ABC News’ Pennsylvania Senate Debate – Transcript Part I

Oct 20, 2010 11:45pm

Here is part one of the transcript for ABC News’ Pennsylvania Senate debate on October 20, 2010:

JIM GARDNER:

Hello, everyone here in the Kimmel Theater and at home.  Welcome to the National Constitution Center.  This is the Pennsylvania Senate Debate that so many people have been waiting to see.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:

We are broadcasting all across the state of Pennsylvania.  Also, lots of opportunities to watch online.  We’re streaming tonight’s debate on 6ABC.com, ABCNews.com, and Facebook.  Weigh in and tell us what you think.

JIM GARDNER:

We have a few simple notes to share with you before we get started tonight.  The format this evening will include questions to the candidates from me and from George and from our panelists.  The candidates will have a total of 90 seconds to respond to every question.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:

Here’s how it will break down.  A 60 second response, and if the candidate chooses, a 30 second rebuttal.  No opening statements tonight, but there will be closing statements.  And we’ve got a timer to ensure fairness.  The candidates can see it right there.

JIM GARDNER:

The order of questioning was determined by a coin toss.  Mr. Sestak will give the first response.  And so, let’s begin our questioning.  So much of the discussion about jobs and the employment crisis in this country has focused on small business and that’s appropriate.  But in Pennsylvania big business has been the problem, as well.  Car assembly plants have shut down.  And defense contractors have pulled up stakes.  Some of those jobs are lost period.  Some of those jobs have gone to other countries.  And some of those jobs have gone to other states, where the business climate it quote unquote "friendlier."  So, in Pennsylvania, you really have a three-headed monster.  How do you bring jobs back to Pennsylvania?

JOE SESTAK:

Thanks, everyone, for the debate this evening.  And Pat, thank you.  It is still about small business.  Pennsylvania’s actually had half the growth of small businesses in the last 30 years of the nation’s average.  So, Washington really has to start giving tax credits, like 15 percent, to a small business for every new payroll job they create.  That would create five million jobs in just two years.

Zero capital gains tax for small businesses.  You’re right.  Corporations have gone overseas.  My opponent, for example, voted that if a corporation shuts down its factory here in Pennsylvania, fires its employees, and then invests in a factory in China.  And then cheap goods come in, often illegally subsidized by China, then a– no tax is given to the process of that large corporation, where jobs have gone overseas.  In fact, he takes it another step.  That corporations should have zero taxes.  So, that’s the difference.  Small business create 80 percent of all jobs.  He believes it’s about corporations and helping them create jobs elsewhere.

JIM GARDNER:

Mr. Toomey?

PAT TOOMEY:

Well, I’m the candidate in this race that’s actually created jobs.  Started a small business from scratch with my brothers.  We owned and operated some restaurants and we employed hundreds of workers.  And I can tell you the biggest factor that’s presenting us from having job growth, at large, medium, and small companies, is this out of control agenda in Washington.

Think about what we’ve been witnessing.  Serial bailouts of failing companies.  Nationalizing whole industries.  Spending money on a scale I never imagined possible.  Corresponding deficits and debt.  You throw in cap and trade, card check, government run health care.  This agenda is preventing us from having the kind of economic growth that we so badly need.  Congressman Sestak, he’ll talk a lot about accountability on the campaign trail, but doesn’t seem to want to hold himself accountable.

He voted for every item on that agenda and his only criticism was that they didn’t go far enough.  This agenda, this overreach of government, is having a chilling effect on our ability to create jobs.  I know.  I’ve been there.  I’ve started businesses and created jobs.  We’ve got to get off this track.

JIM GARDNER:

Would you like a 30 second rebuttal, Mr. Sestak?

JOE SESTAK:

Yes.  Let’s set aside the fact that when you, Congressman Toomey, invested in a small business here in Pennsylvania, you were working in China for a Chinese billionaire, who testified under oath, a couple years later, you never had hands on operations of your small business that your brothers ran.  But let’s look at how you have no credibility or track record in creating jobs.  During the Bush/Toomey era, zero jobs were created, as compared to the eight years in the Clinton Administration where I worked, 23 million jobs created.  That’s the fact.  And that is where we have to level with Pennsylvanians.

JIM GARDNER:

Mr. Toomey.

PAT TOOMEY:

Well– this is– it’s– it’s almost amusing that Joe is– is willing to mischaracterize– my small business.  My brothers and I and the hundreds of people that I helped employ know very well that I was very actively involved in this business.  That’s why I understand the way that policies that Joe’s advocating are killing jobs.  And the kind of policies that we need.

