Debate transcript
James Madigan: Names were drawn to determine the speaking order in each segment of this debate. First the candidates will question each other. The first question from Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey.
Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey: Thank you Jim, and I'd like to thank our sponsors and American International College for sponsoring this debate tonight. Debates are about differences so lets go to one of the big ones in this race. In the year 2000 the voters went to the poles and by a 2 to 1 margin demanded that the taxes be rolled back to 5 percent. As the only candidate in this race who supports the immediate rollback of taxes to 5 percent, I want to ask each of my opponents, why do you believe that your will should be more important than the will of the people.
Christy Mihos: Well you're wrong first of all that you're the only candidate in this debate or this race looking to take the rollback back to 5 percent immediately. I would like to do that too and I'll work hard to do that. The people's will has to matter each and every day but you haven't been able to do that over these past three years because you've sought to vilify this legislature rather than working with them and the relationship between the Romney administration and the legislature hasn't been one that's really made us too proud in this Commonwealth. It can be done, it can be done with working together and really going after state government and taking out the fact that we've been and the inefficiency. Let me just give you an issue. The population of Massachusetts is 6.3 percent and the population of Pennsylvania is double that at 12 percent. We have about 70,000 employees, they have about 79,000 employees. Our budget is 25.7, theirs is 53.6. The productivity of our people, because of the way they've held in check, it just doesn't work.
Madigan: Time sir.
Deval Patrick: Well first of all I want to say I respect and honor the will of the people. I think that leadership however is being candid with people. And being candid with people is dealing with the fiscal shell game that has been played by the current administration. We roll the income tax back and we pay for it with higher property taxes and exorbitant fees in many cases. I believe that the tax to cut right now, and to do it immediately, is the property tax and to relieve these exorbitant fees and my plan is to expand the senior circuit breaker and senior exemption to include middle and low income homeowners in that, to make college expenses deductible and to restore local aid. And as we do that, then we can grow this economy. We need to pay attention to the broken roads and bridges, the over-crowded schools, and as we make those investments we grow the economy that makes it possible for us to afford a sustained rate of 5 percent.
Grace Ross: Yeah, I would take it even farther than what Deval Patrick just said. The reality is that we've been under 16 years of no new taxes, and I don't know about anybody else, but I'm drowning in these no new taxes. We've got property taxes that have gone up 35 to 42 percent, depending on whose figure you want to look at. We're paying for school buses in many of our communities, we can't even get our kids to school anymore, kids can't do after school programs, they can't do sports programs without huge fees and the cities and towns have been starving for money. Why? Because the sate isn't willing to raise taxes on the folks who can afford it. Instead we're getting property taxes that have a reverse Robin Hood effect, they hit the people at the bottom more than the people at hteh top, all these fees hit the people at the bottom more, the increase in the college tuition and fees hit people at the bottom more. So what we've got is this state that's now moved from a progressive, to some extent, tax state to an incredibly regressive state where those of us at the bottom 60 percent who are in a recession still are paying most of us. Income tax is the only tax that falls evenly.
Madigan: That's time. Ms. Healey you have a minute.
Healey: Not surprisingly none of you managed to answer the question. The question is simply put, why would anyone who is voting want to vote for a candidate who doesn't respect the will of the voters. Doesn't make any sense. Back in '89 Dukakis put this tax increase in place under the guise of saying it's a temporary tax increase. That's how it was described. When the fiscal crisis is over we'll roll those taxes back. Over 10 years later the people went to the polls because they were adamant, they'd been lied to by Dukakis saying this was a temporary tax and they demanded it be rolled back. Then again in 2002 the legislature put the breaks on the process and said no, now isn't the time, we can't give it to you. I can tell you that we can do the tax rollback and we can also do the things you want to do Deval. I agree that local taxes and pressures on local communities are extremely important, but we can do that by combining the pension system, having that administered at a state level, and by allowing cities and towns to buy their health care insurance on a state level. We can bring costs down.
Madigan: That's a minute. Thank you very much. Mr. Mihos your question.
Mihos: As we move forward with health care for all probably the biggest challenge of the administration one of us is going to confront is making this work. What troubles me is that the health care connector authority that reports to your office, the governor's office, through ANF is meeting on Oct. 29, 2006 behind closed doors to talk about the regulations, to talk about how they're going to put this thing together, but they're meeting in secrecy.
Madigan: Your question sir? We're at 30 seconds.
Mihos: And my question is this, will you join me and the rest of the candidates going there and opening up that process so we can all see what we're going to confront because meeting in secrecy they're breaking the law meeting in secrecy.
Madigan: Time sir and because of the luck of the draw unfortunately we'll get to Ms. Healey last to answer. Mr. Patrick a minute.
Patrick: It'll give you a chance to think about the question. I will say that transparency is always good for government. I think transparency in the Big Dig would have been better for all of us. We've got a project that is billions of dollars over budget , as you well know, with structural defects we knew about before the tragedy in July and neglect at best by the current administration about those issues. That stem to stern audit that was promised was promised when the Lt. Gov. and her counterpart the governor were running for office. They forgot that promise until there was a human tragedy. So transparency is a good thing and my view is that further to that transparency, we ought to have an independent inspector general on that project, someone who brings a professional and independent review to all of those cost integrity issues and structural integrity issues as well.
Mihos: You joining me in Oct., 29th, at the connector authority?
Madigan: Mr. Mihos please.
