[statecom-discuss] Re: Transcript of Wednesday's gubernatorial debate [11-1-06]

[Mike Heichman]

gary hicks wrote:

> Boston.com 	THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING
>
> The Boston Globe <http://www.boston.com/news/globe/>
>
>
>   Transcript of Wednesday's gubernatorial debate
>
> November 2, 2006
> Good evening and welcome to the final televised debate of the 2006 
> gubernatorial race. I'm Cokie Roberts and I'd like to thank tonight's 
> sponsor, the Boston Media Consortium, WHDH Channel 7, WCVB Channel 5, 
> WGBH Channel 2, NECN, the Boston Globe, and WBUR radio. It's wonderful 
> to be in Massachusetts where people take the game of politics 
> seriously and enjoy it and I'm very much looking forward to tonight's 
> debate and I hope you are as well. So let me begin by once again 
> introducing you to the candidates who would like to be the next 
> governor of Massachusetts. Starting at my far right, your left, Deval 
> Patrick the Democratic candidate, Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, the 
> Republican candidate (clapping). OK, the Patrick people get to clap 
> too. (clapping) Alright, that's enough. Grace Ross, the Green-Rainbow 
> candidate (clapping), and Christy Mihos (clapping), the independent 
> candidate. And that was great, and that was it audience for applause 
> until the end of this debate. Please. Our debate is going to be of a 
> different format from the previous debates. It's going to be an open 
> discussion at the beginning and end which I will just get started, and 
> most of the debate is among the candidates themselves, where they will 
> be directing questions to each other. The discussion begins with a 
> question to Lt. Gov. Healey and that is this: the Catholic bishops of 
> Massachusetts, including Cardinal O'Malley, have signed a letter 
> asking the faithful to show up at the state house next week to support 
> a ban on same-sex marriage. Regardless of what you think of same-sex 
> marriage, do you think this is an appropriate role for the bishops to 
> be playing?
> *Healey:* Well I think it's a very god question to ask how we keep 
> religion and politics separate because that is one of the most 
> fundamental and important things that we have in our Constitution, is 
> that separation of church and state. I think however that people have 
> a right to mobilize around their beliefs. Whether or not the leaders 
> of that religion should be involved in that is a different matter. And 
> I do believe that people do form these fundamental beliefs based on 
> their religious education and their religious beliefs. I expect people 
> will show up one way or another, there may have been a more 
> appropriate way to get that word out.
> *Roberts:* Grace Ross, you want to jump in here? And all of you just 
> jump in this conversation.
> *Ross:* I think the issue of equal marriage is pretty critical to this 
> state and I imagine there are going to be folks, as you've said, 
> coming out on both sides. I think there's a tradition among in 
> religious circles for calling on people to take stands and, you know, 
> I think there certainly could be an argument whether the most 
> important tenants of Christianity have to do with the rights of all 
> people to survival and the rights of all people to a job and a home 
> might be considered more important than fighting over an issue that's 
> pretty much already been decided by the people of Massachusetts.
> *Healey:* You know I think there's another important distinction to be 
> made here. There's a difference between standing in the pulpit and 
> saying vote for Deval Patrick or Kerry Healey or Grace Ross or Christy 
> Mihos, and saying this is something we believe in as a religion and 
> advocate for this position or this belief. I think there is a 
> distinction to be made and I think when you think about the separation 
> between church and state that is really the critical one. You 
> shouldn't have someone standing in the pulpit saying vote for this 
> candidate or don't vote for this candidate, but you have to be able to 
> advocate for your beliefs.
> *Ross:* Yeah it's not the whole religion that believes that though.
> *Patrick:* I think that that's a fair and important distinction. I 
> will say though that all of us are ready to move on. It turns out that 
> marriage equality and the SJC's decision hasn't caused the sky to fall 
> or the ground to open. That people are able to move on and deal with 
> this, and most of the time when I go around the Commonwealth what I 
> hear about is not that issue. What I hear about is getting and keeping 
> a good job and families and health care.
> *Healey:* If I can make a point people very well --
> *Roberts:* Let me get Christy Mihos.
> *Mihos:* If we all care about equality, and we do, what's the 
> difference between churches and their bishops and priests and all 
> advocating for their own way? Why can't they use the state house the 
> same way we all do? We're looking to bring as many people into 
> government as possible and get a full array of opinions and all. 
> What's the difference? What's the difference? We should go on, but the 
> people of the Commonwealth also have asked and they've put 170,000 
> signatures for vote and they deserve the vote. Now I know which way 
> I'm going on this issue, but the people of the Commonwealth, they 
> should be able to put any issue whatsoever on the ballot and the 
> people should always be heard.
> *Healey:* And Christy, here's the first time in the course of these 
> debates where I'm able to agree with you. I do believe, I do genuinely 
> believe, that when people go through that ballot initiative process, 
> work that hard as you say, well over 150 or more signatures to get 
> that on the ballot initiative I think the people should have a right 
> to vote. Now you may be right too, maybe people are ready to move on, 
> but we'll never know if we don't put it on the ballot and I think it's 
> incredibly important we respect that ballot initiative process and, as 
> you know very well, I respect that ballot initiative process and would 
> call on you and the other candidates to say we should roll back taxes 
> to 5 percent. That was a thing that was also on the ballot.
> *Patrick:* I will say, I will say on the--
> *Roberts:* We started it by talking about the separation between 
> church and state and it was interesting, I went back and looked at 
> what Cardinal Cushing had said at the 1965 legalization of 
> contraception, where he said it's not the function of civil law to 
> prescribe everything that is morally right and to forbid everything 
> that is morally wrong. So Mr. Patrick you haven't been in here so much 
> on this subject, do you think that the civil law should be in the 
> position of talking about morals?