Joe wants much higher taxes on businesses, on individuals, on labor, on– on all kinds of things that he’s already voted for and advocated even further.  We just disagree.  I think we need to get spending under control, lower taxes, and create the kind of incentives so that we can get the job growth we badly need.

JIM GARDNER:

George, time’s yours.  First to Mr. Toomey.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:

Mr. Toomey, this question is for you.  Sarah Palin has really stepped her activity– this year.  Just yesterday, she put out a notice– an endorsement on state on– Facebook, asking Pennsylvania voters to get behind– you.  The Democratic Party sent out a statement saying that shows that you have more in common with Republican extremists than the voters of Pennsylvania.  It’s a two part question.  What do you make of her role in this campaign?  And do you think she’s qualified to be President?

PAT TOOMEY:

Well, George– you know, I’m very grateful for the support that I have from people all across the political spectrum.  Republicans, Independents, Democrats.  I welcome the– endorsements that I’ve had from high-profile– candidates and political figures and ordinary folks that I meet every day.  I– here’s what I think’s important.  I– you know, I think right now we’re at an inflection point for our country.

Joe Sestak and– and the other very liberal Democrats who have dominated the agenda in Washington have attempted to dramatically expand the size and the scope and the power and the cost of our government.  My concern– and, you know– a lot of that concern is driven by the three kids that Chris and I have our, ten-year-old daughter, my nine-year-old son, and our little five-month-old baby boy.

I’m concerned about their future.  And, you know, whoever’s endorsing me in this campaign, I’m grateful for.  And I welcome all allies in this effort to get a government that’s out of control under control so that we can have the prosperity that– that we need and we deserve.

JIM GARDNER:

Mr. Sestak?

JOE SESTAK:

Look, I know he won the very coveted award of an endorsement by Sarah Palin.  But I have respect and I understand the anger of the Tea Party.  And I appreciate their activism.  What I’m most concerned about are those extreme candidates that are actually taking of the extreme fringe of the Tea Party.  There are those that are running with Congressman Toomey.  Miss O’Donnell next door, for example.  That want to do away with the 14th Amendment.  That actually thinks there can be a state established religion.

One of the most out of sorts ideas…Congressman Toomey’s belief that corporations should have zero taxes.  Zero.  If Congressman Toomey is consistent on anything, is that if it’s…for the people, he’s against it.  If it’s a program for corporations, he’s for it.  It says above us in Constitution Hall, "We the People."  Not, "We the Corporations."  That’s the difference in this election.

JIM GARDNER:

Mr. Toomey?

PAT TOOMEY:

Well, the– you know, it’s very clear, the person who’s the extreme candidate that is so far out of touch with Pennsylvania is Joe Sestak.  I mean, look at this agenda.  Not only did he vote for every item on that agenda, all the bailouts, every single one.  While many members of the Pennsylvania delegation, including Democrats, voted against elements, not Joe Sestak.  He voted for all of the bailouts.  And then introduced his own bill to create a new bailout.

That stimulus bill that– Joe might be the only person in the United States who thinks that that should have been a trillion dollars, as he has said, because $800 billion of money we didn’t have wasn’t enough.  Joe voted for cap and trade, which would devastate our economy.  And said it didn’t go far enough.  He voted for the health care bill and in committee he voted for a version of the bill that would have allowed states to ban all private health insurance all together.  Joe, that’s a very extreme agenda.  And it’s out of step with Pennsylvania.

JOE SESTAK:

Congressman Toomey, you know that’s wrong.  And that’s not true.  My daughter with brain cancer, if that bill had passed that way, would have lost her health insurance.  You know I voted against that.  But what we did say is health insurance agents, health insurance companies that were actually defrauding the government of 20 percent.  Tw– actually charging us more.  We stopped that.

With the U.S. Military, we don’t breed liberals.  We don’t breed conservatives.  We’re on the ground in Afghanistan.  There’s no liberals there.  What is there is problem solvers….my first job on a warship during Vietnam War era, damage control officer.  And that’s what we had to do was control the damage done by the policies of you and George Bush, Congressman.

JIM GARDNER:

Wendy Davis, your first question to Mr. Sestak.

