the american public should not have the same access to health insurance as any member of congress for the senate has. that is critical. as the reform comes in, the small businesses who have not been able to effectively pull together to get insurance will be able to pull together in exchanges, negotiate with private insurance companies and as a member of the senate i will be the exact same pool. we also stopped health insurance co. of uses. throwing people off when they get sick. preventing people with pre- existing conditions from getting insurance. tomorrow at the white house, a woman will be there with president obama. she is the first person in the country who will be able to sign up for the catastrophic program. she has cancer. she has a pre-existing condition. she can't get insurance. she is the first person to sign up for the program that will allow people with pre-existing conditions to have access to health insurance. that is right there in new hampshire. we had to stop the insurance company abuses. ms. ayotte wants to repeal the whole thing. it would raise taxes on small business and not sick kids out of the possibility of having access to doctors and take money out of the pockets of seniors who finally will get help to help pay for their prescriptions. it is the wrong approach. in the idea of repealing this reform is just the wrong way to go. there are plenty of things to fix, but we will do that as we go along. >> getting back to cost, this week many insurance providers increase premiums. does this law allow insurance companies to profit more and put more burden on the employer's? >> one thing that i thought could of been stronger would have been preventing those premium increases by the health insurance companies, which are still being done on a state-by- state basis. the premium increases by the health insurance companies are outrageous. they are an example of why the health reform, which will, in overtime, is absolutely necessary. without the health reform bill, which has provisions to make sure that the health insurance companies are spending the right amount on health care and not too much on administrative costs, and introduces competition with the pools for small businesses and the uninsured. they would have just kept going away they have been going, and it is time to put controls on health insurance companies. ms. ayotte would allow the health insurance companies to control our health care. i think what is important is that patients control health care. we need the security to make sure we are standing up to help insurance companies so they can throw us off when we get sick, they can't refuse to cover us, and ms. ayotte's plan will allow for people to be denied the protections that right now in new hampshire provides. when in getting mammograms, things like that -- women and getting mammograms. >> john, your question to mr. hodes? >> congressman, this is about labor unions. of the bureau of labor statistics reports there are about 2 million fewer members of labor unions and the u.s. then there were 15 years ago. and in 2009, only 7% of the private-sector work force where union members. why do you think there has been assessed -- such a precipitous drop in private sector membership, and if you think that is a problem, why is that a problem? >> one of the things we do notice is that our great industrial nation, in the second half of the last century, was built on the industrial foundation of world war ii, cheap energy, new highways, and significant manufacturing base. a significant manufacturing base that created middle-class prosperity, powered the economy. and over time, as our trade policies have allowed for our jobs to be shipped overseas where labor rates were cheap, no environmental controls, and as tax policies allow outsourcing of our jobs and actually provided incentives for companies to shift jobs overseas, the middle class has been clobbered and we have seen a decline in union membership and organized labor. i think the right of people to form unions and have a voice and a say is an important right and one that has helped create prosperity in this country. so, i think it is important that we make sure that there are provisions in place that helped support fair bargaining and fair labor standards. ms. ayotte, i think, espoused policies that would take us back to some other time when there was not that kind of right for fair labor standards, for people to form unions. i think there is a really good place in our society and building the middle-class for organized labor. >> you are a co-sponsor of the employee in a free choice act -- employee free choice act? what is wrong with keeping the secret ballot for unionization, as opposed to what some people say is a way for union boss intimidation and how would it help rebuild union strength in this country? >> john, actually what the employee free choice act does, it does not eliminate the secret ballot. what it does is it and the employer monopoly on how unions can be formed. right now essentially employers have a veto over the workers who may want to form a union. so, what this law would do is level the playing field, it would give an alternate means to form a union, one that is efficient and effective, and it would also stop abuses of all kinds, whether by labor unions or employers, abuses in the organizing framework. it ends the monopoly of employers. it creates fairness. it doesn't end at the secret ballot. it gives an alternate approach. i think choice is the essence of american society. it is something we cherish and care about. it puts choice into the organizing scenario and i think it is a good thing. >> ms. ayotte, is it ok that this is happening in terms of the labor union, the weakening of organized labor? why do you think it has happened, number one, and