> *Patrick:* I think on the question of marriage equality the 
> Commonwealth got it right. Because all the court did was affirm the 
> principle the people come before their government as equals, which is 
> something I've been working on for most of my professional life. I'm 
> disappointed, I will say, that we are submitting this question to a 
> plebiscite, to a popular vote, because it was resolved as a matter of 
> constitutional rights and I shudder to think what would have happened 
> in 1965 in the Lovings decision when the Supreme Court declared 
> unconstitutional efforts to ban marriage between blacks and whites. If 
> that had been submitted to a popular vote I suspect the Court would 
> have been overruled by the people. Constitutional balance is not about 
> taking issues that are supposed to be of a Constitutional nature and 
> then submitting them to a popular vote. The way you address that is 
> you change the Constitution.
> *Ross:* The Constitution of Massachusetts was also used, the 
> constitution of Massachusetts was also used to rule out slavery in 
> Massachusetts as the first state that ruled out slavery and again I 
> suspect that if that was put to a popular vote at the time, given that 
> African Americans would not have been allowed to vote on that, that it 
> would have been overruled also and that's why we have a separation 
> that understands that the majority doesn't vote on the rights of a 
> minority. We make this mistake, I mean we talk about ballot 
> initiatives, you know it would be nice to have clean elections so that 
> I would have a more equal shot at running for office also and so, 
> that's not a Constitutional rights matter of the minority being 
> decided by the majority. That's the majority saying that the rest of 
> us should be allowed to participate.
> *Healey:* Lets talk about the issue of people actually observing and 
> obeying the sanctity of our Constitution here. It's the oldest 
> Constitutional democracy operating in the world today and here we have 
> all voted to roll back taxes to 5 percent and it still hasn't 
> happened. Why isn't that happening? Why, is this a democracy or isn't it?
> *Mihos:* Notwithstanding the wonderful history lesson going up and 
> down here, that my sense is and since I'm the only one that was born 
> in this state, that the people of Massachusetts would have voted the 
> right way back in '65 and with any issue whatsoever. Because they're 
> fair people. And they care about their fellow man.
> *Roberts:* Alright, now we're going to move to the format of the 
> candidates asking each other questions and they've agreed to a very 
> complicated set of rules. The order of question's been predetermined, 
> the rules laid out: 20 seconds for each question, one minute to 
> respond, and 20 seconds rebuttal. You got that? If the candidates go 
> over their 20 seconds in asking a question there are consequences, 
> which are that I can say 'no rebuttal.' And I also will get candidates 
> in who have not been talking, so I can referee. And we begin with 
> Deval Patrick, but Mr. Patrick before we do I do feel as a newsperson 
> I have to ask you the question that's been asked of every Democratic 
> candidate in the country today. Which is, about Senator Kerry's 
> botched joke, as he calls it and where he said today he issues a 
> sorta, kinda apology. Is that enough or should he just come out and 
> say I'm sorry?
> *Patrick:* I think he has and I think he should. It was a dumb 
> comment, and I think he knows it was a dumb comment and has said so. 
> And frankly I think all the focus on it, as dumb as it was, as 
> inappropriate as it was or misunderstood, whatever it was, we need to 
> get back to what people are really worried about and in that context 
> it's the rightness or wrongness of the war in Iraq.
> *Roberts:* It was a question to a Democratic candidate. Why don't you 
> don't give me the questions for the other candidates.
> *Patrick:* Well my question is for all the candidates, but I would 
> start with the lieutenant governor and it's about how we learned just 
> last week that we learned Bectel was hired by your administration for 
> an additional $8 million to review the repairs on the Big Dig. And 
> Bectel, as we all know, is the very contractor responsible or had 
> oversight for those, during the cost skyrocketing and the shoddy 
> workmanship. And I want to ask you whether it makes sense to have 
> engaged Bectel for this project and if not what would you do 
> differently to regain the public's confidence?
> *Healey:* Of course it doesn't make sense. The Bectel engineers should 
> never have been readmitted to those tunnels. It was a terrible mistake 
> and the people who made that mistake have come forward and taken 
> responsibility for that. Secretary (John) Cogliano took responsibility 
> for that, but we, both the governor and I and also the board of the 
> Turnpike Authority were immensely clear that those Bectel engineers 
> should never have been allowed into the tunnels again in any capacity. 
> But while they do have some contract work that needs to be finished, 
> on surface roads and to provide us with the information necessary to 
> make sure we know how the tunnels were built in the first place so 
> that we can fix them, but that's it. They shouldn't be inspecting 
> anything, they shouldn't be in charge of anything, all we should be 
> trying to do with Bectel at this point is recover the money they owe 
> the people of Massachusetts for their faulty workmanship and that's it.
> *Patrick:* And I think that sounds right, and sounds great, and I 
> would just ask you why hasn't that happened. How did Bectel end up 
> being hired in your administration when you had control of the 
> project? And why haven't we recovered one dime? To me this is the most 
> glaring example of the shoddy administration and leadership of this 
> project and it starts at the top.
> *Roberts:* OK, Grace Ross.
> *Ross:* My first question is of Deval Patrick. The lieutenant governor 
> has attacked you a number of times for taking endorsements from 
> unions. These are the chosen representative organizations of hundreds 
> of thousands of workers in our state and you've ducked her 
> implications. What do you plan to do about jobs and incomes for those 
> of us who work for a living, besides takes breaks for millionaires and 
> big corporations?
> *Patrick:* Well I haven't talked about tax breaks for millionaires and 
> big corporations and I have also proudly accepted the endorsements of 
> several unions and advocates and business folks too and given not one 
> single quid pro quo. What I have said is we have to be about growing 
> this economy and there are ways to do that are simple and 
> straightforward like how we make much more straightforward the 
> approval and permitting processes or connect up the good ideas people 
> have with the capital they need. I think you and I both agree, it's 
> small and medium sized businesses where most jobs get created. And 
> also about how we invest in the next thing, which I think is around 
> alternative, renewable energy. The technologies and the products and 
> the services. If we get that right the whole world is our customer. 