Patrick: We'll see.
Madigan: Ms. Ross you have a minute.
Ross: I'd be thrilled to join you on the 29th.
Mihos: We're going.
Ross: I actually think it would be good for the people to have access to most of these kinds of decisions. In fact the health care plan, or lack there of, has been a concern of mine for a while. It's not just the way the regulations get implemented, though that has been mind boggling, but a lot of people think that what we got was a universal health care plan, and what we got was something that was neither universal or a plan. We got was something hobbled together from the right and the left and the day that Romney went to sign it, which was supposedly right after they'd come to a compromise, he vetoed four pieces of it. So the problem here is what a lot of people don't realize, is that for the folks that are not covered by health insurance, the vast in between, a figure that keeps growing -- most recently heard 700,000 and it turns out in the paper that we find out none of the children were going to be covered at all, necessarily, by the way it was written -- we're going to be in terrible trouble because those of us in the middle are gonna either get a choice between either bottom-feeder insurance plans or --
Madigan: That's time.
Ross: -- or lose our taxes.
Madigan: Ms. Healey.
Healey: Well thank you Christy for bringing up the health care reform because I think health care reform is actually a crowning achievement of our administration, it was achieved in a bipartisan manner, and just this Monday we were able to extend health care coverage for the first time to 40,000 people who live right at or below the federal poverty level, which is making less than $10,000 a year. They haven't had health care insurance before and now as of Monday they do have health care insurance and I'm very proud of that accomplishment. Between now and March we're going to be working on making sure there are policies available in between a 100 percent and 300 percent of the federal poverty level. Those are going to be subsidized policies and they are going to be accessible to everyone and affordable to everyone because there's going to be a sliding scale. Finally we're going to be attempting to make sure that everyone who wants health care insurance in Massachusetts can have it and better yet, it isn't health care for all Christy. What it is is it's personal responsibility. It's asking each person in the Commonwealth to take responsibility for having health care insurance.
Mihos: Will you agree to open up the process?
Madigan: Mr. Mihos you do have a minute. Go ahead.
Mihos: You didn't answer my question. It would be wonderful one of these times if you would.
Healey: Well you didn't answer mine so...
Mihos: My question is will you come to open up the process so all of us, this is going to be a very difficult plan to implement because all of the special interests will be there. They want to be locked down behind closed doors. This is your administration that is putting on this conference. Will you join me? We've got one, and I know Deval you'll go anywhere. You'll go to a letter opening. Will you too and open up this process so we can see what your government is all about?
Healey: I didn't realize you were so discriminating Christy, I didn't realize that.
Mihos: Are you with me?
Healey: Uh, I am not with you, I will certainly let the administration know that you're interested in attending. How about that?
Mihos: Excuse me, you're breaking the law with it being a closed meeting.
Healey: I assure you we're doing nothing to break the law, and we're off time here aren't we?
Mihos: It's a closed meeting. You're breaking the law. Is that how your government works?
Madigan: Now we're at a minute.
Mihos: Thank you very much.
Madigan: Alright. That was a long minute. Mr. Patrick your question for the panel.
Patrick: Alright you two.
Mihos: We're just starting.
Patrick: First of all --
Healey: And he's with you.
Patrick: First of all, I want to say I applaud the administration as I do the legislature for taking a step in the right direction with the health care reform bill. It's not the final word but it is a step in the right direction and needs to be implemented brilliantly. Meanwhile in the last four years Massachusetts has slipped to the bottom in job creation, to the bottom --
Madigan: Your question sir? We're already at 30 seconds.
Patrick: -- in support for higher ed, to the top in population loss, to the top in cost of living. All ways in which our economy has become more stagnant. What three specific things would you each do to rebuild our economy?
Madigan: Ms. Ross.
Ross: The most basic issue is that our economic development plans for long time, at least in my living memory, have been about bringing in a big corporation that's somehow going to fix all our problems and bring good jobs. I actually mentioned that to some folks in Greenfield and they said 'Gillette! Gillette moved into Devins Air Force Base and we had jobs for a little while. They're gone now.' That's a failed policy. What we need to do is we need to increase the minimum wage so that our communities, everybody at the bottom level all the way up, has enough money to spend and to afford their rents and to put money into spending in our local businesses. We need to put money into supporting the infrastructure locally and to work to support local businesses. Small businesses still supply more than half of the jobs in this state. It needs to be more than that. They're not going to out source themselves, maybe to Florida when they get older but not in general, and we need to move to real health care reform which is single payer, which is what every other industrialized nation has, none of them have gone under because of it, and everybody's covered and that will take the weight off small businesses and our municipalities and local folks to be able to afford health care finally.
Madigan: And Ms. Healey a minute.
Healey: OK first of all lets try to get some of the facts straight. You've been going around saying that we fund our public education institutions lower than almost every other state in the nation. That's on a per capita basis, what really matters is on a per student basis. How much are we investing in the education of each student? And we're 7th highest in the nation there so lets try to keep our, lets try to keep the stats right. Now the three things that I'd like to do. I want to lower taxes, and I want to lower taxes on both working families and also small businesses and many of our smallest businesses pay that individual in come tax rate, that will help them. Number two, I want to reform permitting. Permitting is the biggest thing that's driving up housing costs and keeping businesses from locating here cause they don't have certainty about how long it's going to take them to get that shovel in the ground, and get done and really get down to business. They don't know how long that's going to be. And last reforming auto insurance. I can tell you that each individual and many many businesses are paying very high auto insurance rates right now because we have the only regulated system left in the country. We need to deregulate our auto insurance system.Thank you.