it is it actually something that is good for the economy or not? >> well, in terms of the employee free choice act which congressman hodes not only supports but is a sponsor of, let's be clear, it removes what i think it's a fundamental right of democracy, which is for people to go and confidentially decide to cast their vote, whether it is to be a member of a union or whether we go into the ballot box and decide who we are going to support. that bill takes away that right from workers and it is absolutely wrong. that bill is wrong in the approach as well because it essentially imposes mandatory arbitration between the employer and the employee, a third-party deciding with the contract is going to be. let us call it for what it is. we know congressman hodes is very supported by big labor in his campaign and that is why he has to be a co-sponsor of the employee free choice act. but it is a misnomer. it is not about free choice, it is about taking away workers and democratic rights in making a confidential vote. in terms of unions -- people should freely able to decide whether they want to join a union or not in this country and that bill really interferes with that right. another example of how congressman hodes has the support of policies that hurt employers' here in new hampshire, we had a project that was scheduled to come here to new hampshire and essentially he supported a project labor requirement -- labor agreement requirement on that, the federal department of labor, and the contractors who relatively were not unionized or not able to bid on it and it was out of state contractors building a job corps center in new hampshire. that is an example of his pandering to big labor rather than creating jobs here in new hampshire. >> what is your own view of the labor union? do you think, again, something whose time has passed essentially? should there be a rebuilding or restoring funding of the union, especially in this time where the union -- middle-class is having a difficult time? >> i think people, again, if workers in this country want to join a union, they should have a right to do that. that has always been based upon whether workers want to organize. certainly unions when they were important purpose in terms of worker safety. but again, this is an issue of whether workers want to join. but we need to make sure that we have pro-growth policies in place. we can't go so far as to take away people's confidence right to vote on whether to join a union, to pander to leaders of big labor. that does not help workers. >> fasten your seatbelts. we will turn to the lightning round. what happens is the panelists will ask a series of quick questions and we are looking for both of you to please provide equally quick and decisive response. in other words -- yes, no, dollar amounts. this allows us to get a lot of information in a short amount of time. we begin with phil for kelly ayotte. >> so long term employment compensation be extended again? >> i think at this point, if it is gone to the extended it should not be. if it is extended at all it should be paid for. unlike what has been passed. >> i think when people have been clobbered by policies that ms. ayotte's party supported, it is really critical that we help them, not leave them, leave them out in the cold. it is important to be fiscally responsible and it is important to help those who are unemployed. >> ms. ayotte, which is the minimum wage be and give a precise figure? >> demint -- minimum-wage right now was increased not too long ago. i pick it should remain what it is right now. -- think it should remain what it is. we should allow the private sector to grow jobs and allow the private sector and small businesses to go forward and create pro-growth policies for small businesses but i think it should remain what is right now. >> it took 30 years and a democratic congress to finally raise the minimum wage over republican opposition. that wage and needs to be adjusted for cost of living. and ultimately be a living wage to help lift people out of poverty and create opportunity and jobs. >> ms. ayotte, would you support legislation guaranteeing paid sick leave to employees? paid sick leave? >> i think that is certainly an issue that should be addressed by employers rather than mandated by the government. >> yes. >> ok. >> that was lightning fast. >> the u.s. census bureau report recently that in 2009 women still earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. is additional federal legislation needed to address wage discrimination in the workplace? >> one of the great things that has happened over time is the ability of governments to make sure that justice is done. i am proud to have supported the proposal that allowed women a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. and i think it is important that we equalize those disparities, as best when there are so many women working. >> ms. ayotte? >> i think that we have laws in place right now that address those issues. and certainly women and men who are performing the same job should be treated fairly. but again, that happens in the private sector and there are laws in place that address those issues. >> next to questions. >> should have social security retirement age be raised, and if so, to what age? >> i think that we should stop, number one, robbing the social security fund. and again, congressman hodes, when he was an office, has been voting again to increase deficits, robbing the social security fund. we need to maintain the social security for those who are relying on it right now and i would not support raising the age for those who are relying on social security or near seoul's security and are in the system right now. >> what about in the future? >> certainly when we look toward the future, for the young