10-year anniversary of Delaware Debates 2010 – U.S. House of Representative


Good evening. I’m
Nancy Karib- janian on behalf of Delaware first Media and the University of
Delaware center for political
communication. Welcome to tonight’s debate featuring the candidates in the race for the US
representative seat. Delaware first Media and the University of
Delaware center for political
communication. Do appreciate the
financial support of AARP Delaware and of the American Cancer Society Cancer
Action Network. We also appreciate those who have gathered
here with us and Mitchell Hall on
the new campus of the University
of Delaware. Now tonight’s debate is divided into two parts. Following a two minute
opening statement from each of
our candidates. I will be posing questions. Responses in
this section are limited to two minutes with a one-minute rebuttal
and then we’ll have time for
follow-up discussion. That will be our
first 60 minutes. This will be followed by a 30 minute segment during which we’re going to turn to the students of the University of Delaware for their questions. Responses in this section will be limited
to one minute. Each candidate
will also have two minutes for a
closing statement. Now our live studio audience here and
Mitchell hall, they understand
that there will be no applause during
tonight’s debate. So now to introduce
our candidates, we are joined by
democrat John Carney. Welcome John. Great to be here. And also Republican
Glenn Urquhart. Welcome. Great to
be here gentlemen. It is a pleasure
to have you here. We held the coin
toss earlier to determine our order
for this evening. And through that coin toss, it was determined
that we begin with Glenn Urquhart who will have our first
opening statement. You have two minutes.
Thank you, Nancy. Thank you, organizers and University of
Delaware and everyone who made this
debate possible.>>I’m Glenn Urquhart. Heart is the second part of my name and it breaks my heart when I see so many Delaware
Ian’s out of jobs, particularly when it’s caused unnecessarily by career politicians
who don’t understand how
business creates jobs. I’m the great grandson of an indentured servant. I’ve been blessed to
live the American dream. I’ve begun a
business with nothing and we have been blessed to create jobs for
other people. But I’m concerned
as my wife, Angela, who’s with us here tonight, my bride and best
friend of 33 years. We have five children
and 14 grandchildren. Were concerned
about their future and about the students at the University of
Delaware and elsewhere elsewhere who are afraid that they won’t get jobs. I am a proven job creator. I know how we can create
jobs in this nation. We can do it
the way Kennedy did with tax cuts, the way Reagan did with tax cuts when I was
privileged to serve in that administration
for seven years and we added 17
million net new jobs Recently, Canada has
added jobs and reduced their unemployment rate by 20% by cutting taxes. We can do that in
America as well. Now my honorable
opponent is a career politician
and he sat silently while this state piled up $800 million of new
debts and destroyed jobs, I don’t know how he will be able to stand up to Nancy Pelosi when he didn’t stand up to Ruth
Ann Minner. And so I ask you to
send me to Washington. I have stood up to my own party
and I have won. If you want an independent voice in Washington,>>if you want a
proven job creator, I ask for your vote. And I ask you
to go to Glenn for liberty.com. Mr. Carney, your
two minute opening statement. Well,
good evening. I want to thank the
University of Delaware, Delaware first media, AARP and the American Cancer
Society for hosting this debate and all of you for skipping the Phillies game
and coming out. It’s great to be back here at the University
of Delaware. Doesn’t seem that very long ago that I was
here working on my master’s degree in public administration
and coaching freshman football
for TBI. Raymond, I was delighted, as I’m sure many of you were, to hear this morning that a former professor here
at the University, Richard Heck, was awarded the Nobel Prize
in Chemistry for his groundbreaking
research. That’s a great
honor for him and a real tribute
for this university. I’m running for Congress because now more than ever, we need strong
leaders to address the very serious challenges that we face as a nation. I spent the last year traveling up and
down our state talking to Delaware-
ans about the challenges that
they face every day. People are struggling.
Thousands of our neighbors
are out of work. More people than
ever are out of work six months or
longer in this country. Last year, 6 thousand
Delaware families faced foreclosure
on their homes. And in these
difficult times, our representatives
in Washington have let us down. We need new leaders
who will put progress over politics and do the right thing
for the country. Delawareans I talk to, are frustrated with what they see going on
in Washington. The constant political
fighting in bickering. My opponent wants
to go to Washington and just say no to
every proposal to address these
problems he wants to take back take us back to the
failed policies of the past that got
us into this mess. He wants to repeal
health care reform and roll back the new regulations on Wall Street>>Those are not the
answers we need, we need a leader
with real ideas about creating jobs, strengthening
our economy, and getting our country
back on track. Alright, thank you
all for coming again. Let’s begin with
our questions then. And we begin with
you, Mr. Urquhart. And we’re going to
begin with an issue that’s red, blue, right, left, however you feel like characterizing it. But it’s all about party politics
it seems this time around and it’s all about the Tea Party factor.>>Mr. Urquhart,
do you identify yourself as a Tea
Party candidate? And if you do, what
does that mean? I identify myself as one of the tens
of millions of Americans who are
concerned about big government debt
destroying jobs, destroying the
American dream. I am excited that there are tens of millions
of Americans who are reading the Constitution
that understand that limited
constitutional government means with unlimited opportunity to understand
the big picture, which is that
governments gotten too big and it’s crowding
out private investment. We have over a
trillion dollars of equity capital sitting
on the sidelines. It’s afraid to invest. What does that mean?
It means we’re not producing new jobs and growing the economy because there’s a crisis
of confidence. We can do better than that. And we can do it by cutting taxes and creating
incentives. Look, you can’t
say you love jobs, but then act like you hate businesses and massive
new regulations like my friend John
has referred to and tax increases like his party is
going to cause in January are the problem. And just temporary
suspensions don’t work. I’ve been creating
jobs for 30 years. I’ve been running
businesses starting from scratch. And we have to be able
to have a long-term, low tax, low regulatory
environment.>>Then we will create
the next Microsoft’s, The next Amgens, the
next Apple computers. But right now we have
too much government. We’ve got to grow the
size of the economy. So the government’s
back in balance. Your one-minute rebuttal? Well, I’m certainly not a associated with
the Tea Party. I am a tea drinker. I learned that
from my parents who are both here tonight. I am a loyal Democrat
and have been for a long time and I’ve work to fight
for the values that we represent
as a party. Equal opportunity for all, special privilege
for none helping those who can’t help
themselves. Fighting every day for
working families and making sure
that every child, every child in our state, in our country has an
opportunity to succeed. One of the things
I do see with the Tea Party has been
a tremendous amount of enthusiasm for the
issues of the day. And there were
there was a focus on issues that
are important to me and to all
Delawareans and people that I
talk to every day, like the growing
national debt and budget, annual
budget deficits. These are things that
I believe though that we need to
work together on not to motivate one another by
trying to divide us. This is the
discussion portion, emphasis on discussion. I need to go back
to my question because I don’t believe
I got an answer.>>Do you feel that you are a Tea
Party candidate? I don’t think
I’m necessarily a Tea Party
candidate by respect the objectives
of those people who want to return to
our founders values of, of faith, hope, charity,
honesty, trust, yes. People who want
limited government, I mean, lots of people to support those values. To say, please don’t
label me as Tea Party Say you wouldn’t prefer not to be labeled
as a Tea Party. While I’m saying
they prefer not to be too Tea Party, I’m wel-, I welcome
the Tea Party support. They seem to be solid
Americans who are peacefully and
vigorously attempting to re-establish the
American dream. I’ve been blessed
with that dream. So my, you know, my father went to
work when he was 14 years old because his father was burned
in a boiler explosion. I worked with my
grandfather at age 12. In the Hill District
of Pittsburgh, One of the roughest
neighborhoods in America. Well, let’s stay
on the issue of party politics here. And, and just that I
stood up to my party. So I’m not necessarily
a party guy. I appreciate John’s
loyal to his party, but I ran against
the establishment.>>Mr. Carney, you’ve also said that you would be an independent voice
in Washington. And you use the football
analogy to explain many of your positions for the state of Delaware. So in effect isn’t by saying you would be
an independent voice saying I’ll be a
sideline player because people need to
take a stand, correct. To get things done.
In Washington, I think it’s a
little bit of both. You need to find like-minded
individuals who are serving in the Congress that you can work with. To work on problems,
you have to find>>people on both
sides of the aisle. One of the biggest problems
that we have right now in Washington
DC is that the Republicans
are thinking only about their own
political advantage and the Democrats the same, same way too often. Instead of thinking
about what’s doing the best thing, doing the best thing
for the country. And there are very
serious problems that we have to address. Getting our economy
moving again, making sure that the health care reform bill
actually works, particularly to
reduce costs and make premiums more affordable for
working families. So we’ve gotta work
together to do that. And I believe that you
can be independent. You can work
within your party and work across party
lines to do that. The only way to
do in my view.>>Do you have a follow up to
that, Mr. Urquhart? Sure. Government doesn’t
create jobs. Employers create jobs. We’ve got to encourage employers. We want jobs. As I said, you can’t say I love jobs and hate employers. I think what Mr.
