tv U.S. Senate Debate CSPAN October 17, 2010 7:00pm-8:00pm EDT
>> university of local presence election 2010. >> welcome to bigelow hall for tonight's political debate. tonight's debate will be between the candidates for u.s. senate. i am from the university of louisville. i am the director of media relations. i will be moderating these debates. we have four reporters who will be asking questions of the candidates.
the reporters will be asking questions of the two canadas, democrat jack conway and republican rand paul. the audience has been asked to refrain from applying until the end. if they believe their opponent has said something about them that they need to respond to, i will give them a little leeway. the coin toss was won by jack conway. rand paul had the second option and has chosen to go last in the closing. you each have 90 seconds for your opening statements. mr. conway, your first. >> thank you to the university of lowell and for whs for -- of
louisville and whs for hosting this debate tonight. i have looked up for seniors when people tried to scan them or try to take advantage of them. rand paul has said that seniors needed two thousand dollars deductible. as your attorney general, i've taken on the pharmaceutical companies and the oil companies. rand paul would not let the government hold them accountable in any way whatsoever and as also for as to say that going unamerican.s an america in 19 -- 1937 is not pick randomly, that is the year that to the supreme court reinstates upheld the constitutionality of
the social security. rand paul hawould undo all the basic protections we have had since the 1930's. count on me to stand up for you and for kentuckians. i humbly ask for your vote on nov. 2nd. >> thank you, mr. conroy. mr. paul. >> people ask me if i enjoyed running for public office. boesak, i say yes. but recently, it has become difficult. i have never written or said anything to indicate that i am otherwise religious. we have serious problems and our country. we have to have a serious discussion. he has descended into the gutter to attack my christian beliefs. i believe that those who choose
politics for personal destruction disqualify themselves from consideration. i believe that those who stooped to the level of attacking a man's religious beliefs to gain higher office, i believe that they should remember that it does not profit a man to gain the world if he loses his soul in the process. if you wish to be considered for higher office, if you wish to enter into the debate, stepped up. cast aside these criticisms on my personal religion. you should apologize. have you no decency? have you no shame? >> can i respond? >> nope. we will move on. [laughter] you had a chance and a second. the moderator will be asking questions from the viewers and the folks here in the room. i will ask the first
question. mr. conroy, are you in favor or opposed to the supreme court decision that allows unlimited corporate dollars in the election process? and white view held that position? >> first of all, i am opposed to that position. i do have to answer rand paul. values matter. grand ball has to questions to answer. the president of baylor university and a group because they "were making fun of christianity and christ." why did he freely join a group known for mocking or making fun of people of faith? secondly, when it is the every good idea to tie up a woman and ask her to kneel before a fall sidle? these are two fundamental questions i hope we can
answer here tonight. there is a lot of undisclosed special-interest money coming in here to attack the right now. we need to make sure that corporate special interests do not serve to pay off their politicians. >> about the ruling, jack, you know how we tell when you're lying? when your lips are moving. [laughter] you're accusing me of crimes. do you know nothing about the process? you will stand over there and accuse me of a crime from 30 years ago from an anonymous source? how ridiculous are you? you embarrassed this race. you will accuse me of a crime from 30 years ago? you really have no shame, have you? do you want to discuss the issues of the day? discuss your support for obama care. let's not let this degenerate
into calling me names and accusing me of crimes from 30 years ago from anonymous sources. really, have you no shame? >> you have sit -- you have 15 seconds to respond, mr. conway. >> he still has not answered the two fundamental questions. why did he join a group that was known for mocking christianity and crisis? he reveled in sacrilege. and values matter. when it is ever prepared to tie up a woman and have her new before a false god? >> how do you respond to a guy who is going to " somebody anonymously from 30 years ago? you just out and out lied because you have nothing to stand on. run a race as a man. stand up and be a man. >> ok. [applause] >> we will move on. >> dr. paul, kentucky is haunted
gm, ford, and toyota plants and suppliers to those automakers. you agree with the statement that the country would be in better shape if gm would have been allowed to fail rather than be bailed out? if gm's failure would have threatened the other automakers of kentucky, ford and toyota, because they share suppliers, would you still be in favor of letting gm failed and whatever fact that would have on the other automakers of kentucky? >> i would characterize it a little differently. i would say that nobody wants gm to fail. nobody wants ford to fail. everyone's in the business to fail. i am not in favor of any businesses failing. but i would say that, when the economics of it show that you are going bankrupt, that there is something to be set for organized bankruptcy. what happened to what president obama bit in this is that he stole money from the indiana teachers' pension and gave it to the union workers.