people in this country to make sure that this system is sustainable, then i think we should look at all ideas, including raising the age. but again, holding everyone in the system right now harmless who is relying on it. but if we do not address social security and in time, reform in this country, those programs will to be here for the younger generation. >> i think it is important that we preserve and strengthen social security. first, we can't privatize it, as ms. ayotte and her party suggests. it can't be done. we have to be fiscally responsible to make sure we are not use in social security as an atm. ms. ayotte opposed the deficit- reduction commission that senator gregg and conrad put in that would have proposed an up or down vote on bill the deficits including social security. i supported it and i support the presidential commission that will have answers in december. what i think about what the workers whose bodies are broken, we cannot afford to raise the age now. >> unless congress takes action, the estate tax would jump to 55% on all estates valued at $1 million. would you favor repeal? >> i think the death tax should not be reinstated because what that is going to do, is it hurts small businesses, it hurts family businesses and it is double taxation and i don't support it. >> what we need to do is find a reasonable level for the estate tax. i break with my party on that. i think the levels of to be 5 million individual, 10 million families with 35% tax rate after. it would make sure that about 99% of people have sufficient extensions. repealing the estate tax would deepen our deficit. it is fiscally reckless and absolutely irresponsible. we can't repeal it. >> one more round of lightning questions. if we can keep in the spirit of lightning, i would appreciate it. >> ms. ayotte, should the government subsidize -- continue to subsidize or further subsidize so-called green jobs? >> i don't believe the government should subsidize jobs. we should create a positive tax climate for all businesses. so if the research and development tax credits for example being extended, it should be extended to all businesses to allow the private sector to create jobs, not only green jobs, but red, white, and. >> green is the new red, white, and below. it is critical we move to clean energy. we ought to be number one. energy efficiency. i am proud that i was able to get the first tax credit for people to buy wood stoves, that supports forestry and logging here in new hampshire. if you call that a subsidy, i am for making sure we have the policies the place to move to a clean energy economy. >> last question. >> to bring passenger rail to the state, congressman, it would cost new hampshire a minimum of $250 million. is it worth the money? >> i think it is. it is important to relieve congestion in the highways, it is important to bring economic development into the state. i am proud to be able to work with the state department of transportation, federal department of transportation, to help a rail up to concord so we can expand economic activity. >> i certainly think that, for example, we should be finishing the project on 93 and focusing on making sure that the transportation funding from washington comes through and is used in a way that the states thinks is appropriate. and so, i think the state should be weighing in on these issues in terms of passenger rail. i don't know it is worth the amount of money we are putting in but i think completing 93 and some of the other projects may be greater priorities than that. >> thank you, john. we will change the pace and go to a different section. calling our moderator discussion where i will ask a broad question to both of you and facilitated discussion between you. it is an exchange of ideas about what you would do if elected to the u.s. senate. my first question is, i heard but did you describe yourself as fiscal conservatives on the campaign trail. to you first, ms. ayotte, then congressman hodes. what does it mean to you to be a fiscal conservative? and if you could give examples to clarify what you mean. >> of being a fiscal conservative means actually supporting -- being a fiscal conservative means action supporting policies where we will cut spending in washington and move toward a balanced budget, just like you do at home. when you think about your home budget, the bills cannot exceed the revenue coming in. congressman hodes, said he has gotten in congress, increased the deficit 525%. just last year he voted for 9000 earmarks. what i would do is cut back spending and i will ask every agency within the federal government to propose a 20% cut. we will not cut across the board but we've have congressional hearings and decide how to best administer those cuts on agencies -- on some will cut less, some cut more. to put us on a more fiscally sustainable path. no earmarks, unlike the 9000 that he voted for in 2009. we also need to make sure we stop growing the size of this government. i said months ago that we should have a hiring freeze within the federal government for non- essentials positions so we don't continue to grow the government. being a fiscal conservative means cutting spending, a smaller, more accountable government because we cannot afford it with our children and grandchildren. i am the mother of two children. i am very concerned that if we don't address the debt which, by the way, has grown from $8 trillion up to $13 trillion congress for four years, the congressman. we need to address this debt so we don't burden our children, that our children have the same opportunities. that is what it means to be a fiscal conservative, cut back spending. >> i will let you jump in, i promise. but i heard but that you talk about getting rid of the spending. to first, ms. ayotte, because you raise it. you