Cohen was saying, he’s an independent voice. Let me take it back to what–
Well I’m an indepen- dent voice, because
I disagree with some of the things that’s
in my party. I mean, either I
wrote to I wrote to the Republican minority
leadership when I was asked and opposed a number of things
in the stimulus. Mr. Carney, I really think it’s a matter
of approach. We as Democrats and I as a candidate have always seek to bring people together to solve problems. One of the things
that I hear from my opponent is>>He’s always
trying to appeal to those divisions to separate us and some ways to address issues that are important to all of us. I contend that really
the way to solve those problems is to
bring people together. The fact of the matter
is we need each other. People are out of work, need business
people to create jobs, to hire them. Well, we’re going
to get to jobs. Before we close
out this topic, I want to read back to you a quote from your victory speech on primary night. It’s proof that
we the people, I’m not sure I really– Well, this is what I
have, is that we, the people are wary of unprincipled politicians who can no longer
represent us. Who are you referring
to? Well, I’m I’m referring to
the Pelosi regime>>When someone
says you have to vote for this bill
before you can read it. That’s not principle. When someone
promises to put it on cspan and put it on the internet
for 72 hours so people can read it
and then doesn’t do it. That’s breaking your words. So that’s the kind
of principles that I stand for an object. But like like John, I support working
together with people. I’d been a
businessman for 33 or we’re gonna get to the topic of
announcer and we, and we bring
people together. That’s how you do it. You reconcile and
create coalitions. That is the next
topic on the table. And this question
goes to him and we didn’t
even rehearse. There is an issue that you both clearly
agree upon. I think we’ve already
established that.>>That is that jobs and the unemployment situation must become a priority. So if elected, how do you plan to create jobs in
the state of Delaware? Our unemployment
rate is 8.4%. National unemployment
rate is 9.6%. People need jobs.
People need jobs and creating jobs will be my
top priority. The fact of the matter is one thing that we
do agree on is that private businesses
create those jobs. And so we need to do whatever we can
to make sure that small businesses can
thrive, they can grow. I’ve talked to small
business people up and down or state and what they tell
me is that they need access to capital. There was
legislation that was just passed recently making available
$30 billion through community banks
for small businesses. That’s one thing
that we can do. But we also need to make things here in
America again, we need to develop manufacturing
facilities and we have great opportunities to do that with new energy
technologies. We have an offshore
wind project that a lot of the
people here at the University
of Delaware have worked towards making
sure it’s a reality. We need to make
sure that we build the supply chain
here in Delaware, manufacturing the
wind turbines, manufacturing
the towers for those, for that project. That’s hundreds of jobs and millions of
dollars of investment. But guess what? We’re falling behind
as a country. We’re falling behind
the Europeans were falling behind
the Chinese. I support investment
tax credits to make that possible, to create that
incentive for private businesses
to get that going. Again, we need jobs for middle-class Delaware. And I was visiting
with some of my friends from Clay
much earlier today. And these were men
who are retired, but they had earned
their living, lifted their families
into the middle class, working on the
industrial facilities along the Delaware River. Sun Oil, Sun Ship, Phoenix, the old Phoenix steel now Claymont Steel.>>We need to reinvigorate that kind of employment for middle-class
Americans here in Delaware and
across the country. And we can do it,
Mr. Urquhart, your rebuttal. We will create jobs in
Delaware the same way Governor Pete DuPont did with carrots,
not with sticks. The Pelosi party is passing thousands of pages of
thou shalt not sticks, forcing people to do this and stopping them
from doing that. What we need are carrots, incentives,
opportunities we need, we need lower taxes. We’re the most highly taxed
nation business- wise on the face
of the Earth. We’ve surpassed Japan now And that stops employers
from creating jobs. DuPont has hundreds
of patents that they want people to take
and create jobs with. We can’t do that because investors are
afraid to invest. We don’t need more
debt from government, not even more debt
loan to businesses. We need equity capital, equity investment funds. What created Microsoft
and Amgen and those wonderful
businesses. Let’s open up the
discussion on this on this point, since time is up
on the rebuttal. Realistically, isn’t any candidate who says that they
will be elected in November 2010 go to
Washington in 2011>>to fix this problem setting themselves
up for failure. This was a problem that was decades in the making. So isn’t this
a prescription for failure? Well,
I don’t think so. First of all, there were situations that
created the problem that risky behavior on Wall Street, irresponsible
mortgage lending. There were problems
that occurred in the financial markets that resulted in millions
losing their job, businesses collapsing, people being put
out of work. 35 thousand Delawareans
are out of work. But the question is, do you have realistic proposals to create jobs? We have an
opportunity right here on the
University campus down at the old
Chrysler site. The university has bought
the Chrysler site. They have great plans to expand with university classrooms
and research. The Health
Science Alliance, create jobs there
on the site, create a technology park. I’ve been working
with David, We’re at the University through this Science
and Technology Council. Those are the kind
of jobs that are going to be here
for the future. And there’s a concrete example of what we can do. I mentioned the renewable, renewable energy
jobs, offshore wind, more corrective saying and, and energy that I do. I want to encourage
a discussion on this point of jobs
because I think that’s, that’s where
people are really hoping to find a solution.>>That still sounds
even with patents being enacted through
DuPont years away, where are people
going to find jobs to pay their mortgages
through 2011? Those patents are ready for people to work on today. If we had a low tax, low regulatory environment, people would be
investing in those hiring people
and creating jobs. Today, government is
not the solution. Government is the problem. Government created the economic collapse
that we had. It forced people
into risky loans. Go back to Sarbanes Oxley, that’s what created this culture of compliance. Instead of focusing
on risk assessment, everybody was driven out of the risk
assessment business. Just follow these rules and keep your head down. That’s what got us into the mess with derivatives. Dodd-Frank is gonna
do the same thing by destroying jobs in Delaware is financial
services industry. I think you’ve read my notes because we will be heading to that in
a in a few moments. Really,
please jump in. I think we have
two problems here. We have an
immediate problem to get people back to work, which requires different
solutions than some of our long-term
problems that we have, like getting our arms
around deficits. There was an
economics professor here at the University
of Delaware, Laurence Seidman,
who who wrote a piece that appeared
in the News>>Journal paper about
the different approach you need to both
of those problems. You don’t want to do
counter stimuli type things today when
people need jobs. Now to address your long-term debt
in the future, you have to do both, but you have to
do the immediate things to create jobs. Now as you keep
your eye on getting your arms around the deficits in
the long term. And that’s why my approach towards extension of the Bush tax cuts is
frankly different than than my
party’s approach. I’m not sure we can>>we can afford them
in the long-term, but we can’t afford not to extend them
into short-term. Let, let’s not delve into tax cuts, just yet, but I want to see
if you do have a final thought on the
issue of job creation? Sure, about 30-seconds, We were promised
that stimulus, a trillion dollars worth of stimulus would stop
unemployment at 8%, it’s gone to 10%. I’ve had conversations
with Charles Elson, a professor here
at the university, and he tells me that the problem is regulation. It’s that culture
of compliance. I can do anything as
long as I’m complying and and we have stopped
assessing risks. That was the problem.
This will destroy jobs, it will destroy Delaware’s unique court system.>>It accounts for tens of thousand. Let me
give you a chance to continue on that because the next
question comes your way. So we’ll stay
on the issue of deregulation
because you’ve made the point that government is the problem and
business is the answer. So if I understand your position on
deregulation correctly, you feel that deregulating the
business climate, removing some of those obstructions that
you feel are obstructions is the way for this nation to emerge from the economic crisis. Deregulation is
too broad a term, I’m for safety
regulations always.>>However, we have too much competition happening in this country over who can hire the
best lobbyists to get their competitor
regulated so they win. By comparison.
It’s happened in Europe for decades. It’s happening
this country. We need the
competition to be for better goods and services, creating
better jobs. Only employers create jobs. When you add thousands of pages of Dodd-Frank
and then the tens of thousands of pages of regulations
that add, employers cringe, they stop hiring,
they don’t expand. They know that this
$5.5 trillion of new debt that’s
been added since Nancy Pelosi took
over in 2006, hanging over their heads like a sword of Damocles. It’s the bill is for, that is going
to come due in form of higher
interest rates, higher costs, and
higher taxes. So they aren’t expanding
because they don’t want to get caught
holding the bag. That’s why so many
people don’t have jobs. We need to unleash private enterprise
to create jobs. I’ve created jobs
starting with nothing, building equity capital
through sweat equity. And along the way
building up and creating other businesses and creating other jobs. Government doesn’t
create jobs. Government has a very
important function under our
Constitution provided on the national debt, at the National
Defense and so forth. But debt destroys jobs. It doesn’t create jobs. And so we need to
encourage employers. And I’m glad that John
has followed my lead. He’s now talking about maybe a two-year
extension of the Bush tax cut, but
that’s not enough.>>Businesses had
been down too long. They need ten years or
more to know that they can plan having started businesses.