the teachers' pension was not what you call a bond holder that was a preferred bondholder. by the government coming in and overtaking the process and having a bankruptcy that was outside the normal bankruptcy rules, they basically took money from people who were owed money. bankruptcy also causes efficiencies to occur. through bankruptcy, there would have been a more efficient process. fertile loam went bankrupt. -- fruit of the loom went bankrupt. i did not like to see them go into bankruptcy. but what happened? warren buffett bought them. >> this is really about who has the jobs plan for the future. i have a plan. my opponent does not. he has said we will need to have our people with lower wages and tough love.
that is not a jobs plan. go to my website and look at our home town tax credit. see how we can treat $11,000 for the commonwealth of kentucky. >> part of your job as attorney general is to intervene on behalf of kentucky citizens when the utility companies ask for rate increases. you were also accepting contributions from people tied to some of these same utilities. the executive branch ethics commission cleared of charges, but some still argue that it was not smart politically to do this and it does not pass the smell test. how can voters be sure that you will be representing them and not the utilities? >> the proof is in the pudding, joe. since i have become attorney general, i have saved the ratepayers of the state over $100 million and opposed the recent increases. so i stood up for the ratepayers
of kentucky and i stood up for electricity in this country. cap and trade is now dead in the united states congress. i filed a lawsuit against the epa to make sure they would not do that. the ethics commission did take a look at this issue. they dismissed it. these were scoreless in charges brought up by karl rove and these special interest money trying to attack my character. i have an outstanding record as attorney general that i am very proud of. >> actually, it was lt. governor who brought up the issue charges, your fellow democrat, and he thought there were serious. they said they did not have jurisdiction of the charges. there is a clearer conflict of
interest. i think he has not completely explain himself on this. >> dr. paul, your supporters gravitated to you because you were seen as a straight shooter, not a typical politician. yet you have been accused during this campaign of backtracking from comments you made about kentucky's drug problem to the national sales tax to a medicare deductible. what do you say to those who believe you have changed to get elected? >> do not believe everything you read in the newspaper. [laughter] y vision is having characterized and should be taken with a grain of salt. i believe the bank bailout was a mistake. i think that our problem is a spending problem, not a revenue problem. i have said repeatedly that i
favor many different tax reforms that would simplify the tax code as long as they lower the rate on everyone. but i have also said that priority needs to be given to balancing the budget. i do not think we have changed on any of this. my position on drugs was mischaracterized from the very beginning. i said that, where drug funding comes from was not an issue, but i never said that drugs was not a pressing issue. i am a physician, the father of three teenage boys. i am very concerned. i have gone around the state and talk with sheriff's about it as well as drug rehab group's. >> rand paul has had to backtrack on his position on civil rights, the 3% national sales tax. whether or not he has taxpayers united, the $2,000 deductible for medicare, whether drugs are pressing issue, and two hundred
34 supposedly dead agricultural recipients that he just made up in florida. you do not have the guts to stand by your positions. when to put them out there and realize you cannot sell them and get elected on them, you stand back. you tell me to stand up and be a man. have the guts to stand by your position. >> mr. conroy, if elected, what specifically will you do in your first 100 days in office to jump-start the economy by creating jobs in kentucky? >> i think jobs are the number- one issue in the commonwealth right now. we are at 10% unemployment. families are literally being ripped apart. they're losing their jobs. they are afraid they cannot educate their kids. it is callous what my opponent says that sometimes workers need to take lower wages and have a little tough love. that is not a jobs plan. i actually have a jobs plan. go to our website and look at the home town tax credit. for small and medium-sized
businesses who want to create new jobs, they can take a 20% tax credit. it will not solve our problems, but it will create 11,000 jobs. i also want to get small and community banks to lend again to small businesses. they bailed out a bunch of big banks on wall street. then the regulators came down really hard on our small and community banks. two hundred thousand dollars loan is sometimes a lifeline for jobs creation. we have lost 100,000 manufacturing jobs in the state in the last decade. >> the government does not create jobs. entrepreneurs and businessmen and women create jobs. unless you understand that, you can begin to debate. the next thing you have to say is let's keep more money in kentucky. let's send money to washington. the next thing you have to do is have less regulation. regulation costs business $1 trillion. we cannot compete overseas