Madigan: That's time, thank you, and Mr. Mihos.
Mihos: As regards business, since I'm the only private sector businessman in this race. Since I'm the only one that's ever created a private sector job, I'd like to speak to that. There's not a business that's gonna come into Massachusetts -- big business, medium-sized business, small business -- because they can't afford to be here. So what I propose, I call it Christy's Proposition One, what it does is it puts a cap on property assessments at their current level for residences and businesses. That will take out the sting of these incredible increases under the Healey/Romney administration on real estate taxes. The second thing is I want to increase local aid from 28 percent of state revenues to 48 percent of state revenues. That'll add more than a billion dollars back to the cities and towns that the Healey and Romney administration has taken from them. And the third issue is no fees, no busing fees for any public school children. There's not a businessman that's going to come into this state if he can't pay his employees enough so that they can exist.
Madigan: That's time sir, thank you, and Mr. Patrick a minute.
Patrick: First of all I'd like to say that the issue of permitting and approvals is key. The question is why didn't you get it done when you were in office?
Healey: We passed a law this summer.
Patrick: Six months, six months it ought to take to get state approvals, it ought to be easier than it is, than it has been here in Massachusetts to get approvals, when I'm in charge it will be. We need to make capital more broadly available to small and medium-sized businesses. That's where most jobs get created. We also need to invest in and encourage the industries of tomorrow. Biotech. I think there's an industry in a big economic opening in alternative and renewable energy. The technologies, the products, the services, we get that right and the whole world is our customer. Forty-seventh in the nation is our spending in public higher ed, and we're slipping behind just at a time when we knew it takes a higher degree to get a toe hold in the new economy. I'll tell you one thing I won't do, and that's go all over America as Governor Romney has using Massachusetts as the butt of our joke because frankly that's no way to build an accommodating and interested and attractive place for businesses to come and invest.
Madigan: That's time thank you. Ms. Ross your question. (clapping) No, please.
Ross: Since Deval very kindly took care of my job question I'll go the other direction. Given that we know that scientists across the world acknowledge we're dealing with a global warming crisis and we know that Massachusetts is likely to see over the next 20 years no hardwoods -- we're in fall, I can't imagine no hardwoods -- but uh, actually Romney quoted that in his global warming plan from 2004 so that's not some radical, off-the-top thing. So the question's pretty simple, what are you going to do to move Massachusetts to not having an impact on global warming over the next four years?
Madigan: Ms. Healey a minute.
Healey: Thank you very much. Well, I'd invite you to go to my web site and see my energy plan and a big part of that is how do we bring more renewable energy into our portfolio. It's hard to expand quickly but we're very fortunate because we live in a region where we have a diversity of resources and I believe that we can have bilateral agreements with Canada, especially with the region of Quebec which is doing a lot of innovation around wind power and hydroelectric power. We have a transmission line directly from Quebec into Massachusetts. I've already spoken to the governor of Vermont about strengthening that transmission line so we can have a new source, a powerful source of renewables coming directly into our state. At the same time I strongly support the development of deep-water wind turbines. I think that they are the way of the future, they generate more wind than the current on-shore version and they do not interfere with fishing and they are not an environmental problem and I'm looking forward to the time when we can have those windmills way offshore helping us here. Beyond that, if municipalities would like to have wind power than I have a plan to make that possible.
Madigan: Thank you very much. Mr. Mihos your minute.
Mihos: Thank you. First and foremost I would like to, we have a Massachusetts wind power initiative that would provide a 1 megawatt and a 1.5 megawatt turbine to homes and businesses. Low costs, green credits, and get them in as many homes and businesses as possible. Wind power has a huge place moving us forward and all, but I'm against Cape Wind because if you like the Big Dig you'll love Cape Wind. (laughter) For all the wrong reasons. Cape Wind recently received an unfavorable Department of Defense decision where by the industrial conflicts out there on Nantucket Sound would have a negative effect on paid pause and on the radar in and around there, so the government has put a moratorium on it but there are other ways to do it. I would like to do it with as many people and businesses as possible.
Madigan: Thank you. Mr. Patrick.
Patrick: First of all I think we ought to join the regional greenhouse gas initiative. That was a regional approach to the generation of greenhouse gases, to the causes of global warming, it was something that was negotiated during this administration and then right when it was time to sign, if I understand it correctly, the administration walked away and I think that's a mistake. When I'm governor we will join it. I think that the ideas about how to encourage and cultivate the use and an industry, frankly, around the production around alternative and renewable energy. Some of the ideas that the Lt. Gov. has talked about I support. I also think we ought to seize opportunities that are before us that make sense and Cape Wind, I think, is one of them. It's not easy, I've looked at all sides of this, I've talked to all the players, I've read a great deal about it including the draft environmental impact statement, I've been down to Craigville Beach, the closest point of land, to take my own measure of the impact on the seascape, and on balance I think this is a project that's important for us and it's an important symbol of the direction we ought to be heading.
Madigan: That's time sir. Ms. Ross you have a minute.