WENDY DAVIS:

Okay.  Turning to Social Security now.  For a lot of Pennsylvanians, the dream of a secure retirement is becoming increasingly threatened.  In fact, a lot of Pennsylvania seniors rely solely on Social Security as their income.  What is your stance on privatizing Social Security?

JOE SESTAK:

Oh, I’m so opposed to privatizing Social Security, like my opponent supports.  And has written in his book that we should do it.  We have to preserve for our seniors Social Security.  If it had been privatized in this last….this recession…depression, 20 million seniors would have moved into poverty.  Two thirds of our seniors rely on Social Security for their retirement or the majority of it.

My opponent wants to take it and invest it to where he made his fortune.  And I applaud your fortune on Wall Street.  But he then wants to invest it there.  What broker’s gonna come forward during a recession and say, "Hey, don’t worry.  I’ll back it up."  He wants to take the security out of Social Security.  Then he says, "You know, maybe I’ll only invest the youth there."  That’s what he says in his book.

But the youths pay into the senior’s Social Security.  Flip two more pages on his book, and it says, so dishearteningly, "Well, we’ll have to borrow from China up to $4.9 trillion then.  Just borrow it."  Look, he thinks all the answers are found on Wall Street.  I want to keep our Social Security security solvent and safe.

JIM GARDNER:

Mr. Toomey?

PAT TOOMEY:

Well, (LAUGH) let me very clear, because Joe has been doing a pretty good job of grossly misrepresenting what I’ve stood for and what I’ve said.  First of all, my dad is 80 years old.  My mom is of the same generation.  They rely on Social Security and they have since they retired.  I would never do anything that would jeopardize the benefits of people who are retired or close to retirement.

And when I was a Member of the House, I sponsored legislation that would make it out of order for Congress to even consider legislation that would cut the benefits of retirees.  Joe Sestak hasn’t sponsored any such legislation.  But I’ve also looked at the reality that we face as a nation.  The fiscal challenges that we face.  And the demographic reality that we face.

And I want to make this program last for future generations.  To do it, we’re gonna have to make some changes.  And we could offer young people some reforms within Social Security so that this program can be viable.  The real jeopardy to Social Security is the reckless spending of Joe Sestak.  One and a half trillion deficit that he’s voted for.  $3.3 trillion of new debt.  The interest service on this debt alone is going to jeopardize our ability to honor our commitment.  And that’s outrageous.

JIM GARDNER:

Mr. Sestak?

JOE SESTAK:

Congressman Toomey’s book says two things.  In an election truth is the first casualty.  And once again it was.  I’ve sponsored legislation to put Social Security in a lockbox.  Second, is– in his book, when you look it up, and you go to his book where he says, "Privatize Social Security."  What he says if…the market goes down and people are wiped out of their savings, that’s the risk they take.

Billions of dollars, however, of wealth accumulation will be given to those brokers that invest Social Security.  Congressman Toomey– what I don’t understand is why are we advocating taking what’s a social network for our seniors and risking it in the stock market, where we just had an example of where when the stock market goes down, seniors lose their Social Security.  Whether it’s today or whether it’s in the future.  And that’s the difference between us.  You’re with the corporations and Wall Street.  I’ll be with us, the people.

PAT TOOMEY:

Joes demagoguery knows no limits, apparently.  I’ve argued for instance that Vanguard, a Pennsylvania company, it’s not on Wall Street.  Vanguard is not a for-profit company.  There’d be no profits.  But they manage hundreds of billions of dollars.  And with a properly regulated and diversified portfolio, I think a lot of young people would choose the option that I would offer.

Joe has no solutions for this.  Joe has no solutions for the big problems that we face.  Instead it’s mischaracterized, dishonest attacks.  And if he gets close to a solution, it’s always the same.  Raise taxes.  And in the case of Social Security, cut benefits.  There are no other options.  The kind of spending that he’s engaged in, that he has advocated is the single biggest threat to all of our retirement programs, as well as to the health of the country.  But– but I think there’s a better way to go.

JIM GARDNER:

Vernon Odom, your question first to Mr. Toomey.

VERNON ODOM:

Mr. Toomey, abortion.  Is Roe v. Wade…or would you, if elected, work to further undermine it?  Or knock it out completely?  Two, in terms of– affirming judicial appointments all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, would you vote to affirm anybody who was not in your camp on that issue?

PAT TOOMEY:

Well, you’ve put a lot on the table all at once.  Let me start– with the first issue.  Abortion’s a tough issue.  And it’s one– there’s good people on both sides of this.  My views are consistent with that of a majority of the congressional delegation and the other Senator from Pennsylvania.  I’m pro-life.  And I would accept a ban on abortions, with the exceptions of rape and incest and the life of the mother.