because we over rivulet, overtax, overburden. president obama and his cronies are adding more regulation and burdens. >> what are your plans to improve the quality of higher education in kentucky? dr. paul, your first. >> i think the way we improve overall education in kentucky is we need more control of education in kentucky. one of the things, when you talk with school superintendents or presidents of college, that they will tell you is that there some new rules that come out of washington that they cannot make decisions in the state about had to make education better. sometimes, it differs university-by-university. i want more autonomy for presidents of universities and all the way down the line when we talk about secondary education and primary education. let's have more the decision- making process here in the state and less mandates or unfunded mandates coming from the fedele government.
>> mark, as you know, this is an issue i know very well. i work for the higher education for when i worked for the governor's office in frankfurt. what rand paul did not tell you is that he is for eliminating the department of education. you heard me right. there are a lot of students in the room here tonight who are on pell grants, stafford loans. what will they do? here's what i want to do for higher education. i want to keep students in school longer. the new bill that allows students to get loans from the federal government and to repay it slowly over time with a small percentage of their wages, that will work. that will keep students from having to drop out of college because they cannot afford to pay for college. we ought to be doing more of that. by doing away with the department of education, that may sound easy, but it will have a really bad result. we need to stand up for higher education. we need to get more people in our community into a system of higher education and we need to keep them in that system.
>> right out of the gate and that, you brought up the commercial that you approved the questions that dr. paul face. they ask for questions why? i presume there is an answer to that. are you alleging that dr. paul is not a christian or is not a good christian? >> that is not the issue of the ad. [laughter] >> the issue of the ad is why did rand paul, knowing that the president of baylor university and this group for being sacrilege, why did he knowingly join a group that mocked people of faith? when is it appropriate to tie up a woman and have her kneel before a false idol that you referred to as aqua buddha? those are fundamental questions.
"the washington post" had a story this week talking about him right into the student paper and asking when our two people ever people? well i think the creator made a sequel. why should women have there is a direct line between what he was writing about in college and the positions he has taken on faith-based programs. >> jack once to know when did you quit beating your wife? [laughter] you accuse me of these crimes. why did you commit these crimes that you just made up, jack? do you know nothing about the fact that, when you attack someone's character, you do not just do that. you do not just make up stuff that you attack someone's character. you really should be ashamed of yourself. run on the issues of the day. do not make up stuff about me
from college that you think you have read on the internet blogs, ok? >> do you want to respond? >> yes. it was not on the internet blogs. it was on cbs news. it was on politico. [laughter] and the woman who you tied up said it was weird. she said she and her friendship with you because of it. i do not think anyone should ever tie up a woman and ask her to kneel before a false idol. >> how do you argue with someone who has no logic and makes no logical sense? who makes up stuff to accuse me of from 30 years ago in college? i mean, it is absolutely absurd. you demean the state of kentucky. you embarrass yourself to bring up stuff from 30 years ago that is untrue, unsubstantiated, that
you read on a blog. [applause] >> no applause. no applause, folks. mr. paul supporters, we told you before hand that there are no -- there is no applause during the debate. >> do you think he is a christian auric good christian? -- or a good christian? what is your conclusion? >> i know that his wife is a deacon in the church. i do not think that is the issue. this issue is why did he join a group that mocks people of faith? they do not join a group that mocks people of faith? >> how can you respond to anonymous accusations from a guy that wants to make of stuff about me in college? do you want to have a debate? let's have a debate tonight
about national issues. if you want to discuss with your high school buddies what happened in college, go ahead. but let's debate tonight about obamacare. all you do is make up accusations about me in college. that shows such a dearth of knowledge and such a dearth of position that really disqualifies you from holding office. [applause] >> dr. paul, from the past three debates, mr. connally does not believe you think is that social security is constitutional. do you believe it is? >> i have never said that it is not constitutional. i have questioned the constitutionality of obamacare. 70% of kentuckians challenge and believe we should challenge the constitutionality of obamacare. the attorney general will not a sign on to that.