I understand. And I can understand
that John doesn’t know
that he proposed to get a grant of a million and a half
dollars from Disneyland. When we let him
respond to him, that was his
way of starting a business where there’s
a big difference between my opponent
gland and I on this question of
reasonable regulations. He basically
believed that the, the regulations, the new rules that were established
for Wall Street, remember what, how
we got here in 2008, we almost had a collapse of the world
financial system. And that was the result
of a lot of things. It was the result of risky practices on Wall Street. It was the result of irresponsible
mortgage lending. But the net of it was that millions of people
lost their jobs. Trillions of dollars
of net worth was lost. And family retirement accounts and
small business, small business owners were hurt all over the country. I’m for regulations that make sense so that that
doesn’t happen again, the bill includes
resolution authority to prevent the kind of bailouts that we all don’t like that occurred as
a result of all that. So i’m for reasonable
regulations on Wall Street and my
opponents against it. It’s really that
simple. Well now we’re into the
discussion part. I want to bring back
another quote of yours.>>I love it.
That’s exactly what my opponent says.
Weren’t going okay. At the core of the financial collapse was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And this bill doesn’t
even address them. The government is so
misguided that it gave an eight or
$9 million bonus. The Franklin rains who drove those agencies
over a cliff. Come on folks, you know, Physician heal yourself, government heal yourself. You caused this problem by creating quotas for, for lending to people
that couldn’t borrow. There’s enough
blame to go around from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue from Wall Street
to Main Street?>>Let’s tell all the truth and nothing but the truth? What I’m what I’m concern is is about the effect
on Main Street. All those practices that we watched and that
we’ve read about since since 2008 wreaked havoc on Main Street. Small business owners, thousands of Delaware
means out of work. We saw two of our major manufacturing
facilities here, General Motors
and Chrysler. They’ve been the backbone
of manufacturing middle-class employment
here in our state for 50 years got to go
down the drain. And similar experiences
across the country>>because of that near
financial collapse. So I’m for rules and
the reason was we had taken those rules and taken the referees,
if you will, off the field to go back to a football analogy, When you
take those, when you take the
referees off the field, the players aren’t going to be nice and play
by the rules. They’re just not
going to do that. And they didn’t. I know the specifics and we should not have repealed
Glass-Steagall, but that was done in
a bipartisan way. Now not to get
too technical, what that does is mix investment banking
and regular banking. And what we did is we let all bankers take
unreasonable risks. We the taxpayer had
to bail them out. I started out by saying
billionaires got bailouts and we got the bill in the form of
billions of dollars. That sounds like
a great argument for Wall Street reform. Either a specifically with respect to lead our Eagles time of separation, but that’s not what’s
going on in Dodd-Frank. Dodd-Frank is going to take tens of thousands of
jobs away from Delaware, 20,060 jobs according
to– That’s coming up in our next segment. –will be lost because of Dodd-Frank. I call it Dodd
Frankenstein. It’s so dangerous
for Delaware. You can, uh, let me
elaborate on that. And I was wondering
when you were going to get back to Dodd
Frankenstein. You’ve been talking
about Dodd Frankenstein every place. It’s a monster movie.
I understand that.>>Have you read and I understand that
you don’t like it. And that’s really
one of the big roles for the next member of Congress from Delaware. We have a strong
and thriving financial services business here in our state. So we need to send a card, We only send one
congressman. So we need to
send somebody to Washington who
will make sure that we have appropriate
oversight on the financial
services industry as well as Wall Street. My opponent makes me
leery about whether he’s going to be willing
to do that because he doesn’t believe
in the regulations. He does like all of us. He opposes the outcome, the bailouts and
what we saw in 2008,>>it doesn’t support the roles that had
been put in place to flex the I don’t support regulations that nobody’s
read and frankly, the people who passed it didn’t even author
themselves. You know, when you, when you jam
student loans into a government health
care takeover and nobody even
knows it’s there. Wow. If John and I, I’ll be fair with
you John. Fair enough. John and I started reading the first
day either one of us was in Congress and kept reading eight hours
a day for two years. We couldn’t read Dodd-Frank and all the resulting tens of thousands of pages>>promulgated regularly that follows. Let– I’ve
run a federal agency. I know their tricks.
You’re going to be able to
come back to this, but I want to I will put it to you first, Mr. Carney, since you’re up next for the question and that is where do you stand on the
implementation of it? To regulate the
financial industry and the issues of
protecting consumers. Specifically how all of this is going to impact Delaware corporate climate will couple things. Obviously, as I’ve said several times
already tonight, I support the legislation, but it’s not perfect. There are things that
are going to have to be looked after. There’s going to
have to be kind of oversight that
didn’t happen during the 1990s
and 2000s>>one of the things that our congressional
delegation was able to do. One of the great threats to Delaware in this
legislation, in other pieces of legislation that were
being advanced in the Congress was threats
to our status as a corporate center with our corporate law
Chancery Court, the legal community
in, in Wilmington. And our delegation, Democrats and Republican
Congressman Castle, Senators Kaufman
and corporate We were able to fight off attempts to nationalize,
if you will, a corporate law
and put it into under the Securities and
Exchange Commission, that would have been
terrible for Delaware. We get about 20 to 25% of our state budget from
corp franchise fees. I notice that our former
Secretary of State, Ed Freel is in the audience tonight. And he worked on that for a number of
years now for then Governor Carper to strengthen that business here in our state and
our delegation was able to to fight that off. So I am for and will
be a strong advocate>>and for enforcing the rules under
Dodd-Frank and for protecting Delaware
is interested in services industry as well as our corporation
business, which is a big part
of our of our state. Your one minute rebuttal. Well, just for the record, it was only Congressman
Mike Castle who successfully
fought there. Many of us pled with all three members of our delegation to fight against the nationalization
of proxy and corporate
compensation law. And that was not
accomplished. Both of our senators didn’t stand up and fight for it. And those two important
areas had been moved into the
federal courts out of Delaware. And that’s going
to cost Delaware tens of thousands
of jobs and billions of dollars of franchise tax revenue and corporate income tax. There are fewer reasons now for corporations to be headquartered
in Delaware, like General Electric and
other big corporations that don’t do
but a fraction of their business
in Delaware. They’ve been here
because we originated the Uniform Commercial
Code and we provide a unique
Chancery Court that understands
corporate issues. Now those have been
nationalized that Dodd-Frank has driven them into federal court. The economists
are saying that the bank bailout prevented an even worse catastrophe then what we’ve been talking about as far as the collapse of the
financial system,>>maybe not a
full collapse, but I think some people would say that
it’s pretty bad. Some polls showed that
most of the public believes that money was wasted on the bailouts. Do you think the
tarp was necessary? Do you think that
that was a part of the overall bore
them and to get us out, the problem that I had with the tarp was there was very little transparency and very little
accountability. Or the thing that
I think upset Delawareans that
I talked to was the fact that
billions of dollars of taxpayer money went to bail out
these major banks and Wall Street institutions without any accountability the next year with low interest rates forced down in the, the recession, these banks made again billions of dollars and these bank
executives walked away with big bonuses. That’s what upset,
upset people. And there wasn’t a lot of account a bit
certainly wasn’t enough accountability in that legislation to
prevent just that. And that’s where
people are upset while they lost their jobs, where they saw their
pay cut making, you know, 50 or $60
thousand a year. And they’re either
experienced in a pay cut and these guys are
walking away with billion-dollar
business organization. You can jump in
if you like. Economists call
it moral hazard. If you reward people for bad behavior, they
keep doing it. Or simply stated, if there no hazards,
there are no morals.>>We rewarded
financial institutions like AIG for doing
stupid things. And they’re going
to keep doing stupid things as long
as you reward them. This bailout was
a Billionaires. It was a lot of
populist talk, but it didn’t filter
down to people. It didn’t really fix the problems.