> What I've been talking about is the importance of coming together 
> across all kinds of interests as a way to bring Massachusetts forward. 
> And many of the unions, or some of the unions that I've worked with, 
> do not agree with me on everything but that's okay. I think we've got 
> to be about a politics that says we don't have to agree on everything 
> before we can work together on anything.
> *Ross:* I certainly agree with you on that last piece there and as you 
> know I've been working on creating markets for our anti-global warming 
> industries as well and for sure that's a growing area that we've gotta 
> grasp onto in the next four years. I think my concern is more that you 
> know, you once again didn't answer my question about creating jobs and 
> income and when you talked last time about Bristol Myers and giving 
> them tons of breaks so they'd come into the state, that qualifies as a 
> big corporation in my book.
> *Roberts:* Lt. Gov. Healey gets the next question.
> *Healey:* Thank you. My question is for Deval Patrick. Deval, a lot of 
> people in this state have been getting excited about the prospect, 
> perhaps, of us returning to a one-party state. A state where all of 
> our Congressional offices, 87 percent of the legislature, and even the 
> governor's office is occupied by a Democrat. The last time that 
> happened Dukakis was in office. I'd like to ask you, do you think 
> Dukakis was a good governor and why?
> *Patrick:* I think that Mike Dukakis was a good governor in many ways, 
> and that we had challenges then. I think that some of the things you 
> and your administration have done are good and some are not. I don't 
> think people are excited about one-party rule, as you say, what 
> they're excited about is leadership and we haven't had that for some 
> while now in Massachusetts and it shows.
> *Healey:* I would argue that the combination of a legislature that's 
> anxious to spend every single penny that comes in over the transom, 
> your spending plans that total over $8 billion by conservative 
> estimates, combined with the demands that those union endorsements are 
> going to place on you is going to be a very dangerous combination for 
> the people of Massachusetts, especially the taxpayers. They're going 
> to see spending and taxes go through the roof.
> *Roberts:* Now it's Christy Mihos, these rules are quite -- you all 
> agreed to them.
> *Patrick:* I'll tell you the staff who did are fired.
> *Mihos:* My question is for the lieutenant governor. Lieutenant 
> governor, you flip-flop on MCAS, illegal immigration, parental consent 
> for abortion, and as of late, independent oversight for the Big Dig. 
> Your unfavorable numbers are at 59 percent. You can't win. At this 
> point, why don't you drop out and support me and let me take on Deval 
> as the only alternative?
> *Healey:* Christy, Christy, Christy. Christy, I've got 50 good ideas 
> to move this commonwealth forward.
> *Mihos:* And I've got one: for you to leave right now and I'll move it 
> forward.
> *Healey:* You've got one idea and Deval has none. But let me just tell 
> you Christy, people need to think seriously about how they're casting 
> this vote in this election. It shouldn't be taken frivolously. People 
> need to really understand that there is a choice in this race and we 
> need to think twice. If you're a fiscal moderate, if you're a social 
> moderate, if you're concerned about the future of our schools, if 
> you're concerned about how we're going to keep our streets safe, if 
> you're concerned about keeping taxes down, then people who are 
> considering a vote for you, Christy, should consider a vote for me 
> because I am the only candidate here today who can do it.
> *Mihos:* You know, I wish the Commonwealth had a recall petition like 
> in other states because we would not have waited four years to take 
> you and Mitt Romney out and undo the damage here in the Commonwealth.
> *Healey:* Christy, you maxed out to my campaign last year.
> *Mihos:* Well, let me ask you this- I have ten seconds. I did max out 
> to you. Let me ask you- most reputable businesses, when you give them 
> money and they make you a promise, they'll give you your money back. 
> You broke your promise. Can I have my money back?
> *Roberts:* Christy, you actually start the next round of questions.
> *Mihos:* Thank you, and the question is to Deval Patrick. Deval, you 
> claim that you represent change, yet I've went on and I looked at your 
> contributions and they are some of the most noteworthy special 
> interests, big unions, construction lobbyists, construction unions, 
> Big Dig lobbyists and all. You have said that you're going to be the 
> agent of change here. You're just politics as usual.
> *Patrick:* Is that a question?
> *Mihos:* Yeah.
> *Patrick:* Well, you know, not all of us can come to the race and 
> self-finance. I've been out hustling and working, engaging people all 
> over the Commonwealth from all walks of life. There are people who 
> contribute five bucks a month- there's a guy in Quincy who does that 
> because that's what he can contribute- and more to the point, what 
> we've done is engage people to give their time, to talk to their 
> friends and their neighbors and their coworkers, asking people to 
> check back in. And by the way, Christy, that is good news for the 
> democracy- not just for the Democratic party, but for the democracy. 
> And that's why there are Democrats and Republicans and independents, 
> too, who are supporting my candidacy, and I'm proud to have that support.
> *Roberts:* You have the rebuttal.
> *Mihos:* Well, the issue that bothers me, Deval, is that since I'm the 
> only one that was born here and brought up here in Massachusetts, when 
> these $500 per person- these special interests- make a donation to you 
> time and time again, they expect a return on their investment. Welcome 
> to Massachusetts.
> *Patrick:* Well, they are going to be sorely disappointed if they 
> think there's some quid pro quo. What I'm delivering is leadership and 
> inclusion.
> *Roberts:* Your turn to ask a question.
> *Patrick:* I'd like to ask a question about some of the lieutenant 
> governor's fiscal ideas. Your own budget director has predicted a $200 
> million deficit. You have also proposed to finance the income tax 
> rollback immediately, which is another $700 million. You've proposed 
> to take down the tolls in the western part of the state- another $114 
> or so million. And you've got 50 ideas, many of which include new 
> spending. How do you propose to balance the budget?