we ask him to sign-on to the constitutionality of obamacare. this is the pressing issue of the day. this would get into some of the discussion of the issues. jack misunderstands the constitution. he thinks it has to list their right that you not have insurance. he does not think that the constitution gives certain powers to the government. but it says that those rights not listed are not to be disparaged. the ninth amendment and the 10th amendment are very clear. against obamacare. he needs to do the will of the people. over 70% of kentuckians do believe that obamacare is a mistake. >> i am always amused to get a lecture on constitutional law from self-certified ophthalmologists. [laughter] [applause] >> i will not waste the resources of the taxpayers of
kentucky playing pee party politics. if you want to file these lawsuits, you challenge well settled law that says social security and medicare is constitutional. if you listen to his answer very carefully, he did not say that he thinks that social security is constitutional. he does not think it is, i am telling you. >> yes or no? is it constitutional or not. >> i have never challenged and i do not challenge it. it has been decided losses the 1930's. it is hard to argue with him because he makes up my position and then i have to have a debate with a made up position. even "the lexington herald" said that his ads are false. how do debate with a guy who makes up your positions. >> i am not making any positions. they are on the internet. they are in e-mails in your press releases. if you want to talk about as being declared false, "the
lexington herald" said the and you are running against me is false. when you are debating around paul, he is written on this. he does not think federal mine safety laws are constitutional. "the lexington herald" iain sponsoring you today said that you are -- but there are many who are turning away from those who have a record in congress. what do you say? >> since becoming attorney general, i have been taking on the oil companies for challenges at the pump. rand paul may be talking about
balancing the budget next year and he does not talk about how to do it this year. but you're looking at a fiscally responsible democrat. i have taken 86,000 pornographcd pornography sites of the internet. because i understand drugs are a pressing issue, i built the state's first prescription bill task force. abuse-neglect prosecutions are up in the state. i think that is a public record in the public trust. >> i think this is and will be the year of the outsider. i think people are ready for some non-career politicians. i think people are ready for term limits. i think people are ready for a balanced budget amendment. i think they are ready for people who do not see things in
terms of having their career and staying there forever. they say, you know what? we have serious problems in our country. we have a $2 trillion deficit. they want to send somebody up there who is not part of the system. >> dr. paul, should employers be held accountable for hiring illegal immigrants or undocumented workers? >> yes. i think illegal immigration is a big problem in our country. i think we need to have security along the southern border. we have not done a very good job about it. i think security is what we have to do first. many, like my opponent, want amnesty and security, they say. we tried that in the past. whenever they said, we will give you an amnesty and security at some point in time, it does not happen. i think it is a real national security problem to have an open border. i agree with milton friedman who said you cannot have open
borders in the welfare state. arizonas try to do something because the federal government is not stepping up. he opposes the arizona law. i am for the arizona law. i think the states will have to do something. they are the ones spending money on education and health benefits for people breaking the law. you cannot allow people to willy-nilly break the law, come into the law by millions and millions in favor of -- millions. i am in favor of legal immigration. >> i am not for amnesty. but i am also not for his plan were u.s. to electrify the entire southern border of the united states of america and create an underground electric fence. as attorney general of kentucky, we advise law enforcement agencies about immigration. but there are not enough ages. the federal government has abrogated its responsibility in this area.