I think Roe versus Wade was mistakenly– determined.  And I would support its repeal.  But I’ve never advocated that we have a litmus test for judges.  I think instead that what we ought to do is examine a judge’s qualifications.  When Justice– now Justice Sotomayor was first suggested, nominated by President Obama, many of my colleagues, many Republicans thought we should simply reject her candidacy.

I deemed her to be quite capable and competent and I advocated endorsing her.  Joe Sestak is the one who is extreme on this issue.  He is in that fringe of– of members, very liberal, who believe in taxpayer funded abortion on demand.  And no restrictions at all.  Well outside the mainstream of Pennsylvania.

JIM GARDNER:

Mr. Sestak?

JOE SESTAK:

Palin, Toomey, O’Donnell.  They all would like to overturn Roe versus Wade.  I believe that those life decisions of a family should be made within the family.  I don’t think government should intervene.  And I respect precedence on the Supreme Court.  I think there’s even more of an extreme taken by Congressman Toomey on such social issues and others.  Congressman Toomey actually opposes protecting a victim of hate crimes.

Congressman Toomey’s idea of gun control, he said, is a steady aim.  Twenty percent increase in murders of our law enforcement officers were…because they happened to have a military assault weapon.  I don’t think our law enforcement officers should have to go up against what we in the military had to, as the Army and Marine Corps did in Iraq.  I think those views with O’Donnell and others are too extreme for…Pennsylvania.

JIM GARDNER:

Mr. Toomey, if you want to rebut, now is your chance.

PAT TOOMEY:

Well, again, the extreme view is the view held by the tiny minority in Congress, in Pennsylvania, and American society that believes there should be no restrictions whatsoever.  Taxpayers should fund abortions as Joe Sestak advocates.  Partial birth abortions should be permitted, as he advocates.  He’s taken the most liberal positions on many things.  He doesn’t respect the rights of– law abiding citizens to own firearms in– in many ways.  It’s Joe Sestak who has views that are simply well outside the mainstream.

JIM GARDNER:

Mr. Sestak.

JOE SESTAK:

I voted against taxpayers funding it.  And you know it Congressman.

PAT TOOMEY:

You did not, Joe.

JOE SESTAK:

Yes, I did.

JOE SESTAK:

When you’re being dishonest, Joe, I’m gonna call you on it.

JIM GARDNER:

Congressman?

JOE SESTAK:

May I have my….

JIM GARDNER:

Go ahead.

JOE SESTAK:

Congressman Toomey, I voted against it.  Number two, I so respect the Second Amendment.  I’ve lived my entire life, 31 years in the U.S. Military with weapons.  I respect those…hunters in Pennsylvania.  The first day of hunting go out and do what families do in Pennsylvania.  But I do believe that there’s community safety that has to be taken.  You voted against an increase for law enforcement officers.  But I voted against that amendment.

PAT TOOMEY:

Well, the record is very clear.  And everybody can look this up.  And you’ll see that Joe is– either seriously misremembering or simply being dishonest.  I’m pleased that I have the endorsement of the State Troopers Association of Pennsylvania.  The F.O.P.  The Philadelphia F.O.P.  That makes it very clear about my support for law enforcement.

JIM GARDNER:

Mr. Sestak, I have to give you another 10-12 seconds of rebuttal.

JOE SESTAK:

Yes.  Let me just talk about spending.  When Congressman Toomey went to Congress, he actually voted to….the requirement that government had to live within its means.  You want any program, cut it.  Cut another one.  Because of that, he left behind, when he left Congress, the largest deficit in the history of America.  Now, he wants to finger point, because we had to vote to get that requirement back into law.  Which we did.

JIM GARDNER:

All right.  Thank you, sir.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:

Mr. Sestak, this question is for you.  I want to pick up on your conversation about the Second Amendment and gun control.  Under current U.S. law, people on the terrorist watch list are barred from getting on airplanes, but they can buy guns or explosives.  And the Government Accounting Office has found that in the last–

JOE SESTAK:

In what?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:

The Government Accounting Office has found that in the last six years, 1,000 people on the terrorist watch list have actually been able to buy guns and explosives.  Given the fact that we now know Al Qaeda seems to be changing tactics and is moving more towards small-scale urban attacks, using guns and explosives.  Should the law be changed so the people on the terrorist watch list cannot buy guns or explosives?

