Debate transcript

JON KELLER: Welcome to the final pre-primary debate among the democratic candidates for governor of Massachusetts, I'm Jon Keller, political analyst for CBS 4 news, with a special welcome for our viewers in western Massachusetts on CBS 3, our radio audience WBZ news radio 1030 and our Spanish-speaking viewers on Univision New England, buenos noches.

Next Tuesday, Democrats and unenrolled voters will go to the polls to choose a Democratic nominee for governor and the candidates are Chris Gabrieli of Boston, the 2002 Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor, Deval Patrick of Milton, former assistant attorney general for civil rights under president Clinton and Tom Reilly of Watertown in his second term as attorney general. Our format tonight is simple, each candidate has up to a minute to answer each of my questions, we'll go in alphabetical order throughout. After they've had their say, there will be an open period of rebuttal and direct exchange.

At about the half way mark of our debate, each candidate will have a chance to ask a question of the other two, then there will be one-minute closing statements from each candidate. So let's begin our debate, gentlemen, welcome.

M: Thank you, Jon.

KELLER: We'll be discussing a number of general interest issues during this hour, but there is one political issue of special interest to voters intent on putting a democrat in the corner office for the first time in sixteen years. What makes you more electable in November than your two opponents? Mr. Gabrieli, 60 seconds.

GABRIELI: Absolutely. This is probably our last event together, so it's been an interesting and challenging opportunity to be with you gentlemen, I wish you well, maybe not luck, but well (laughter). You know, I think that my candidates used premise on the fact that its not really fundamentally about democrat or republican, it's about getting results. I have a record of getting results throughout my career, i have put forward detailed specific plans of how i'll get results. How I will cut taxes, but do it smartly by taking it out of income growth, how I will drive the economy by taking advantage of expansion in the innovation economy and investing in those areas that drive new technologies and new fields. By looking at small business, which too often is neglected. I focused on how to bring down the cost of housing in Massachusetts so that seniors aren't pushed out of their homes by making our circuit breaker work better for them to let them stay in their homes, but also for young families to be able to buy their first home, I've proposed a tax break in that year of which somebody becomes a first-time home buyer. A bunch of specific ideas, but what it boils down to is results. It doesn't matter if you're a democratic idea or republican idea, you've got to get the results.

KELLER: Thank you. Mr. Patrick, 60 seconds, what makes you most electable?

PATRICK: Well, I think first of all, the point about the clarity of ideas, and the depth of them, I want to point out that we've put out ideas over the last year, very specific plans for how to move Massachusetts forward. But the edge i think that i bring is leadership that includes government, but also business also non profits, also community groups, I've gotten results in every one of those contexts and no one else in this race has this range of leadership experience. That's one difference. Another difference though is that I run a campaign that is about inviting people who have checked out to check back in, whatever their political philosophy and wherever they are in the commonwealth. And I think that is a different - that brings a different kind of power, a people power, a grassroots power to beacon hill, unless we change that culture with that kind of power, all bets are off.

KELLER: Thank you. Mr. Reilly, electability.

REILLY: Jon, people are looking for independents. I've been an independent democrat throughout my career. Willing to stand up to my party when it was right for the people of Massachusetts, a big issue in this campaign is taxes, rolling back the taxes, the people have voted on it, any one of us had the right to ignore the will and the mandate of the people, I'm the only democrat in this race who is willing to stand up and fight for the people on things that are important to them. I have a proven record of getting things done, and things that are important too, their safety, the protection of their children, also on things that the education of their children as well, so I have a proven record of standing up for people and fighting for people. I live the life of a average working family in Massachusetts, I understand that life, I'll be a governor who is going to be on their side.

KELLER: Rebuttal? Would anyone care to take it?