They’re still there. We need to separate investment
banking where you take all the
risks you want, cuz it’s all your
own money from, from depository
banking where we the taxpayers through the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation and others backstop our
financial system. I’ve lived in that world of finance for 33 years. I understand the
differences. There are places to be corrected in regulated
nice support or safety regulations. But we’ve got too much beat the competition
regulation. You notice some of
the biggest banks supported Dodd-Frank
released, didn’t fight against that because it’s a way for them to get a
competitive advantage against the
middle size banks that we have here in
Delaware and others. But that’s where
the growth is. That’s where the
jobs are held. To me, there’s
an inconsistency in that argument or criticizing the
bailouts and all the practices
that took place, but not supporting
the bill to fix the problems that
the goddess there. And that’s the difference between Glenn and me. I mean, I support
legislation that re-establish
reasonable rules for Wall Street bankers. Glenn doesn’t support that even though he rails on about the effects
of deregulating, the so-called cure is
worse than the disease. If I have a cough, you might give me heroin to get rid of that
nagging cough, but then you make
me an addict. That’s what we’ve done. We’ve created a Democrat debt addiction
in the process. And we’ve got
corporations addicted. Look, we should’ve
let corporations like General Motors go through the
bankruptcy process. It would be a far more vibrant and powerful
organization. Now it would’ve been
reorganized with private investment
capital and it would be thriving and creating
far more jobs today. What we did was, was violate the
Constitution and the bankruptcy laws
of the United States by putting the bond holders at the bottom of the pile. And that’s why we’re
not getting investment. I understand we use General Motors investor bankrupt- cy proceeding
and emerget from that bankruptcy
proceeding. And in the process
we’ve saved tens of thousands of
jobs across the country, in a sector where, where we need
them the most, You say the jobs would
have gone away regardless?
The jobs would not have gone away. We have a more
vibrant company. If the assets had
been sold and bin>>invested in by
private investors, we have almost $2 trillion of investment cabinet’s sitting
on this island, 2 trillion in corporate hands and another
trillion in private hands
that’s afraid to invest that’ll create jobs. We’re going to go to
a topic change here because I think we’ve exhausted this one for now. We may come back to
it. Our next issue is on the issue
of health care. And it comes to
first Mr. Urquhart, the health care reform law clearly remains divisive. Those against it
call it Obamacare. Those in favor of it call it a work
in progress. I know which side
both of you are on, so we don’t need to establish that and I think most of our viewers
do as well.>>But better management of healthcare
and a means for people to control
the costs is something that people
want to see result. Therefore, what do you
want to see happen in the short term to
address this problem? I don’t want to see
government health care, which is basically
a tax bill. The administration
has argued they’ve admitted having said
it wasn’t a tax bill, They’ve admitted that it in fact is a tax bill. That’s what they’ve
argued in federal court. Look, it creates 17
thousand new IRS agents at a cost of $10 billion. IRS agents. Health care, I think of heart attacks. When I think of IRS agents, I don’t think of health
care. Competition is the solution, Nancy. It works. We have the best healthcare
system in the world. We need to extend
that through state, state high risk pools
funded by tax credits, funded by health
savings accounts. The way, the way
Singapore does it, Singapore has
the most highly rated healthcare system in the world by the users of that health care system. And it works. And
the New York Times, and I don’t
frequently quote The New York Times said, in August last year, the problem with our
health care system was big, big government, big money, big labor, big, big health insurance companies and
big businesses. A wall wanna
control the money. We need health policies
that are owned by individuals with
collective pooling. We need interstate health insurance
competition. Delaware only has basically three health care
insurers and it’s pretty much
the same product with a different
wrapper on it. If we had 1600 companies around the
United States competing, we’d bring costs down, but you can’t increase the demand and
reduce the supply of health care providers
and do anything except create long lines
reduced service>>solution. The
solution is competition. That’s how we
got cell phones, that’s how we got
the internet. We had one
provider, Ma Bell. Now we have iPhones,
the internet, YouTube, Twitter
and so forth. Competition will
solve the problem. And I have some ideas
how to do that here. Women are about, well, I think you said
that you know, where we stand and I believe it’s a
work in progress. I don’t think it’s perfect. There are certain
things in it that I would change, but doing nothing is
clearly not the answer. Health insurance
premiums by Kaiser Family Foundation
report have doubled, double in the
last ten years. And the employee
contribution side of that has gone up 2.5
times. That means money out of middle-class
families pocket. That means less money for food and for college
and for retirement. And so we’ve got to work in particular on getting
our arms around cost. And that’s what I would do as a member of Congress. There are a number of things that I’ve worked on here in the state and will continue to do that. Addressed cost, Patient-Centered
Medical Homes. I’m not sure we have enough time to
talk about that. We’re going to go into the electronic
medical records is another opportunity
to reduce costs and improve and improve safety. And then going
after a Let me jump off rod because I know you both disagree on the electronic
records issue.>>And it has received
mixed reviews. Can I can I jump in and
just say that one of the outcomes of
government tax care is that McDonald’s
is gonna cut, Lou is going to cut out their health insurance. Many other major employers or cutting out their
health insurance because they’ve now read the bill that Nancy Pelosi finally let them read and they’re saying we can’t
make this work. It’s impossible.
See, there’s too much mandating by
special interests. Everybody got into
the act and wrote in, I want coverage for this and coverage for that. Lots of people
don’t want to pay for that coverage. I don’t personally
want to pay for sex change operations and other things in my
health insurance,>>those kinds of things
are being mandated. That’s raising the price, not containing cause. That’s just not
accurate. I mean, the fact that matter is
and that’s something that I have some
discomfort with, is that there are general requirements
about what the basic benefit plan ought to look like
that concerns me. I understand the rationale behind it to make sure that individuals
and families have a plan that’s
meaningful. But it also
drives up costs. But there’s no
specificity even still, he obviously hasn’t
read the bill. I’ve read summaries of it for what those
elements might be. That’s why the next member of Congress,
it’s important if they go to work with the agencies that have to establish
those regulations to determine what they are. We need to make sure that when we put a mandate, which I am very
uncomfortable with on people to have
health insurance. Make sure that they have affordable plans out there but isn’t not requiring
health insurance. There are analysts to
believe that it is the uninsured and the crisis
of the uninsured. Because when they do
require health care, it is at a crisis
situation for them. But try that drives
up costs and therefore is an expense that ends up being shared by everybody anyway. That’s exactly
right. All those cause people go
the hospital, they have an acute
situation as opposed to something that they could have taken care of with the
primary care physician. Often they end up in
the emergency room. The hospital treats them, they don’t they’re
not able to recover that the
compensation for that care and that
gets shifted off to shifted off on everybody else who has
health insurance. So by not mandating care, is that not perpetuating
that problem? Now, I believe first of all, the mandate is there. What I’m saying
is we need to work with making
sure they’re affordable plans for
people who right now don’t have
health insurance so that they can afford it. You’re talking about people that people don’t have health insurance or basically the working poor. There are people
who are making 20, $30 thousand a year
and they decide, Look, I can’t find an
affordable coverage for me or my family.>>Okay. That’s what
we’re that’s what we’re talking about, it’s
the discussion posts. A difference is that this should be done
on a state level. We have 50 states, we can have 50 state laboratories to
see what works. What’s best for
Delaware isn’t necessarily that asks for how it’s going to wear. And no, it isn’t because it has a series
of national mandates. We can do this with
health savings accounts with tax credits We can do it with grants
to people who are truly impoverished and we can do that in the
state of Delaware. In Delaware knows what’s
best for Delaware. Let me just ask,
have either of you ever been without
insurance? I was without insurance when I was right
out of college. And one of the great
things about this bill for a lot of
college students are maybe here tonight, are listening is that now they can stay
on their family, their parents
coverage till age 26. And that’s a transitional
time for all of us where you often
don’t have covered nk, average, average
health care costs have gone up 5% since
this bill passed. This is not
containing cause. The guess for many years. Look, when I
started my business at our kitchen
table with my wife.>>The way I made
ends meet is I, I worked at the three
pigs of McClain. You may be know where. Mclean family
restaurant is. It’s across the street. And I just prayed that my clients didn’t see me. I know health
insurance like I got food from
there at night. Let’s let’s move on
to our next question. And this one goes
to Mr. Carney. First is getting the American
citizens tax burden and the business
owner’s tax burden under control. If that’s part of the
economic solution than where would you begin? Is it by, let’s
further get into the issue of extending
the Bush tax cuts, making it permanent
or if not do what? Look, we have two problems and we’ve talked
about this, are referred to it a
little bit a while ago.>>We need to
get our economy moving in the short term. We have the worst
recession in my lifetime, 35 thousand
Delaware ends at a work 810 more million Americans
out of work. So in the short-term, we have to get our
economy moving again. So I don’t believe that
we can afford to have anybody’s taxes go up by the end of the year
if nothing’s done between now and then in the Congress and
with the President, those Bush tax
cuts will expire, which means people’s
taxes will go up. I don’t think
it makes sense for anybody’s taxes to go up while we need
to continue to stimulate the economy. The second problem that
we have is increasing deficits and the
national debt. We’ve gotta keep our eye on that for the long-term. And so I would only extend these tax cuts for two,
maybe three years. While Democrats and
Republicans sat down and worked on a
comprehensive plan,>>our deficits and national debt under
control in the long-term. You’ve gotta address
both of them. But guess what? You need different actions
to address each. And that’s why I thought the piece that was
in the paper by the, the economics
professor here at the University of Delaware made sense because it created a framework for dealing with the need
for stimulus and job creation in
the short term and the need to get
our arms around the deficits in the
long term and you have to keep tax
policy in that mix. It makes no sense to do
that in isolation to talk about tax policy without considering what
you’re going to do. On the spending side, note, ordinary family in
Delaware would do that.>>Figure out what you’re going to spend money on without thinking
about how much revenue, how much salary
you’re going to make, that you’re just
doesn’t make any sense to me.