JOE SESTAK:

Yes.  Look, I headed the Navy’s antiterrorism unit.  I was on the ground in Afghanistan for a short mission, when I was head of it.  We were hunting terrorists.  But we knew since 9/11, we no longer just have away games, wars overseas.  We also know after 9/11 that our first responders have to take care of efforts here at home also.  I do believe about reasonable laws that ensure criminals, including the worst of criminals, terrorists, cannot gain access to weapons.  Government should be reasonable.  It shouldn’t intervene in private life decisions of families…making.  But when you know someone’s on a watch list to be a terrorist, yes, we should ensure that they do not get access to a weapon.

PAT TOOMEY:

Well, I think we should make sure we have a very sophisticated and adequate background check mechanism to make sure that terrorists, certainly, and other dangerous people.  And certainly criminals.  Don’t have access to guns.  I would not support restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens however.  And– and– and I think that’s a very important distinction.  We talked about terrorists.  And this– this raises another very big distinction between Joe and I.

And– and an example of just how extreme Joe Sestak is.  My view, when we capture an enemy combatant, a foreign terrorist on foreign soil, trying to kill Americans.  We should give that person a military trial in a military tribunal on a military base.  Joe Sestak is about, all alone, among any elected official that I know of in Pennsylvania who believes that even Khalid Sheik Muhammad, the admitted mastermind of 9/11, should be given a civilian trial, in– including here in Pennsylvania.  Joe’s been adamant about that.  I think that is extremely irresponsible.  It’s dangerous.  And it’s a compromise to our security.

JOE SESTAK:

George, I am unique among those who have been elected to the Congress.  I walked out of the Pentagon on 9/11 and 25 minutes later, a plane slammed into that building.  Men and women who had worked for me never came out.  I was on the ground in Afghanistan …short mission.  And the fact that those– the fact that those criminals are still sitting down there, after the Supreme Court said we could not bring them to justice.

 

I want them brought to justice in Washington, D.C., where they killed my friends.  George Bush brought in 200 terrorists to be tried here in America.  I defended those laws.  They’re strong enough to do it.  I want them put to death for what they did.

PAT TOOMEY:

Except that what Joe Sestak is advocating is a huge risk for the United States.  A security risk wherever the trial were to be conducted.  This would be a circus.  It would be very dangerous.  Who knows what terrorists would try to do to disrupt the proceedings.  How much it would cost, certainly in money, but perhaps even in lives.

But even bigger than that, in a civilian trial, the prosecution is required to disclose to the defense, its methods, its information, where it got it, and what it knows.  I don’t think we’re under any obligation to help our enemies kill Americans.  And disclosing that kind of information to the very mastermind of 9/11 would be incredibly imprudent, if you ask me.

JIM GARDNER:

Back to the economy for a moment, gentleman.

JOE SESTAK:

I have 30 seconds, Mr. Gardner.  Let me–

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:

Sir, but that was the rules, please.  You read the rules.  Thank you.

JIM GARDNER:

No, no, you’ve had your rebuttal.

JOE SESTAK:

No, I was the first one.

JIM GARDNER:

You had your rebuttal.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:

You had your question and you got your rebuttal.  You each had 60 seconds.  You each had a 30 second rebuttal.

JOE SESTAK:

30 seconds each?  Sorry, my apology.

JIM GARDNER:

Nope, hold on.  I’m getting another message.  Say it again.

JOE SESTAK:

I did not have the 30 seconds.

JIM GARDNER:

I apologize.  You do have a rebuttal.

JOE SESTAK:

All right, thank you.  (LAUGH) Sorry for being persistent.  That’s not true.  Courts do not– civilian courts have to reveal that.  In fact, George Bush tried 200 terrorists, 200 of them here and he never spoke up.  Look, we have to get these terrorists tried.  The Supreme Court is just letting them sit down there in Gitmo.  If George Bush could have 200, why didn’t they speak up then?  Why now during an election?  And yes, I don’t care what other politicians say.  I’m a public servant who knows to do what I believe is right to get them to be tried here.  And get the keys thrown away or put to death.

JIM GARDNER:

I know producers are almost never wrong, but they were this time.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:

You get another 30 seconds.

JIM GARDNER:

Mr. Toomey, you do get another 30 seconds.

