place for businesses want to be an ad jobs and grow jobs but we also have to make smart investments in our future and infrastructure, education, workforce training and we need to support her workers by raising the minimum wage. i'm running for governor to rebuild rhode island's middle class and create tens of thousands of good-paying jobs and i have experience to do that. prior to becoming treasurer ran a business and we helped to create over 1000 jobs. i am running for governor to rebuild the state can get rhode island back to work. >> moderator: thank you ms. raimondo and now robert healey an attorney and businessman a partial owner of a liquor import company called peaceville. mr. healey has run for statewide office six times. he attended rhode island college boston university and northeastern university and the new england school of law. mr. healey. healey: thank you. i would like to thank you and thank my opponents for being here tonight. i need you to look at me and the reason for that is because you probably won't see much of me over the next two weeks. i didn't get any campaigns donations from wall street insiders or city union contractors. i'm only replying on the people and free media to get my message out. the only good thing about that is probably as governor i would only answer to one boss and out boss being you the people. you may say you are wasting your vote if you vote for me but if you don't vote for the person he best represents you you are wasting your vote then. if you want to pick winners i say go to the racetrack. if you want to pick a leader you will have to think wisely when you go to the polls. >> moderator: mr. healy or time is up there want to thank each of the candidates and now let's get to the topics that hampered as you all know there is no strict format to tonight's debate. we are looking for an open and honest discussion of the issues. i will also -- for some back-and-forth as long as it's on-topic. we have a lot of ground to cover so if you're not answering the question taking too long i will jump in. i want to start with a topic that are viewers have been hearing a lot about lately and that's because mr. fung and ms ms. raimondo have been battling through television commercials. right now this is making bond payments on the $89 million taxpayers pull to bondholders to the sales ventures. mr. fung one of your ads claim ms. raimondo wants a bailout blog -- wall street. financial agencies like movies have said defaulting on the loan would severely damage rhode island credit rating. we all understand 38 studios is an popular but are you playing politics with the state's bond rating? fung: i would never play politics with the bond rating of what i want the voters to know is i will stand with them every single day but do it in a factual way. we don't know that this was a mistake from the first instance would wear it i find critical is the general treasure and the governor chaffee continuing to make it worse trade we have not done our due diligence in launching a full investigation particularly when the state is making allegations of fraud in their lawsuit to recover money. secondly that sj advisor that the governor and general treasure raimondo were applie applied -- relied on his faulty. we have seen one of the rating agencies fitch say they would not drop to junk bond status. i think the taxpayers and the voters in rhode island deserve to know the truth before we make any commitment one way or the other on that because it's too big of a commitment for us and it could be utilized in other areas such as tax cuts, a tax reduction plan and education. >> moderator: mr. fung can you promise voters that the default will be less than any higher interest that the state may incur by not paying the bond back? can you make that promise tonight? fung: mala thing i can promise is i will call for a full investigation of what's going on. the taxpayers of rhode island deserve to know before they make a commitment one way or the other and that's why i'm proud to argue for and tested for that investigation so we can get to know the truth and second of all i'm proud to stand on behalf of the taxpayers and file a letter with the sec because there was allegations of insider trading and it certainly didn't look good when one of the bondholders sold the day before they close the deal. >> moderator: ms. raimondo mr. fung youth -- says you have made it worse. your response? raimondo: unlike mayor fung i thought this tip from the beginning. when i was running for treasury i was in office when the deal happen but as running for treasurer and critical of it and i spoke out against it. mayor fung who was in office was silent. in fact two weeks ago he was campaigning with the architect of this. it was a time to stop this deal which was before it happened and i fought it. i don't want to repay it but we have to repay it because the experts have told us if we don't repay it is going to cost twice as much. that's a fact. the bondholders are going to be okay either way. they have insurance. i care about the people of rhode island and they are going to be stuck holding the bag and it's going to cost twice as much money if we don't repay it. this isn't easy politics you know. he's doing the easy political thing, telling voters what they want to hear, the repay it. i'm not going to do that. leadership means doing the right thing even when it's difficult politics and in this instance it's clear. it's like your credit card bill. if you don't pay your credit card bill you get higher interest charges. >> moderator: we choose what we pay in her credit card bill. you think voters should have a say on any bond that goes out in the state of rhode island from here on out? raimondo: it was inappropriate to do a moral obligation bond for $100 million or $75 million. of boniface i should've gone to the people and again i was very critical. i fought it that now at this point the right thing to do is to repay it. the last date -- state to default was arkansas back in 1938. it would be a huge black eye across the country of order and that i'm running for governor to rebuild rhode island to move the state forward not to go back. >> moderator: mr. healey before you when i want to mr. fung to respond to something that ms. raimondo said. she said the governor -- former governor was on your advisory committee when you are deciding to run. you have used it as a campaign prop. how do you square that with voters? healey: if i could respond to one point. i would like to question the treasures judgment on this and i think the rhode island voters to know. i stood up and asked for a full investigation when allegations move forward. sending an e-mail is not fighting for the taxpayers and as far as judgment let's talk about the treasury judgment. we hiring the same financial advisers that put us into that deal for southwest she and governor chaffee rehired those individuals when we as a state or suing them for fraud. i question her judgment. raimondo: i also would like an investigation but but that's after-the-fact. where was he as an elected official before it happened? i was out there saying don't do this deal and i can promise you if i had been governor would not have happened. i also have called for an independent investigation and let me tell you if there was any fraud people would be held accountable. the problem is in the meantime we have to pay our bills because if we don't do will be twice as expensive for the people of rhode island and rhode island families can handle that. >> moderator: i was kind of questions for both of you but i would let mr. healy, people don't know where you stand on this. healey: i think we really have not seen taxpayers, the full investigation that went forward. i think that is part of go with condition i.e. pay the bonds. i'm not opposed to not paying. in fact i think that might be of benefit to the state in that if we do have higher credit costs we would do less borrowing. certainly if i were governor at the time i too would have stopped the project. what we are arguing over, what could have or should it happen we have to look at what the reality is. we are paying off bonds and what we call a moral obligation and yet at the same time this same general assembly is saying we don't have any moral obligation for the pensions we have taken away from people? there is a moral obligation to our own people and not the people on wall street. that's the most important, to take care for on first. >> moderator: mr. healey you said in your economic plan this date pays its debt in knott. healey: a moral obligation is not in my opinion and obligation of the state of rhode island. >> moderator: >> moderator: is that a back? healey: it's a promise to pay for something that the state did not engage in. >> moderator: ms. raimondo i wanted to respond briefly to mr. fung. he wants to know what others do too why did you -- that firm back? raimondo: thank you for giving me a chance to clarify. in my administration i have a policy that any time a contract comes through we put out to bid and win this contract came up with put it out to bid. unfortunately only two firms replied to the rfp and the principles of both firms were involved in 38 studios. we do the best that we could end the committee unanimously approved hiring them. however we hired them in a way that allows at anytime for any reason without penalty so if at this point it's not clear they did anything wrong. if at some point it becomes clear they did something wrong but obviously we will fire them and they will be held accountable. >> moderator: mr. fung you never answered my question regarding what she said about former governor -- fung: the governor has not been campaigning with me so that is false. what also i can bring to voters to know about the general treasure is this. there were two individuals that applied. the other option, the other fiscal advisers are the largest fiscal advisers in the country. they certainly were a viable option. why would you choose, why would you not choose them over some of the state is suing for fraud for committing these allegations? why a fresh? why should we rush because there are other options. we could set aside the money in escrow do our due diligence before we make any commitments. this is too critical of the decision. millions of dollars in the state could be put to better use for the taxpayers. >> moderator: we are going to go to wpri.com reporter the question. >> there has been talk in a campaign about jobs and high unemployment rate so i want to ask you about your opinions on that and we will start with you. isn't this your plan is a great way to innovation institute or college of corporate -- it hasn't attracted academic bidders. what would you do differently to drum up interest in how much would that cost taxpayers? raimondo: i would like to use the 195 when they rerouted the highway we now have land available. i would like to use that land to have an innovation institute and it would be funded not by the state but by collaborations between universities and industry. it's what they are doing in ohio and new york city. in new york city they had roosevelt island. they did a global competition and they invited universities and industries from all over the