PATRICK: I think we ought to talk about the tax question. I think first of all, we all have to understand and appreciate that the voters have voted to roll the income tax back and why wouldn't they? They look at something like the big dig for example, billions of dollars in cost overruns, and structural defects we've known about for a long time and hardly any curiosity until the tragedy in July from our elected executives about where that money went. Small wonder people say, give me my money back. But the tax to cut, is the property tax, and the only way - that's the one squeezing people, and the only way to do that is to that is to restore state aid to cities and towns and education support. And the only way to do that is to postpone the income tax and invest in ourselves.

REILLY: Well, Deval, you should say there's a lack of curiosity to the people of my staff who are working around the clock, night and day, to get to the bottom of this, going through hundreds of thousands of records. They are making progress, substantial progress. The Big Dig, and the problem with that is a series of republican governors who have tied my hands, but despite that, we have recovered and saved $75 million of tax-payers' money, (inaudible), excuse me, Deval, six people under indictment, and oppressing criminal - no one has a right on taxes to ignore the will of the voters, the will of the voters - you can't substitute your judgment for the will of the voters, and you can't either, Chris.

(Multiple conversations; inaudible)

KELLER: One at a time please, go ahead Mr. Gabrieli.

GABRIELI: Well, you know, where I disagree with you Deval is that's sort of a can't do, here's what you can't do, I've put forward a plan that is a can-do plan, we can cut the income tax, we can do it by taking a 40% of income growth and put it to it, I leave 40% in there for continuing local aid and investments, but I can hold down the property taxes just as well, so I think of course we should hold down the property taxes, but we can cut the income tax - you know, I've been all over the state listening to people, we talk about - as politicians about listening to people, well, the people have been real clear, they feel the pinch of cost in Massachusetts. I don't think we should ignore them, I don't think they're wrong to say you and government can do this for us, we might disagree on the details of the plan, but I disagree on saying (multiple conversations; inaudible).

KELLER: Response, first him, then you.

REILLY: There you go again, Chris. First of all, your plan, you say 40%, it's one of those things, now you see it, now you don't. 40% of tax revenue, any increase is going to go to a tax rollback, it is not going to go to a tax rollback, you spin off 50% of that, roughly $500 million and you give it to the legislature, you have to be straight with people, you have to be straight with the voters, you can't get it, they're smart people and they get it, your plan does not roll back that income tax except when you want to do it.

KELLER: Brief response, then you.

PATRICK: I would just say first of all that the concept of a gradual income tax rollback is right, the problem or the difference I think between your view of that and mine, chris is that you love the world of theory and I live in the real world. And you've got assumptions in your plan for example, that costs will only go up with the rate of inflation. Well healthcare costs alone has gone up twice the rate of inflation, and all revenues are not equal, the revenues right now that explain the growth in revenue come from capital gains, people like you and me are making money from our investments, not because regular people are making more money, their wages have gone up or because more people are working, that's the kind of economic growth and expansion that we've got to concentrate on.

GABRIELI: A plan is not a concept, I think you've got some notion here that one day, maybe, I've laid out a specific plan that could be enacted as legislation that says last years revenues plus three percent are held to continue what we've been doing, every cent above that, 40 cents on the dollar, goes to cutting the income tax, it's a very simple formula to understand, it's not, you know - forgive me for feeling I have a lot of experience in doing budgets, but I've been doing it all my life, I've been running businesses, I understand how to look at budgets, that is a concrete way to do it and it honors what people want, which is to see taxes cut in the state, to see someone in the chief executive office who will rein on the legislature, who will set a clear set of priorities, 40 cents (inaudible) but 40 cents on the dollar to cut taxes.

KELLER: Briefly, both of you, you first, go ahead.

PATRICK: All I'm saying is that the formula you have laid out works on paper, but is not actually going to result in an income tax return. And the point that I was trying to make earlier to you, Tom, is that the reason property taxes have gone up in local communities 32, 33 percent is because they have been starved of state aid and we cannot return that state aid unless we postpone that income tax.

KELLER: Response.

