Baker takes the heat in first major 3-way debate

The wide-open format in the initial face-off, and the presence of independent candidate Timothy P. Cahill, helped Patrick deflect criticism on issues where he is most politically vulnerable: taxes, health care costs, immigration, and state government spending.

“The governor’s done a good job in tough circumstances,’’ Cahill, the state treasurer, said at one point. “Not as bad as Charlie says. It’s not as good as the governor says, either.’’

The three candidates focused heavily on the economy and jobs during their hourlong debate, broadcast live on WRKO’s “Tom & Todd’’ radio show during the morning drive. They had freedom to interrupt each other, but also time to offer substantive responses about their differences.

Patrick argued that Massachusetts is emerging from the economic downturn “faster and stronger’’ than other states, but has work left to do. Baker countered that Patrick had squandered his opportunity to govern and left Massachusetts an inhospitable place for businesses to locate and hire workers. Cahill said the middle class is getting squeezed and that small businesses have been neglected.

Polls show Patrick leading his two main competitors, even as voters express a mixed evaluation of his performance. The debate dynamic underscored the difficulty Baker faces in defeating Patrick as long as Cahill remains a viable candidate, preventing Baker from making a one-on-one case against the governor. A fourth candidate, Jill Stein of the Green-Rainbow Party, complained that she was excluded from the debate.

The two most memorable moments yesterday came when Baker sparred with his two opponents over his record as a cabinet secretary for governors William Weld and Paul Cellucci, and his more recent tenure as chief executive of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care.

When the candidates were discussing rising health care costs, Baker called himself a leader in the debate, complaining that government officials never pursued his proposal to force more public disclosure of health care costs.

Cahill questioned why Baker did not disclose the prices on his own.

“Talk, talk,’’ Cahill said. “Is that going to happen when you’re governor? You’re going to talk and people aren’t going to pursue anything. Because people are just talking about it. That’s leadership, Charlie? You’ve got to provide some leadership.’’

The second instance came as Baker was critiquing Patrick’s management of the state budget. Patrick had just finished explaining why thousands of state workers were being paid with borrowed money, a practice he has acknowledged is not sustainable.

“The plan you’ve been executing is just kicking the can,’’ Baker said. “We’re still basically talking about a huge deficit that’s far into the future.’’

Patrick responded by mentioning Baker’s involvement in the Big Dig: “Charlie, I have a lot of respect for you, but the notion you, with your fingerprints all over the Big Dig financing plan, would talk to me?’’

A story in Sunday’s Globe chronicled Baker’s role, as state secretary of administration and finance in the 1990s, in engineering a financing plan that pushed the $15 billion road project forward, but depended heavily on debts that are still being paid off today. Baker contended that his role was small in the context of the entire project, and pointed out that Patrick has used a similar borrowing plan to fund road and bridge work.

Baker at one point asserted that he “never actually worked on the Big Dig at all.’’

“The Big Dig lasted 24 years,’’ he said. “It started in the early 1980s, when I was barely out of college. And I spent four years as A and F secretary at a point in time when the big issue was what to do about federal funding.’’

Patrick, despite being the incumbent, was seldom forced off his message, even when discussing his past support for tax increases or his differences with Cahill and Baker over immigration enforcement.

Cahill and Baker support a provision that passed the state Senate recently, requiring more stringent checks on immigration status for those seeking state benefits. Baker and Cahill said residents and business owners who play by the rules feel like they are cheated when illegal immigrants and those who hire them skirt the rules.

Business owners who follow the law, Baker said, “feel a lot of the time like they’re chumps, because they know they are competing against employers who are playing the game under the table.’’

Patrick agreed with the point, and noted that he had formed a task force on the underground economy. But he argued that the state already screens out illegal immigrants from receiving benefits and that the Senate measure could unintentionally take benefits away from legal immigrants and veterans.

The immigration debate, like nearly everything the candidates discussed, was ultimately linked with the economy.

With Baker and Cahill demanding that taxes be reduced, Patrick, without offering specifics, said that “there will come a time, I believe, to roll those taxes back.’’

Patrick went on to warn that if it was done immediately, the state would face a “calamity,’’ a loss of billions of dollars in revenue.

“Right now, all across the Commonwealth, there are programs and people struggling because we’re not able to do all that they want and they need, in terms of government helping them help themselves,’’ he said.

Baker responded that “the people who are struggling most out there are the 320,000 people who are out of work, who live in a state that has, in many respects, across every measure you can think of, the least competitive position’’ compared with other states.

“Now, I hear you say that we can’t cut taxes,’’ Baker added. “Well, the bottom line is, over time, we’re going to have to reduce our tax burden if we’re serious about competing with all these states that have been taking jobs and economic opportunity from us for the better part of 10 years.’’

Noah Bierman can be reached at nbierman@globe.com.