are aware that most of the budget is taken up by three big items -- entitlement programs, defense department, and interest of the debt. you have to pay the interest on the debt. if you really want to go for the big money, are you suggesting to cut 20% from entitlement and 20% from defense? >> when i talked about -- i want to have an honest discussion. that means, ask every agency, including defense, give us proposals for a 20% cut. we may not cut. we have men and women fighting for us right now, still in iraq and afghanistan. and certainly we may not able to cut in those areas. and i am part of a military family so i am going to be sure our country is protected. but even the pentagon itself has proposed some cuts and a bureaucracy that do not hurt the troops. we have to have that discussion. we can't continue on the path congressman hodes has brought us down with the deficit had increased five runs and 25%. it is not sustainable. it will hurt our country. in addition, we do have to have a serious discussion about entitlement reform. >> let me turn to mr. holt, again. the same basic question. what does being a fiscal conservative mean to you, especially in light of some of the spending raised. >> ms. ayotte describes powers i only wish i had. if i was fully responsible for the problems we got into, that would be something very if you look at the borrower and spend mentality an approach that got us into the hole we are in, it is critical we stop digging. first, we have to not continue to give tax cuts, tax breaks, to the milk -- wealthiest among us. the wealth has all gone to the top. and that would hurt our deficit by $700 million -- $700 billion. ms. ayotte proposed extending all of the bush tax cuts permanently. that would double the deficit. one thing we can say is, that is not fiscally conservative. that is reckless and hypocritical to start attacking me about deficits but proposed that we doubled the deficit. we've got to stop giving tax cuts to companies and tax breaks to companies to ship jobs overseas. that is not helping us here. that is not helping us rebuild our economy. we've got to deal with long-term deficits by going after the waist and rebuilding the economy. it is a walk and chew gum philosophy, because our economy has been clobbered. we have to rebuild it on a firm foundation to rebuild the middle class while we cut wasteful spending. >> where would you cut? >> i have given up earmarked. gave them up. we would cut $50 million of everyone gave them up. when i said i was against them, she came up against them -- will cut $15 million if everyone give them up. pay for play it is the flow of money that goes to contractors on earmarks and comes back from those contractors to members in campaign contributions. while earmarks are 1% of the federal budget, this pay for play problem, which affects both parties, something i worked with a republican to do something about, is a critical impediment and represents the worst of the special interests that are locking up washington. it is critical we get a handle on that in order to have government be effective. but i also proposed that we hold the line on discretionary spending. i voted against the bailout. i said take the money and put it back into the budget. i now said, look, i think there is a disconnect in washington. what we really need to do is every congressman, senator, and the president, ought to have a salary cut of 10%, at least a one-year hiring freeze of non- essentials jobs and we need to cut the pork. that is what is being if this conservative is. the national taxpayers union pointed out i am the only member of the new hampshire delegation who achieved billions of dollars of cuts to the deficit. >> a follow-up -- he says it is not fiscally conservative to favor the tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. ms. ayotte? >> well, laura, one thing i have to address, certainly congressman hodes is now trying to repaint himself as a fiscal conservative. he voted for 9000 earmarks last year. now he is proposing a 10% cut on congressional incentive pay. i would go further than that. i think that congressional pay should be performance-based. i consulted that based on his performance of increasing our deficit 525% and increasing the debt from eight trillion -- $8 trillion up to $30 trillion dollars, i think he owes the taxpayers of lantern every fund. with respect -- first of all, the tax increases he wants to propose. let's just be clear. these are tax increases on our small businesses, on half the business and come in this country. if he wants to be a fiscal conservative, he should be looking at cutting spending rather than increasing taxes on our businesses. he voted for an $800 billion stimulus package. we have lost 2.5 million jobs nationally sense of that stimulus package was passed. -- since that stimulus package was passed but he wants to increase taxes on people in new hampshire $300 million. but keeping that will do for jobs? it will hurt job creation. >> this discussion is showing me how difficult this tax cut issue is. >> we ought to be making the hard decisions in washington and should have been making them the last four years to cut spending rather than increasing taxes on our small businesses. >> let me be clear, i support numerous proposals to cut taxes for small business. i said, let's give small business the ability to invest in capital equipment and write it off the same year. let's get our small businesses a bonus on their research and development credit when the manufacturing jobs. let us make it easier to invest in small business. i propose making sure that we give tax help to small businesses to hire people who have been unemployed. i supported tax cuts for small business up and down the line. let's be clear about this. you asked about