REILLY: First of all, this isn't complicated, you don't need a formula, the people have voted, they have stated what they want. There is a billion dollars sitting there in surplus, this is very simple, you are either going to do it, or you are not. I will do it, neither of you will do that.

KELLER: Fifteen seconds each, then we'll move on. You can go back to this later.

GABRIELI: Saying you don't agree with the formula is not putting forward a plan. A plan is something someone can go to a website, read and say I agree, I disagree, a lot of people looked at my plan, a lot of people think it's a sensible plan, it's a balanced plan, but here's the point, I don't agree with tomorrow, I don't agree with never, or I'll tell you I'll fill you in someday, I tell you exactly what I'm going to do, that's what we need, that's how we'll get results (inaudible).

KELLER: Final from you, you can revisit this later.

PATRICK: Just the first point, the state treasurer has looked at all of our proposals and says that my approach to this is the most fiscally responsible. The second is that, due respect Tom, you had the same position I had on this on this I have today on this position just a year ago, and our fisc was very strong then with the surplus then as well and we knew what (multiple conversations; inaudible).

KELLER: Go ahead, 10 seconds, he addressed you, go ahead.

REILLY: First of all, there's a billion dollars sitting there, OK? This is something you either do or you don't. The people have voted, the people have voted. You have no right to ignore the vote of the people. We work for them. We work for them, and we do what they tell us, we don't tell them what to do.

KELLER: All right, all right. Gentlemen, as I've said, there's opportunity for you to return to any subject later on as you wish in your open periods, but lets move on. And you'll start first here Mr. Patrick, one of our state's most prolific creators of well-paid jobs is Fidelity Investments, the financial services giant, but that company's moving more than 1,200 of those good jobs from Massachusetts to Rhode Island in large part they say because of a tax break Rhode Island gives to top-tier managers on their corporate bonus pay, would you support a similar tax break for highly paid corporate executives to keep jobs here and steal them from other states and if not, how would you stop the fidelity bleeding? 60 seconds.

PATRICK: Well the answer to the specific question is, no I wouldn't, but I do think that we have to be much more robust partners with Massachusetts businesses to encourage them to stay here and to grow here. Right now we have no active problem-solving relationship with businesses from a business-oriented governor who sold himself to us that way. For example, I visited with a company called Evergreen Solar out in Marlborough, a global leader in solar technology, exactly the kind of business that we should be cultivating and the kind of industry I believe we should be cultivating here in Massachusetts. They're expanding a $75 million new manufacturing facility in East Germany, no one asked them to think about Springfield or Fall River, and indeed in Germany, the government is engaged with them in how to make that business model work for them. We ought to be that creative and that engaged here in Massachusetts.

KELLER: Thank you. Mr. Reilly.

REILLY: I would not sign that bill or offer that incentive. We need an entirely different relationship between state government and the business community, we need to treat them as valued customers. First of all, there are 15 different state agencies that are dealing with economic development, we have to streamline that process that's one stop shopping. We have to put an end to the over regulation that's going on in this state, the permitting that they can devise a plan, and want to build a plan, but going through the local level, and going through the state level, it goes on and on and on, we need to streamline it, we need a relationship with the business community, we need to go out and fight and compete for jobs in Massachusetts, I've been doing it throughout my career and I'll do it as governor.

KELLER: Thank you. Mr. Gabrieli.

GABRIELI: Of course we want to fight for every job, and I wouldn't give that tax break. I think that's good lobbying on the part of businesses when they seek such tax breaks. History shows that it's not smart for states to pay more to get jobs, you just get into the race to the bottom. The issue is creating jobs and I think it's important to understand jobs in our economy get created by small companies that grow fast, that's where the jobs come from and that's why innovation is so important, that's why my proposal to put a billion dollars over a decade into advanced science and technology fields like stem cell research and alternative technology is important. Small business is crucial, I think we talk so much about large businesses, they're well represented, they talk well for themselves, but most people work for small businesses, most wealth that stays in a community gets generated from them. I'm going to have a small business commission that's going to start day one that's going to look at how do we reduce the regulatory burden, how do we reduce the cost of doing business and how do we bring more local aid. By the way, it is important to understand these businesses, Evergreen Solar said the main reason they went to Germany is most of their market is in Europe, so I don't know that Springfield would be closer to them. Each business has its unique issues, but I'd look at that company a little differently.