world to bid on putting in their case and applied science institute together. cornel came together with that is raised at technical university who came together with google and their artery on their way to creating thousands of jobs. imagine if we did the same thing and we could bring together and have an advanced manufacturing institute. something designed to take a great idea coming out of our colleges and universities and turn them into products we make here. that's the kind of game-changer we need. it wouldn't cost the taxpayers really anything. >> moderator: you are spending roughly $100 million on infrastructure. they gave cornel the land for free so could you see yourself sending over $100 million on this project? raimondo: you make a fair point. i would be interested to give away the land. you see for too long and rhode island we have been short-sighted and what we need to do is invest in growth. the story of rhode island as we used to be a jeweler manufacturing mecca. although mecca. all those jobs went overseas and our leaders did nothing to reposition ourselves for jobs for the future in massachusetts did. they have information technology and biotechnology and they are thriving and we have been left behind. under my leadership we are going to thrive by pulling together industry with universities to fundamentally re-create our economy and industries became the break -- grade at marine science and industrial sites and create tens of thousands of jobs good middle-class jobs to rebuild. >> moderator: you acknowledge it could have a significant cost to to taxpayers if it's modeled on the new york plan. raimondo: you have to think of it as a smart investment and growth. >> moderator: i want to move on to mr. fung. you mention in your opening statement cutting taxes by up to $200 billion in the state budget. theirs are the projected budget of $173 -- $173 million. how would you close such a huge shortfall in the state? fung: first of all i want to let people know the part of my plan has been implemented by this general assembly this past session. the numbers will still have to be reworked and we are going to continue to put that plan into place that will put more money back into the taxpayers pockets. >> moderator: how much is the new total after what the general assembly did? fung: we have to wait and see what the overall numbers are going to come out in what the actions are going to be. until we get an accurate projection based upon what we are seeing, what's happening what we are likely to finish with it's going to be difficult to sell. what i can say is if we implement that 200 million-dollar plan based upon what i have put forward it would make our state one of the most competitive in the northeast and send a message to business owners here particularly small business owners that have to pay them minimum business tax. let's cut that in half and go further if we can pretty think like all the world landed -- what islanders watching tonight i'm also tired of seeing many rhode island license plates going north to massachusetts spending our hard-earned dollars in the borders up there. let's get our sales tax down. >> moderator: mr. fung even if you scale back the numbers the 300 million-dollar budget tax fall how would you close such a large budget gap? fung: this is where the rhode island taxpayers have to put their trust in me. the experience i have is the mayor of cranston innovating and making sure we are consolidati consolidating. initiatives like that have to be tackled with at the state budget as well. i'm proud of the fact that we have worked with other cities and towns on a big important issues like health care. working with northern rhode island cities like lincoln to save on administrative health care costs providing for mail services for the senior centers. those initiatives are saving taxpayers dollars invested type of -- >> moderator: from your previous debate you have had workforce as part of your standing. how many state employees would lose their jobs if you cut 5% of them? fung: what we are talking about the cuts is making sure there operational efficiencies at all levels. that's where the experience as cranston mayor and finding efficiencies consolidating functions for every camp that is what i will put to task tackling our state budget as well. just ask yourself why is it for similar sized state population wise north of us are state budget is billions more than new hampshire's? ask yourself. take a look at the general assembly's budget and rhode island. why is it millions more than the legislature voted in new hampshire who had many more members? >> moderator: mr. healy use it explicitly do not have a jobs plan and you don't see the governments function is creating jobs but you have an economic development plan. you were recently i can only say my jobs plan is a common upon the state working together. what would be your top policy probe -- healey: one of the things we have to look at is regulation. as a state where overregulated. we have to make it easy for that to happen. the second problem is taxation. we need to make property taxes lower so businesses will come in and set up employment and move the money through the system that way. i have suggested that we take the teachers contracts and municipality and move it to a state contract, one state contract and in doing so what you can do is you can relieve many of the property taxes in most cities and towns. that would lower the rents and lower the taxes on businesses in a commercial industry that comes into rhode island. they would be favorable to doing them by coming in and creating jobs for people who are working to pay the taxes required to pay the schools. the interesting part about that would be that it would allow seniors on fixed incomes to stay in their homes because the tax rate would be lessened and we could use some of the housing burden i think. i also think keeping a local school committee would allow the local school committees to be focused on education and education priorities rather than in terms of financial obligations. i think in a holistic sense you cannot attack the problem by saying let's throw money at jobs. businesses come in and take the money and ask what they have done with the state of rhode island in the league. >> moderator: ms. raimondo both of your opponent to talk about taxes and you're talking about something that builds money. it. raimondo: mayor fung says to trust him because of his record in cranston. his record in cranston is that he continue continued to raise taxes. he came into office and year after year after year raise property taxes on working families and commercial property taxes which turned businesses away. even tax more cars imposing the car tax on cars valued as little as $500. a new plan he wants to cut corporate taxes. tax cuts for companies, tax increases for working families. that is what's crippling rhode island. what we need to do, we need to have an affordable competitive tax structure. i supported the general assembly when they lowered our corporate tax rates this past session and now we are the lowest in new england. that's a good thing. i worked so hard on pension reform it's already saved the taxpayers of rhode island hundreds of billions of dollars. what we need to do is control our costs and be smarter about how we spend and then invest in growth, invest in merchant infrastructure rebuild schools and put people to work. >> moderator: we need to move on. healey: i think the cranston taxpayers know and trust what i've done the city of cranston and for the past three years we have not had to raise property taxes. we have rolled up our sleeves and made hard decisions even performing the right way negotiating with the settlements to shave $6 million off of our required contributions. meanwhile we were innovating like i discussed and growing our business base. i'm proud of the business environment that we have created in cranston adding over a thousand new jobs just my first two terms and we are still continuing to see businesses grow not just big businesses but small businesses like antonio says well. >> moderator: let's move onto ed fitzpatrick with the providence journal attacks question. >> yesterday a rhode island expenditure council noted a report saying state officials have not figured out how to fund the health insurance exchange even though under obamacare it must be financially self sufficient by december 2015 so tonight rather than speak in general terms about health care or want you to tell us specifically how you would fund health source rhode island going forward. let's start with mr. healey. healey: i don't think i would consider funding it. i think i would turn back to the federal government for its use on that end. >> moderator: would you be concerned about the federal government taking back some of the grants given the state to get it going? healey: i think the federal government is the way to go through once among the program. the problems that are going to happen after the midterm elections in terms of what's going to be allowed and not allowed and rhode islanders are out on a limb on their program on this. >> ms. raimondo do you agree? raimondo: every rhode islander deserves access to affordable high-quality health care and rhode island has done an excellent job in rolling out the exchange. i would keep it in rhode island. first we have to take a hard look at it and see if there are any ways to reduce the costs. and secondly we need to be creative. i would not put a surcharge on policyholders because rhode island families are struggling as it is. i'm very interested in the possibility of licensing it and selling it to other states because of something rhode island has done such a good job of. i understand other states are interested in that could be a revenue stream. i will tell you recently my daughter had strep throat and she woke up in the morning and she was sick. we quickly called the pediatrician, guided her in there is tested positive for strep and got a ride on the medication. it occurred to me every parent deserves the opportunity to do that for their kids to have health insurance and access to good care. that's exactly what it's providing so we have to figure out a way to fund it. >> moderator: are using a reasonable marketplace? raimondo: which overtime would lower costs for small business businesses. we have to do everything we can to reduce health care costs for small businesses. >> moderator: mr. fung? fung: i have a three-pronged approach to this. rhode islanders are fortunate that we have a -- that's been better functioning but the cost is a big issue especially when those federal subsidies run out. we have to first get a realistic idea of what those are spicy when we have heard that number is anywhere between 20 to $26 million. let's do our homework first and get the number. first we have to find out what the expense drivers are and why it's costing so much and take a look at options such as private exchanges to see whether or not they can do that function in a more efficient and cost-effective manner. let's also take a look at whether or not some of the bells and whistles that are part of the exchange are truly needed such as do we really need the call center operations