> *Healey:* Well, that's a very good question and let me answer that 
> clearly and succinctly. We have in this state a great economic engine. 
> And when we roll back taxes for working families and small businesses- 
> and many small businesses pay that individual income tax rate- we will 
> get a return on our investment in Massachusetts. So we may be taking 
> that money off the table so the legislature can't spend it, but we are 
> not taking it off the table. It will be spent here in Massachusetts. 
> It will create economic growth. I believe in investing in 
> Massachusetts and I believe the families of Massachusetts and the 
> businesses of Massachusetts will invest that $500 or $600 million when 
> we roll back taxes, a whole lot more intelligently than the 
> legislature would. I've seen that happen before. They've spent $2 
> billion budget surpluses on earmarks and increased spending for 
> special interests. They didn't send it into local aid. They didn't put 
> it where it ought to be. We need to take that money off the table, if 
> for no other reason because people voted for it back in 2000 and also 
> simply because it will help our economy, not hurt it.
> *Patrick:* So the answer, in fact, is that you have no plan to balance 
> off the billion dollars in reduced revenues with the 50 new ideas that 
> include new spending. None. What you just talked about was economic 
> growth, which is exactly what I've been talking about. When I talk 
> about it, you accuse me of not being specific. When you talk about it, 
> it is some other rhetoric. Listen, we both believe that we have to 
> grow our way forward. We both do.
> *Roberts:* Okay, you're out of time and it's your turn to ask a question.
> *Healey:* Thank you. And by the way, we've vetoed $400 million that 
> was going to be taken out of the rainy day fund. That'll take care of 
> that deficit. My next question to you-
> *Patrick:* Doesn't quite add up.
> *Healey:* Yeah, my question to you is you are going to have to raise 
> taxes in order to fund the $8 billion of new spending that you have 
> proposed. You recently said when you were speaking to some people, 
> 'this is easy. You just have to throw everyone a bone,' meaning all 
> the special interests. You owe everyone- and I want to know which 
> taxes you're going to raise and how much.
> *Patrick:* First of all, I've been very clear that I have no plan to 
> raise taxes. I've also been very clear that your $8 billion or 
> wherever that number comes from, is not what I am interested in doing, 
> nor do I think we can afford to do immediately. There's some things we 
> have to do immediately like restore community policing. Seven hundred 
> fewer cops on the beat today because of your fiscal policies. I want 
> to put 1,000 new cops on the beat. I think we've got to have all-day 
> kindergarten. That's a $34 million item. I think we have to return 
> local aid to cities and towns so we can get the pressure off the 
> property tax. The joke that you're referring to was in a group of 
> folks involved in the tourism industry who asked just a simple 
> question about how important it is to market what is our third-largest 
> source of revenue here in Massachusetts. And building on that idea, 
> which is all about economic growth they got very excited. That's where 
> the comment came from. It's all about investing in our future. So stop 
> trying to scare people into voting for you. Let's just talk about 
> differences in our point of view and how we grow the economy.
> *Healey:* Deval, the calculation for that $8 billion just so you know, 
> is very easy. You've advocated for things that I think we all support 
> in some way, but full-day kindergarten, after school programs, sending 
> enough money back to cities and towns so that you could significantly 
> offset property taxes year after year. This is $8 billion of spending. 
> I'm happy to lay the numbers out for you. And you have 39 spending 
> proposals- you've only given numbers for three of them. I think we 
> need to know about the others.
> *Roberts:* Grace Ross, you get the next question.
> *Ross:* So I was going to ask the lieutenant governor a question, but 
> because the two of them don't seem to be into democracy, they're just 
> into talking to each other, I thought I'd ask you a question.
> *Mihos:* Hit me.
> *Ross:* And I appreciate your pointing out that the lieutenant here 
> doesn't have a better chance of getting elected than you or me. Some 
> 50,000 people have left the state because their incomes are not enough 
> to cover living here. Unlike our other two opponents, you actually 
> presented a plan to pay for everything that you put out, but it 
> included cutting 8,000 jobs. What plans do you have to bring back 
> 8,000 jobs to our state?
> *Mihos:* Well, a lot of people have criticized me for saying- you 
> know, 'you're going to lose votes by saying that you're going to cut 
> 8,000 state jobs,' but I think it is incumbent upon us as candidates 
> to tell you exactly what we're going to do before you cast your vote. 
> And yeah, the 8,000 is a lot of folks, but we do that every other, 
> every three years in business in the real world. And what we have to 
> do is- right now there are about 75,000 state employers, and the new 
> technology, the new productivity gains and all- we've got to do what 
> we do in the real world in state government. I'm not going to let go 
> people at the level that deliver the services each and every day that 
> we advocate for. I'm going to let go the middle managers, the senior 
> managers, the people that push paper around each and every day, the 
> people the follow-up government and cost us as unaffordable as we are, 
> these are the people that are the real suspects here, and they're 
> going under my administration.
> *Roberts:* You have 20 seconds.
> *Ross:* Well, again, I'm glad you actually answered how you're going 
> to balance the budget. Maybe we'll get that out of the two folks who 
> aren't talking to us. The thing I want to say- luckily, you and I are 
> actually talking to the people who vote, so that's probably more 
> useful. What I want to say is that, you know, the cutting of jobs as a 
> way of making a balanced budget doesn't address what most of us in 
> this state need. And most of us in this state need new jobs and we 
> need better incomes and we need affordable housing. And I'm interested 
> in the jobs that are created in our state and stay in our state- small 
> business jobs, jobs that belong in our communities and will stay there.
> *Roberts:* Okay, we start the third round of questions and Lt. 
> Governor Kerry Healey, you get the first question.
> *Healey:* I have a question for Deval Patrick.
> *Patrick:* You're supposed to talk to them! Talk to them!