KELLER: Rebuttal.

PATRICK: Well I won't rebut that point, their market is mostly in Europe, but the issue is expanding that market here, that's part of it. And Chris is right about the importance of cultivating small businesses, one of the reasons why we've put out a plan that conceives of using some of our investment money here in Massachusetts, combining that with private investment capital and targeting it for investment in smaller medium sized businesses, very similar to what you've done, I think.

KELLER: Anything further?

REILLY: Well, yeah, I propose and I guess Chris disagrees with me on this, is investing $500 million in the university of Massachusetts and all of its five campuses, I don't just see Cambridge, OK? I see the state in it's entirety, I see western mass and I see Springfield and Amherst, I see Worcester and UMass Lowell and UMass Dartmouth and UMass Boston, $500 million into research and development capability of that, hiring and going after the best researchers in this country and turning their creative ideas into jobs, that's what the future of Massachusetts is involved and that's what's important here, not just Cambridge, we have to look beyond Cambridge and look to the state and the university of Massachusetts is (inaudible).

KELLER: Let's -- response.

GABRIELI: You're absolutely right about that Tom, I agree with you. If you look at, let's say, Kanarka (sp?) which is one of the most exciting new (inaudible) companies in the country, it's located in Lowell, it's a spinout of Umass Lowell, because of the investments made there in material sciences, I absolutely think investments in especially Umass Lowell, Umass Amherst and Umass Dartmouth make a lot of sense, but let me just say one thing -

REILLY: You've come a long way in a week.

GABRIELI: (inaudible) But let me say just one thing, I disagree with a little bit with is I did do - you're right, I did work with the pension fund to get them to invest money in Massachusetts, I did a little bit differently, the details matter, but the point is we can absolutely get a lot of money from our pension funds, it's something I've already done, and I would get more money from that pension fund and other pension funds and I would get more money from private endowments, they ought to put more money to work in Massachusetts, our pension fund's already done $175 million, it's something I've already gotten results on.

KELLER: All right, very briefly, I want to move on.

PATRICK: This is a good idea, the importance of speeding up permitting is also a key initiative in one stop shopping in the six month time frame for at least state wide -- state level permitting. But I think we also ought to drive toward a new industry in Massachusetts to become a global center around alternative and renewable energy. The technologies and the products and services, I believe if we get that aright, the whole world will be our customer, we have all the capability here in terms of the concentration of brain power and venture capital and that whole innovative tradition and it is one of the reasons why I do support the wind farm in Nantucket sound.

KELLER: You can get into that now or later. I'd like to move on to another topic if you don't mind. All right, let's do that. Let's talk about education, and in fact, here's a question that's submitted to our website cbs4boston.com, quote, "my husband and I are spending money we can't afford on a private school for our seventh grader because the local middle school refuses to allow tracking and instead lumps our advanced reader in with kids learning at a much slower rate, they get special services, we get the shaft. We're told this is all about being "inclusive," but it excludes us from getting a fair shape for our son and a fair value for our tax dollars. Will you order the public schools, if you're elected, to restore tracking based on ability?" Mr. Reilly.

REILLY: No, I will not. I was one of those kids that was tracked when I was in high school because I was going through a very difficult time in my family's life, I lost two brother and my father. And I was put in a track, group four, and that group four was not aimed for college and I was told I was not good enough to go to college and I had to fight hard and I barely graduated from high school and I had some problems. I don't believe in tracking kids, I do not believe in tracking kids, I believe in giving every one of our kids and every one of our children the opportunity to be whatever they can be and go as far as they can be. I do not believe in tracking, I will not order tracking, I will try to certainly offer the very best education for all of our students but not tracking. I was one of those kids and I know how hard it was for me to fight my way through it, I thought I was every bit as good, but I was in group four and there were only five groups, so you know where I was headed.