what it means to be a fiscal conservative. the numbers are in. it is very clear, extending the bush tax cuts the way ms. ayotte suggested we do -- she talked about $300 million. it would create trillions of dollars of debts that our children would have to pay. that is not fiscally conservative. >> let me jump in here. go ahead, i'll give you a couple -- >> let's be clear, $300 million tax increase on people here in new hampshire is what we are talking about. also, 40 congressional democrats have supported this extension of these tax cuts, which are basically, if we do not extend them, tax increases -- $300 million tax increase. the difference between these 40 congressional democrats and congressman hodes is that he feels he has to vote with nancy pelosi, and this is a barred partisan approach -- bipartisan approach and ensure we have a positive climate in business. >> i will put my foot down here but you will be debating and other forums and what a chance to talk about this again. the next question is also near and dear to the hearts of new hampshire businesses, and that is energy. as you know, new hampshire businesses often say they are at a competitive disadvantage because they pay among the highest energy costs in the country. congressman hodes, what can you do if you are in the u.s. senate to bring those costs down? >> our energy future really is perhaps the top issue we have to address. it is very unfortunate that facing the problems of climate change and global warming that we are facing, ms. ayotte denies the existence of climate change from any man-made activity. that makes it tough to move to a real clean energy future. we need to be number one in the world in energy efficiency. i am happy i was able to get tax credits for people to eat with woodheat with wood. we need to allow more parity here. a tax credit helps middle class and working people by woo stilld is an use our woo resourced, helps restore forestry and logging in new hampshire. we have two wood-fired power plants right now in new hampshire. we need to make sure we have a smart grid in order to make sure there renewable energy can follow. we need a smart grid in new hampshire and around the country. we need a coherent federal policy on clean energy. right now, the republicans in the senate prevented a coherent clean energy policy from moving forward. i will tell you one quick story. >> it has to be very quick. >> we were in a town hall in londonderry a couple of weeks ago and met a gentleman who has a company making components for wind turbines. because republicans filibustered green energy we did not have a policy, he ended up selling the company to the finns. they are now half a billion dollar company with 1500 jobs. with a coherent federal policy like we had in the state of new hampshire for renewal and a jicama those jobs should have been, could have been, and should be in new hampshire. that's the kind of thing we need to do to get jobs going here. >> ms. ayotte, how do you as senator get those big energy bills down? >> i can tell you one way we don't -- we make sure that we don't pass capped and trade that congressman hodes has supported, because essentially that will be a national energy tax that will increase of our energy costs in new hampshire and gasoline prices rising and make it more expensive for us to heat our homes and businesses, make us less competitive with other countries around the world. we need a comprehensive energy policy and leadership from washington on this issue, which means looking at all of our energy sources. expanded use of nuclear power. we can protect our environment expanding our use of nuclear power. expanded use of renewable energy. using our own natural resources in a responsible way, which we can do to reduce our energy costs. the other part of this is we continue to buy oil from other countries that don't like us. we make our country less competitive on our energy costs. so, we've got to do this and it will take more nuclear power and more reliable power, more using our own natural resources and also conservation, a combination of all of this. and leadership in washington that has not happened. >> one point of agreement, need a comprehensive policy. i do need to move on. we will have a chance later to follow up on these energy issues, which i know is important for new hampshire businesses. i need to turn it back over to my colleague from the interpublic television. your final question. candidates, if you could keep your answer to roughly 45 seconds. >> throughout the recession people of communities have learned that by working together they can create jobs, private sector working with nonprofits. what lesson can you take to washington from that example that would help create jobs in communities around the country? >> that is first a congressman hodes. i am sorry. >> i am chairman of the board for the capital center for the arts. 1990, time of deep recession, some citizens decided that maybe we could revitalize a dilapidated lot of the house and bring economic development. i worked on a board with republicans, democrats, an independents and we learned a valuable lesson -- the people who have the answers -- a public as part of partnership, first it was just citizens. it helped revitalized downtown concord. it brings people into town for economic development. in new hampshire, we understand public-private partnerships. folks in the audience, members of the other party, who worked on that project with me and with the community, because in new hampshire, we know that people have the answers. a change happens from the bottom up. that is a very critical lesson that washington really needs to learn. >> ms. ayotte? >> in new hampshire, we believe these partnerships that occur at a local level are critical. and the best thing we can do