> *Healey:* No, no, this is a question only you can answer. During the 
> course of the last debates, or the previous debates- and I've heard 
> you quoted many times- to say that I am just a criminologist and you 
> belittled my experience in that regard. And you said that you had been 
> a prosecutor and put criminals away in the courtroom, that you had 
> been in that crucible and broken a sweat there. I'd like you to please 
> name for us a case in which you were a criminal prosecutor in a court 
> where you put away a criminal.
> *Patrick:* Let me tell you what a prosecutor does and a prosecutor's 
> office does. Ask the United States attorney, or the attorney general, 
> or a district attorney, what those roles are. I've had to make 
> judgements about whom to charge and with what. Those hard cases about 
> what the evidence is and about what is firm and fair. I've had to make 
> hard judgements about sentencing, including the death penalty when I 
> was in the Justice Department. I have had to comfort victims and 
> represented victims as well. I understand that the role of a 
> prosecutor is not just in the courtroom, it's managing the people in 
> the courtroom. And I've had that job. And I make that point about you 
> being a criminologist and me being a prosecutor because I will not 
> have you trivialize the other part of the work I have done, which is 
> on occasion, represent the unsavory defendant, and it's a good thing 
> somebody does because that's what puts the justice in the justice system.
> *Healey:* Deval, this isn't about whether or not you were a 
> prosecutor. It's about telling the truth and that is something that a 
> governor must do. A governor must be able to look the people of the 
> Commonwealth in the eye and tell the truth, even when it isn't 
> convenient. Like you were just asking me about the Big Dig. It wasn't 
> convenient but I answered that question and I will always tell the 
> truth. Why didn't you tell the truth about your involvement in the 
> LaGuer case? Why didn't you tell the truth about the state of the 
> economy here in Massachusetts? You need to start telling the truth.
> *Roberts:* All right. Christy Mihos-
> *Patrick:* I have to respond to this.
> *Roberts:* I'm hearing in my ear that you actually can.
> *Patrick:* I think it is extraordinary. You know, I think- and I have 
> said it publically- you are better than the campaign that you have 
> run. But I will tell you that you have spent all this time trying to 
> distract us all from a record of failed leadership on the economy, on 
> education, and on health care. And then you stand there and talk to 
> me, and preach to me about telling the truth.
> *Roberts:* Okay, Mr. Patrick, please stop this now because it is not 
> fair to the other candidates. All right. Christy Mihos, you get the 
> next question.
> *Mihos:* Thank you. I'd just like to take issue- this is to the 
> lieutenant governor. Last debate on Channel 4, you put forward an 
> extraordinary, an extraordinary statistic that public schools in the 
> Commonwealth that the student-teacher ratio is 13 to one. Now, anybody 
> that knows private schools should take all their kids out of private 
> schools and put them in the public schools. Could you please explain 
> the 13 to one ratio?
> *Healey:* Well, Christy. I'm a little embarrassed that I have to 
> explain it to you, but I'm happy to do so. The way this works is they 
> total up all the kids in the system and they total up all the teachers 
> in the system and then they divide the number of kids by the number of 
> teachers. Now, does that mean that every classroom has one teacher and 
> 13 students? No it does not. It means there are special needs kids who 
> have maybe one teacher and one child, or one teacher for four 
> children. And it means that there are other classrooms where there are 
> many more children than 13, but this is the established way of 
> measuring class size and it's right there on the Department of 
> Education website.
> *Mihos:* You know the old adage, 'in the real world, the figures don't 
> lie,' here's how you got that number: you took all the administration 
> people- principals, superintendents, administrative assistants, 
> everyone- and then you divided, because I got to tell you, as I 
> traveled around the state last Thursday, last Friday, last Saturday- 
> people in New Bedford, in Worcester and all are saying 'where did she 
> get that number? That is insane.'
> *Roberts:* And you are now out of time, so Mr. Patrick, you have the 
> next question.
> *Patrick:* Cokie thank you, and Grace, thank you for the admonition. 
> I'm sorry the focus has been on this end of the question. Let me ask 
> you a question. Affordable housing and the cost of housing is the 
> number one reason cited for why we have lost population in each of the 
> last two years. I'd like you to just offer a couple of your own ideas 
> about how it is we get at this problem.
> *Ross:* Thank you, and actually a question that the voters are 
> interested in, too, very good.
> *Patrick:* Thank you, Grace.
> *Ross:* So, in terms of affordable housing, there are a bunch of good 
> programs, some of which you have also mentioned. But the key issue 
> here is that people have been asking us what we're going to do to keep 
> them in their own homes. So, let's start there. We need to deal with 
> expiring used properties, which means properties where there used to 
> be subsidies and now they're trying to get rid of the subsidies. The 
> state used to have a program that was a broad housing subsidy program 
> and instead of putting $36,500 into a shelter room for a family of 
> two, we could get seven state housing subsidies out of that. We've got 
> great projects going on in a lot of our communities from the community 
> development corporations like Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative, 
> can create a family home that someone in Boston can afford on an 
> income in the $40,000 range. We've got really important movement, as 
> we've talked about, of cluster development that will allow us to 
> rebuild housing in ways that will create new neighborhoods and will be 
> cheaper and good for public transportation as well.
> *Patrick:* A couple points I'd make. First of all, I think some of 
> those are good ideas. I think the idea of transportation-oriented 
> development which has come out of your administration, Lt. Governor, 
> is I believe, the best idea that has come out of this administration- 
> the idea of clustered housing, close to transportation, multi-family 
> rental units. But we have to support that by unlocking the reserves at 
> the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency, by taking the cap that your 
> administration has placed, or the fees on tax-exempt bonds for use of 
> these kinds of things, that's the way that we stimulate this kind of 
> development.
> *Roberts:* You actually- no, Grace Ross, you have the next question, 
> so if you want to continue this conversation, be my guest.