KELLER: Mr. Gabrieli.

GABRIELI: You know, I think that we do need to do more for kids who are gifted and talented, in particular, I think we do need to look at kids across the spectrum and I certainly agree with Tom, that we've got to look at kids particularly who get ignored by the system who are in the middle or on the bottom, but I think even kids at the top who have special skills should get supported to. I think we should have high schools of excellence for science and math and technology, I'd have them regionally around the state, it's amazing that we don't have a (inaudible) high school of science in Massachusetts where kids are going to go on the highest trajectories. I have spent the last six years working on innovation and change, I'm not just speaking off of ideas I came up with this year, the fact that there are ten schools this year that have 4700 kids just opened up 30% more time, all the kids are benefiting from it, the early feedback is really positive: more time in the class room, more helping them out with their homework and tutoring, more arts and enrichment, and some of those ideas come from pushing innovation. Tom and I support charter schools because the democrats who put that idea forward see them as an opportunity for innovation and choice. Deval, I think you're wrong to refuse these kids the choices that every other parent seeks for themselves to go to a great school like Roxbury Prep our parents are turned down and want more choices for their kids.

KELLER: Time. Mr. Patrick.

PATRICK: Well first of all, I do reject tracking, I think that's a mistake, and I think it is right that we create more attention, more time, more opportunities for gifted and talented kids, that's one of the reasons I've pressed so hard for smaller class sizes and longer school days with after school and enrichment programs. Chris, you're wrong that I don't support charter schools, you've again overstated or understated my position, my view is though, as important as charter schools are and as helpful as they are, as an element of the education reform path that we've been on, that we need to come up with a different and better funding mechanism before we raise the cap, it's just that simple. And I think what we have done is impose a state mandate on ed reform that includes charter schools and the state ought to step up and support that mandate, and when I'm governor, we will.

KELLER: Rebuttal.

GABRIELI: I think that there was a fight at the time and I think both Tom and I were probably involved in 1993 in the fight on education reform and democrats and republicans came together and agreed on some things. We agreed on an MCAS standard, Tom's defended it in court, you talked about alternative assessments, which is code for not really holding kids to that standard.

PATRICK: I'm not speaking in code.

GABRIELI: Well, alternative assessments, I think I'll ask what the attorney general about it, but I think we were in that fight, we know that - if you either have that standard or you don't, and when it comes to charter schools, saying there's complicated why you oppose more of them, there are 185 parents who applied to Roxbury Prep last year, only 70 kids got to go in, the other 110 kids, parents did not get what they want for their kids. I want to do something about it right now, I don't want to tell them that 13 years after it started, we're going to put a moratorium on it -

KELLER: OK, let's get a response.

REILLY: I've got a question for you Deval, if there was a moratorium proposed by the legislature, to curb any growth in charter schools, would you sign that legislation? I wouldn't.

PATRICK: No, I don't think - listen, we need more charter schools, we'll have more charter schools, my point is that we've got now a funding mechanism that creates unnecessary tension between the families of kids in district schools and the families of kids in charter schools, especially in smaller communities and the state needs to step up. And that's one of the whole myriad of reasons why I believe it's irresponsible to roll the income tax right now.

REILLY: (Multiple conversations; inaudible) Sign that bill?

PATRICK: I don't think we need that

REILLY: (Multiple conversations; inaudible) veto that bill?

PATRICK: I don't think we need it.

REILLY: I think Chris would veto it.

GABRIELI: I would veto it.

REILLY: Would you veto it?

PATRICK: Yes, do you hear what I said? Yes, but listen, we've got to be serious about funding what it is we order in public education (multiple conversations; inaudible).