PAT TOOMEY:

Well, I– I just think it’s– it’s abundantly clear this is a huge security risk.  This has been– you know, exhaustively explained.  Again, I think it’s part of the reason that the law enforcement community of Pennsylvania’s endorsing my candidacy after hearing both Joe Sestak and myself present our arguments to them.  And I’m grateful for their support.

JIM GARDNER:

All right.  Let’s get back to the economy for a second.  Would the American economy be in better shape today had there been no bailout of Wall Street and the automobile industry?  Clearly the deficit wouldn’t be as high as it is today?  But are there, in fact, companies and industries that are simply too big to allow– to be allowed to fail?  And I ask that question first to Mr. Toomey.

PAT TOOMEY:

Well– as you know if you’ve watched any TV and see any of Joe’s ads, I worked on Wall Street.  (LAUGH) I left Wall Street 20 years ago.  And one of the things that I learned then was that’s the last place that taxpayers should have to bailout.  When I got to Congress, one of the things I did very early on, was I started to raise a red flag about my concerns with the imprudent management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I raised the question about the implicit government guarantee.  The question of whether that would allow them to grow too big.  And whether taxpayers would eventually have to bail them out.  I went further.  I sponsored legislation that would have meant real regulatory reform.  Capital requirements, portfolio limits.  Tough regulations so that Fannie and Freddie might never have spun out of control.

In fact, if that legislation had been passed, I think it’s very unlikely that they ever would have reached the size or scale that ended up being so disastrous.  In 2007, when Joe Sestak got to Congress, unfortunately, joined forces with the most liberal wing of his conference.  Stood there with Barney Frank.  Voted against commonsense measures that might have restricted the size and scope of Fannie and Freddie.  They famously decided to roll the dice.  And now taxpayers have had to put $148 billion into Fannie and Freddie and there’s no end in sight.

JOE SESTAK:

I arrived in Congress the year the recession began.  The economists said we were headed for a depression.  We had doubled our national debt under the Toomey/Bush era.  From four and a half trillion dollars to $11 trillion.  In the last six months of George Bush’s tenure, we had lost three million jobs.  We were sinking.  Much like we had to do in the Navy, I had to control the damage of the Bush/Toomey era.

Those were tough votes.  We had been torpedoed.  The ship was sinking.  We had to caulk the hull.  700,000 were losing their jobs every month.  In the last nine months, we created almost one million jobs.  Was it perfect?  No.  But sometimes you have to take care of other people’s messes and just clean them up.  What we can’t do is have Congressman Toomey, who left Congress and became a lobbyist for a Wall Street-founded special interest group.

And went on television and said, "Deficits aren’t important." …Social Security put it into Wall Street where he came from.  Where he still fights for them.  And borrow the money to keep Social Security solvent from the Chinese.  That’s the difference.

PAT TOOMEY:

J– Joe has voted for every single bailout that has come down the pike.  And there are no exceptions.  And even after he voted for Fannie and Freddie’s bailout and the big Wall Street bailouts and the car company bailouts.  After a majority of Members of the House, including 99 Democrats voted to finally bring an end to that TARP program.  Not Joe.  Joe voted to continue the bailouts.

And Joe says, "Oh, he had to do it."  Well, he had to introduce his own bailout bill?  Joe’s the only sponsor of that bill.  But it’s a bill that would require taxpayers to bailout underwater mortgages.  There is no end to bailouts with Joe.  I think this happens sometimes with people who have no experience in business.  And don’t realize that this is a total misallocation of resources.  This is unfair to taxpayers.  And this is not good for our economy.

JOE SESTAK:

Congressman Toomey said if we hadn’t done what we had to do, there would have been a slightly harder down.  Yes, John McCain’s economic told us what it was, Mark Zandi (PH).  Another eight million people unemployed.  Right out that torpedo hole.  Yes, you’re right, there were Democrats that didn’t have the courage of their conviction to do what was necessary.  That’s why I’ll always stand up, as you point out, for doing what’s right.

Not for the consequences of my job, but to save jobs of Americans.  Congressman Toomey, explain to us why you believe corporations should have zero taxes.  No taxes for A.I.G.  And you said they should keep their bonuses after they ripped us off.  And yet, you voted against bonuses for our veterans fighting in Iraq.  Tell me why that $300 billion you wanted to give the corporations for zero taxes–

Transcript has been edited for clarity.

Click Here for part II of the transcript.                               

You are using an outdated version of Internet Explorer. Please click here to upgrade your browser in order to comment.
blog comments powered by Disqus