> *Ross:* Well I think I'm going to ask a question of the lieutenant 
> governor even though she doesn't seem to recognize that I exist. You 
> talk about supporting working families, and you have said over and 
> over again and I believe you just admonished Mr. Patrick here about 
> not telling the truth. So perhaps you could tell the truth about 
> taxes. As you know, seeing the same statistics that I do, working 
> families are not suffering under the income tax as much as they're 
> suffering out of spiraling property rate taxes that are going to 
> continue to go up if you continue not being willing to raise taxes on 
> the very wealthy and on the large corporations in this state. So what 
> I'd like to do is what you're really planning to do to help the 
> working families in this state, besides cutting toll workers just 
> before the holidays and not being willing to apply for Mass Health 
> benefits that would allow our seniors and disabled to stay in their homes.
> *Healey:* Well first of all we're extending Mass Health benefits to 
> over 100,000 people right now, so leaving that aside, let's talk about 
> how I am going to take pressure off of the property tax, and allow 
> cities and towns to keep more of their money, so that they can keep 
> property taxes down, not have overrides, not have to impose fees. 
> There are two very simple things that have to happen. First of all, 
> right now every city and town labors under very high health care 
> costs, and every year those health care costs for a typical city or 
> town increase by between 15 and 20 percent. In most years, of the new 
> revenues that come into a city or a town from property taxes and from 
> state aid, simply go to pay for that increase in health care costs for 
> their employees and their pensioners. Now, if we were able to let 
> cities and towns buy their insurance through the state group insurance 
> commissions, they would save tens of millions if not hundreds of 
> millions of dollars. Similarly, we can reform our pension plans that 
> are different for virtually every city and state, have them administer 
> to the state treasurer and save $200 million a year.
> *Ross:* I'm thrilled we're getting back onto concrete. That's great. 
> And let me say this, I'm also thrilled whenever you or Deval Patrick 
> talk about bulk-buying the pharmaceuticals because you're moving 
> toward the real solution to our health care problem, which is 
> universal health care for everybody that's paid for through our 
> government, which is the only thing that's going to make it 
> affordable. As you know, the present plan does nothing about spiraling 
> health care costs, and no one but me is offering a real solution to that.
> *Roberts:* OK, now we are going to go for one final bit of discussion. 
> I must say that you candidates have been terrific about showing up at 
> various forums and debates and talking to each other and talking to 
> the voters over and over again. And I have read all of your debates 
> talking about crime and the campaign and tolls and taxes and every 
> issue that could possibly be covered. So now that we're at the end and 
> coming almost to election day, and this is your last televised debate, 
> I would like to ask a fundamental question, which is what do you think 
> the basic role of the government is in our society? And Grace Ross, 
> you go first.
> *Ross:* Well, I think the basic role of government in our society is 
> to make sure that the people of our society have thriving and healthy 
> lives. And I think that what's required of the governor to do that, is 
> we need to be clear, we need to be accountable to the people and we 
> need to be willing to be transparent in what we do. It's part of why 
> I've been on the case of the various people when they've moved their 
> positions. I try to be very clear about that and I think the most 
> critical issue here is that we keep getting thrown up this model that 
> government is supposed to be a business, but this isn't about making 
> sure that money goes to the shareholders, the richest people in the 
> corporate family. And we need to actually turn government back into 
> government where the riches go to all of us so that we all have 
> survival and we don't have kids killing themselves, each other, in the 
> streets, and we have enough housing and jobs for everybody.
> *Healey:* I think I probably come to this question a little bit 
> differently than many people because of my background, looking at 
> crime. And from my standpoint, the most basic thing that government 
> provides, both at a national level and also at a local level is 
> safety. Whether it's safety in our streets or safety from foreign 
> aggression, safety is the number one thing that our government has to 
> provide. And it really is a precursor for everything else that we do. 
> If we don't have safe streets, you're not going to have economic 
> development. You can pour as much money as you want to into a city, 
> but if it's not safe for people to walk down that street or establish 
> a store there or restaurant, it will never thrive. Same thing about 
> our schools. If our schools aren't safe, we know for a fact that the 
> kids aren't thinking about education, they're not focused on math or 
> science or English, if they're worried about drive-by shootings or 
> whether or not their fellow students are armed. These are things that 
> we need to address fundamentally.
> *Mihos:* All this is well and good, but government should help, not 
> hurt. And over the past four years that I've really had a front-row 
> seat at a lot of this, I've seen government hurt its own residence. 
> I've seen the intentional indifference with this administration on the 
> Big Dig, where they wouldn't open up this process, and they allowed 
> these special interests, these contractors to take your money, 
> billions of dollars of your money, well over six-plus billion dollars 
> of Massachusetts money, $8.549 billion of the federal money, and just 
> allow the special interests to do whatever, and then government in the 
> form of candidates or lieutenant governors or whatever, Kerry, how can 
> you possibly take an $890,000 ad that's paid for by Bechtel 
> Parsons-Brinkerhoff, and come here before these people in the 
> Commonwealth and say that you're going to get to the bottom of this if 
> you're ever elected governor. And Deval, how can you do the same? Take 
> their money, $20,000 from a Big Dig lobbyist, and take their money 
> each and every day, both of you, and say that you're going to clean up 
> government?
> *Patrick:* Leaving aside for a moment the errors in facts from my 
> friend Christy, I think government is about helping us help ourselves. 
> I don't think government is there to solve every problem in 
> everybody's life. I think personal responsibility is absolutely key. 
> But there's a place alongside personal responsibility for shared 
> responsibility. And there are things we talk about, we talk about how, 
> you know, taxes are your money, and that is right. But it's also your 
> broken roads and your overcrowded schools, and your broken 
> neighborhoods and neighbors. And it seems to me it's time for us to 
> take responsibility for that. That is what government is about, I believe.