to provide that service went from my understanding these individuals might not be licensed brokers. why not let the insurers themselves answer that question? second we should take a look at the exchange because it's better functioning and some other states particularly massachusetts to see whether or not it could also be a revenue opportunity for us. if we can cut our expenses and get more dollars that's one of the ways i would consider keeping the exchange at a lower cost it would have to be a lower-cost great if we can't get those costs down yes i would consider moving it up to the federal system and having them run it because it's performing a lot better than the initial rollout. getting access to health insurance is important for rhode islanders and i've heard that on the trail as well. >> moderator: we are happy to the debate. i will pick up the pace because i want to cover a few more topics. a rapidfire section again is always looking for one-word answers to these questions and we are going to start left or right and i will alternate the order. ms. raimondo do you support or oppose a constitutional convention? raimondo: at this time i posted. fung: i supported because we need the government and the statehouse. healey i supported based on reservations. >> moderator: as governor would he sign a bill that would establish a legal market for licensed businesses to sell marijuana to adults 21 or older? healey: yes. fung: i'm going to take a wait-and-see on the legalization question. raimondo: also wait-and-see. >> moderator: mr. fung joint to keep her state's voter i.d. law? fung: i want to keep the voter i.d. law. healey: i think it's functioning well and i will vote for that i.d. to see if it works. [laughter] >> moderator: let us know how that works out. ms. raimondo do you want to keep her repeal a the estate i.d. law? raimondo: i would sign it. >> moderator: you support or oppose driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants? raimondo: support. fung: i do not support. healey: i have articulated position where i believe they should be issued papers and insurance but not tonight been a form of a driver's license. .. you support common-sense measures and limitations, of the kind of stuff we propose what specific measures do you support? ♪ this issue has come up repeatedly during the primary, and my position has always been clear. pro-choice with common sense restrictions. i do not support late term abortions and certainly, certainly do not support partial birth abortions. respect both sides of the issue, and as governor i will not do anything to stand in the wake of a woman's right to make her own health care decisions. >> moderator: any legislation that you oppose? fung: i am not sure what type of legislation has been put forward. >> moderator: you have been strongly criticized since you got the endorsement of planned parenthood. you said at the time that you support repeal of the 1997 state law that banned so-called partial birth abortions. how do you square york to positions? raimondo: thank you. i am a pro-choice candidate and catholic. respect the churches' position. and in my own private life i accept that and follow that. as governor, i will be the governor for all the people of rhode island plans including those with different religious views and myself. i have been clear on this. i would support a ban on of late term abortions as long as there is provision for the life and health of the woman. currently in rhode island and there is a law on the books of banning late term abortions, but it is unconstitutional and not being enforced, not doing any good. so the only point that i was making is that it makes no sense to keep a lock on the books if it is not being enforced. i am a practical person. if we want a ban on late term abortions, then i would support that did for language that the u.s. supreme court has said is constitutional. you said you would assign one of those bills? raimondo: yes,. >> moderator: there was obviously a firestorm after your comment on planned parenthood. do you regret the way that you spoke at that press conference? raimondo: i do not to be did no one asked me my position on late term abortions the very first time someone asked me my position, i was clear. i would support a ban on weight to an abortion that had provision for the life and health of the woman. it is a difficult issue, a hard issue, and we need to approach it with reasonableness and kindness and sensitivity. again, i respect and appreciate where the catholic church is coming from. >> moderator: the right to life endorsement. you do not sound too far apart on that. fung: i can tell you, on like the treasure, i have not used divisive issues that a personal to individuals as part of this campaign. i have been out on the campaign trail, the sole issue i have been promoting and talking about is making our state more open for business, cutting through red tape, and plant -- implementing the tax reduction plan and getting people back to work and jobs in this state rhode islanders you have written you are a social liberal who supports the right to abortion. do you support limits on that? .. i respect the individual. the individual has to make the decision. so as far as i am concerned, i think that i would have no problem supporting abortion in terms of state law. however, i would be very concerned because i think the state has an obligation to minors. i could see restrictions in that area. >> moderator: you heard that it was said you campaigned on these issues. raimondo: that is not true. i have said over and over i am running because we are in a jobs crisis and would like to take a minute. he referenced is $200 million tax cut. let's be clear what that would do, double our budget deficit in the first year alone, a reckless plan that would result in painful cuts to education, work-force training, infrastructure, higher education. it would hurt working families and take a bad economy and make it worse. and he knows it is unrealistic because the first thing he did for his first three budgets was raise taxes. it is time to be realistic. affordable taxes, invest in growth and get people back to work. >> moderator: i will let you respond. fung: first of all, just a couple of weeks ago we had three leading business leaders in this state of rhode island. caught my tax plan pro-business, pro economic development , and a pro job creation. that is what we need, a leader who is willing to tackle the problems of our state with a sense of urgency, and that is what my plan will do. in my experience, and cutting through red tape and building a better business environment, it is evident. take a look at that part of the city. it is thriving, and this should happen in every city and town across the state. and that is what i intend to do. >> moderator: a question. >> you recently sent a platform document saying if you read no other document produced by my campaign, please read this one. well, i read it and noticed that you said you believe that the large-scale entry of women into the american workforce has caused a detriment to the society that may be beyond repair. can you explain what you meant. healey: it sounds a misogynist. what we forgot to do when we allowed women to enter into the workforce, we forgot to say that, hey, the extra labor is coming in. in that same document, as you well know, i say that i think the best person should be working instead of having two people working at the same amount of wages. if you dilute the work force you drive down the cost of labor. when labor is cheap to people have to work in a home where only one had to in the past. if you read the document you would know that it is clearly no statement against women entering into the workplace. i think they are far more superior, especially now in terms of getting into the workplace and getting into higher positions. we see that in higher education, but i think what would have happened if we had merged the work force instead of throwing everyone into it labor could have stayed high. the parent that is best able to take care of the children could stay home, and we would still have a vibrant economy. to add some many people into the labour force pushes the price of labor down, and in doing that it forces everyone to have two working parents. and then we lose our home life. >> moderator: we have just a little over ten minutes before closing statements. we will try to pick up the pace. something popped up this week. an independent group with a democratic ties is funding an attack ad season on problems within the police department, the state democratic party chime been asking why you have not released an internal affairs report or state police report that examines the ticketing scandal in your city. but you do that before the elections? fung: first of all, they have the facts incorrect. what i asked the police to do when they came in to this city was to do a top to bottom review of the police department. that report is pending. and i have always acted with transparency, and we will act on that report. and it is a new day now. we have a new chief. he is bringing the department together for the best interest of our residents. >> moderator: my question was specifically about the ticketing scandal. that investigation is closed, and the city has made a decision. is there an internal affairs report, and if so will you release it? fung: that matter is not closed. we held the officer accountable and are moving forward. it is still, as you know, within that bill of rights process because the officer does have his rights. i cannot speak further because it is still tied up in the process. >> moderator: the ad raises questions about why the former colonel was given a pension after the scandal. the state police cleared him, and he did serve 27 years as an officer. do you agree with the ad, that he should not get a pension? raimondo: first of all, that is separate from my campaign, but i would like to take a second to talk about the police scandal because it goes clearly to a style of leader should. and the handling is a red flag. for years the police department has had scandal after scandal, allegations of bullying, political retribution, sexual discrimination until finally it culminated in this ticketing scandal. a the way that happened was that he put a contract but for his democratically controlled city council offering and 11 percent raise to the police officers. the city council said no, and the next day a certain group of officers were so emboldened that they went on at ticketing spree. instead of being a leader and calling for an outside investigation, he four months of fumbled it until finally the city council was about to call in the state police. so he called in the state police. that is the same story that we hear over and over in rhode island. abuse of power, a culture of favoring insiders. it is time to move on. >> moderator: your response. fung: we all recognize its starts at the top. in this situation we acted decisively. i started an internal investigation immediately and ended up calling in the state police. and, no, treasurer, it was not a group of officers. it was one officer, and we hold him accountable our chief did resign, and i am tired of having your wall street