Ross: Well we're going to be rolling out actually a blue print on this issue because I think that of the two major crises facing this state the economy, the environment is equally important. As you said there's some businesses in Massachusetts, we've lost a lot of our industrial base and a lot of that's not going to come back, but we do have good paying jobs in creating renewable energy. It turns out that we have enough energy from wind, whether it's on the shore or off the shore, to actually provide the entire state. The real trick is for our energy production to move from the centralized, dirty-burning power plants to local production, windmills on every house and business, absolutely, and the same with solar cells and we can meet our energy needs going into the future without continuing the dirty production that we have or the nuclear power plants. We can do that in a way that gives us local control, whether it's on our own houses and businesses or run by municipalities. It can be low flow hydro as the Lt. Gov. referred to, or wind and solar and conservation.
Madigan: That is time. Thank you very much. We now move on to questions from our panel of reporters, first question comes from Chris Collins, representing WHMP Radio Northhampton, WHAI Radio Greenfield. Chris.
Collins: Thank you. This question goes to Ms. Ross. The Republicans often argue of the need to retain the corner office to maintain the two-party system of government on Beacon Hill and yet judging by the number of gubernatorial vetoes that have been issued over the past four years by the Democrats it's pretty apparent that they can pretty much do what they want when they vote the party line. Now my question is if you're elected how will you be an effective check on the legislative branch and if not a check, how do you plan to work with them?
Ross: Well luckily I bring probably more experience working with this legislature than probably any of the other candidates since I've been doing it for more than 20 years, but from the outside, which is how most of us ever relate to our government. So, um, I believe that leadership is not just about your ideas and what you believe is best but it's actually about working collaboratively. We're suppose to work in a democracy and these legislators were elected, for better for worse, as our legislative representatives and I think it's with every other change that you want to create. You find the stake holders who believe in what you believe in, you work together to create a plan that you believe in jointly, you don't just try to roll it in over the top, and come out with a plan to get it into place and then you work with the rest of the legislature to get their agreement and you work with the people of this state because the people of the state have long not had a voice in the process and they need to have it.
Madigan: Mr. Patrick a minute.
Patrick: Chris I think the balance people have really been voting for is a balance between an outsider in the corner office and a fairly entrenched, inward-looking political establishment, not just limited to the legislature, but people who get to play no matter who the governor is. I bring that outsider's perspective. I've had leadership experience in government but also in business as an executive for two of the largest, most complex companies in the world, also in not for profits and community groups. There's nobody else in this race, from either party or any of the parties, who has that range of leadership experience. What I understand is the importance of building relationships in order to get stuff done. Not demonizing people who differ with me, including people in my team who have different points of view so it sharpens my own thinking, that's the kind of leadership I've brought to every other one of those environments, that's the kind of leadership I want to bring to Beacon Hill.
Healey: Balance really is importance. It's critical that we have two voices on Beacon Hill, at a minimum, so that we can have some dialogue and if we have everyone from one party on Beacon Hill -- for example if Deval Patrick is elected -- then we will have everything done behind closed doors. Christy you will be asking to get into those meetings all day, all night cause we will never have another public debate on Beacon Hill. Just last week you went in and had secret meetings with head of the Senate and head of the House where they volunteered to do fundraising for you from the very power brokers that keep them in power and direct their money and votes. I can tell you the things I've been able to do, both cooperatively and in opposition to the legislature. I've been able to defeat an effort to do retroactive taxation last year on the people of the Commonwealth, I was able to make sure that Melanie's Bill was passed in the strongest possible way to protect people from drunk driving, and I've been able to beat in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, a measure you support Mr. Patrick. And I think that type of effectiveness is important to have.
Madigan: That's time. Thank you Ms. Healey and now Mr. Mihos a minute.
Mihos: Chris that's the best part of governing as an independent. I don't have a narrowness, a party, viewpoints or a chairman in my party who the night before has thrown a grenade into the speaker's or the Senate president's lap. I can go in there and just, sit down, and basically we're all here because we love public service. We're all here because we want to make Massachusetts a better place. But this gridlock each and everyday, this seesaw that they play with our money, and our time while the state is losing people, losing jobs, losing opportunity, these four years have been awful because they've vilified this legislature instead of working with them. Bill Weld and Paul Cellucci got 42 tax cuts through. This legislature, its just been fight after fight after fight. The people of Massachusetts are not buying what the Republican party is selling any longer and you have to work with this legislature for the benefit of Massachusetts to get it done.
Madigan: That's time. Ray Hershel now of WGGB ABC 40.
Hershel: Mr. Patrick I'd like to focus on Springfield's financial condition. The city continues to try to pull itself out of a fiscal crisis. Since 2004 a state-appointed finance control board has been running the city's finances. The original term of that board was for three years ending in 2007, Governor Romney has talked about extending that term for another 3 years until 2010. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the best, how would you rate the performance of the control board to date and if elected governor would you continue the control board for the foreseeable future or --
Madigan: Thank you Ray that's enough. You're way over time. Mr. Patrick a minute.
Patrick: Well Ray first of all I think the control board has been helpful to Springfield. It's been a very difficult time, it was necessary for the state to engage, I will say as governor that there is no way that I will let Springfield fail and I want to be a partner with Springfield to help it revive itself. The endgame, however, has got to be for Springfield to stand on its own two feet, to have its own government, to be self-determined and that's where we got to go. Now the question of the length of the current control board, I've got to look at that and I want to talk with local officials to see what they need in order to ensure that they're in a stronger and sustainable place. Springfield is stronger today, but it's not out of the woods yet, and I can tell you that as governor I want to be an active part of saving Springfield for Springfield and the entire state.
Madigan: Ms. Healey you have a minute.
Healey: Thank you for asking that question. Springfield has gone through a very difficult position. Two years ago when the control board came into place there was a $41 million budget gap on the table and that gap has been cut in half and then cut almost to zero. Next year there will a balanced budget here in Springfield thanks to the help of the control board. I think it's very helpful for all people across the state to look at how that was accomplished. What we have done here in Springfield through the control board is put into place some of the very reforms that I would like to see in place around the state. If they were able to help us close a $41 million gap in the budget here in Springfield they certainly should be looked at elsewhere. First of all Springfield is investing its pension fund with the state treasurers office, Springfield is buying its health care insurance now through the group health insurance commission, and Springfield is giving merit pay to its best teachers and looking at performance measures for awarding that merit pay and Springfield is focusing on public safety, the most important thing we can do for the economy.
Madigan: Thank you that's time. Mr. Mihos.
Mihos: This is an absolute tragedy that has happened to this great city and first and foremost I will take that board down as soon as I'm elected, number one. Number two, we need to properly fund Springfield and Christy's Proposition One does it, getting more local aid to the cities and towns so Springfield can spend Springfield's money the way Springfield wants to, but the critical element here is they took down the oversight, they took down the controls and whether it happens here in Springfield or it happens at the Big Dig the problem is that the taxpayers pay a terrible price for it. So we'll get the controls back, we'll get a independent audit each and every year out of this, but to just to put the governance of Springfield asunder and put the state in its place is something that should never ever happen again. It will never happen under the Mihos administration because I know how to run a business and I know what to watch for.
Madigan: Time sir and Ms. Ross a minute.
Ross: Well I don't think there's any question that we're supposed to believe in Democracy in this country. I do believe the Lt. Gov. was just asking us about rolling back the taxes because folks had voted for the income tax to roll back, and yet here you stand saying how wonderful a control board that has removed most of Springfield's voice and its own governance is a great idea. (Applause) And I think that what we need to look at here is a partnership. There's no question that bringing financial advisors in when there's trouble makes sense, but do those advisors get to decide that the teachers of Springfield don't get paid so that they are leaving in droves. There are classrooms without teachers this September. We have to look at realistic plans and certainly increasing local aid has to be one of them. But you can't just bring the money in from the top, you have to build the economy from the bottom and that's why I've been talking about things like increasing the minimum wage, like supporting small businesses, Springfield has brilliance that isn't being tapped because people are home without jobs and living in housing that's not safe and in schools where they can't learn.
Madigan: And now, a question from Azell Murphy-Cavaan.
Murphy-Cavaan: Thank you Jim. Ms. Healey, Gov. Romney has dusted off and enforced a 1913 state law to prevent gay couples from other states from coming to Massachusetts to marry. My question is as governor, would you support this 1913 law, or would you file legislation to abolish this law and push to eliminate it?
Healey: Well, I think that what we've seen is that the courts have upheld this law. They do believe that it is correct. I think that each state should have the right to decide for itself what the laws of that state determining marriage should be. So I don't know that we would ever have any laws here that should suggest that we should control the definition of marriage in other states, but I definitely think that we have a right to determine our own laws on marriage and that's appropriate.
Mihos: I applaud the court and we're open for business here in Massachusetts. We have a wonderful tourist business and I am pro-gay rights, and I again, I applaud the court.
Ross: Well, I don't think there's any question. We watched integrated marriage fights its way through all the different states and I think that today if people were asked, 'should different people of different races be allowed to marry?' people would be, 'what? Why are we even asking that question?' So there's no question that if people want to come to Massachusetts and provide some tourist money and take advantage of a law that is going to someday be the law of the country, that makes sense and I don't know why we would say no to that. I think that dusting off old laws- we could change a lot of things dusting off old laws. Anybody want to spend some time in the old law books with me, I bet we could outlaw almost anything under the sun. And you know, I think the issue here is not what law we dust off, but what are our values as a state, and do we believe that people should exercise the rights that they have or not?
Patrick: Well, first of all, I think the court got it right on marriage equality because all the court did was affirm the principle that people come before their government as equals, and that's something I've been working on most of my professional life. I think the 1913 law has some very troubling origins. It seems to have come on the books just at the time when jurisdictions were looking to prevent marriage between blacks and whites and that worries me. I understand that the court has affirmed the law, but the question was, 'is it something that ought to remain on our books?' And I think that something that seems to have origins as questionable and as discriminatory as they seem to be in this case, ought to come off our books.
Madigan: And now a question from Daniel Elias, from WWLP-22 News.
Elias: Mr. Mihos, a key event in western Massachusetts and U.S. history happened not far from where we are tonight, which was Daniel Shay's Rebellion, back in the late 1700s, and that's when western Massachusetts residents felt that they were being mistreated financially by their rich and politically powerful back east in Boston, and I would say that a lot of us are amazed at how little has changed in 200 years.
Madigan: I didn't think a reporter would get the biggest applause line of the night, but a question, Mr. Elias.
Elias: Many examples, including our under-funded court system for sure- I want to talk about the Big Dig just quickly. We used to receive $40 million a year for road repair before the Big Dig. During the height of the construction, it was cut to $3 million- cut 90 percent- and now we're up to about $15 million, still less than a third of what we should be getting, and what we need, and again, this is not for a fancy project, this is for our roads and bridges to get to school and work. What would you all do to make sure we have the funding we need for that.
Mihos: Well, first and foremost, I would've been out there with Shay and the crew back then because this state doesn't end in Boston and as I traveled around the state, and I do talk to people, they feel the same way. The Big Dig, certainly- we've poured a lot of dollars into that hole- and the only way that we're going to be able to get back and get some type of equity for the cities and towns in the Commonwealth here, sir, is that we've got to go after the contractors. We got to go where the money is, and this administration has looked away from that for the last three and a half years. They've allowed Bechtel to get away and all of the other contractors, without their fair share. Stop the money. Stop the checks to these firms and all, and get the money back for the Commonwealth. The amount of money that has to go into that hole to fix what these contractors and these big-monied interests corporations have done to us-
Madigan: That's time. That's time, sir.
Ross: Well, I think there's no question. We could look at roads, but we could look at a lot of things. It turns out that if you take a compass and you mark around the edge of 495, that almost all of the communities that are struggling financially- where we have large numbers of children in poverty- are outside of that arch. So I think that this is an economic and political issue. People in Boston still, I think, haven't quite figured out how big the state is. I talked to my campaign, and I go, 'you know, if you're going to have me here and here, that's a three hour drive,' but I think that there's something more profound here and it's the reason why I keep looking to the people of the state of Massachusetts for their brilliance, for their skills, and for supporting local economies. If the city of Springfield has enough money to rebuild its own roads and it's thriving, then we don't have to worry about what Boston is doing, so we have to put money into the things that build our local economies and move our infrastructure dollars from huge projects to local projects that serve all of the people of Massachusetts.
Patrick: Dan, first of all, let me say for you and for the viewers, I am running to be governor of the whole state, not just the neighborhood around Beacon Hill. And I understand that people in the western part of the state, even these many years after Mr. Shays, feel as if they don't get their due from Beacon Hill. First of all, I do believe it is critically important as we restore local aid, to target that for infrastructure investments. Repairing our roads, repairing our bridges, frankly, investing in public education as well- that's what creates the platform to grow the economy and growing the economy and expanding economic opportunity is where our long-term interests must lie. I do think that the Big Dig is an example of what's wrong with Beacon Hill today and a lot of what's wrong with the current administration. Billions of dollars of cost-overruns, structural defects we'd known about for a long time, and hardly any curiosity about that until we had the human tragedy we did in July, and that has got to change. I have taken on Bechtel and won and I will do it again for Massachusetts.
Healey: Thank you for the history lesson and the reminder. I have to tell you, I am acutely aware of how left out western Mass. often feels when decisions are being made on Beacon Hill. I've chaired something called the Regional Competitiveness Councils. There's one here in the Pioneer Valley, one out in Berkshire county as well, and I've sat down with business people from both of those areas again and again to try to craft solutions that can actually get the economies going in all parts of the state, not just around Beacon Hill, not just around Boston, and I've thought that one of the great tragedies of the last resurgence in the 1990s when the economy improved was that the outlying regions of the state were, in fact, left behind. That would not happen under a Healey-Hillman administration. My running mate just finished visiting 361 cities and towns. Now, I'm not even sure that any of us here on this stage can say that they've done the same. He's from central Massachusetts and certainly brings up the needs of central Massachusetts with me constantly, but I can tell you as Lt. Governor, my role as municipal liaison has been to travel the whole state.
Madigan: Thank you very much. A question now from Ray Hershel.
Hershel: Ms. Ross, one of the concerns we hear on the streets in Springfield relates to public education. Our urban schools continue to lag behind counterparts in the suburbs. For example, less than 38 percent of urban schools in the immediate Springfield area actually adequate yearly progress. The No Child Left Behind Law requires that every student be proficient by 2014. My question to the candidates then, is as governor, what would you do to level the playing field and improve academic performance between urban students and students in the suburbs?
Ross: Well, the most basic thing that we all know, and everybody will say this so I won't go on about it much, is that we have to put money back into public education in general. There are advocates fighting for bringing it back to the 2000 level. I recall already in 2000 that class sizes were too large. So we've got to go way back farther than that if we're going to fund our schools properly and the kids in Worcester spend a few days every winter in their coats and mittens trying to study because they don't have heat. So this is a critical problem but I think that there is a larger, deeper issue here though, which is that not only are schools suffering and more than a quarter of kids in high school are dropping out before they ever get their diploma- and that doubles when we look at African-American and Latino kids- but what you're talking about is a funding formula issue, and there are a lot of states that have moved to state funding for their schools so that it is actually based on a per capita basis, instead of it being based on what a city or town can afford to put into schools, and that's what you're really reflecting. We've got to move to a real tax change and a real funding change that levels the playing field for our entire state.
Patrick: Well, first of all, I think that we ought to be about educating the whole child, not just success on a standardized test, although that is an element I support. But that means broader access to early education opportunities. That means all-day kindergarten. It means smaller class size and longer school day. And not just more classroom time, but after-school and enrichment programs. Supervised homework can be profound for a kid, particularly whose family doesn't speak English at home. There are many more creative ways that we can deploy the people and the buildings in public education today and we ought to be about that in Springfield and elsewhere. We have gotten into a contract now with the teachers. That is important for stability, not caving in, stability. And merit pay is right. I believe merit pay that rewards a team is the best way to do it because we want to encourage the kind of collaboration that makes the schools sing and lifts the whole enterprise.