is not by continuing to think that growing our government in washington and dictate mandated from washington are going to allow the solutions that come from people here in new hampshire. i want to create a positive climate for people here in new hampshire -- a positive tax climate for small businesses so they can create jobs and create partnerships and come up with new ideas, allow the entrepreneurs in our state to thrive. about what is happening in washington, says congressman hodes has got into office, the government had -- has continued to grow and become more and more involved in our lives. taxes have increased, the deficit has increased. it has not created a climate that allows people in new hampshire to thrive, create new companies, create new projects and put people to work. >> let's get back to the ear mac -- earmarked because it seems to be a favorite whipping person. >> keep it short. >> congressman, you participated in $51 million worth of earmarks last year. there are businesses in manchester and nashua that thrived based on earmarks. senator judd gregg was not known as a big spender. he says there is nothing wrong with them as long as the process is transparent and no budget allocations. is -- isn't it important for states and businesses and university to have some earmarks coming back to new hampshire? >> john, you know, i think what it's really important is to do the right thing, be independent, and not necessarily do the politically popular thing. some people have criticized me for not bringing home port, bringing home the bacon. -- bringing home pork, bringing home the bacon. when i asked for a year marks, i maintain the policies that i would not ask from any contributions from anybody on his behalf i asked for a remark. -- earmarks. when i saw how broken the system was, when i saw that everyone was tightening our belts, i said it is time to stop earmarks. and we can end pay for play, which is part of the gridlock of the special interest called on washington. i was sent down to fix what is broken and that is what i intend to do. >> thank you. kelly ayotte, same question? >> what you tell a business is thriving on earmarks? >> congressman hodes had an election year conversion. he requested over 60 earmarks last year and voted for 9000 earmarks just in 2009 alone. i have to say, with respect to the businesses here in new hampshire, what we need is a balanced budget, a positive tax climate so that our businesses can have a positive tax climate and a regulatory climate where they can put people to work. what has happened with year marks in this country is they have been used to buy and sell votes -- what is happening with earmarks. we saw it with a health-care bill and other examples in washington. that type of corruption has to end. with respect to businesses, we should reform the process in washington. >> i want to thank our panelists and our audience and you at home for watching and listening, and a special thanks to our candidates, representative paul hodes and representatives kelly ayotte. >> this has been produced in partnership with the new hampshire business and industry organizations, "the union leader" and new hampshire public television. >> coming up, more of campaign 2010 coverage with a debate between candidates hoping to replace retiring ohio republican senator george voinovich live at 7:00 p.m. eastern. our coverage of campaign 2010 will continue at 8:00 with three more debates. the race to be the next congressman from new hampshire's first district. an hour later, the focus is on the oregon governor's race. finally, a debate between candidates to be connecticut's next senator replacing retiring democrat christopher dodd. a new cincinnati enquirer/serve you as a poll shows former republican congressman steve shabatt as a 20-point lead over democrat freshman congressman. he had beat the congressman in 2008 and ohio's first congressional district by a margin of 52-48. according to survey usa's editor, the congressman's surge is due to what is called a nationwide red tide which describes the red colors used to designate republican districts on election maps. overturning roe versus wade, repeal of the health care law and cutting federal spending dominated the second debate between california democratic senator barbara boxer and republican candidate carly fiorina on september 29. this hour-long event was posted by kpcc pasadena and the spanish -- spanish newspaper "la opinion." senator boxer took part in the debate from national public radio studios. carly fiorina was at kpcc radio studios for the debate. public policy of the institute's survey released thursday showed senator boxer leading ms. fiorina. both cq 6 and the political report rate this race a tossup. >> the debate is being broadcast and public radio stations throughout california and stream that kpcc.org and also la opinion.com. we have gabriel lerner from "la opinion" and writes a weekly column. and we have democrat barbara boxer seeking her fourth term. she is at npr studio washington. >> thank you. the merger challenger is the republican carly fiorina here in studio. >> great to be with you both. thanks for having us. >> senator boxer opted to take the second question. the first question will go to ms. fiorina and it will come from gabriel lerner. >> you are a big advocate of cutting government regulation of business. can you give us some examples of regulations that you think should be reduced or eliminated? which you include regulations designed to protect the environment, worker safety or public quality? >> there are many reasons for a rational regulatory policy. but unfortunately, we have seen too many cases where regulations have run amok and are costing us jobs. let me start with the most obvious example, that of water in our great central