interest funding these attack ads and distorting the truth and the record. let's talk about leaders. their is a new day within the police department protecting residents. i also have a question. we already heard about you hiring back the same financial advisers that we sued for fraud. i am questioning your judgment as you sit on the board of the rhode island housing when we just heard in the paper they were fined for inappropriately using a million dollars of federal funds. where were you? you were asleep at the switch. i did not hear you call them out on what was going on there. these are judgment. i have led the third largest city, and we have acted decisively before okay. i will have you weigh in. i'm sorry. i will have you weigh in in a moment. raimondo: first of all, there was no decisive action. he fumbled and mismanaged it for months until the state police had to come in and takeover. rhode island housing, obviously i do not run it. i have a seat on the board. we called for an audit and are working through that. and they will be held accountable. we are monitoring, and if there is any wrongdoing will take care of it immediately. but that is very different. he has overseen personally a police department for years. there has been scandal after scandal after scandal, a culture of not holding people accountable. favoring insiders, the culture of favoring insiders has held this state back for too long, and it is time for change. >> moderator: we went off the rails, but bringing it back to the police scandal. healey: it is interesting that both of these people are speaking about transparency in getting facts out to the public. one is not putting out enough and the other is not showing enough transparency it is being played on the stage of where campaign funding is forcing these issues. we're not talking about the future of rhode island. we're bickering between people who have problems with each other over matters of management style. this is exactly what is happening in rhode island tgts us wound up in the situation of not advancing because we blame each other instead of working together. it is politically expedient, keeps money flowing from different sources to keep people apart by dividing rather than consolidating. if we want to solve problems we have to work together, have a transparent government, and be able to access our documents and leaders in a way that makes the people in charge of this state. >> moderator: our next question. >> from a viewer. i will stick with you, mr. mr. robert healey. as governor, he asked, would you support starting to pay retirees in annual cost-of-living adjustment again? they have been suspended. healey: i think the whole pension situation needs to be discussed far more fully. i looked, and i really think that we have a problem there. it is not over yet. it is certainly not over yet. we put that problem of. that could have been solved. i mean, i looked at the rhode island constitution. and before it was implemented the governor working with the treasurer at the time could have gone to the supreme court and asked whether it would pass constitutional muster and whether it was applicable. they would have given a written answer at that point in time and avoided all of the controversy and problems that we have with the pensions. we have obligations, and yet we have no problem saying we have no moral obligation to the people that actually work for our state to my given nursing and other services to the people of our state. i find that to be far out of the realm of reality to think that we need to -- [applause] -- to think that we need to pay back people who do not live in our state because we have a moral obligation and an to the people that actually work. >> moderator: we will go to you for this same question. would you put back in place -- sign a lot to put back in place the annual pension increases that have been suspended for retirees? fung: first of all, i think all rhode islanders recognize that pension reform has to be taken on at the state and local level. where i have problems with the general treasurer is how it got done. we reached the same solution by sitting across the table and negotiating with our labor unions and the retirees and still coming to the same result that avoided a costly class action because we were able to get a good majority of the people -- >> moderator: i apologize. we are running short of time . fung: we are in a lawsuit right now and have to wait and see what happens. the bottom line for me is, this pension system calls into question for me the general treasurers' judgment. we have seen how she wanted that act in this instance. we have also seen how that -- she has a responsibility over the investment of the pension and is paying significantly more in fees than the last general treasurer, 70 million more. $372 million in lost opportunity investment. >> moderator: we are running out of time. i need to let them weigh in on that. tim white yes. you know, when i came into office i inherited a system in crisis. a 48% funded. all the politicians before me turned a blind eye and did not want to deal with it . i worked with the general assembly bringing everyone together and solve the problem. the system is healthier than it has ever been, and 90 percent of the members of the general assembly voted for it. this system is healthier than it has ever been so that people's pensions will be there for them, and we do not have to relive the pain and suffering of people who lost their pension and home and health insurance. now, in great contrast he also inherited a system in crisis, about 18 percent funded and made small changes. it is now about 20 percent funded, about the same level, and he did not even find it 100 percent every year. those are the same games that politicians have been playing forever. it is what led to central falls, pretend the problem is smaller than it is and not finding it properly. what i did is hard politics, but it had to be done. as to the question of the lawsuit, yes, there is a lawsuit. i spent a year-and-a-half that the mediation table, and we came up with a solution. i wish it had been voted for, but at the end of the day it means acting in the face of crisis and solving the problem. and that is what i did tiflis 30 seconds across the board. yes or no. the 30 seconds. would you sign a bill supporting binding arbitration for teachers. raimondo: no. fung: no. healey: no. >> moderator: let's go to closing remarks. 602nd closing remarks. we ask that you please hold your applause and tell all three candidates have finished. again, the order for closing statements was determined by a drawing, and we began with gina raimondo. raimondo: thank you. it is time to rebuild. i am running for governor to create tens of thousands of middle-class jobs and put rhode island back to work. especially manufacturing jobs. when i grew up my dad worked for 26 years at a factory providing a good, middle-class life and my family, brother, sister, and myself. then his job when overseas, like so many. our leaders did very little to recreate our economy. i am running for governor with a plan, a comprehensive jobs plan to rebuild manufacturing, to retrain our workers, to invest in our infrastructure and put people to work rebuilding roads, schools, and bridges. it is not a time for reckless cuts that will hurt families and turn the state back. healey: thank you. i am looking to rebuild rhode island but from its foundation. we have gone too far in building, and the structure is not stable. what we have to do is return to that point where we actually have a society that encourages jobs, that works for the education of our children, that has a reasonable tax system. in doing this we can bring ourselves into a competitive state with others. also, we can keep our children in the state by providing employment opportunities. if we think we will build our way out of everything, this is just not going to happen. it is fantasy. we have to look at what we have, go back to the basic structure and restore freedom and liberty to the people in the meantime. and that is why i am running for governor. >> moderator: thank-you. fung: thank-you tonight we heard a clear choice between very different plans for the future of our state. rhode island needs a proven leader with a bold plan and a sense of urgency and the right skill set to turn our state around. tonight you also heard about my record of real results and reform. and my plan will reduce taxes by $200 million. my plan will put 20,000 rhode islanders back to work, and my plan will make our state one of the most business friendly in the northeast. we need a leader who is ready from day one. as you have seen, real leaders produced real results. i don't want the title of governor. i want to job and the responsibility. and from the day i announced my goal has been to get rhode islanders back to work >> moderator: thank you to all of the candid it's. our studio audience, your chance to applaud the candid it's. [applause] [applause] >> moderator: we want to thank the providence performing arts center for hosting us tonight. that does it for our campaign 2014 gubernatorial debate. be here to watch after the baseball game and at 11:00 on wpri12 for a complete wrapup as well as expert analysis. you can also follow our coverage on line. the latest eyewitness news providence poll. and election day, of course, is november 4th with most polls opening at 7:00 a.m. it check for yorktown's exact time. the polls close at 8:00 p.m. make sure you bring a valid photo id. good night from the providence performing arts center. ♪ >> on our website, c-span.org, you can see debates and ads from across the country. here is a look at the ads running in the new hampshire senate race between jeanna shaheen and scott brown. >> are in jeanna shaheen, and i approve this message. >> scott brown says. >> i'm pro-choice. >> but we too often that is not how he votes. he sponsored the bill so employers to deny women insurance coverage for birth control. >> i cannot believe rcmp to -- scott brown supports limiting access. >> a forced women to look at color photographs of developing fetuses. no wonder anti-choice groups endorse scott brown. >> i don't trust scott brown >> you may have seen that senator jeanna shaheen is running an ad calling into question my support for women's health care. i want you to know the facts. i am pro-choice and support funding for planned parenthood and believe women should have access to contraception. after six years of voting with president obama senator jeanna shaheen has resorted to a smear campaign the people of new hampshire deserve better. i'm scott brown, and i approve this message. >> i'm jeanna shaheen, and i approve this message. >> big oil companies are the most profitable on the planet, but scott brown voted to give them more than 20 billion in taxpayer subsidies. >> this guy is not for us. >> i don't trust him for a minute. >> big oil dave scott brown thousands of dollars within days of his votes. >> scott brown does not care about new hampshire. >> and now big oil is spending millions to get him back to washington. >> scott brown is in it for scott brown, nobody else. not new hampshire, no way. >> a. and know what you are thinking, another ad. hear