>> do you favor a temporary guest worker program? >> yes, i do. i think it temporary worker program is a good program. i think should be done legal. it should be documented. when you talk to those in the farming community, they will tell you that they do need migrant workers to work on the farms. >> i do think a temporary worker program, if done properly with conjunction with tough border security and system that is safe and fair, does make sense. in certain instances like farmers, i do support it. >> there is much controversy on both sides of the fans for the health care reform bill. we do not want to throw out the baby with the bathwater because there are a lot of good benefits in the bill. what would you do away with and
what would to replace them with a? >> thank you very much for the question. i will tell you what is not the answer for health care, the two thousand dollars deductible for health care. rand paul says he wanted to thousand dollars deductible. our seniors cannot afford it. he also thinks we should take all breast cancer research down to the local level. that is where the university of louisville gets millions of dollars. here is what we need. we need to fix the health care law. rand paul wants to repeal it. i have a friend who had a kidney transplant. he has headed for 18 years. he told me on numerous occasions how hard it is to get coverage because he has a pre-existing condition. we have 19,000 kids in this state who would be kept on their parents' plan longer. there are some good things in the law. we need to step up in medicare and let medicare to negotiate for lower drug parties.
they need someone to take on the pharmaceutical industry to do that. >> i would get rid of the individual mandate. i would get rid of the fines. i would get rid of the 1099 provisions. interestingly, what we have talked about, the deductible that someone has, obamacare has already raised that deductible. i talked about in the future, a jacket is already in favor of the deductible. so is obama. medicare advantage has people paying nearly $1,000 more in out-of-pocket costs and deductibles will rise under obamacare. do not be fooled. >> jack, i will let you respond. but the viewer asked what specifically would you do away with the health care bill. after that and then you can respond.
-- answer that and then you can respond. >> he came up with an argument the other day that somehow the deductible is already being raised. it was the but pretty thoroughly this week. here's what i would do away with. i would say the special-interest provision where medicare cannot negotiate for lower drug prices, which is $200 billion in savings. i think they should be allowed to negotiate lower prices the way medicaid does. >> 30 seconds. >> in his article, he quotes richard foster to say that, under obama care, deductibles will go up. you are absolutely incorrect on this. >> mr. paul, as you know, kentucky is the net in porter federal dollars. you argue for a separate
taxation system. you want more money kept at home. win and youy you are able to convince everyone in the senate and the conference of your plan. the net -- will the net result for kentucky be a lesser percentage of the federal pie? >> actually, if you take out those active military salaries and what we give to our bases, our numbers are disproportionately high because of having two big military bases. they have -- we have a lot of active duty salaries. washington is a net loser for us. we need to say -- we need to figure out how to fix the deficit. we will have to look at every program and say how do we balances? soldiers should be taken out of the equation. >> rand paul came out for a 23%
tax. that would be on top of our regular sales tax. the wants to do away with the 16th amendment and put in a 23% national sales tax. so when you buy groceries or buy supplies, you're adding a 23% national sales tax. it will cut down disproportionately hard on our seniors. they are the salmon to get the $2,000 rand paul medical deductible. they cannot afford his plan. >> i have said repeatedly that we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. we need to cut spending before we do anything to taxes. we need to simplify the tax code. it is 17,000 pages long. we need to make it shorter. i support many different approaches to reform the tax code as long as it reduces the overall burden for all taxpayers. >> he has been for the national sales tax repeatedly and said he was for it again.
his campaign managers got into an argument about this week. in national sales tax would hurt our seniors in addition to the two thousand dollars deductible. >> in the past nine years, 1300 americans have died in afghanistan. conditions on the ground there seem to be, at times, deteriorating. do you believe this is a winnable war? how would you define it as a winnable war? under what circumstances should we leave? >> that is a very good question. thank you for that. our men and women in uniform are serving so bravely over there. i think it is the right thing to go in and break up the taliban. but i question the surge in afghanistan. i did so because i am sick of hearing politicians gang up on
the wood and say "win the war! when the war! " what does it mean to win in afghanistan? the reason i question to the surge is because i did not hear them much about pakistan. it is a deadly combination of loose nuclear material and terror. we need to handle this issue of nuclear proliferation. that is why i am especially troubled that he has said that it is not a national security threat if iran acquires a nuclear weapon. >> i told people that, if i am elected to the senate, the most important vote i will ever take will be going to war. i think america should go to war reluctantly. and when we go to war, we should declare war as the constitution intended. i do not think we have done that. as a consequence, we e have not been unified as a nation. i do think we need to begin
asking questions about when can we come home, when can the afghans step up and do more to patrol the streets in their country. >> do you believe it is a winnable war? if not or if so, how do we get out? >> i think we can meet those two criteria i put forth, leaving the country more stable than we found it and one that does not harbor terrorists who they are us feel well. the solution will be a political one where countries like pakistan and china and others stepped up and are un partners and nato partners step up so that we have an international solution that will meet political ends that will allow us to get out in the future. >> i would like to see our troops start to come home sometime next year. >> i think that we are very good at fighting war, but we are not
very good at nation-building. i think we need to ask the questions about that. there needs to be a national debate, in the senate and in the halls of the media as well. we need to have a debate about when we should come home. the commander-in-chief makes those decisions and i do not think that congress can vote to move troops around. i think it would be unconstitutional for congress to tell them they have to have 100,000 troops here or 100,000 troops there. >> dr. paul, you have expressed local first when spending tax dollars. but considering the corruption rampant in parts of eastern kentucky, do you believe and sending thousands of dollars without the due control is the best way to attack our state's drug problem? >> i think this debate has been mistaken from the very beginning, as if it is an all learned none. there is a continuum between local funding and federal funding. if you talk to a sheriff in any
county and ask them what percentage of your money is state and what percentage is local and what is federal, it is well over 90% in every community for state and local funding. i am not proposing some dramatic change in what we do. the vast majority of the funding is state and local. >> i do not know what kentucky needs. i was interested to see in the paper this morning saying that rodgers was disappointed when paul rand can do funding unite. congressman would field has brought funding on the floor and is not locally funded. i can assure you that the surest that i met with in central kentucky the sheriff -- the sheriff's that i met with in central kentucky believe that
the drug problem is a pressing problem. >> they are 100% federally funded. if you take the federal money in the county and you add of the local money in canada, it is less than 10% of the money. -- in the county, is less than 10% of the money. i want more autonomy with local drug courts because i want to make reasonable decisions. i do not think we should lock up a teenager for 10 years for possession of drugs. i think we need to have a more reasoned and reasonable approach to the drug problem. >> this is an issue that i've understand. i have literally traveled to eastern kentucky. parents have cried on my shoulder because their children have overdosed on oxycontin. you said you would not seek federal assistance. i think that is callous.
i think that is problematic for the people of eastern kentucky, including the partnership that we have. this is an all hands on debt situation. >> as a way to attack the deficit, you can either cut programs and save money or raise taxes to generate income. as far as content is concerned, what is your view on downsizing for knox and fort campbell as a part of saving money. >> i am for that. they have a plan moving forward for fort knox that is very exciting. they will actually triple the number of officers. there is incredible investment down there. people in and around fort knox are cited for their future. they are also standing by fort campbell. i am a fiscally responsible democrat. i balance my budget eight times. if you get to my website, you
can see we have specific proposals on how we can trim about $1 trillion in spending. there is about $100 billion in medicare fraud we could get if we had medicare fraud unit in each and every state. if we were to shut down the offshore tax loopholes and tax havens that my opponents of course, there's about $400 billion in savings. we need a bipartisan debt commission to give its recommendations. >> i am not for cutting funds for fort knox or fort campbell. both of them are ranked in the top 20 basies. i think we have a very good chance at fort knox and fort campbell will stay in kentucky. with regard to what we do, it is a spending problem in washington. you need series people to go up there and look at every program across the board and say, "can we downsizes? can we make it smaller?
can we privatize some programs?" but we have to be serious about this. it will take sears people to balance the budget. >> where do you stand on location for the new va hospital in louisville. >> i think we should take into account what the veterans have. they are for keeping it in a similar location where it is. there is another medical community that would be more convenient downtown. but this is an area where i would say to make the decisions locally. lieu have the folks in will make the decision. let's not ship off and -- folks in the louisville make the decision. let's not ship off this decision to washington. >> let's listen to the veterans community and local officials. i want to talk about the commander of the army and see
where he thinks it should be. in addition to that, and talking with my good friend john sterner, the north-central part of the state is unde underserved when it comes to be a nursing homes. i would like to see a veterans nursing home at an affordable cost so we can serve that underserved part of our veterans. >> john conway, you have said that your support of the employee free choice act is part of your thinking that the majority of workers in the workplace want to organize, they should be able to do that. i'm curious about another facet in that bill which would force federal binding arbitration on businesses and unions, it essentially a takeover of the contract process by the federal government. do you agree with that facet to? >> thank you for the question. first of all, i have always said that is the fundamental right of
the american worker to sit down with his or her employer and talk about the terms and conditions of their employment. if 50% of people want to form a union, they ought to form a union. -- they ought to be able to form a union. if they go through years where no agreement is reached on a contract, there should be a mediation process. we need a jobs plan. brand paul has no jobs plan. we have 10% unemployment and his plan is to say that workers will decide to take lower wages and they need a little tough luck. that is no jobs plan. again, i want people to go to my website. it will not solve our problems, but it will print about 11,000 jobs in the commonwealth of kentucky. a lot of people are afraid that the government is growing and that jobs are not being treated. we need to provide incentives to the private sector to create jobs in the future. >> let me interpret for you. he is for forced the employee
-- big mistake for kentucky. it will cause the loss of jobs, not creation of jobs. the preventing waged in kentucky has caused our schools to be more expensive. be very clear what his position is. he is for the bill. >> you said some sort of mediation. the bill, as written, is federally enforced binding arbitration. would you specifically supports that? >> i want to see some sort of mediation process to ask them to sit down and arrive at a contract in a reasonable parof e time. >> to put a simple, he will vote for the bill. i am against the bill. [laughter] >> you have attacked conway for
going outside of the state to raise money. will you promise now, if elected, you will return to federal government or gift to a charity when you were campaigning outside of kentucky either for yourself or for your father? >> if skipping votes, yes. he has gone over half of september in california with nancy pelosi raising money. the thing is that we want him to do his job here. he wants to blame the drug problem on the small town position. i am not responsible for the drug problem. he is the chief law enforcer in the state. meth labs have doubled in the state. he is the one in charge, for goodness sakes. latest question and
answer board, more than 70% of my money was in state and more than 70% of his men was out of state. he thinks -- he does not think the rules apply to him. look at kentucky taxpayers united. he made up 1000 dues-paying members. there has been numerous stories this week that shows the organization did not even exist. what was he doing there? >> dr. paul, you said you would return money for missing votes. do you see your job as senator as being more than voting? >> he should return his money because he is not doing his job. all of his jobs are getting worse. he spent half of september, traveling, trying to troll for cash in california. so yes, i think he's a return is.
>> i was not in california for half of september trolling for cash. i have been working attorney general. look at my history. i have taken on special interests. i have taken shot from recites off the internet. we have brought the state further in the area of cyber crimes than any other state in the country. i'm proud of that. >> you have called your opponent a constitutional minimalist with radical views. how can you claim that he will this mental social security, medicare, the minimum-wage, etc.? do his use go too far? how can you defend that? you have gone all the way to say that he will dismantle those programs. >> rand paul is on record saying
that the federal defense record will be much smaller, but he wanted to be 80% or more of the budget. he is on record as saying that we have to follow the constitution in this country since 1937. he said we need to go back to a pre-world war ii system of health care where doctors negotiate directly with patients. 1937, the supreme court upheld social security. in 1936, the supreme court decided that the commerce clause was broad enough to regulate coal mine safety. i am glad they did. we're losing 1500 colt -- we were losing 1500 coal miners a year back in the 1930's. then they bluecross and/blue shield system arose. brand paul does not like that. he calls himself a constitutional conservative and not a libertarian. he would take us back to not
having mine safety laws. >> i think you have hit the nail on the head. he makes up positions and then we argue the made up positions. i am not eliminating social security, medicare, or mine safety regulations. so why do not stop and have an intelligent debate? we have to look at which regulations work and which do not work. we have to figure out how to fund medicare and social to tree for the baby boomers. they are living longer and there are more retired people. >> i will give you 30 seconds. >> i have outlined a couple of provisions. medicare fraud units allow for $100 billion in savings. he puts forward all of the stuff that social security is a
ponzi scheme and it should be privatized. i want to tell the seniors of kentucky tonight that i will never balance the budget on their backs. >> he said he will never balance the budget on their backs? [laughter] never going to balance the budget. [laughter] we have to figure out how to fund social security and medicare. we have 42 million people returned now. we're getting ready to have 77 million people retired. it means changes for younger people and wealthier people. if you do not believe that and you're not willing to have an adult discussion about it, then we get nowhere towards fixing it. the lower we put it off, the worse the problem gets. >> there has been discussion at the federal level about creating less dependence on non- renewable energy sources. do you favor such a move? if you do, how do explain that
to people working in kentucky's coal industry? >> if elected, i will probably be the biggest offender of a local industry and the colt workers and the coal miners revenue united states. it is a big kentucky industry. but i am not opposed to other forms of energy. i think we should keep developing other forms of energy. i'm in favor of nuclear. i am in favor of wind. i am in favor of hydroelectric. you name it. i am in favor righof it. 300 million people in america get to vote every day. it is called democratic capitalism. we vote on whether wal-mart succeeds or target succeed. we vote on whether we will use coal or nuclear. what we have is a market place that determines these. that maximizes the ability of the individual to get what they
want. we will continue to burn coal. >> i think i just heard him say that he wants to be one of the strongest advocates for minors, yet he is on record saying that he would take federal miner's safety protections. we were losing 1500-a year in the 1930's. he also has said that coal is the least the desirable form of energy. i am against cap and trade. i went against the epa when they tried to force it on us. i also think we need to explore the new energy economy. the jobs of the future will be created in the renewable energies. >> thank you mark and thank you to the university of louisville. in about 16 days, the voters of kentucky have an important force to make. elections are about truces. we have one year -- elections
are about choices. as attorney general, i have gone after the scourge of drugs. rand paul has said that they are not pressing issue. i have gone after crimes. i understand the sometimes non- mile of actions are a crime. i also will stand up and protect our seniors. i will stand up for medicare. rand paul wanted to thousand dollars deductible for medicare. he calls social security a ponzi scheme that ought to be privatized. our seniors cannot afford that. rand paul has spoken out against the americans with disabilities act. what will he say to them? i will always stand up for workplace safety protections. i hardly ask for your vote on nov. 2nd. .> thank you [cheers and applause]
>> dr. paul, one minute. >> you will notice that i will not be shaking his hand tonight. i will not shake hands with someone who attacks my religion and attacks my christian beliefs. these are something very personal to me, my wife, my kids. we take it very personally. and i will not be associated with someone who will attack my religion. this election will be about the future of america, who has the best vision. we will try to keep the debate on a higher tone. i hope you will leave my church, my family, and my religion out of it. but who has the best vision for america? few believe america has always answered? do you believe in the individual entrepreneur? i believe in the individual. i believe in capitalism. i believe we, as the greatest
nation ever known to man, we are the most humanitarian nation known to man. thank you very much for coming this evening. thank you for your support. [cheers and applause] coke >> we would like to thank both of the canada's for putting yourselves out there for public service. we thank all of you watching at home. go vote on election day. you have compared them head-to- head. you can go home and make your vote on election day. go vote on election day. thank you very much for joining us.
senate candidate lee fisher and democratic house candidates. we will show you the columbus rally later this evening. for more political news, go to our website at c-span.org /politics. >> next, q&a with steven briar. then prime minister david cameron takes questions from the british house of commons. live it 10:00 p.m., a debate between the candidates running for senate in washington. >> in january, the supreme court struck down laws limiting corporate spending in elections. tomorrow, lawyers, political scientists, and journalists will discuss the case known as citizens united vs fec. live coverage begins at noon eastern on c-span. eastern on c-span.
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on