valley. in 2008, a nameless, faceless bureaucrat -- bureaucrat decided the smell was in danger. the remedy was to turn the water off blowing through the pumps in the delta and but that decision, hundreds of thousands of acres lay fallow, tens of thousand people at the height of it were out of work. of course, it is important to protect our environment. it is important to protect our fish and flies and frogs, all of which are in danger in california but it is important to protect our families as well. unfortunately in this regard senator boxer refuse to step forward and help. as chairman of the environment and public works she have opportunity -- i would argue, the obligation -- to step forward and put an amendment on the u.s. senate floor that would have waived the assessment. she refused to do so and so the water stays off and we have family out of work. >> excuse me for the interruption. could you detail more of those regulations that you think should be reduced, without mentioning senator boxer? >> i am using this example to say that when we have something like the endangered species act, just one example, of course, we need to protect our endangered species but when not by statute that law requires someone to disregard all social and economic impact -- in other words, when the regulation says we should protect species at any cost, and we are costing people's jobs -- which is what is happening today -- that would be an example of where i think common sense and compassion should prevail. and it is relevant, of course, because the endangered species act has spawned many regulations in california -- no pun intended. it made, for example, the building of new manufactory puzzle is difficult. but i do want to ask you a tax question -- i do want to ask you a tax question. at the aspen institute use said the internet tax was probably unrealistic not to tax it forever and ever. how would you institute and internet tax and when would it begin? >> i have never been in favor of an internet tax. what i said was in the year 2000 -- you must remember in the year 2000, at that time, at the height of the dot com boom, the concern that many republicans as well as democrats had -- which turned out to be unfounded -- is that brick and mortar businesses were going out of business and everything was going to go on to the internet and so there was a concern that tax revenue would plummet. it turned out to be an unfounded concern. i was working on a bipartisan basis to try to find the right answer. what i said at the time was that the only way we should ever consider taxing the internet -- something i opposed -- was first to overhaul the entire tax system, as we were damaging businesses of all kinds. >> the next question is for senator boxer, also from gabriel lerner. >> also on the economy. some liberal economists are saying the economy is so weak that we need another large-scale government stimulus package. do you agree with them, and if so, why was this package not enough? >> a very good question. i would answer it this way. when president obama took over and the democrats joined him in the congress, we were facing a bleeding of 700,000 jobs a month. we were facing a situation where credit risk frozen. so, we stepped forward and we did it past -- we took a number of actions. we did pass the stimulus. i would say this. i voted for that. it is creating jobs. i have gone all over the state. our republican governors said it is creating tens of thousands of jobs and saving others. but here is the thing. i believe we needed an objective analysis of whether we did the right thing. and alan blinder, a democratic economist, teamed up with mark di, who was john mccain's advisor, they said if we had not taken the steps, we would have lost another -- on top of 8 million. >> but after those two years of a democrat in the white house, administration, we are saddled with a federal deficit of $1.30 trillion. what will you do as a member of the senate to shrink this deficit? >> that was inherited from george bush. he took a clinton surplus and 23 million jobs created -- i am the only candidate in the race who actually voted to balance the budget. and we were handed that $1.30 trillion deficit. and i do have many ideas. the first thing is, you have to pay as you go. in other words, as you spend for new programs, you have to pay for those programs. that is very important. you have to cut out the wasteful spending. we have to end the two wars. that would be a trillion dollars over the next 10 years. we've got to recover money from contractors who are ripping us off like halliburton overcharged $200 million for fuel for our troops in iraq. hewlett-packard just -- 55 million of overcharges and that came from the time that my opponent was the ceo of there. >> still -- a trillion dollars, that will help pay down the deficit of the ongoing concerns are about what programs ought to be cut or scaled back. apart from what we are talking about, where the cuts to be made? >> the war will be $1 trillion. collecting from people who are ripping off the government and other uncollected payments to the government is another trillion dollars. stopping tax breaks to the millionaires and billionaires. tax breaks that my opponent supports. that is another trillion. you go on and on. we should end tax breaks to companies who ship jobs overseas. >> would you cap federal spending -- cut federal spending, freeze the pay of civilian government workers? those are our -- our ideas from ms. fiorina. >> i have seen her budget recommendations. they are a disaster for california. the bill would cause draconian cuts for social security and medicare -- that is not from me. she said she would not ask for or fight for local spending priorities. >> let me go to ms. fiorina and find out how different you