Healey: Well, this is an area where my opponents and I sharply differ. I am a strong proponent of maintaining high standards in our schools. My opponents waffling on MCAS, some of them want to abolish MCAS straight out. Some of them won't give a straight answer on MCAS like Mr. Patrick, and my concern is that MCAS is what has been closing the gap between our lowest-perfoming schools and our highest-performing schools. We've seen that in the statistics that were just released and it is extremely important that we hold to that high standard. Next, merit pay. I believe that our best teachers need merit pay- not just whole schools- our best teachers. And secondly, I also believe that we need to give bonuses to our best teachers to go teach in under-performing schools. If we have schools that need good teachers, let's give them that extra pay to draw them there, to give them that recognition that this is a tough job to do. Every child deserves the best possible teacher that they can have. My mom was a teacher and I know how important that connection is.
Mihos: Ray, both the Democrats and Republicans have allowed Springfield to go through what you have over the last few years. To lose 1000 teachers in this school system to other cities and towns in the area- under Christy's Proposition 1, Springfield would get an additional $101 million a year out of Beacon Hill. The money's in Beacon Hill. It's sitting up there and the special interests are just devouring it each and every day. In fact, last week you met with some of the leaders there. They just released $100 million additional supplemental spending on issues that not a dollar is going to come back to Springfield. So the Democrats and Republicans have stepped on, stepped over, and stepped around Springfield and our third-largest state is in trouble. Further, I am against MCAS as a graduation requirement. If we don't fund these cities and towns and if we're looking to increase the standards when we don't fund they properly, we're going to get nothing.
Madigan: That's time. A question now from Azell Murphy-Cavaan.
Murphy-Cavaan: Thank you, Jim. My question is about higher education. Despite recent increases, the budget for University of Massachusetts and state and community colleges is one-third below 2001 levels. As governor, you would file your first state budget in early February. My question is, would you recommend increased funding for these universities and colleges?
Patrick: The answer is yes, but I will tell you I don't think that our public universities and colleges need just annual increases in their budgets. What they need is endowment so they can moderate the cost to students. What's happening right now is that mandatory fees are higher than the tuition on many campuses today. There are all kinds of incentives to look for kids from out of state because of where the tuition stays when it's paid by those kids. We have crumbling infrastructure in our public colleges and universities, and why should that matter to all of us when we have Harvard and MIT and all of the other wonderful and important colleges and universities here? It's because the graduates of public colleges and universities stay in Massachusetts when they graduate- 80, 85 percent of them. So yes, I do believe we ought to be about how we stabilize and help them build. And one way to do that that I have in mind, is in passing a bond bill to raise public money to invest in stem cell research and investing that in public higher ed.
Healey: Well, I think my priorities here have been clear. Last year, when we had the billion dollar budget surplus, one of the things that the governor and I did was file a supplemental with things that were one time investments that we could make in Massachusetts. One of them had to do with increasing our highway funds, which goes back to your question, but $400 million was what we requested to rebuild our public colleges and universities. There's a great backlog of repairs and expansion that's needed to make them a world class system. Unfortunately, that wasn't the priority of the legislature and I am frustrated that they will not back us up on this request. We had the money to do it. It would've been a good place to put that money. Furthermore, how do you make it more affordable for kids to go there because it's a great place to go. I have a plan to give incentive scholarships and loan forgiveness to kids who go through our public colleges and universities and go into different careers that are in high demand here in Massachusetts- engineering, nursing, forensic sciences- whichever different types of jobs are needed, we would have loan-forgiveness for those.
Mihos: I was on the UMass board for five years, appointed by Bill Well, until Jane Swift removed me from that board too. And I can you, I loved that board, I loved being on there because I really learned how-
(inaudible comment from Healey)
Mihos: Yeah, there is. You speak truth to power once you get thrown out of everywhere. That's right, you should know that. But what I would do certainly, is it's time to stop the political football with the University of Massachusetts. It's time to cut it. And when I was on that board, we held tuition level for four plus years. We increased the endowment, but what I would do is, I would get the legislature to pass slots at the four racetracks. The people of the Commonwealth want that- 70 plus percent of the people want that. And I would take that $350 to $500 million- that's what a UMass Dartmouth study has stated we would garner from that- and plow it into that system and make UMass more affordable. Fix what we have, make it more affordable, accessible- that should be the shining star of education in the Commonwealth, and it's been a political football.
Ross: Well, obviously I'm going to echo what other folks said about needing to put money into our state college and university system. Those are not only folks who stay here, it's also the most affordable place for the people of Massachusetts to go. And it's fine to have fancy universities, but they are way out of price range for us regular folks. So, we need to do something about that. We need to brings those fees and tuition down. We can do it, we have enough money in the budget right now- we're running a surplus in the budget- but I think in addition to that, if we actually level out the taxes so that the folks at the top are actually paying the same per dollar that the rest of us pay, that gives us about $3 billion more a year in our state budget and there's some tax that pulls from corporations and we can do that. So we've got enough money to do it, we've got to do it, and we have to create stability because it's not just that we lost the money and we lost money for some of the infrastructure, we also lost a lot of the teachers and this round robin where teachers come for two years and then some program ends- it happens at the public education level in our high schools and middles schools and it's happening in our colleges. It can't work.
Madigan: And believe it or not, and my apologies to the panel, this hour is flying by. We have now reached the point where we must go to closing statements to have enough time for each candidate to have equal time. Again, names were drawn, so we have a different order again. The closing statement, Mr. Patrick.
Patrick: Jim, thank you, and ladies and gentlemen at home, thank you for watching tonight. Every election is about choices and this one is about whether we want meaningful change or more of the same. The Lt. Governor and her administration have had their chance. They talk about being tough on crime, and then they pursue policies resulting in 500 to 700 cops being laid off on the beat. They talk about fiscal responsibility and then they let the Big Dig go unsupervised and Massport benefits go unmonitored. They talk about illegal immigration, but then hire construction companies that employ illegal immigrants and just look the other way. If you're tired of talk, if you're tired of government by sound byte and photo-op, and gimmick, and you want lasting and meaningful change, I ask that you support Tim Murray and me. My priorities are clear. I want to rebuild our innovation and small business economy. I want to cut the property tax and I want to make education pre-K through college the same transformative experience for others that it was for me. My approach is also clear. I want the best people and the best ideas from wherever they come, regardless of party. I will always put the people and the public's interest first, and I will govern for the long-term, not just the short-term political sound-bytes. I don't have all the answers, no candidate does. But I do know that Massachusetts took a chance 40 years or more ago, on a kid from the south side of Chicago, and gave me opportunities I could not have even imagined and all I want to do is pass that on to you. Good night.
Mihos: Thank you, and thank you all for inviting us here tonight. It's been a pretty good debate. But I love this state- this is the only state I've ever lived- this is the only place I've ever lived in my life. I was born here, 57 years ago in Brockton, Massachusetts. I'm the only candidate here that was born in this state, grew up in this state, went to public schools in this state. I'm the only candidate that's ever created a private sector job or built a business in this state and I know how Beacon Hill works. Unfortunately, I learned the hard way by being a board member at the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and being fired by the acting Republican governor because I spoke truth to power. I called the Big Dig what it was. It was the ATM of choice for Massachusetts politicians and this state exists- this political culture that the Democrats and Republicans have created here- exists some place between incompetence and corruption. And each and every day that it is allowed to exist and go forward, cities like Springfield, like New Bedford, and Brockton go begging to Beacon Hill because your money, your tax dollars, are up on Beacon Hill with the special interests that both these parties, both these candidates are subject to each and every day. They do their beck and call, and what an independent will do, someone that is unbought and in boss, someone who is not taking money from special interests and lobbyists and as the state contractors know, will only be there for the Commonwealth. I want to be your governor for the right reasons and if you like the way Massachusetts is being run, vote for the Democrat and vote for the Republican. If you want real change, I'm your man. Thank you.
Healey: Christy, that's quite a conspiracy theory. Who's helping you with debate prep? Oliver Stone?
Mihos: I'm looking at your record. I'm looking at your record and that's what we do for debate prep each and every time.
Healey: Now, none of us here on this stage tonight have been governor before. We are all running for the first time and the question before you is what kind of governor would each of us be? I can tell you what my priorities are. I am here to say that I will make Massachusetts more affordable for working families and small businesses. I am going to work very hard, not just to make sure that our schools are not just the best in the country, as they are today, but actually the best in the world so that we can compete and keep jobs here in Massachusetts and expand the businesses that we have. We need to roll our taxes back to 5 percent and I believe that when the people go to the polls and vote for something, they deserve to have it- unlike my opponents who disrespect the will of the people- I will uphold it and honor it. And I honor the work that is behind each dollar that's sent to Beacon Hill and I will not let the legislature spend it frivolously and I can tell you it worries me that if every office on Beacon Hill, including the governor's office, is occupied by a Democrat, spending will go out of control. There will be no way of holding back the spending impulses of this legislature and the spending proposals that we have seen from my opponent. I ask you, if you want to keep balance on Beacon Hill, if you want to have a two party system here in Massachusetts still, if you want to have two party democracy, please vote for me on November 7.
Ross: I'm a community organizer by background, and when we talk about needing to create change, I'm looking at the fact that you and me, the regular folks of the state, the bottom 60 percent of us, are still in a recession. We're doing worse than we were in 2001. I know, if you've read the headlines we're in a boom, in case you missed them. In fact, only the top 10 percent are in a boom and when I talk about the need to create change, it's not just theory, it's what I've spent my entire adult life doing. It's engaging people like you, like me, in the process, explaining what is it that it takes to take something that we hold precious and change that in the way policies are structured. We don't have neighborhoods anymore. We don't have communities because either we're out working two jobs that don't pay enough and not having time for our kids and not having time for the lives that we deserve, or we're off working one executive job that keeps us at the office for 100 hours a week. This isn't the way to live and we have the right- we deserve communities, we deserve education, we deserve lives where our children get to see us. It's all possible. There is money. There are folks who are benefitting from this boom. They're not paying their fair share of their taxes, we're paying their share. So it's not about rolling back the income tax which is the only thing that actually taxes everyone equally. It's about rebalancing the system so that our property taxes that have gone through the roof and are going to continue to go through the roof unless something is done, get changed. And we have to address the global warming crisis. Our kids aren't going to have a future. They say no hard woods in 20 years in Massachusetts. I can't imagine what that means for our entire environment. We can change it now, we have the technology, we need the will.