Fear about John. I want to thank
you for being progressive because
the last time we were together he said one did a lawyer to
progress and one to two years of
bush tax cut extension. Now two to three years less than high W3C
didn’t have as o. And then I’ll, what we need is permanent tax cuts. Tax cuts like what the rest of the world
has, the orange. No capital gains taxes at all in the former
Soviet Union, in Russia of all places, business will thrive. When we have
stable permanent tax cuts, we will add
millions and millions of jobs, cutting deficit. Canada cut their tax
rate from 28 to 15%. The unemployment rate
fell from ten to 7.9. Presented at the same time, they’re national debt
which was about a trillion dollars felt the nine below 950 billion
you can do both. Kennedy proved it,
reagan proved it, candidate proves
it, we can do it. Now, if you increase tackled is like,
like Mrs. PLOS. He wants to increase
all business that have foreign
subsidiaries. Microsoft’s response was, we will leave the United
States of America. I want to go back to look rightly as it he said
two-year bullet, I think two to three
years. And the reason is>>really to
force the other side to come to the table on deficit reduction to get Democrats
and Republicans. I just don’t have a lot of confidence that width is confrontational manner that Glenn is going
to be able to, to bring Democrats
and Republicans together to
address the issue that we both are
concerned about, which is mounting debt. It’s going to take
Democrats and Republicans to work together because
guess what? If you don’t, then the other side
use is something that one side wants to cut as a political
weapon and say, look what these
guys want to cut, what are you gonna do? Orange disk, I’m
glad you asked>>what we need to cut spending and there’s lots of waste, fraud, and abuse. I ran a federal agency. I fought it all the time. I understand it.
I thought it was a private and sector guy. I was a part time head
of a federal agency while you walk and currently the National Capital Planning
Commission. We handled the
consolidation of the CIA, saved
a lot of money. Can tell you a
long story about that. Here’s the point. Brac, base
realignment Enclosure Act helped us hold
down military costs. The Air Force had a lot of B52 bases that
they didn’t want, not part of their mission, that they couldn’t get
rid of them because congressman wouldn’t let them leave
their district. We need a brac
type Commission, which is a bi-partisan
commission that cuts costs through
expert testimony. And here’s the key. Has a straight
up or down vote, no log rolling,
no politicking. The current cost-cutting
commission is just advisory to
the President. It has no power to
put it in front of the Congress in
the US or down. And that’s how I’ve, I’ve called for a
comprehensive plan, I’ve called for
across-the-board cuts. I’ve called for what
the President has right now is a
bipartisan commission, a broccoli commission that could work as well. I mean, we’ve gotta have something where you
can put Democrats and Republicans
working together to get our arms
around this problem. They’ve proven>>Up until this point
that they can’t do it through the
normal business. We have to do it. When I was Secretary
of finance, my job was to make
sure that we had the revenue to support
the expenditure side. The fortunate was
the 990s and we had surplus revenue and we’re cutting taxes every year. And the result of
those tax cuts was stronger
business growth, more money for,
for families, and it was a very
positive thing. But problem is
spending went up 81% under the corporate
administration. You were, they were
secretary finance. We can run at 8150% million dollars
in one year. Every year that I was
Secretary of finance. We kept personal taxes
and business tax is 25% during that
period in time. And when you less
demeanor administration, Delaware had an $800
million deficit or $800 million hadn’t figured out until
just recently. He kept mentioning
this number, $800 million and didn’t
make any sense to me because the every year by, by the constitution, the government is supposed to have a balanced budget. What he’s referring
to is after the near financial
collapse in 2008, caused by deregulation on the financial markets.>>The economy went
into the tech and the, the their work revenues, the familiar budget, the failure after it
had been put together. Businessmen plan ahead. They know that there
are rainy days. The failure to
plan ahead and anticipate problems, that failure to creat
budget surpluses to act as a cushion is
what the issue is. He obviously doesn’t
understand homes in business because I understand all the creative accounting and
cooking the books and taken money from here and accelerating the
collection of, well, the accelerating
you first of all, the della, rationally
of ungulates, robberies, cooking
the books. I think we need to allow Mr. Carney The chance. He talks he talks about Governor to
pot all the time>>and rightly so
when it comes to the fiscal
disciplinary practices overstate because
Governor de park really link them with the
rainy day fund 98 yes, outlive men and
all those things. So we do have the invite. Hermione is on by
sorry about that, but I do need to move us on to our next issue. And it’s a question that’s coming to you first. Mr. Eckhart,
privatization of social social security was a long-time
Republican priority. It was the focus of
former President Bush. It was the Republican
congressional majority was looking for it the
last time they won in 2004 during an
election cycle. This is 2010. Where
do you stand on that? It’s not the time
to do that at all. We have to look at
the big picture.>>We’ve got to governments too big the
deficits to big. We’ve got to grow the
size of the economy. We need to hold
spending a 2008 levels, not 2010 levels of the
current administration with 2008 increasing
and only for inflation, increase in population grow the size of economy. With tax cuts
and incentives, the business get things
back and balance. Debt destroys not
just jobs but debt destroy social security and it destroys our
national security. Admiral Mullen’s and, and Hillary Clinton
have both said, the greatest threat to America’s national
security is debt. We soon will not be able to afford
our military. Our interest on our
national debt is getting close to exceeding what we spend on our
national defense. And if interest
rates go up a little bit, as
they always do, as debts piled up, we won’t be able to afford our national events. This is not the time to tinker with
Social Security. Now I think there should be options for younger people, but we can address
that down the road. The fundamental issue now is to get our
economy growing so that that debt
doesn’t destroy our ability to pay
Social Security.>>We’re about to hear I don’t agree with those. In Glenn’s party who proposed and privatized
social security. All you need to do is look back over the last ten years to see what would have happened if people
were just relying on individual
retirement accounts, their private accounts? Obviously we need to
do things to shore up Social Security
for the long term. This is a program that
has provided security for just millions of people in our country
for a long time. And we need to make
sure that’s there, particularly for
those who’ve worked hard and paid
into the system. We do need to encourage
retirement savings and I support tax
credits to do that, the IRAs and that
kind of thing to augment the Social
Security program. But we need to protect
social security as it is and
not privatized. We can see today what
would have happened if, if the Bush people
had gotten their way? It’s essential
that we become as saving and
investment society. Again, that’s what
made us great, not an indebtedness
society. We’re becoming get slaves. I don’t want that
for my grandchildren or anybody here,
young or old. Is the alarm not
sounding though? This is the first
time that more’s going out than
is going well. It’s not the
first time Suge our baby boomers
are preparing to leave the workforce Yes. And start collect me. So it sounds like this is a very large alarm that’s for the most
part on a back burner. Well, there are
there are big alarm bells
ringing everyone, not just an so security. I think what most people
don’t understand. And that’s why I’m
a strong supporter of health care reform
in particular. Getting our arms
around cost is because Medicare
the unfunded liability and Medicare is seven times the
unfunded liability in social security. So in some ways it’s a
bigger problem still. So we’ve got Medicare, we’ve got Social Security, we’ve got growing
deficits and debt. We’ve gotta get r. That’s an alarm bell
ringing loudly.>>Absolutely. We
have to control the debt. We do that. I mean, do we
want to say to people we’re
going to cut you off from services and,
and cut it that way. You know, we’re Americans. We want to say
we’re going to grow our way out
of this problem. We’re going to cut taxes,
create incentives, and we’re going to expand the size of our economy, create jobs, and
create tax revenue. The seven years I was with Ronald Reagan as a minor presidential
appointee. But I had great seats. The economy grew 40%. And more importantly,
while we cut tax rates, tax revenues increased 88%. We added 17 million
net new jobs when we do that again, and we can and
biotechnology and nanotechnology We will see tax
revenues increase. We will, we will solve
the deficit problem. Now I’ve, I helped start a home
healthcare agency. I know a little bit about health containment
at the boots on the ground
level where it, where it really counts and government there
is the problem. It is not the solution. Let me get back to
Social Security and just get a flat
embodied applies. So securities, well, should the retirement
age be raised, there’ll be things
that will have to be done to strengthen up. So security, what
those things are, I think we’ve got to sit down and work it out. You don’t have a position on raising the retail. I think we’ve
gotta come up with a comprehensive plan. That’s why I talk about it. And those you can’t do
it in little silos. You gotta look at the whole, the
whole picture. France has raised
there in effect, Social Security,
retirement age. Others have, it’s one of the things
we need to look at that needs to be a
bipartisan commission, same brac like commission, straight up or down vote. We’ve had too many
advisory commissions that are just about politicking
in logrolling. You do this algebra that. So neither one of you are saying you’re against it. Your for looking at it. We need to put it out on the table and show
the American people, I mean the Social Security system when it started, retirement age was 65, which basically is today,>>the average age
of survival was 62. It was called old age
survival insurance. So if you won the
lottery and you live to age 75 or 80, you had some
coverage, but people saved for their
own retirement. We need to become a saving and
investment country. Again, we do that by
growing the economy. Harney, there are no
easy answers with respect to what has to be done with Social Security, Medicare, and the
budget deficits. That’s why we need the kind of approach
that I’ve been advocating with Democrats and Republicans
working together, coming up with a
comprehensive plan, looking at both
sides of the ledger, only extending tax cuts until we have that
plan in place.>>Because those decisions, all of them are
going to be very difficult to be to be made. John, you you just don’t understand
having not been a businessman two or three years is not enough
time to plan. People will not
take the risk if you’re going
to pull the rug out from under them again, they will not create jobs. I only have 30 is let me let you addressed
him directly. So let me let
Mr. Carney Sure. I’d original white