are. you talk about extending the bush tax cuts to everyone, also cutting the deficit. there have been analysts, including the tax policies of the good said you cannot do both at the same time without virtually setting the most of government. or the make those cuts? >> let me respond to a couple of things that the senator said. first of all, i am not an apologist for the spending in the bush years. but let us remember that our deficit has grown from $10.70 trillion roughly to $13 trillion in just the last two years. let us remember that with regards to the stimulus, but the mayor of san francisco and the comptroller of los angeles said it was a failure and since the stimulus bill pass our unemployment rate has grown from 10.2% up to 12.4%. let us remember that senator boxer voted against a balanced budget amendment six times. she has waved paygo -- and voted against the bipartisan effort to curb federal spending. she voted against that bill four times and it is one vote short of passage. >> apart from her record, where would you cut? would you cut the military, social security, medicare? homeland security account of some of the federal growth. >> let me tell you exactly where i would cut, but with all due respect, record is the issue. she has been in washington 20 years. she had plenty of time to give middle income californians a tax break but as of january 1, and middle income families in california will be faced with a $1,600 tax increase on average because she has not done anything about it. here we are at the end of september. where would i cut? first, let's institute a spending cap in washington, d.c. i would return spending at beginning of 2008 levels and call for federal government to freeze pay. column of federal government as well only hire one person for every two that leave government service. second, let's give every american the possibility of designating up to 10% of their federal tax dollars toward paying down the debt. if every single american designated 10% of their tax dollars we can reduce the deficit by $95 billion a year. >> that is $95 billion. i have to ask you, would you cut military, social security and medicare. >> i believe that there is much opportunity to save money into the defense department. i served on the defense business board. however, i believe our military needs support. i would not fund -- cut funding for national security. senator boxer campaign since 1992 on a platform of cutting the military budget in half. she refused to support money for body armor for our troops in iraq and afghanistan. let us start, however, with the 22% of the programs that gao demonstrated over the past five years due not meet their objectives and let us remember that the government has grown every year for the last 60 years. and most especially and most dramatically, in the last two years. we need to get spending under control. washington has a spending problem. we need to hold our representatives accountable and barbara boxer in her 28 years in washington, d.c., has done nothing to curb spending and has done everything to increase spending. >> senator boxer you have criticized ms. fiorina for outsourcing jobs. but before we get to that, i do want to get to a question for one of the listeners because we did ask listeners to call in. here's a question for you. >> i live in los angeles. senator boxer, you must always criticized ms. fiorina for outsourcing jobs. my company licenses web based services to schools and nonprofit and we would have a tough time remaining competitive if we could not outsource our web development work. for us, it is a choice between paying a single u.s. programmer $80,000 up to $175,000 or paying a team of skilled workers in india for russia's $17 t 20o dollars. -- an hour. are you against outsourcing in all cases? >> a good question. the fact is, our nation needs to incentive five companies like yours to hire american workers. we need to see the words "made in america" again. right now, tax breaks but my opponent supports, she would not do away with them, are giving big tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. i know that is what she did. she laid off 30,000 workers, shift of their jobs to china, india, malaysia. she said she is proud of what she did. the fact is, i have met some of these people that she laid off. i heard their stories. we have the most productive workers in the world. it seems to me there are ways we can go. we just had a vote on the senate floor, i was proud to stand there and say we are taking away tax breaks for companies to ship jobs overseas. we want to give them to companies right here. if i could just say one thing here. my opponent has got off on a lot of tangents on budgets. let's be clear. the only candidate in this race who ever voted to balance the budget and create surpluses is me. i did that under bill clinton.

Related Keywords

China ,California ,United States ,Syria ,Russia ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,Connecticut ,San Francisco ,Londonderry ,New Hampshire ,India ,Central Valley ,Massachusetts ,Cambridge ,Cambridgeshire ,United Kingdom ,Hampshire ,South Korea ,Switzerland ,Spain ,Pyongyang ,P Yongyang Si ,North Korea ,Malaysia ,Japan ,Germany ,North Carolina ,Iran ,Afghanistan ,Kentucky ,Oregon ,Cincinnati ,Ohio ,Fayetteville ,Seoul ,Soul T Ukpyolsi ,Iraq ,Americans ,America ,West Germany ,Chinese ,South Koreans ,Soviets ,North Koreans ,Korea ,Californians ,Iranian ,Spanish ,North Korean ,German ,Swiss ,Syrian ,Japanese ,South Korean ,American ,Judd Gregg ,Robert Gibbs ,Christopher Dodd ,Kim Junge ,Nancy Pelosi ,Paul Hodes ,Los Angeles ,George Bush ,Max Baucus ,Christian Oliver ,Gramm Rudman ,King Jung ,Rahm Emmanuel ,Carly Fiorina ,Kim Jung ,George Voinovich ,Kim Jeong ,Phil Vaughn ,Gabriel Lerner ,John Mccain ,Kelly Ayotte ,