> *Healey:* In this state, our constitution is unusual in that it 
> recognizes the key point that in a democracy you need to have public 
> education, that if you don't have public education, and good public 
> education, you can't have educated voters, and that that was going to 
> be important for this new democracy. And so I would say that another 
> fundamental aspect of government responsibility, especially here in 
> Massachusetts, is to make sure that all of our schools give all of our 
> kids an equal shot at excellence.
> *Mihos:* You're killing public education, Kerry. You have killed 
> public education.
> (general uproar)
> *Ross:* You're going to say that after the last debate, saying that we 
> should pay for charter schools for every child in Massachusetts. 
> You've neither balanced your budget, and that's not a realistic 
> proposal, and Christy's absolutely right …
> (Healey and Ross talking over each other)
> *Healey:* There's no reason why any kind of public school is better 
> than another. They could all be any kind of school, Ross.
> *Ross:* … So it's a nice idea, but it requires actually paying for it, 
> and let me step back for a minute … (More of Healey and Ross talking 
> over each other) Let me step back here for a second to the crime 
> issue, right? Are you not the person who ran an ad that retraumatized 
> the women I know who have been raped? I mean, we're talking about 
> crime in a very serious way. The people of this state, when you ask 
> them, what is it about rape, we only know one thing that works against 
> rape, and you know this if you're a criminologist, is for women to be 
> taught self-defense. So we've got to start talking about real 
> solutions, and the real solution to crime is not tough arguments …
> *Roberts:* Christy Mihos, I'm going to give you an opportunity to get 
> in here. (Ross, Healey continue talking) I'm going to let Mr. Mihos 
> get in here.
> *Mihos:* Thank you. At the same time, you're talking about reducing 
> the tolls on the turnpike, you're also talking about a 35% increase on 
> the MBTA folks. There are 600,000 people …
> *Healey:* Is this a philosophy of government that you have?
> *Mihos:* No, I'm just asking, where do you, no, is there anything, is 
> there anything that you care about, in your soul (booing) when you 
> tell people, when government lies to people, when they tell them, we 
> haven't raised your fees, fines and taxes, and then you look at your 
> tax bill, and you see because of the local aid cuts of $2 billion and 
> an increase in the tax of $1.8 billion under your administration, why 
> can't you tell them the truth.
> *Patrick:* First of all, I'd just like to second what Christy said 
> when you talk about telling the truth. We rolled the income tax back, 
> we paid for it with higher property taxes and fees. Everybody seems to 
> get that, I think, Lieutenant Governor, except you. All the panels, 
> all the candidates do, Charlie Baker, the former ANF secretary in the 
> Weld administration, Mass Taxpayers Foundation, everyone else seems to 
> get that. You talk about the importance of security - who could 
> disagree with that? But your fiscal policy is the reason there's 700 
> fewer cops on the beat. Your lack of leadership, basic coordination is 
> the reason guns are flowing across state lines.
> *Healey:* Deval, may I ask you, where is your plan to address any of 
> the affordability needs here in Massachusetts? Where is your plan? How 
> do you … tell me how you're going to reduce one tax in Massachusetts. 
> Let's start with one.
> *Patrick:* Here's how we start. We enhance the senior circuit breaker 
> and senior exemptions for property taxes. We include moderate and 
> low-income homeowners in that. That's the program, those two programs 
> today cost the state about $40 million. Raising them to $100,000 is 
> money well spent. We also …
> *Healey:* It would be. And it would give about $50 back to the 
> individuals you're describing. That is not a significant tax decrease.
> *Patrick:* I'm sorry, actually right now, right now, the senior 
> exemption guideline is up to $850 and $1,000 for each … (Healey cuts 
> him off)
> *Roberts:* Miss Ross, it's your turn
> *Ross:* I want to, first of all, agree with you on the fact that I 
> think it would be nice if Deval would actually balance his budget, so 
> I appreciate that. I also think, however, that he's right that you 
> haven't paid attention to the rest of the package when you say no new 
> taxes, and I'm pleased to hear you pick up my suggestion that the 
> circuit breaker shouldn't just been for senior folks it should be for 
> low and moderate income folks as well. So, let's be real about the 
> taxes and let's be real about balancing our budgets, and then perhaps 
> the people of Massachusetts can make an informed decision about who 
> they're voting for.
> *Roberts:* Mr. Mihos
> *Mihos:* One issue I think we've missed tonight, really, is what 
> government can do for us all, is government must protect us all, 
> government must secure our borders, and make sure that we can take our 
> own money, which will be $1 billion by the year 2010, which one of us 
> will have to deal with is illegal immigration here in this 
> commonwealth. One billion dollars, we can't even take care of our own 
> elderly properly, our disabled, our veterans and all, and that's where 
> government is turning their heads. Your government has, and the 
> republicans will never do anything about illegal immigration because 
> they want the cheap labor, the democrats won't do anything about it 
> because they want the votes. And at the end of the day, all of us pay.
> *Roberts:* Mr. Patrick, why don't you address that question of illegal 
> immigration.
> *Patrick:* A word about illegal immigration: First of all, I've always 
> noticed that this is an issue that becomes a crisis just in time for 
> elections. This is hard, and it's been with us some while, and it 
> takes a balanced approach, starting at the federal level. We have to 
> secure our borders. We wouldn't be having this discussion if the 
> administration in DC had done its job. And I support the move in 
> congress for that balanced approach by Senator McCain and Senator 
> Kennedy, that starts with more resources for border control, but also 
> creates a path to citizenship for people who are here and 
> contributing, who would pay back taxes and fines, learn English, and 
> get on a proper path to citizenship, so we take that economy out of 
> the shadows, and bring it into the sunlight.