GABRIELI: Let's be clear, the dollars follow the kids. Now everywhere I've been in business, if you lose a customer, you lose their business (multiple conversations; inaudible) the dollars follow the kids, I think if you said to most taxpayers, here's an idea, a kid goes to school a, let's pay school B and school A for that kid, I think most people would say, huh? That's a good use of tax payers' money, right now that's the formula. The dollars follow the kids, there's three years over which first the school where the kids came from gets money at the 100% level, then they get it at a lower level, then at another lower level, they get three years to make an adjustment, I actually do think that's about right.

KELLER: Let him respond.

PATRICK: And once again, the theory - the formula works in theory and in real life, there are real tensions between real families and that is not community building and that is not advancing ed reform.

GABRIELI: I haven't heard a single family raise it, I have heard certain powerful interest in our party raise it (multiple conversations; inaudible)

KELLER: Final words.

REILLY: It's a matter of giving parents choice, give them a choice.

KELLER: Ten seconds, if you want a last word.

PATRICK: They ought to have the choice, I've been clear about my support of charter schools, but I have been trying to respond to a real problem in real people's lives about the tension created around this funding formula and I intend to do that as governor.

KELLER: All right, gentlemen, thank you, I think you've all made your points, let's move onto another question sent to us on cbs4boston.com, the average American worker pays 26% of the cost of family health insurance, Massachusetts state employees typically pay about 15%, as a measure of your willingness to question a costly entitlement, is it fair to ask taxpayers when they face the uncertain costs of the universal health plan, to subsidize bargain coverage for state workers to pay more for their coverage? Mr. Gabrieli.

GABRIELI: I think that good benefits is an important part of state jobs, it's part of how people are recruited to it, I think we're pretty close to the right place, everything's up on the table, but I will tell you I will focus on municipal employees, right now municipal employees, the rate of growth on their healthcare costs is going much faster than state employees and I think that we could sit at the table, not be antagonistic, but sit at the table and wouldn't take it out of collective bargaining, but I do think we need to sit down and say we need to get more of this money to work in our classrooms, out on the street in form of policemen, out in the street in the form of firemen, and so we got to be smart about it, you know, the group health insurance group that represents the state employees, they do some really smart things to try and manage healthcare that I think is going to save money for the state employees in the state and be good for employees and I think that that kind of constructive smart approach can be used more broadly and I'd work collaboratively to fight to bring down the cost of healthcare benefits so we can put more money into classrooms and so forth.

KELLER: Thank you. Mr. Patrick.

PATRICK: That's a big part of the right answer in my view, I think we need to be managing down the cost of healthcare for everybody and we have this opportunity and indeed that mandate with a new health reform bill some of the ideas that I want to pursue are for example how we make uniform the codes and forms for reimbursement every single pair has a different protocol, or how we use our technology to maintain patient records, within a teaching hospital, they manage and move the records around electronically but they don't have the capability yet to talk to providers outside that bubble, or smarter about purchasing strategies for prescription drugs, these are some of the strategies, and I'm open to others where we need to be concentrating on how we get the costs down for everybody and that way afford the healthcare that we want to provide both the public and private employees.

KELLER: And Mr. Reilly..

REILLY: Jon, for the past eight years, I've been working with the healthcare delivery system helping to save the health insurance for over a million people with the Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare plan when that company was going under. Saving and turning around struggling hospital, so I understand that system. I'm the only one with that kind of experience going into this race, the next governor better know something about healthcare the only way - we can't continue like this because of the cost of healthcare, we have to make it more affordable. I know where to start, cutting those administrative costs, 1/3 of the amount of money that's spent on our healthcare delivery system is spent on administrative overhand, those forms going back and forth, endless waste of money, we have to change it, it's with better use of information technology, government can drive that change, we're the largest purchaser of health insurance, so that's where I'd be coming from, better disease management, a little better healthier lifestyles in Massachusetts, there's enough money in the system it's how we spend it in terms of . . .