and it’s in seconds. It’s all, yeah,
you don’t need it to be a businessman to make these kinds of decisions into sorted out. Our next question
takes us to the issue of
national security. And it comes to
first, Mr. Cooney, Americans who are
boarding planes today, tonight, tomorrow for
Europe are obviously quite uneasy with the terror alert
that was issued.>>This and the
statements that were made by the Times
Square bomber when he received his life
sentence just underscores the vulnerability
of our society. So evaluate for me, the state of our
national security or the United States
of America has the strongest military
in the world. And there were the
greatest force for freedom and democracy
around the world. And as a member
of Congress, I will work hard too. To to keep that. But we can’t
just be strong, we have to be
smart as well. That means diplomatic
policies that don’t undercut
our other efforts around the world. That means better
counter-terrorism efforts to fight terrorism and remote and dangerous
parts of the world like Afghanistan and the
bad lands in Pakistan. And that means providing the necessary equipment
for our brave men and women who are fighting battles in far off lands, in wars that we’ve not
experienced before. It also means taking efforts to shore
up the homely. There was a report
that just came out recently that
concluded that the most serious terrorist threat that we have is domestic threats like the Times Square bomber. I know a little bit
about working with local law enforcement
agencies. I served as chair of the Delaware criminal
justice counsel. When we work together with federal agencies and the FBI and local police, those are the
kinds of things that we need to do in addition to keeping
our military strong, having smart diplomatic policies around the world, and finding ways to fight terrorism and remote
and dangerous parts of the world. Your rebuttal>>national security
is essential. We do have the
strongest military. The problem is
the debt threat. According to
Hillary Clinton and Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs, debt is destroying
our ability to maintain our
national security. Let’s get specific. I worked with the Central Intelligence Agency
with Bill Casey. I’ve flown on and
off carriers. I’d been with our men and women and I’ve seen how
wonderful they are. But we have to
provide the assets. The Chinese are
threatening us with the development of a
carrier killer missile. We are failing to build this space-based thousand interceptor
portion of our interceptor
system that’s vital, that can reduce
the number of troops that we have
to keep overseas. This administration has Caz differed in missile defense system
for the East Coast. They are only building
it on the west coast. It’s being deferred. We have a window of
vulnerability in some, say less than five years to Iranian intercontinental
ballistic missiles. If we had that
defense shield which can shoot down missiles when they’re low and slow. We could cite
lets out gases. I think that’s
the wrong focus. I mean, I think that
was kind of my point, being both strong
and smart, the kind of approach
that we need. And instead of working on a anti ballistic
missile system, we need to work
on better way. Got better
counter-terrorism efforts fighting terrorists
and remote>>parts of the
world. I don’t know what I hear from people on the way I feel
about Afghanistan. I’m very uncomfortable with our position and
Afghanistan. I’ve always believe that Afghanistan was the
war of necessity. That’s where the
terrorists trained and that’s where they
still operating today. And so I always felt
like that was we took our eye off the
ball by going into Iraq, Afghanistan, and
get to the warrant. And the point is staying focused on
fighting terrorism in remote areas like that
as opposed to building an airtight missile shield around the country. I think it’s a question of focus and priorities. Well, I think that we
were stout variations also realized that There are terrorists that we’re in this country. Do you then support efforts by national
security officials to be granted broader powers to wiretap internet
communications, emails, Facebook postings,
instant messaging. If it’s someone
that they feel as a suspected terrorist, I broaden that power of weakening privacy rules. And I think the
question really is, is how much
evidence that they have that the suspect is actually involved in
those activities. And we have to do that. And at the same
time respect and protect our rights and freedoms of as Americans. That’s a very
difficult thing to do, a very difficult
line to draw,>>but we have to do it. We live in a very, very dangerous world with terrorists who want to kill us and what to
explode themselves. And it’ll take
down thousands of people and major metropolitan areas
in our country. Please let’s start
with something really everybody
can understand. We need to secure
our border. We have terrorists walking across our borders
right now. We, the first
responsibility the United States
government and the preamble is provide lucky
hotness our borders, You mean from
where they live, where they want
to come from. They can come in
through Mexico from any part of the world. We need to secure our border and perhaps we’ll talk about
that later. But in addition, the central responsibility the United States
government is to provide for
the common defense. We need to defend our country against
North Korea, Iran, nations that
mean us harm, We will be far safer. We will have far more
strategic capability, farmer ability to
keep the fight out there and outside
the United States. If we have a missile
defense shield, it is very, very near sighted not to
build that shield. The technology is there. And by adding that layer to the land and sea portions, we make it far more secure. That gives us
greater options, peace through strength. If the world
knows that we are building that
system and we’re not bankrupting
our military with this massive
accumulation of debt, then we will have more ability to
negotiate and avoid conflicts when we can
maintain the security of our aircraft carrier groups that I’ve been with. We can project force. And what that really
means is we keep crazy people from
doing stupid things. Data where they haven’t
strong and smart, with an emphasis on both, we need to have
the strongest, continue to have
the strongest military in the world. And we do, we need to know how to deploy it and when. We need to be smart about the investments that we
make in our military.>>We continue to fund obsolete weapon systems because members of Congress continue to advocate for putting them in the budget, even though the
Joint Chiefs have not requested him. We need to be smart about the way we deployed
military strength. While I’ve already
talked about obsolete weapon
system like B5, T2s. And I just note how
branding works. My part of the job is over. We will now be involving the other half of our program for this evening. The other portion, and
we’re going to turn to the University of
Delaware students for their questions. Our audience here
in Michel hall, you’ll see the questions
up on the monitor. Candidates. We
have the responses here are limited
to one minute.>>So first we’re
going to hear from an education major who’s asking about resources
in the classroom. Every year I go in
and I had to do observations as part of
my education courses. And I see classrooms with fewer and fewer
resources necessary to accomplish and
ever difficult task of educating children. Prius question is,
what would you do to change his
growing trend where teachers keep
losing resources as opposed to getting
the resources necessary to give
our children the tools necessary
to succeed. Mr. Eckhart, your
response? First, we obviously
need resources, but there are smarter ways, wiser ways to do education. Charter schools
work very well. Walking around in less affluent neighborhoods
in Wilmington. I was excited to
see the number of kids in charter
school uniforms, but some of them with tears in her eyes that why can’t my sister go to a charter
school as well? Why can’t my brother
why can’t my front? We need to increase
competition. We need to creat
increase options. Now the governments
not the solution. When we send a $125 million to the Department
of Education, we get a 100 million back. And about 50 million of that goes to compliance. Only 50 million gets
into the classroom,>>$0.40 out of a dollar. Nothing operates
effectively that way. We need to do it smarter. That education,
which educated the most local family,
community teacher, school-based level
works best moment where education has to be a top priority are students coming up
today are competing, not just against kids
who are growing up in Maryland and Pennsylvania
and New Jersey. They’re competing
against kids coming up in China and India
and Indonesia. We have to have
high standards. We have to make sure that all our children are able to reach those things. And the way to
do that is with strong principles and
excellent teachers in the front of
every classroom. The question was about resources in the classroom and the federal role in education is
small compared to the state and School District role
here in Delaware. And it should be, but
it’s an important role. The resources
that we provide are for disadvantaged
students. So they should get into the classroom and
they should make it possible for teachers
to do a better job, particularly on raising student
achievement for students that have the most difficult
challenges.>>It is an
important function and it’s one that I will work to continue
to many mandates, too much teaching
to the test. We’re going to move
on to question two from one of
our students, and this is a soon to be graduate of the
University of Delaware. Sharing concerns
about entering a job market that
may have no jobs. I’m going to be
graduating in January. And with unemployment
at about 10%, I’m competing with people who are exponentially more qualified and have been in the workforce for a
really long time. I wondering what you’re
going to work on. Economic policies
you’re going to enact in order to help recent
graduates like me>>Well, we talked
about this a while ago, strengthening
small businesses, providing tax cuts
for small businesses. In particular, I
like the idea of a, of a payroll tax holiday for small businesses
to hire someone. I believe there are
great opportunities in new energy technologies, research and
development tax credits for businesses to, to, to spur innovation
and manufacturing. Tax credits for businesses to set operations up, operations here
in our state. But in terms of this particular
individual who’s going out into the
marketplace soon. Or one of the things
that I think has been very helpful
for some of the University of Delaware students
have worked for our campaign is to get involved with
an internship.>>Maybe it’s the
pay is not great. I know when I
coached football here at the
university, a dollar, I got a few $100
for each season. But it was an opportunity
to meet people to oftentimes you find somebody who’s
willing to hire you, make an impression and somebody hires you down the road and that’s that would be a good
opportunity for this. Stop adding debt
get destroys jobs. It paralyzes employers so they
aren’t employing. With tax cuts, we will get an explosion of new
jobs in nanotechnology, biotechnology distribution, all sorts of areas. But, you know,
some of the best employees I’ve ever hired, I didn’t even
know I needed. They bugged me. They ask how does your
business work? They hung out there,
ask questions. So I would say to
all the people the University
of Delaware and elsewhere looking for jobs. Go find a business,
learn about it. Keep asking about problems. Create your own jobs
by learning and suggesting solutions.