> *Roberts:* Lieutenant Governor
> *Healey:* Let's be clear. I think that legal immigration is one of the 
> great strengths of our country and of this commonwealth. I have the 
> help and assistance and support of many, many legal immigrants in this 
> race, and I can tell you that the main difference between us is how we 
> would like to treat those who are here illegally. You'd like to give 
> them in-state tuition. You'd like to give them driver's licenses so 
> they can disappear into society and get onto airplanes. You'd like to 
> allow people to arrive here and register to vote (uproar). You'd like 
> to allow people to arrive here and register to vote the same day, and 
> to not have to present any kind of authoritative ID that shows that 
> they are a citizen of the state, or a citizen of America. I think 
> those are dangerous policies, and I don't think those are policies 
> that are supported by the people of Massachusetts.
> *Patrick:* May I respond? Thank you. I don't want to show any 
> disrespect to the lieutenant governor, but I'm going to address my 
> comments to the audience, because I have made these points before and 
> I just don't think you're listening. First of all, I don't support 
> voting for illegal immigration, no one does. I believe citizens get to 
> vote, and only citizens get to vote. I do believe in same-day 
> registration because frankly I think we have done an awful lot to make 
> voting easier in this country, not enough to make it meaningful, and 
> same-day registration I think has got to be enabled. I think the issue 
> with driver's licenses is off the table because of new federal 
> legislation, and yes I do believe that in-state tuition for young 
> people who have been here and played by the rules and passed the MCATs 
> and been admitted …
> (Patrick and Healey talk over each other)
> *Roberts:* Mr. Patrick we now have closing statements and you get the 
> first one, so you can continue this if you care to.
> *Patrick:* Well, let me say first of all Sophie thank you for 
> moderating and thank you do all of the other candidates for 
> participating in this and the hosts for organizing it. It's been a 
> long and tough campaign, and I hope through all of the noise and the 
> negativity that people in this race have had a chance to take a 
> measure of me, as a candidate, as a leader, and as a man. I have not 
> tried to build myself up by tearing anybody down. That's not who I am. 
> I'm not trying to scare anybody into voting for me. I'm asking people 
> at home, and all across the commonwealth to vote your aspirations. 
> Vote for your hopes for a stronger economy, for stronger schools, for 
> stronger and affordable health care, for leadership that is about 
> bringing us together and hearing all sides, and not driving us apart. 
> Reasons why we can come together when we can, and a positive and more 
> hopeful future. I think that that experience, in business, in 
> government, in non-profits, and in community groups, sets me apart 
> form any other candidate. And I ask you for your help, and your 
> prayers, and your vote. Thank you very much.
> *Healey:* I too would like to thank the consortium, and you Sophie for 
> hosting this tonight. I think it's very important that the viewers at 
> home and the people of this commonwealth understand that the choice 
> they're going to be making next Tuesday is one that they are going to 
> live with for four years. One that's going to determine the future of 
> the commonwealth. And for those of you who are fiscal conservatives, 
> those of you who consider yourselves to be moderate, for those of you 
> who are concerned about maintaining standards in our schools, making 
> sure that our benefits here in Massachusetts go to legal residents of 
> Massachusetts, and that we have strong laws to protect us against sex 
> offenders here in Massachusetts, I ask you to think about what it 
> would mean to have Deval Patrick in office instead of me, and I want 
> to let you know that I will always tell the truth, I will be a strong 
> leader, I will make sure that the people of this commonwealth are 
> protected. Thank you.
> (extended applause)
> *Roberts:* We have two more candidates, please be respectful. Grace Ross.
> *Ross:* Thank you. So, sometimes I think it's just between you, the 
> voter and me, just having this conversation because the other 
> candidates don't go through what we go through every day. They've got 
> a lot of money, and they aren't necessarily in touch with what we're 
> struggling with. You know, a quarter of our children are not 
> graduating high school with diplomas. A number of them are killing 
> each other in the streets. Most of us are struggling to make ends meet 
> and we're carrying more than our fair share of the tax burden because 
> folks won't tax equally at the top what the rest of us are paying. And 
> in the next downturn, that's going to be a very serious issue, if we 
> don't turn it around in the next four years. In addition, we've got 
> our environment, and we've got to do something about that, because of 
> global warming that we're already getting you know, rainy season in 
> Massachusetts. Together, you and I can turn this around, my background 
> is in creating change, not the rhetoric of change, and I'm not a 
> politician so when I say this I mean it: I'll tell you the truth, I'll 
> govern with courage, I'll remember the roof over your head, the 
> paycheck in your hand, and all of our children. Vote for me on Nov. 7 
> and we all win.
> *Roberts:* Mr. Mihos
> *Mihos:* Thank you to the consortium, thank you Corky and thank you 
> for the invite tonight. These have been a great group of debates and 
> I've been so happy to be part of it, but our state is headed in the 
> wrong direction. As the only candidate for governor that was born here 
> and raised here in the commonwealth, it really pains me to see the 
> commonwealth being run down the way it is. Hope will not lower 
> property taxes here in the commonwealth or make us more affordable. 
> Don't let the media, the polls, or the politics of fear tell you how 
> to vote. You decide, it's your vote. Vote your conscience. Over the 
> last few years I stood with you, and I stood for you at the Big Dig 
> and the turnpike authority and fought that good battle, and it was a 
> battle I've been so proud to fight. But I ask you now to stand with 
> me, to take back this state from these two parties that have put us 
> where we are right now. Andrew Jackson said one man with courage makes 
> a majority. I ask you to stand with me, I will never, ever let you 
> down. Thank you.
> *Roberts:* Thank you to all the candidates for your participation, and 
> thank you to the Boston media consortium for sponsoring the event.
>
> © Copyright <http://www.boston.com/help/bostoncom_info/copyright> 2006 
> The New York Times Company
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the 
> new Yahoo.com 
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=42973/*http://www.yahoo.com/preview>