me out. senator jeanna shaheen says she puts you first, but those with obama 99% of the time, 99 percent for more spending, more debt, obamacare. come on. we have to put up with obama for two more years, but we can fire jeanna shaheen now. let's fire jeanna shaheen. okay. >> c-span campaign 2014 is bringing you more than 100 debates for the control of congress. stay in touch with our coverage and engaged. follow us on twitter. >> c-span campaign 2014 coverage continues. >> coming up tonight on c-span2 the south dakota governor's debate. after that, the arkansas governor's debate. later, a discussion on the common court education standards and a health and human services department event on use homelessness. >> c-span 2015 student camera competition is underway. this nationwide competition for middle and high school students will award prizes totaling $100,000. create a 5-7-minute documentary. needs to include c-span programming, show varying points of view, and must be submitted by january 20th, 2015. grab a camera and get started today. >> now we go to south dakota for the governors' debate between incumbent republican dennis daugaard, democratic challenger susan wismer, an independent michael myers. the political report lists this race as solid republican courtesy of south dakota public broadcasting and runs one hour. >> you're watching a production of south dakota public broadcast. ♪ >> hello and welcome to election 2014 brought to you by south dakota public broadcasting, aarp's south dakota, and the south dakota newspaper association. we have teamed up to bring you south dakota gubernatorial debate. and tonight's moderator. here are their rules and instructions. each candidate will have a 1-minute opening statement. each candidate will have the opportunity for a one minute closing statement at the end of the debate. the questions have been solicited from the friends of south dakota public broadcasting, members of the aarp south dakota, and members of the south dakota newspaper association. i will ask the questions on behalf of all three partners we do ask that each candidate limit their answers to 90 seconds or less. each candidate will have 30 seconds for a rebuttal, should they feel they needed, and each candidate will have equal opportunity to respond to all questions. let's meet our candidates. republican candidates governor dennis daugaard, independent candidate michael myers, democratic candidate state representative susan wismer. welcome to all of you, and thank you for participating in tonight's debate. names were drawn to determine the order of our opening statement. that order will be covered under dennis daugaard, then 91, followed by representative susan wismer. governor, you have one minute and can begin. daugaard: thank you, susan. four years ago i came asking for a job, and you gave me a big one. a lot has changed since then my family has grown. a lot more has changed. together we balance the budget without using gimmicks or raising taxes. we stood up to record flooding on the missouri river, initiated reform of the criminal justice system to make the public safer, to hold offenders accountable and save money. and thousands of jobs recovering through a new post recession high. along the way we added new programs for young people with programs at high-school and technical schools and public universities. a lot has changed, but there is more i can do and that is why i am asking for your support. i would be honored to serve as your governor again. >> moderator: thank you very much. michael, you, to have one minute to speak to the voters. go ahead, sir. myers: i am c-span2, independent candidate for governor. when i go into office will be the oldest governor in the united states, but i am not for sale. i put together my wife and family, my wife passed away several years ago. i have a background, former ceo of a hospital, 1,000 beds, taught for 26 years, and i believe that it is time to push back and modify a power structure that has been there too long everybody needs a platform. i have five planks. number one, not for sale. i am not a career politician , and i will be fighting state corruption. number two, education, parent teacher control and funding. number three, health insurance cooperatives standards. number four, jobs, a living wage, agriculture and industrial help. finally, number five, i am aligned with the cowboy indian alliance regarding the keystone pipeline and the clean water alliance out there approaching uranium mining. >> moderator: thank-you very much. representative c-span.org, you may now visit with the voters of south dakota. wismer: thank-you to the viewers for turning into night. i am running for governor for the people of south dakota that are not being represented it -- represented today. i am running because i believe in a healthy, open discussion. just like competition is good for business, a competition of ideas would be good for state government , and we have not had that in south dakota for a long time. i am running because this administration has failed to recognize the real challenges than this stage faces. and those challenges will not be addressed until i am governor. you know, politics has become a little like football. we cheer for the favorite team no matter how well they play. but electing a governor is not about team loyalty. it is about choosing the leader with the right priorities. so i challenge our viewers tonight. listen for the differences between the candidates and vote for the one who understands the challenges that we face in south dakota thank you. >> moderator: thanks to all three of you. it is time for the question and answer portion of tonight's debate permitted names were drawn to determine the order. the first round will go as follows. michael myers first, then a representative susan wismer, followed by governor dennis daugaard. the -- we will then rotate that order for each new question. here is your question about education. south dakota ranks in the bottom for teacher pay and is dwarfed by all neighboring states. could you concisely answer how you plan to improve south dakota education system for teachers? and this comes from travis in rapid city. myers: it comes down to parent teacher control my daughter, and, worked as a teacher is the see it, drove the bus, monitored the halls, broke up fights in the playground, did it all. and the mandate that came down from, and cooler and salon dictates a different kind of and costly way to teach. we need better funding, we need to attract teachers, and we ought to be eight little bit ashamed of ourselves being down the way that we are. some of the most important people that will affect the lives of our children and tomorrow's generation. >> moderator: thank you very much. representative susan wismer, you will go next. again, about education, could you concisely answer how you plan to improve south dakota's education system per teachers? wismer: it is about your priorities reflecting what you say to the voters when you run for election. four years ago this governor was elected saying there is no budget crisis, and i value education. but when he got to the capitol he said, we have got a problem here, folks. we need to cut the budget, and everyone will share in the paint. i will cut my salary $15,000. education, your share is 50 million. and then, when we found that we had drastically overreacted to the situation and came back the next year, education and health care as well took a much -- did receive some funding back. but they received a much smaller percentage back and what we have taken away in the first place. i am a member of the legislative planning committee that met this summer and heard superintendents come and talk about the disaster that we have created in south dakota. even superintendents from large schools came and said, we brought all of the good teachers that we can find. the pipeline is empty. the free market works, and we should not be surprised that it has worked in south dakota. the first answer to correcting the problem is a change in the direction from the governor's office, a change in priorities, and a respect for education that we do not see now from the capital. >> moderator: all right. the same question. concisely answer how you plan to improve south dakota's education system for teachers. daugaard: education is our number one priority. every year we spend the largest share of our general fund appropriation on education before any other topic. when we build the budget almost have to spend on education. when we began the process we first find an inflationary increase for education. then after finding the other necessary things if there is money left it goes to education. the national education association says we are 501st in teacher pay. that same study also shows we are 309th in revenue per student. the difference between 51st and 309th is how that money is spent at the local level. local school boards determined teacher pay, not the state government. we have a workforce shortage for teachers, just as we have for engineers, accountants, and others. it is difficult for employers to hire in certain categories of occupations. some people say that the state gives lip service to education. that is not true. i don't call spending the last three years increasing $40 million to education and onetime dollars of 30 million more lip service. the bottom line is you cannot spend money you do not have. i am happy to spend more money on education if it is available and i am proud of the investments we have made in education and look forward to doing more. >> moderator: we do have time for rebuttals, if you feel that you needed. you have 30 -- myers: selling degrees. students walked out with 40, 50, $70,000 of non destructible debt. and we are now finding that people at the social security level are engaged in the largest default in education. we need to make sure that when we invest that kind of money in education that there is an opportunity in the market for return. >> moderator: would you like a rebuttal? wismer: yes, please. today we have millions more dollars in the bank and we did when is governor took office. if we were truly concerned about education we would prioritize education over money in the bank. the governor started this distracting -- distracting statistic about 309th place when actually south dakota is in very last place by far for their share of money that the state puts into education. it is only because of the local effort that it gets above their kefauver governor. daugaard: it is important to distinguish between the source of money in the availability of money. the important thing is how much revenue is available in south dakota we are 309th in revenue per student. again, it depends on where is spent at the local level. to the extent that the state has dollars available, i am supportive of increasing investment in education, but i won't spend money we do not have. >> moderator: we will move on to that next question the question is on health care. with the number of baby boomers are across south dakota reaching senior citizen status, what efforts need to be done at the state level to ensure our health care system is capable of handling the increase in health care needs for our baby boomers, especially in rural areas of south dakota? again, representative susan wismer first. wismer: well, the first thing we could do is expand medicaid. we are passing on the $5 million a week investment in our in state health care institution. i will stay away from the rest of the medicaid expansion discussion assuming we will talk about that later. but it is having severe affects on the health of all of our institutions because windy affordable care act was passed, it was passed with the assumption that there would be far fewer patients that did not have insurance. there would be a far less degree of uncompensated care. because we still do still have 48,000 non covered residence hospitals still have the same degree of non uncompensated care that they did before the affordable care act came into place. therefore, the health of our rural institutions is threatened because of the high level of bad debt. also in regards to providers for the elderly, our state needs to continue its investments in our medical school, and we have been able to increase the slots and also to increase the residencies that are available here in south dakota because we need to make sure that the providers that we train here we are able to sustain here in the state. >> moderator: thank you. you will get to go next. again, with the number of baby boomers across the state reaching senior citizen status, what efforts need to be done at the state level to make sure that the health care system is capable of handling the increase in health care needs for the baby boomers, especially in rural areas of south dakota? daugaard: well, south dakota has a very good health care system. the problem we face is availability, access to health care in rural areas. that is a problem i have tackled head on. i appointed of primary care task force my first year in office to study what we can do to improve access to health care in rural areas. a number of steps have been taken. first, we expanded the medical school. more doctors produced in south dakota it improves the likelihood that they will stay in south dakota. we also expanded the physician's assistant program. ten slots for in state and ten for out-of-state. we converted that to 54 out of state and 24 in state. we also created payments for clinical experiences for midlevel practitioners like physician assistants and a -- nurse practitioners. and particularizing our attraction to rural areas, we created several programs to give medical professionals experience in rural areas like the farm program and rehab program that can students into the area, into the small towns and give them experience in those clinical areas. finally, we added dollars for recruiting incentives so that health care facilities can in santa professionals to come to their area either through giving them a payment or promising them to reimburse their tuition if they stay for an amount of time in a rural area. i am proud we have done a lot. >> moderator: thank you. would you like me to repeat the question? myers: i am ready to go. medicine has become an epidemic. i and indeed it will drive us into a social, political, and financial bankruptcy's. and i put together some of these systems. with regard to the baby boomers, i hosted 527 programs and it did then a senior legal help line. this is an area that needs to be controlled, regulated. and we have concentrated, vertically integrated systems. where is teddy roosevelt when you need him? take a look at the not for profit behavior of systems where they advertised by the millions of dollars and over treat. my model will be the establishment of a health care cooperative where the members on the insurance mechanism. and i have a lot of ideas on how to lower premiums maybe 30 percent. we have to get our hands around the system that is virtually out of control. >> moderator: we do have time for rebuttals on this issue. you would go first, if you would like. wismer: an additional element of rural health care is definitely our nursing homes, and they have suffered 6-figure operating losses during this covenant term in office. we have lost touch you in nursing homes during his term. i was just at a fund-raiser that was changing the way it was organized so that it could hopefully survive for a few more years and be able to provide the care to local residents the core services and local communities are in danger of disappearing because of the policies of this administration. >> moderator: we will move on you have time for rebuttal. daugaard: in the area of nursing homes it is important to know the facts. a moratorium was placed on the number of nursing-home beds in south dakota. over the years different levels of care have been created. assisted living, home health care. the number of people seeking care in nursing homes has gone down. we are not even at the number of the moratorium. some population has shifted to a larger metropolitan areas, and oral nursing-home areas are having more difficulty. that is the nature of a population shift, not a consequence of the way medicaid is supported. >> moderator: perris you also have an opportunity. myers: i endorsed the expansion of medicaid. i want priority given to what you are talking about. nursing homes, we all get cold. i want medicaid expanded, a waiver, priority given to senior centers. >> moderator: we will move on to the next question. you will go first this time. and this one is on medicaid. here is the question. there are a lot of people between 50 and 64 who have worked their whole lives but need medical insurance and do not qualify through the exchanges. the decision cannot expand medicaid was made during this past legislative session even though some lawmakers were not in favor of the decision. as governor, what will you do to ensure those individuals who do not qualify for insurance or need assistance get the help that they need? this was sent to us by max, a member of aarp. daugaard: medicaid is a very important program. today we have roughly 116,000 south dakotans who today are on medicaid. children mostly, some adults with disabilities, and some people who have low income. low-income, frail, elderly adults. medicaid is a good program, but i worry about the federal cost of expanding medicaid. we have to entitlement programs, social security and medicare which are on track for bankruptcy, and nothing is being done about that. i worry about the state cost it would cost $2 million. two years later 10 million, than 20 million, than 26 million. those are dollars that cannot be spent on education or other needs. what about the 48,000 folks who would qualify for medicaid if there was an expansion? nearly half of them today can either have private insurance already or can get subsidized insurance on the federal health care exchange for as little as 2% of their income. all that being said, it is important to distinguish between medicaid insurance availability and access. when i talked about expanding access, i am proud of the progress we have made in access and will work hard to continue to improve. >> moderator: thank you. the question is from the maxwell a rp. he asks, as governor, what will you do to make sure those individuals who do not qualify for insurance or need assistance get the help that they need. we are talking about medicaid. myers: spend money on us. we need three or four more million dollars. we are going to support those people at that part of their life because we all may be there. so we will be in the front row of heaven and we get up there. all of the minimum wage assistance that came in and changed mom and dad's diaper. i am going to spend money on the people that need it, and i have case after case after case of people whose life's savings have been spent because they had a stroke and win to a nursing home. spend money on the kids and it us old folks. >> moderator: thank-you. do you need me to repeat the question? wismer: note. it his question, i think i will address the access question first. the governor mentioned that we are expanding access. however, 48,000 people do not have access to preventative care, and that is the most efficient kind. they only have access to emergency rooms, and that is the most inefficient type of care. if we did expand medicaid, we would take a step toward allowing our health care system to provide services in a more efficient manner. regarding the state cost, the economic studies have shown that the cost to the state is essentially nothing the economic return of having $272 million per year extra in our economy would far outweigh and multiplying as economic multipliers do such that the state cost would be essentially nothing as far as the federal cost and when state cost would step up, i think we are seriously over estimating and overstating what the state cost would be. the way that the law is written now, it would be ten years before this date would take in appreciable share of this cost. furthermore, in all of the medical studies -- because there were several medicaid expansion task forces in the last couple of years. and it was taken for granted that if and when we did expand medicaid we would have a provision that would say -- that would hold the state harmless. >> moderator: is now time to go back and have a rebuttal. you have 30 seconds. daugaard: well, first of all , it was stated that the folks who would be covered by medicaid expansion have only access to emergency care which is not true. nearly half, as i said earlier, today have private insurance or can get subsidized health insurance for as little as 2% of their income. many of those could get that subsidy. they also have the ability to gain the subsidized insurance working as little as 30 hours a week. they also have the opportunity for federally qualified agencies and get health care on a sliding scale. >> moderator: all right. myers: let's make sure that that medicaid money is spent in the right location. we can spend a million dollars. i want to shift that into priority again to nursing homes and the elderly. >> moderator: representative. wismer: regarding the half of the population that technically does have access , the state is doing its darnedest to make a self-fulfilling prophecy of the failure of the affordable care act by not promoting to the people who are eligible the fact that they are eligible. if we expanded medicaid, we would help make many more people productive members of society because we would be treating the chronic conditions that keep them out of the workforce. we take a lot of federal money and have no problem when it comes to veterans or subsidies. but the fact that we refuse to take the $300 million so far i find immoral. >> moderator: we are going to move on. michael, you will answer first. economic development. the question, improving economic development on a state wide scale is an issue many candidates have addressed as important for south dakota. could you provide specific plans you hope to implement that will improve south dakota, even in our most rural areas of the state? myers: eleanor roosevelt said, happiness is not a goal. it is a bright -- byproduct. i suggest that economic development is a byproduct of the energy and adventure that we can bring to all communities. of course, i am doing something kind of radical. i had and how much energy to meet with lawyers and other people. they said don't even use the word. the word is hemp. agricultural and industrial hemp, some of these states have done this, north dakota , the farm bureau wants it. a billion dollar industry, particularly on the reservations that we refuse to take advantage of because of the lobbying influence of big oil, lumber, cotton growers. >> moderator: thank you for your answer. again, the question, provide specific plans you hope to implement that will improve economic development, even in our most rural parts of south dakota. wismer: the voters turned down this governor's first economic development program a few years ago. and when the legislature came back, i think we did a good job of coming together on a bipartisan basis with a compromise proposal that included several and for gold areas to economic development. besides the refunds of some of the extra taxes that economic developers find in south dakota, we also included four very important elements. we included a housing provision so that particularly in small communities that, perhaps, don't have an up-to-date housing stock, we could address those issues. we also included a provision so that english as a second language got some extra boosting in the education formula. we also included provisions that help small communities address the infrastructure needs, roads, water, sewer projects. and finally, we addressed a need that small communities half -- communities have to build infrastructure and capability to address economic development. but this governor this past year tore apart the funding mechanism for that economic development package and put it at risk for the next several years. >> moderator: you can talk about economic development. the question, provide specific plans you hope to implement that will improve economic development, even in the most rural parts of south dakota. daugaard: thank-you. i have to laugh at the assertion by susan wismer that i tore apart funding when senate bill 235 past. the belief was it would generate $7 million per year into that program. what i did last year was three fund with $30 million that program. if that is tearing apart the funding, i would love to have that all day long. a south dakota has great success and economic development from builder's choice to pipeline plastics, energy. employers have added new locations with new jobs all over the state. the more common situation is existing employers that are growing. manufacturing added new workers this year. trail came in mitchell, bell brands in brookings and 3m announced their second expansion in 40 years. we have had tremendous growth for three reasons. low-cost and low tax environment. a reasonable regulations. a great work force. i worked hard to strengthen those three factors. i have kept taxes low. i have repealed hundreds of unnecessary regulations and have programs in welding, machining, and other areas, scholarship dollars. i am proud of the economic development success that south dakota has seen. we regains all jobs lost during the recession and added 10,000 more. if that is not economic development success i don't know what is. >> moderator: we are at the rebuttal portion. myers: is information technology. and we no longer can expect big companies to come into small towns. we need to optimize the ability we cannot have clinics because we are too small. information technology, i believe, is an area that we can bring quality of life, incredible quality of life to small towns. we do not lock our doors. it is a good life. information technology is one way we can keep vitality in small communities. >> moderator: that is time . wismer: as i was referring to the funding mechanism for economic development my reference was a battle between the executive and legislative branch. it is a small point, as all the citizens of the state are concerned, but it is important to the mechanism and the continuing confidence that we can have in having a balanced approach to economic development. and that has been threatened by changes made to the plan. >> moderator: thank you. we will move on. this next question we will begin with representative susan wismer. and we are going to talk about ed5. unveiled serious problem with the program. a federal program designed to improve rural economic development. it could be considered one of our states bigger political scandals. the issue could be on going after the governor's race. if you should win the job of south dakota governor, how will you work to insure incidents like what has happened with the program in south dakota do not happen again? wismer: thank you. i think the major take away for the state from this episode ought to be that it is an example of the consequences of what happens when we allow state government to be so completely in control of one party for 40 years, not just legislative but executive as well. that's -- and having a democrat in the governor's chair would solve that problem. of what i see as i'd tear apart or try to understand all of the pieces of the spousal is that the lines between public and private have become so blurred over the last 40 years that it is difficult for those involved to tell the difference between. as a member of government operations and audit committee, from the beginning of was asking, let's not just talk about what it was that this governor wants to talk about, which is the top picks of the three audits he prescribed. instead i asked that we talk about the program because i knew that that is where, as a resident of the northeastern part of the state, i knew that there were bad things happening and we were conducting business in the good name of the state of south dakota, and there were bad actors involved. and that needed to stop. so that is what i would -- the solution is balancing state government. >> moderator: all right. again, the question, if you should win the job of south dakota governor, how will you to work to ensure plants incidents like what happened with the program in our state did not happen again? daugaard: id is not up program might administration has emphasized, but when i learned the u.s. attorney was investigating the issue i asked the state attorney general to undertake as separate investigation. and the attorney general's investigation became available and i immediately made public. that report indicated the potential for weakness in our internal controls and the office of economic development. asked for three separate audits, to buy separate cpa firms, and one by the department of legislative audit which is controlled by the legislature, not the governor. when those became available, i made them public. i have, at every turn, offered no legislature and the public all of the information i have and answered every question that i can. i think to look at the audits and identify the ways in which we can strengthen our internal controls is exactly the kind of thing that you want to do to avoid recurrence of any wrongdoing . no one in my administration is the target of any investigation. i believe criminal prosecutions are of the province of our state attorney general and u.s. attorney, and i invite those who claim there are bad actors to come forth with names and identify them. >> moderator: mike, you are next. how will you work to ensure incidence like what happened with the program in south dakota -- myers: potential bad actors could be governor dennis daugaard. as i said previously, when i am governor i am going to appoint a special independent attorney. i want governor dennis daugaard and others to come in with a bible under oath -- we have had no testimony under oath. i think testimony in front of the committee. why? i was pushing them to issue subpoenas and get to the bottom of it. when i am governor we will try and accomplish that. >> moderator: it is time, if we would like, for rebuttals. wismer: i think it is important for the citizens of south dakota to know that this governor did learn about litigation regarding the activities taken in this separate signing of the contract. his office was apprised in february of 2009. also, i think it is important to wonder why this administration did not hire richard. why was that? finally, it is important for people to know that this administration did not stop the activity and tell one year ago. >> moderator: eu also have time for a rebuttal. daugaard: it is important to remind the viewers that i was not in office in february of 09. i was the lieutenant governor. this was not in any way my assignment. and so to suggest that i had some knowledge is really stretching the truth of that . >> moderator: michael, you to. myers: i believe it is south dakota's watergate. we will probably find that out if i am governor. >> moderator: we are going to move on to the next round of questions. we are going to talk about natural disasters. south dakota has dealt with its share of natural disasters that have taken a toll on our citizens mentally and financially. the state cannot always depend on the federal government to provide assistance after a disaster. what can be done at the state level to provide more security, should a future natural disaster hits? daugaard: well, i am proud of the record my administration has. i created during my administration -- just six months into office we had record flooding on the missouri river. i called the national guard, and we had the largest activation of the national guard in our state's history in response to 9--- natural disaster. we scrambled and build levees on both sides of the river. in the years that followed, we responded to record numbers of wild fires in the black hills, ice storms. and the summer flooding ag myers: we need to recognize that water, storms, snow -- we do not recognize and respect county lines. the county's struggle and fight and competing over who will bear the cost of the damage. i believe that the governor has done this. we need to bring these people together and see if there is a way to share in the cost of responding to mother nature. >> moderator: thank-you. what can be done at the state level to provide more security, should a future natural disaster hit south dakota? wismer: as a member of the appropriations committee i am quite familiar with the dollars that have gone to assist in recovering from disasters, all that different types mentioned, wild fires, floods. i think that the average person would be surprised how much of those dollars to come from the federal government, and it is incumbent upon us to be sure that we spent those as wisely as possible. i believe i just read this week that the electorate is using federal disaster money that they've received to bury power lines, and i think we definitely need to do that. myers: as far as preparing us for the next disaster. >> moderator: there's an opportunity for a bottle. governor would he like 30 seconds? >> i don't have a rebuttal. myers: we south dakotans don't like big government. we like other people's big government. and my friend gretchen said it south dakota had to stand on its own financial be they would look like you bus so we will take advantage of all those federal dollars. i'm sure any of us as governor would do exactly that and will continue to do that. >> moderator: representative do you need