We’re Americans. We have overcome the
Revolutionary War, the Civil War,
to World Wars. We’re unprepared for.
We can do this again. We can do it in the American
constitutional way by cutting taxes
and regulations. Employers will create jobs. We will create the
next Microsoft, the next Apple,
the next engine. We can do it. There
is life after debt. Alright, we’re
going to move on to our next question. And this comes
from continuing education student here at the University of
Delaware who brings up the issue and other
Latin care costs. President Obama has said that he would like to cut $500 billion from
medicare IF elected. What part of Medicare will you vote to cut back on? Do you agree with the
president’s plan to cut the advantage co-option
of Medicare that covers the costs beyond the Medicare’s a
percent payment for fixed income medicare
recipients instead? Erica, no, that’s
not a good idea, a bad idea. What
I would do is cut waste, fraud,
and abuse. The Congressional
Budget Office says there’s 80 to a $100 billion a year of waste, fraud, and abuse. We can do that by creating competition even within
a federal agency. We can create
competition with incentives and
do a better job. My Medicare is the
problem in healthcare, just the way Ma Bell
was the problem. Many people will be old enough to remember
when telephones were ten pounds and they were all black
and they were connected by a wire
to the, to the wall. We got the telecommunications
revolution during the Reagan
administration. Because of competition, Reagan didn’t invent
the internet.>>More than Al Gore did. But they were
wise enough to know that what they opened up the
playing field. Millions of investors,
inventors and innovators would
create what they did, create cell phones and
telecommunications. We can do the same thing in medical in medical
technology. And he adheres Medicare. Medicare, I’ve mentioned it several times this evening. The only way that we
can get our arms around the burgeoning
budget deficits in the national debt is to bend the cost
curve down on healthcare costs
and those costs are rising across
the board. The estimates are
that Medicaid for Medicare fraud is
about $62 billion. Organized crime
industry each year we only recover a
couple billion dollars. The way I look
at it, there’s $60 billion or
so right there. We need to implement some of the things
I talked about earlier in terms of patient centered medical homes, which basically
is a concept of changing the way the
incentive system in the delivery of
healthcare services while providing
higher quality. Also electronic
medical records, which enables doctors
and providers, hospitals to provide care without the duplication
with greater safety. So there are a number of things That’s a minute. Let’s move on to our
next student question. And the University
of Delaware has, as both of you have said, in the forefront of alternative
energy research, this student is asking
about wind power. What are your opinions on the offshore wind farm that is going to be built off a Delaware coastline. And in addition to that, I just wanted to know
your opinions on alternative energy
sources and what you guys think
would be the best one for you here
in Delaware? Well, as I’ve said
several times before, I’m a strong supporter of alternative
energy options, particularly
focusing on creating jobs and whole new industries here
in our state. And the offshore
wind project, with which professors here at the University
of Delaware have promoted for
several years as a great opportunity
to do that. Somebody is going to
build those turbines, towers and other components and we ought to build them right here in Delaware. Businesses have to
make the investment to have the equipment and facilities to
make the towers. We can source
the steel from my old hometown of claim on and
claim on steel. We need to attract a turbine maker to set
up operations here. It’s a tremendous
opportunity to create a whole new industry here in our state. And they’re going
to be hundreds of other towers and projects up and down the East Coast. Delaware can actually lead the way if we get up
get up there first. One of the things
that I’ll do as a member of Congress is make sure that federal agencies do their job.>>I’m approving a horse. John makes that sound nice because he tried
to start a company called Della wind and take $1.5 million of
taxpayer money to pay salaries to run a business that basically just went to Washington to take
more taxpayer money to try to create a
green energy business. Look, I have proposed that we have a huge
national prize for an efficient
electric storage systems so we can effectively
use wind power. Solar-powered. The
problem is storage. When you be windmills
in the water, they cost four times as much to pour concrete in the water is on land, they will produce
electricity. That’s two or three times more expensive
if you honestly compare retail
to retail cost than energy
produced on land. And every time you build a winter
a wind turbine, you have to build
a gas turbine. That gas turbine
has to be spinning 24-7 every single day
to take up the slack. Because wind only produces power a few hours a day. We will have to put a
hold on the rest of that discussion as we move on to our next
student question. This question comes from a sophomore history major. My question is, what are your position on the policy of don’t
ask, don’t tell. Do you think it
should be overturned? The circa I believe
we should follow the advice of the
professional military, the service chiefs. These are people
who understand how things work
in the field. So I’d like to see a
full study by them. I don’t want it rushed by politicians in
either party. Today. Afghanistan, which is so important to us, this war protecting
us here at home is being fought
by small unit leaders, I mean, first, second lieutenants out there
with very small groups. We need the professional
military to evaluate this
issue over time. I believe that everybody who patriot but he wants to serve their country should have that opportunity. But the, the, the, the nuts and bolts of
it, the mechanics, that has to be
determined by the professional military people who understand what it’s like to have five guys in a tiny
village in Afghanistan. How will that
work? I want to see that evaluated by
the professionals. I want to stay they want the career politicians to stay out of it. Mr. Carney, I would
vote to overturn. Don’t ask, don’t tell
has been in place since the Clinton
administration and we’ve learned that it
just doesn’t work. We’re doing without
thousands of committed, dedicated
Americans who want to serve their country>>there are being
kicked out of the military because they’re being exposed and it shouldn’t
happen that way. So I would vote
to overturn. Don’t ask don’t tell
military people that I’ve talked to indicate that it’s unnecessary and
it needs to go. Let’s move on to
our next question. The polarization
of politics is on the mind of
our next student. My question is, if
you’re elected, you may have the ability to break the stalemate. Washington, you could shift the political
spectrum further to the left or
back to the right. So what would you do to restore
bipartisanship? Congress, Mr. Carney? Well, I alluded to it
a little bit earlier. I think the thing to do is to for one of the first things
that I would do going to Washington is find like-minded
people like myself, people who share the same approach
to creating jobs, getting our economy again. People who share my
view with respect to what we need to
do with health care, with getting
our arms around deficits and debt, with addressing
the challenge of global climate change. And I mean Democrats and Republicans and
work from that, that group to influence the other members
of the chamber. I think that’s the
only way to do it. If you don’t do it, then what’s going to happen is The Democratic caucus. You’re going to have
the far left that are going to
drive the agenda. And the Republican caucus, you’re going to
have the far right that are gonna drive the agenda and
they’re just going to nothing’s going
to get done. And so I would be one of those people that was
somewhere in the middle trying to drag people onto the other side to get some consensus
over these issues. Start. Unfortunately,
the middle has got us massive debt, which is destroying
national security jobs and families. Now I’m a
coalition builder. You can’t build businesses from scratch unless
you can work with people and bring
them together could forward according to
a common objective. So I will of
course do that. But I want to emphasize
my independence. I stood up to the>>establishment
in my party and i1 I will stand
up for the truth. Their new proposal doesn’t include a ban on earmarks. I’m gonna stand up
for that loudly, but I believe the most
essential thing is to re-establish the trust of the
American people. 80% of Americans
don’t trust the Congress leaders
lead in sacrifice. If that’s why I proposed
cutting the pay, the perks and the
privileges of members of Congress
starting with me. So that, that won’t
balance the budget, but it will balance
the equity. So we, the people can believe in our
leaders again, as we did in our
founding fathers. And we followed them to establish this
country, a huge risk.>>They pledged their
lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor
springs pledge mine to a question that I have and I just want
to try this out. Dang quick answers place. If you were elected, what committees would
you like to serve? And to be honest, we haven’t given in
minutes worth of thought. I’ve been focusing
on talking to Delaware ends up
and down our state, trying to understand
the challenges and problems that
they’re facing. At the end of the day, I work for them if they see fit to elect
me to this office. So I haven’t thought much about Washington at all. I’ve been thinking
about what I need to do to serve the
people of our state. The only way that
you can figure that out is by having
conversations with people, by talking to them about the problems
that they’re facing and the
struggles that they have in this
difficult economy,>>their solutions.