rebuttal time? we are getting close to the end. we do have time for one additional bonus question. you each will have one minute to respond. there is no time for a rebuttal. the question has to do with transparency. michael you will go first. here is your question. what is one concrete thing you would do her champion in the next four years if elected to make south dakota's government more transparent? you have one minute. myers: the people's forum. i did -- we are going to have a forum just like the "washington journal" and they can call and independent, democrat republican colvin and say mr. myers you are the most wonderful governor. with your background experience we admire everything you have done. or they can call in and say how could we ever have elected a person like you? i will open dialogue and let people for them and i'm identified as a populist, and i'm going to be a populist in my government style. >> moderator: thank you. representative wismer you will go next. again if elected what we do to make south dakota government more transparent? wismer: you know as a democratic legislature is frustrating during the legislative session that as it seems all the systems are made behind closed doors. we tell our counties and their schools and our their cities that they need to conduct all of their business out in the open but in here, any decision of consequences made in a close governor's conference room, and the close republican caucus are in a closed pre-committee committee meetings where noses are counted in permission is parceled out to vote in a manner that will carry out the majority's agenda. the only way that we can change that is by putting another party in control of the governor's office. they can gerrymander the whole state as much as they want but they can't gerrymander the state as a whole. south dakota could pass some balance if we would put a democrat into the governor's chair. >> moderator: governor daugaard your turn for the question. what is one concrete thing you would do her champion if elected to make south dakota's government more transparent? daugaard: first of may offer some examples of ways which i have already made government more transparent. i conceive the open government task force with the newspaper association and others and through that work we identified improvement to the open meetin meetings, laws and the open records laws and we urge some of that through the legislature. some of the legislature would not support that but we came back and got some more legislative changes to improve that. we have also improved the rulemaking web site so people can understand that the rules are being created through the rulemaking process. they can follow it more easily and i've got a good praise for that effort. we posted dollar echo mott -- economic development awards on her our web site. we have listed the governors on the buffalo roundup invitees. improving the access the system has two boards and commissions, minutes and processes making a centralized web site where people can through that portal flight access through those over 100 boards and commissions in south dakota. that's concrete. >> moderator: thanks to all three of you. it is now time for the closing comments. that's all the time we have for the question-and-answer part of this debate. candidates will share their closing thoughts with us tonight. each candidate will have one minute. we did draw names to determine the order in which they would go and it will be representative susan wismer first, followed by governor dennis daugaard and then mike myers will have the final word tonight. representative wismer this is your opportunity to share your final thoughts with our south dakota viewers. wismer: thank you again to my fellow candidates and the viewers. our ancestors gave us a well educated citizenry and strong communities and infrastructure. but we are not doing our part. we are not being good stewards of what our ancestors gave us. we are allowing our frustration with the federal government and extremist partisan rhetoric affect our judgments about state issues and our communities are paying the price for that everyday in our starving schools and are nearly bankrupt nursing homes, and our crumbling roads and bridges. four years from now if we continue on the path we are on what will we have done to our children's chances for success? i am tired of being told it could be worse when our future could be so much better. we are better than that here in south dakota and we should expect more than that from our leaders. as governor i would lead to that higher ground. thank you. >> moderator: thank you represented. governor you now have one minute to visit with the voters of south dakota. daugaard: thank you. across the country people are recognizing that good things are happening in south dakota. parents called us the best run state in america. cnbc called as the number one state for business. our taxes are among the lowest in the nation. in a political year it's sometimes hard to remember the good news but it's true. our unemployment rate is second lowest in the nation. our student test scores are above the national average. we balanced our budget. our communities are among the safest in the nation and our population and economy are growing faster than the nation. i know that government doesn't deserve credit for most of this but i've worked hard to help south dakota families and businesses achieve success. i'd be grateful for the opportunity to serve four more years and continue to build on those successes. i would be honored to serve as your governor again. >> moderator: all right thank you. and mike you too have the opportunity to make one -- take one minute to share your thoughts with voters. myers: there something going on out there. a level of anxiety and underlying anger among the people that i meet and talk with. i really believe that we need to respond to that anger and respond to that anxiety. i believe i'm uniquely qualified to do that because again i won't be looking for his second term. i have health care in my priority. i will use my priorities and when i walk in that dog box for the first time in decades, democrats and republicans and we know it's a republican state. it's a tough run for susan. what about doing something different and challenging and let myers go in there and not rage against the machine but they do put some new spark plugs in it. >> moderator: thank you sir. that is all the time we have. i would like to thank the candidates for joining us. republican candidate governor dennis daugaard, independent candidate michael myers democratic candidate state representative susan wismer. if you miss part of tonight's broadcast you can listen to the audio version of the debate tomorrow on the sdp p. radio new ground -- program. tonight's televised debate will be on our web site at sdp p..org. >> you can see this and other debates around the country on our web site c-span.org. here's a look at the montana senate debate between democrat amanda curtis and republican steve daines. >> moderator: you know when our founding fathers wrote our founding documents they did not ever intend for corporations to be running the show here. they intended for teachers and electricians and plumbers to be making the decisions that affect us in our system legislature. i've found in meeting montanans that they are a little bit of afraid of being part of the process and maybe they don't think they are smart enough to do it or don't have the right background. the reason that i have stepped up to the plate is to prove that you do not have to be a silver spoonfed politician, a career politician to represent working families in the best person to represent workers in the state is one of us. daines: a follow-up to that with amanda, i think do you have the experience to represent the state in the u.s. senate with one year in the house of representatives and your background as a high school teacher? curtis: i'm sure by now most folks have read in their local paper about my background growing up in poverty right here in billings and the adversity that i experience. most people know that i have dedicated my life to education because it's the pathway to overcoming the adversity that i have experienced. the experiences that i have had in a working-class family in the state of montana absolutely make me the best person to be our voice in the united states senate. >> moderator: congressman daines. daines: we agree that we need a citizen type legislature back in washington. we need more men and women who have experienced that can bring that back and take the skills learned in the private sector outside of washington to help lead the country. growing up in boozman and effect mom and dad grew up in billings. my grandmother lives in the same home on avenue c or 45 years until she passed away a few months ago. i grew up watching mom and dad started construction business from nothing. we lived in 10 different houses growing up in boozman moving every year and a half to stay a step ahead of the bank. i worked summers in construction to put myself through college in engineering. i think we need people who have had experience growing jobs growing businesses because we talk about jobs. i'm the only candidate on the stage who has been out there and created hundreds of good high-paying jobs here in montana. >> moderator: a quick rebuttal amanda. curtis: i have to apologize to all the teachers out there for what you have just heard because we know that teachers are also very important job creators in our state and in our country. >> almanacs "washington journal" the former chief of the u.s. capitol police on the shooting at canada's capital. >> why can't we all get behind the president what he wants to do and that's this ebola thing. i think it's overhyped by the media and i timed the time they give it, 10 to 12 minutes every morning when it first came out and they are still talking about it. there are other things that are important to talk about too but they don't do it. >> i would like to see c-span2 a question about is this ebola virus the proof that we need a national one payer health care system? we have just seen what happened in texas with the capitalistic health care system and now it's going to cost us millions and millions to clean that mess up. >> regarding ebola and hospitals not being ready you had a guest on oh gosh it couldn't have been eight or nine years ago and i forget the author's name. she wrote a book called pandemic and she went into how our hospitals were prepared under the bush administration. we had a shortage of doctors and nurses. i wonder how that fares today. we were not ready then and we are not ready now.

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Arkansas , Canada , Montana , Central Falls , Rhode Island , New Hampshire , Texas , Rhode Island College , Washington , District Of Columbia , Roosevelt Island , South Dakota , Massachusetts , Mecca , Makkah , Saudi Arabia , Ohio , North Dakota , Montanans , America , Rhode Islander , American , Mitchell Bell , Mike Myers , Gina Raimondo , Jeanna Shaheen , Dave Scott Brown , Eleanor Roosevelt , Michael Myers , Scott Brown , Robert Healey , Dennis Daugaard , Amanda Curtis , Steve Daines , Susan Wismer ,