What would they do to address some of the problems that we face today in America. Have you thought about
community service? Yes. I’ve spent a
lot of time on in the House and Senate
testifying under oath, ways and means, finance, Armed Services, the all three of
those committees are affected by and
can affect debt. We need to get the
debt down to create jobs and to assure our
national security. All right, let’s move on to our next statement
question. The topic is on the
reliance on foreign fuel. This is on the mind
of this university of delaware freshman. I would like to know, given the United States
dependence on foreign oil, what do you think
the best way would be for our country? And that Mr. Erica, we need we are the
greatest producer. We have the most
resources of energy of anybody
in the world. We need to use what we’ve been blessed with here we have on sure
resources in the west, in the Eastern United
States, in Alaska, we need to use those resources and we need to respect
state’s rights. You know, Louisiana
has a far better idea how and where to drill
than Delaware does. With respect to Louisiana. Delaware has a better idea. About not drilling
offshore here in Delaware to protect
our sea coast. Alaska has proven reserves, Colorado has
proven reserves. There’s the
Marcellus field in, in, in, in Pennsylvania. States need to decide
these things without so much mandated
interference and cost editions by
the federal government. Of course, we
need to create more energy here
and we can, We’re still Americans,
we can do this. Mr. Carney.
Well, we have to stop our addiction to oil. And one of the things that the positions that I’ve taken is an opposition to the President’s
proposal to drill for oil
off the coast, the East Coast, and off the coast of Delaware.>>I don’t think it makes sense for our state. I don’t think it’s
worth the risk. And it continues
to that reliance that we have on
fossil fuels. I think what we need to do is focus on innovation. We have a great
opportunity here in the state
with the Fisk or automotive coming to the old General
Motors plant to, to produce
electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids. We need to change the way transportation occurs. We need to envision a new future that doesn’t have a
carbon-based fuels. Now there’s going to be a transition
period for sure, but we need to focus
on innovation. We need to incentivize
that innovation. We need to have places like the University
of Delaware>>professors
that worker here working on new
technologies. I just wanna throw
something in. That minute was up. That’s where if either
of you were elected, more than likely
you’ll be radical. Gee, I hope, are you
thinking there’ll be an assassination
attempt and you’ll be on the
train Amtrak to DC, probably with the
other members of the congressional
delegation from Delaware. So does Amtrak
plan to this, does this nation
need to look at improving the link between
Wilmington and re-home, that link between
Wilmington and Harris? Absolutely. We
should be building these high-speed trains
here in Delaware.>>Were there there
was incentive money for the development of high-speed trains.
But guess what? Where the train
is going to be made there going to
be made in China. We need to make things
here in America again, we need to innovate, develop the
technologies here and keep the manufacturing of those
technologies here in the United States
and transportation, high-speed train give us an opportunity to do that. There are private
sector proposals to build a rail line, for instance, into
Southern Delaware. We need to do this. And the private
sector, we need to release the trillions
of dollars of investment capital that is afraid in a crisis
of confidence.>>And look when meal
sounds wonderful. But at $0.25 a
kilowatt hour compared 1000 kilowatt
hours compared to nuclear at a
couple of cents, or gas turbines at five
or $0.06 to Delaware. He ends really
wanna add thousands of dollars to
their bills at a time when everybody
is pinching pennies. Well, that’s it, gentlemen. You have concluded
the question portion of this evening. It is now time for your
closing statements. End with the order of how we were going this evening. Our first two-minute
closing statement comes from Mr. Carney.
Thank you very much. Nancy, once again,
I’d like to thank the University of Delaware, Delaware first media>>The AARP and the American Cancer Society for hosting this
debate tonight. I am proud to be a
native Delaware. I’ve lived here almost
my entire life. I went away to Dartmouth to play football and
get an education. Came back to Delaware to the university here
to get a master’s in public administration
because I wanted to help people and make a difference in
our community. And I’ve tried to do
that my whole career. I’ve had the great
privilege to serve the people
of our state as an elected official. And I’ve always
tried to live up to the Oath of Office
that we take to always remember
that the power of the office comes
from the people I am privileged
to represent. I’ve gotten to know most every community
in our state from gumbo to claim out
where I grew up in every place in-between, I’ve come to know
the great diversity and strength of our people. I’ve come to know the challenges
that we face. Delaware hinge right
now are struggling. They’re out of
work or their pay has been cut. They’re having a
hard time paying their bills and
raising their kids. Like most people,
I’m frustrated with what I see
in Washington DC, to much bickering,
in-fighting. But it’s not enough just to criticize what’s not
happening in Washington. My opponent wants
us to take, take us back to the failed policies of the past. He wants to repeal health care reform and roll back Wall Street
regulations, Delaware. Or looking for leaders who have real solutions to the challenges that we face to get our economy
moving again, I will be that kind of leader and I will be that kind of
congressman. I want to thank everybody again for coming out tonight and I
hope that you’ll consider voting for me on November the second. Thank you very much. And a circa year
cleansing statement. Thank you very much.
I’ve enjoyed being here and appreciate
this opportunity. I am a job creator. My opponent is an
honorable man, but he is a career
politician. I’ve lived the
American dream.>>That dream is being turned into a nightmare. It’s being turned
into a nightmare by debt that destroys jobs, destroys our
national security, is destroying our families. I know how to create jobs. I know how to cut taxes
and increase the size of this economy and grow our way out of
our problems. My dad went to
work when he was 14 years old as a copy boy at the
Pittsburgh Post Gazette. I started working
with my grandfather was a plumber and the Hill District
of Pittsburgh when I was 12 years old and the first in my family
to go to college. I was blessed with my wife to start
with nothing and build businesses
and employ people and create capital and
create other jobs. I don’t need to go to Washington to have a job. In fact, I proposed pay cuts for myself
and other members of Congress to create
the confidence that this country needs. Again, I’m a proven job creator
and I hope you will send me to
Washington to create jobs and rebuild
our great economy. I’ve proven that
I can stand up to the career politicians in my own party and
be independent. If you want an
independent voice in Washington for Delaware, if you want a jobs creator than I ask you
to vote for me. Glenn Ricart. And remember that
the second half of my last name is heart. We need more heart
in Washington. Let’s put the hard
back in the Congress.>>I’d ask you
to send me there and I hope you’ll
visit my website, which is GOE and
for liberty.com. Thank you very much.
God bless you. And I’ve enjoyed coming
here to Delaware, which I came to
33 years ago. This has been an
enjoyable evening from this
perspective as well. So I thank both of
you for your honesty, for your addressing
the issues that we brought to
you on the table, especially those
that were brought to us by the university
students. It’s been an
interesting evening of issues in this ray. So thanks to both of you and also to
the students who provided our questions to our audience here
in Mitchell Hall. So on behalf of Delaware
first Media and the University of
Delaware center for political communication. I’m Nancy Karibjanian. Thank you so much
for joining us. Delaware debates 2010 is a joint initiative of the University of
Delaware center for political communication and Delaware first media with support from
AARP Delaware, and the American Cancer Society Cancer
Action Network

About the author

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *