STARTS RIGHT NOW.
>> THIS IS SPECIAL PRIMARY
EDITION OF "OFF THE RECORD" WITH
THE THREE REPUBLICANS RUNNING
FOR THE U.S. SENATE NOMINATION.
PETE HOEKSTRA IS HERE.
ALONG WITH RANDALL HEKMAN AND
CLASHING DURANT.
NO RULES EXCHANGE COMING UPRIGHT
NOW ON, "OFF THE RECORD."
¶
WELCOME DO THIS SPECIAL EDITION.
NO RULES DEBATE.
LET'S BEGIN WITH YOU MR. DURANT.
LET'S SAY YOU ARE U.S. SENATE
AND THERE ARE DOLLARS ALLOCATE
AGO BRIDGE?
>>LY VOTE NO BECAUSE THE
TAXPAYERS ARE OVERBURDENED BY
WASHINGTON'S POLICIES OF
SPENDING AND DEBT.
IN POINT OF FACT IF A BRIDGE IS
WORTH IT, IT SHOULD BE BECAUSE
ALL THE TRAFFIC AND TRADE THAT
SHOULD COME TO MICHIGAN, PRIVATE
INVESTORS SHOULD FUND THAT
BRIDGE.
JUST LIKE THEY DID WITH THE
KEYSTONE PIPELINE PINE THEY PUT
UP $7 BILLION OF PRIVATE MONEY.
THERE IS PRIVATE MONEY FOR THE
BRIDGE AND IT WILL MAKE MONEY
BECAUSE OF THE INCREASED
TRAFFIC.
>> Tim: SO WHEN THE GOVERNOR
SAYS IT WILL CREATE JOBS YOU
SIMPLY DON'T BELIEVE IT?
>> I BELIEVE JOBS WILL BE
CREATED BECAUSE OF THE INCREASED
TRADE THAT IS POSSIBLE.
>> Tim: THAT IS NOT WHAT I ASKED
YOU.
>> I BELIEVE THAT JOBS WILL BE
CREATED WE GET INCREASED TRADE
AND PRIVATE BUSINESS SHOULD BE
INVESTING IN THAT.
>> I WOULD VOTE THE SAME WAY.
I WOULD VOTE NO.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS BEYOND
BROKE.
THERE IS A BIG ISSUE BEFORE OUR
COUNTRY TODAY.
THE HOUSE THAT IS ON FIREFIGHTER
IS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING
FAR MORE THAN THEY TAKE IN.
>> Tim: SO THE GOVERNOR IS WRONG
TO PROPOSE THIS?
>> SHE WRONG TO SAY THAT FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT SHUCK PAYING FOR IT.
PRIVATE MONEY IS AVAILABLE.
>> MR. HOEKSTRA?
>> I WOULDN'T VOTE.
THE VOTE WOULD HAVE EVER BEEN
PROPOSED WE WOULD HAVE CHANGED
FEDERAL POLICY AND SAID THAT GAS
TAX DOLLARS THAT ARE COLLECTED
IN MICHIGAN ARE SPENT IN
MICHIGAN AND THEY DON'T GO TO
WASHINGTON.
THERE IS NO REASON WHY SENATORS
IN ARIZONA, SENATORS IN KENTUCKY
OR FLORIDA SHOULD BE DECIDING ON
SPENDING FOR A BRIDGE IN
MICHIGAN.
>> Tim: THIS IS ONE OF
FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES.
>> THIS IS FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES,
CHANGING THE WAY WASHINGTON
WORKS AND MOVING THEM BACK TO
THE STATED.
>> BUT YOU VOTED FOR ALL SORTS
OF EARMARKS THAT DID PRECISELY
SAID SHOULDN'T HAPPEN.
YOU VOTED FOR THOUSANDS OF THOSE
EARMARKS TO TAKE TAXPAYER
DOLLARS AND SEND THEM TO
CLEVELAND, SEND THEM TO IOWA,
THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS
THAT WHEN YOU SAY CHANGE
WASHINGTON, YOU DIDN'T CHANGE
WASHINGTON.
>> CLARK, THIS IS ONE OF THE
MYTHS YOU KEEP BRINGING IT UP.
IF YOU TAKE A LOOK.
I VOTED IN 1990s WHEN I WAS ON
THE BUDGET COMMITTEE WITH JOHN
KASICH.
FIRST TIME WE HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY AND I'M ON THE
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE AND
BUDGET COMMITTEE.
WE TALKED ABOUT CHANGING POLICY
AND MOVING MONEY BACK TO THE
STATES.
I STOOD WITH JOHN AND SAID THAT
MONEY NEEDS TO STAY IN THE
STATES, IT DOESN'T, IT SHOULDN'T
COME TO WASHINGTON.
>>> LET'S ASSUME FOR A
THEORETICAL DISCUSSION, IF HAD
TO VOTE FOR MONEY ON THE BRIDGE,
HOW YOU WOULD VOTE, JUST SAY YES
OR NO?
>> WHAT'S THAT.
NO I WOULD NOT, THESE GUYS ARE
CORRECT IN WHAT THIS DOES IT
DRIVES MONEY, THE MONEY COMES
BACK TO THE STATES, THE MONEY IS
BEING SPENT IN WASHINGTON.
THEY DON'T HAVE WASHINGTON
ALLOCATING THE MONEY.
LET THE GOVERNOR IN THIS
LEGISLATURE DECIDE WHAT THE
PRIORITIES ARE FOR THE STATES.
>> IF YOU HAD BEEN IN THE SENATE
WHEN TEDDY KENNEDY WERE ALIVE
AND HE SAID MR. HEKMAN, I WANT
TO WORK WITH YOU ON HEALTH CARE,
WOULD YOU SIT DOWN AND WORK WITH
HIM?
>> I WOULD WORK WITH ANYBODY.
YOU DON'T COMPROMISE PRINCIPLES.
I DON'T BELIEVE HEALTHCARE IS
COMING FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
THE OBAMACARE, THE FIASCO THAT
WE HAVE PUTS A GOVERNMENT
BUREAUCRAT BETWEEN ME.
>> SO YOU WOULD SAT DOWN WITH
LIBERAL TEDDY KENNEDY ON THOSE
ISSUES?
>> I LOVE DEMOCRATS,
INDEPENDENTS, REPUBLICANS.
I HAVE AN INDEPENDENT EN COURSE
GO ME.
>> Tim: WHAT YOU HAVE DONE?
>> THAT I ALREADY DONE THAT.
AFTER PRESIDENT BUSH GOT ELECTED
I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO DOWN
TO AUSTIN AND SIT WITH
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS AND A
PRESIDENT BUSH AND TALK ABOUT
REFORMING EDUCATION, NO KLEILTD
LEFT BEHIND.
WE STARTED TOGETHER SAYING WE
NEED TO REFORM THE FEDERAL ROLE
IN EDUCATION.
WHEN NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
REACHED AND BECAME LEGISLATIVE
LANGUAGE, YOU SAY, TED, IT WAS
NICE WORKING WITH YOU BUT YOU'VE
GONE IN SUCH A DIRECTION I'M
VOTING NO.
>> Tim: YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM
WORKING WITH DEMOCRATS ON THE
OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE?
>> YOU HAVE TO TREAT EVERYBODY
WITH RESPECT.
THEY HAVE BEEN ELECTED BY THEIR
CON CITY WENLTS TO COME TO
WASHINGTON AND WORK TOWARDS
SOLUTIONS.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE A DIALOGUE WITH
THEM BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU
HAVE TO COMPROMISE YOUR
PRINCIPLES TO GET SOMETHING
DONE.
>> WOULD YOU HAVE WORKED WITH
TEDDY KENNEDY?
>> I SPENT 25 YEARS OF MY LIFE
WORKING WITH PEOPLE TO SOLVE
APPROXIMATE AND HAVE BEEN
SUCCESSFUL IN DOING SO.
THE THING THAT IS CRITICAL WHEN
YOU ARE WORKING WITH PEOPLE WHO
ARE NOT IN THE SAME PLACE THAT
YOU ARE, IS TO FIGURE OUT IF
IT'S A SOLUTION THAT WORKS OR
COSTS MORE MONEY.
IF I HAD BEEN PETE HOEKSTRA, I
WOULD HAVE BEEN WORKING TO ABOOL
THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
INSTEAD OF FIGHTING NO CHILD
LEFT BEHIND.
I WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY ACTIVELY
WORKING TO SEE THAT THE
DEPARTMENT OF FEDERAL ROLE IN
EDUCATION IS ZERO.
WE HAVE 50 DEPARTMENTS OF
EDUCATION.
WE HAVE OUR COMMUNITIES AND
LOCAL SCHOOLS, GET THE
GOVERNMENT OUT OF EDUCATION IN
OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
>> Tim: QUICK ANSWERS TO SHORTER
QUESTIONS.
HOW DID YOU VOTE ON LEGALIZING
MEDICAL MARIJUANA?
>> THAT IS A PERSONAL VOLT.
I WON'T TELL YOU HOW I'M VOTING
IN THE BALLOT BOX.
>> DO YOU THINK PEOPLE OUGHT TO
HAVE ACCESS TO THAT?
>> THAT IS A DECISION THAT IS
MADE THROUGH THE FDA.
RIGHT NOW WE'RE IN CONFLICT
BETWEEN THE FDA AND STATED RULES
AND REGULATIONS.
WHAT WE HAVE, WE HAVE A MESS IN
THIS STATE IN TERMS OF HOW YOU
ARE ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTING THIS
NEW PROCESS IN THE STATE.
IT'S A MESS.
>> Tim: WOULD YOU SUPPORT A
TWO-THIRDS VOTED TO RAISE TAXES
ON SO-CALLED SUPER MAJORITY?
>> I SUPPORT SUPER MAJORITY, I
WOULD SUPPORT A SUPER MAJORITY
AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL TO RAISE
TAXES AND TO RAISE SPENDING.
>> Tim: WOULD YOU VOTE TO BAN
ASSAULT WEAPONS?
>> I VOTED KNOW ON BANNING
ASSAULT WEAPONS.
>> HOW WOULD YOU DO ON THAT?
>> I WOULD NOT BAN ASSAULT
WEAPONS.
THE PROBLEM IS NOT GUNS, IT'S
PEOPLE.
IT'S APPLYING THE LAW TO PEOPLE
WHO VIOLATED LAWSUIT.
>> TWO-THIRDS VOTE ON TAXES?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
POINT OF FACT, PETE HOEKSTRA
SAID HE WANTED THE NEW PATRIOT
TAX.
PEOPLE ARE OVERTAXED THE
GOVERNMENT HAS OVERTAXED US.
WE NEED TO BE REDUCING TAXES NOT
JUST HOLDING THEM THE SAME.
>> Tim: HOW YOU WOULD VOTE FOR
MEDICAL MARIJUANA?
>> I THINK.
>> Tim: YOU DIDN'T VOTE?
>> I THINK IN POINT OF FACT,
MEDICAL MARIJUANA IS LIMITED
ONLY TO PRESCRIBED MEDICAL
PURPOSES PROPERLY SUPERVISED I
THINK THAT IS APPROPRIATE.
>> I WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR IT?
>> I DON'T REVEAL MY VOTES IN
THAT WAY.
I WOULD HAVE VOTED TO SEE THAT
PRESCRIBED LIMITED, SUPERVISED
ICE FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES ONLY
WOULD BE PERMISSION I BELIEVE.
>> WOULD THE BALLOT PROPOSAL
MEET THE CRITERIA?
>> I DON'T THINK SO.
I DON'T THINK IT MET THOSE
PURPOSES, I VOTED AGAINST IT.
>> I VOTED NO.
I AM A FORMER PROSECUTOR AND
JUDGE.
YOU ALLOW IT ONE DOOR AND PEOPLE
TAKE UNFAIR ADVANTAGE.
>> TWO ADVISOR THIRDZ VOTE ON
RAISING TAXES?
>> I WOULD SUPPORTED THAT.
>> VOTE ON BANNING PURCHASE OF
ASSAULT WEAPONS?
>> I WOULD VOTE NO.
>> MR. DURANT HAS DONE SOMETHING
CIVILLY WRONG, THE ALLEGATIONS
IN THE U.S. SENATE?
>> WE FILED A CLAIM IN THE SUPER
PAC, THEY ARE ADVOCATING THE
ELECTION OF MR. DURANT.
ON JULY 15 FILED A STATEMENT
WE'VE RAISED NO MONEY UP UNTIL
JUNE 3rd.
>> Tim: DO YOU HOLD HIM
PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT?
>> NO.
I HOPE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENTAL
WILL FINISH THEIR INVESTIGATIONS
BUT AS CANDIDATES FOR OFFICE, I
HOPE WE'VE ALL MET THE STANDARD
THAT SAYS YOU CANNOT HAVE ANY
AFFILIATION DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY WITH A SUPER PAC.
I'M ASSUMING THAT MR. DURANT HAS
MET THE CRITERIA.
>> Tim: HE IS NOT UNFITTED TO
SERVE IN THE U.S. SENATE?
>> NO.
I THINK PETE HOEKSTRA HAS JOINED
WITH THE DEMOCRATS TO ATTACK ME
REGARDING CORNERSTONE SCHOOLS.
WHAT A DIRTY IS JET ABOUT THIS
THE DEMOCRATS HAVE VICIOUSLY
STARTED TO ATTACK A TREMENDOUS
SUCCESS STORY IN DETROIT FOR
THIS REASON.
THEY KNOW THEIR INTERNAL POLLS
THAT SAYS CLARK DURANT WOULD BE
MORE FORMIDABLE CANDIDATE
AGAINST DEBBY STABENOW.
THE ATTACKS ARE DESIGNED TO
DEFEAT ME IN THE PRIMARY.
>>> THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ATTACKS
ARE THEY ANY OF THEM TRUE?
>> NO, EVERYTHING WE DID WERE
ALL CONSISTENT WITH REGULATIONS.
>> Tim: HAS MR. DURANT DONE
ANYTHING WRONG?
>> THE SUPER PAC THING.
THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE
INDEPENDENT.
WHEN THE BROTHER OF THE CAMPAIGN
CHAIRMAN IS HEAD OF A SUPER PAC,
ONE HAS TO ASK THE QUESTION, IS
IT REALLY INDEPENDENT?
HE IS SAYING HE IS INDEPENDENT.
COME ON.
IT'S YOUR BROTHER.
>> NOT MY BROTHER.
>> IT'S THE CHAIRMAN'S BROTHER
THAT RUNS IT AND THE AD ITSELF
HAS A LOT OF SIMILARITIES TO IT.
IT STRIKES ME THERE IS SOME
OVERLAP.
COMMON SENSE TELLS US THERE HAS
TO BE SOME OVERLAP.
>> I AM NOT SAYING HE IS GUILTY.
>> YOU DIDN'T BELIEVE.
>> I'M JUST SAYING, COME ON.
>> WHY DID YOU LOOK AT HIM LIKE
THAT?
>> I'M SHOCKED, RANDY.
STOP PLAYING POLITICS.
MOST IMPORTANT THING FACING OUR
COUNTRY IS LACK OF JOBS AND
ECONOMY.
WE HAVE CAREER POLITICIANS
PLAYING IN THE WEEDS WITH THESE
OTHER THINGS.
OF COURSE IT'S INDEPENDENT.
IT'S A FREE COUNTRY, BY THE WAY.
WE OUGHT TO BE TALKING ABOUT HOW
CAREER POLITICIANS, WITH ALL DUE
RESPECT TO MY REPUBLICAN
OPPONENT PETE HOEKSTRA WHO HAS
BEEN IN CONGRESS FOR 18 YEARS
AND GONE ALONG WITH DEBBY
STABENOW IN LIMITING MICHIGAN
PRODUCTS WHERE WE GROW THINGS
AND MAKE THINGS TO BE SHIPPED
OVER THE MARKET.
>> Tim: YOU ACCUSE HOEKSTRA TO
LEAK SECURITY INFORMATION?
>> ABSOLUTELY NOT.
>> IT'S A LUDICROUS CHARGE.
IT'S THE SAME KIND OF CHARGE
THAT CLARK MADE JUST NOW SAKE
HOEKSTRA IS LIKE STABENOW.
90% AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION,
HUNDRED PERCENT PRO-LIFE, DEBBY
IS ZERO.
STRAIGHT A'S FROM THE NRA.
DEBBY IS STRAIGHT "F".
DEBBY IS SPEND THRIFT.
IT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THAT
PEOPLE IN MICHIGAN ARE SO
FRUSTRATED RIGHT NOW BECAUSE
CLARK, THE NEGATIVE ADS DON'T
WORK.
THEY ARE NOT TRUE.
THE END RESOLVE THE POLLING
NUMBERS CONTINUE TO BE VERY,
VERY STRONG.
THIS IS VERY MUCH, VERY SIMILAR
TO WHAT YOU DID WHEN YOU RAN FOR
OFFICE IN 1990.
YOU WERE WAY DOWN.
[ LAUGHTER ]
>> YOU WERE RUNNING FOR OFFICE
LONG BEFORE I THOUGHT ABOUT IT.
I WAS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.
THE NUMBERS ARE BAD.
YOU START RUNNING A DESPERATE
CAMPAIGN.
YOU STARTED RUNNING NEGATIVE
ADS.
YOU CALL FOR LINCOLN DOUGLAS
DEBATES.
THE SAME PERSON IS RUNNING THE
CAMPAIGN AND DOING THE SAME
THING NOW 11 YEARS LATER.
>> LET'S LOOK AT THIS CONCRETE.
MY AD SAYS THE FOLLOWING THINGS,
THAT WASHINGTON CHANGED PETE
HOEKSTRA.
YOU CAME IN 1992 AND YOU GAVE A
OP-ED FOR THE WASHINGTON TIMES.
YOU TOLD EVERYBODY THAT THE DEBT
AND SPENDING THAT WAS BEFORE US
WOULD BURY OUR CHILDREN AND OUR
GRANDCHILDREN.
WHAT DID YOU DO?
WHAT YOU DID YOU VOTED TIME AND
TIME AGAIN AND THEN YOUR LAST
VOTE TOOK THE DEBT TO OVER $11
TRILLION.
EVEN DEBBY STABENOW DIDN'T VOTE
FOR THE WALL STREET BAILOUT AND
YOU DID.
STABENOW DIDN'T VOTE FOR THE
CONTROLLER GENERAL CALLED THE
MOST IRRESPONSIBLE PIECE OF
LEGISLATION, MEDICARE PART "D".
>> IT'S CLEAR, MY RECORD IS A
FISCAL CONSERVATIVE.
I VOTED FOR TARP BECAUSE JUST
LIKE PAUL RYAN RECOGNIZED THIS
WAS NOT ABOUT BAILING OUT WALL
STREET.
IT WAS BAILING OUT AND HELPING
PEOPLE AT THE GRASSROOTS LEVEL.
THIS WAS GOING TO SHUT DOWN
SMALL, MEDIUM SIZED BUSINESSES
ACROSS THE STAIT.
IN OAKLAND COUNTY, THE TRUTH OF
THE MATTER --
>> THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS
ALL THAT MONEY.
[ TALKING OVER EACH OTHER ]
>> IT'S STILL WORKING.
>> YOU KNOW WHAT.
THIS IS LIKE, FRANKLY, TWO
PEOPLE WRESTLING IN A LITTLE ROW
BOAT HEADING OVER THE NIAGRA
FALLS.
WE ARE AMERICANS WHETHER WE'RE
DETAILS, INDEPENDENTS OR HERE WE
ARE REPUBLICANS.
I WILL TELL YOU THAT THE THREE
OF US, IF WE GET TO WASHINGTON,
D.C., WE WILL VOTE, ANY ONE OF
US WILL VOTE WITHIN SINGLE
PERCENTAGE VOTES THE SAME.
WE ARE ARGUING, WE NEED -- TO ME
THE BIG ISSUE IS NOT WHO GETS
ELECTED.
THE BIG ISSUE WE NEED TO FIX OUR
COUNTRY.
OUR COUNTRY IS GOING OVER THE
CLIFF.
>> YOU SAID THE OTHER DAY, SIR,
THAT HAD YOU A STRONG SENSE,
THAT GOD WANTS US IN THIS THING.
HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?
>> REFERRING TO MY WIFE AND ME.
RIGHT.
AGAIN IT GOES BACK TO DECEMBER
2010, A STRONG SENSE THAT WE
NEED TO DO THIS AND CONFIRM BY
TALKING TO OUR KIDS.
WE HAVE 12 KIDS.
>> YOU SAID GOD WANTS US IN THIS
THING.
HOW DO YOU KNOW GOD WANTS YOU IN
THIS?
>> YOU DON'T KNOW 2010 HINDSIGHT
OR VISION, YOU KNOW THE SENSES
IN YOUR HEART.
I HAVE A HEART FOR OUR COUNTRY.
1.3 MILLION PEOPLE HAVE GIVEN
OUR LIVES SO WE CAN ENJOY THIS
CONVERSATION TODAY.
I CAN'T IN GOOD CONSCIENCE.
LET AMERICA DIE.
WE LIVE HANDFUL OF YEARS
REACHING A DROP DEAD DATE WHERE
ALL THE MONEY ONLY PAYS INTEREST
ON OUR DEBT.
I THINK EVERY AMERICAN NEEDS TO
BE INVOLVED IN THIS CRISIS.
NEEDS TO ASK GOD, BRING A
REVIVAL TO AMERICA.
THAT IS ONLY THING THAT IS GOING
TO FUEL CHANGED HEARTS.
BUT WHAT DOES GOD WANT ME TO DO.
IT'S SO CLEAR TO ME AND MY WIFE
AS WE TRAVEL THE STATE.
WE'VE BEEN IN THE STATE LONGER
THAN THESE TWO GUYS.
WE LOVE THIS.
WE WANTED TO SAVE OUR COUNTRY.
>> WOULD YOU VOTE TO ELIMINATE
THE HOME INTEREST TAX?
>> HE HAS ASKED THIS IN A WAY TO
CALL INTO QUESTION HIS OWN
COMMITMENT AND WAITED GOD WOULD
SPEAK TO HIM.
BOTH PETE AND I HAVE BEEN ON THE
TRAIL WITH RANDY.
I CAN SPEAK FOR BOTH US, NO ONE
WOULD GO THROUGH THE KINDS OF
THINGS THAT ALL OF US ARE GOING
THROUGH UNLESS WE FELT A DEEPER
CALLING.
I BELIEVE THAT IS TRUE WITH
PETE.
I BELIEVE THAT GOD HAS CALLED
EVERY PERSON TO FIND A PLACE IN
THEIR LIVES WHERE THEY CAN MAKE
A DIFFERENCE FOR OTHERS.
PEOPLE WHO GET INTO POLITICS.
PEOPLE WHO GET INTO THE MEDIA.
EVERYBODY HAS DIFFERENT GIFTS.
IF RANDY FEELS IN THAT WAY AND
DIFFERENT WAYS WE ALL HAVE BEEN
EQUIPPED TO BE IN THIS ARENA
BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY IS AT RISK.
>> I THINK FAITH AND RELIGION,
IT'S VERY DEEP AND INTERNAL
BELIEF.
BUT DIANE AND I WOULD NOT BE
INVOLVED IN THIS IF WE DIDN'T
BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THE CALLING
THAT GOD HAS PLACED.
DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE'RE GOING TO
WIN, ALL RIGHT?
WHEN WE LOST THE GOVERNOR'S RACE
THERE WAS NARROW -- YOU KNOW, WE
JUST KIND OF LEFT THAT NIGHT AND
SAID, WOW, THIS IS EXCITING.
GOD HAS SOMETHING BETTER IN MIND
FOR US THAN BEING GOVERNOR OF
MICHIGAN.
SO IT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE.
FOR THOSE OF US THAT ARE PEOPLE
OF FAITH, MANY OF THE VIEWERS
HERE, WE SEARCH HARD TO TRY TO
FIND OUT WHAT THE WILL OF GOD IS
IN OUR LIVES AND TO FOLLOW HIS
TEACHINGS.
ABSOLUTELY.
>> MR. HEKMAN WOULD YOU
ELIMINATE THE INTEREST TAX
EXEMPTION?
>> GIVE ME MORE ON THAT.
THE MORTGAGE DEDUCTION.
NOT DIRECTLY.
>> Tim: NOT DIRECTLY.
>> YOU SAID YOU WERE IN FAVOR OF
CLOSING TAX LOOPHOLES.
THIS IS TAX LOOPHOLE.
>> IT'S ENJOYED BY MANY PEOPLE.
I AM IN FAVOR OF THE FAIR TAX.
>> Tim: SO YOU NO VOTE?
>> NO.
>> I BELIEVE THAT THE ONLY
EXEMPTIONS, I BELIEVE WE NEED A
FLAT TAX.
THE ONLY EXCEPTIONS AND
DEDUCTIONS WOULD BE FOR YOUR
HOME MORTGAGE FOR CHARITY AND
FOR HEALTHCARE.
PEOPLE OUGHT TO GET THE SAME
TREATMENT AS COMPANIES GET IN
ABLE TO FIND HEALTH CARE.
>> AND ELIMINATE THE MORTGAGE?
>> TIM, WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS
RESTRUCTURE THE TAX CODE.
>> Tim: BEFORE YOU GET THERE
WOULD YOU VOTE TO ELIMINATE
THAT?
>> WE NEED FUNDAMENTAL TAX
REFORM IF WE EXPECT TO GET THIS
ECONOMY MOVING.
THE ISSUE IS HOW ARE WE GOING TO
GET PEOPLE BACK TO WORK.
WITH A KIND OF CHANGES ARE WE
GOING TO MAKE, IN TERMS OF TAXES
AND REGULATORY REFORM AND ENERGY
POLICY THAT PUT AMERICANS BACK
TO WORK.
>> Tim: MR. HEKMAN, DO YOU
SUPPORT TWO TAX BRACKETS, 10%
AND 25%?
>> I COULD SUPPORT THAT.
>> IT WOULD BE LOSS OF REVENUE?
>> IT WOULD BUT ALONG WITH SOME
OF THE THINGS THAT PETE TALKED
ABOUT, WE CAN GET THIS ECONOMY
GOING.
IF YOU WANT TO KILL AN ECONOMY,
YOU COULDN'T DO MUCH BETTER THAN
WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY.
>> TWO TAX BRACKETS?
>> I WOULD SUPPORT IT.
HERE IS THE THINK I WOULD
SUPPLEMENT HIS ANSWER WITH.
I THINK YOU WOULD GET MORE
REVENUE.
I THINK WE NEED MORE ECONOMIC
GROWTH.
>> Tim: BUT IN THE PROCESS YOU
LOSE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS?
>> RONALD REAGAN HAD THE RIGHT
THING, KENNEDY HAD THE RIGHT
THING.
NO, IT'S ORGANICALLY UP.
THE ECONOMY STARTS TO GROW.
>> TRICKLE DOWN.
>> YOU ARE SAYING IT'S TRICKLE
DOWN.
>> THE ANSWER IS NO, IT'S NOT
TRICKLE DOWN.
WHAT YOU HAVE IS YOU ALLOW
PEOPLE TO KEEP MORE OF WHAT THEY
EARN, ALLOW PEOPLE TO HAVE MORE
CONTROL OVER THEIR OWN LIVES.
JOBS GET CREATED.
BUSINESSES EXPAND AND FARMS AND
BUSINESSES AND OUR COMMUNITIES
ARE STRENGTHENED.
>> TWO BRACKETS?
>> WE'VE BEEN THERE.
WE'VE DONE THAT.
WE DID THIS IN THE 90s AND DID
IT IN THE 80s.
YOU CUT TAXES, SIMPLIFY THE TAX
CODE.
YOU HAVE REGULATORY RELIEF.
YOU GROW THE ECONOMY.
>> IT HAPPENED UNDER GEORGE W.
BUSH AND THE ECONOMY WENT IN THE
TANK.
>> WE DID IT WITH BILL CLINTON A
LONG TIME AGO.
WE ALSO HAD A THING CALLED 9/11
OCCUR BUT WE DID IT AND GREW THE
ECONOMY.
IT'S HOW WE BALANCE THE BUDGET
IN THE 1990s BY REDUCING TAXES.
TIM, IF WE WANTED TO GET OUT OF
HOLE, WE HAVE TO REFORM
ENTITLEMENTS BUT THE OTHER
LEVERAGE POINT FOR GETTING US
OUT OF HOLE HERE IS ECONOMIC
GROWTH.
THAT IS WHAT THIS CAMPAIGN IS
GOING TO BE ABOUT THIS FALL.
THAT IS THE DEBATE WITH DEBBY IS
GOING TO BE ABOUT.
THE FAILED POLICIES OF OBAMA AND
STABENOW AND ALTERNATIVE VISION
TO GET THE ECONOMY MOVING AGAIN.
>> Tim: CASH FOR CLUNKERS?
>> STUPID, DON'T DO IT.
>> Tim: WHAT DO YOU HAVE AGAINST
ABOUT HELPING THE AUTO INDUSTRY?
>> IT HAS TO SUCCEED ON ITS OWN.
THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T SUPPORT
ANY INDUSTRY.
>> YOU WOULD LAW GENERAL MOTORS
AND CHRYSLER TO GO INTO A TANK.
YOU WOULD HAVE ALLOWED THEM TO
GO INTO THE TANK?
>> IT WOULD NOT HAVE GONE INTO
THE TASK.
THEY COULD HAVE FOLLOWED THE
REGULAR BANKRUPTCY LAWS.
BONDHOLDERS WOULD HAVE BEEN IN
BETTER SHAPE.
UNIONS WOULD NOT BE QUITE SO
SHAPE.
>> SO PRESIDENT BUSH WAS TO
WRONG TO DO THAT?
>> I BELIEVE HE WAS WRONG.
>> I BELIEVE THE WAY YOU SAVER
THE CAR COMPANIES YOU ALLOW A
FAIR PROCESS BUT YOU DON'T TURN
OVER.
WAIT A MINUTE, TIM.
LOOK AT THE RESULTS OF THIS.
WE TURNED OVER TWO AMERICAN
ICONS, CHRYSLER AND GENERAL
MOTORS, FIRST CHRYSLER WE TURNED
IT OVER ITALIAN CAR COMPANY.
IT'S NOT AN AMERICAN COMPANY AND
TURNED GENERAL MOTORS TO SPECIAL
INTERESTS, THE UAW.
>> Tim: IS HE WRONG FOR DOING
WHAT HE DID?
>> HE WAS WRONG BECAUSE IT
WASN'T THE WAY, NOT JUST SAVE
THE CAR COMPANIES.
WE NEED TO GROW THE CAR
COMPANIES.
WE NEED TO EXPAND THE MARKET.
>> WAS HE WRONG, PRESIDENT BUSH.
>> HE STARTED MONEY ROLLING INTO
THE COMPANIES.
>> WHAT WENT WRONG WITH
CHRYSLER.
>> WAS THE PRESIDENT WRONG?
>> THEY WERE WRONG IN TERMS HOW
THEY EXECUTED IT BECAUSE WHAT
THEY DID THEY PUT UNIONS IN
FAVOR OF BONDHOLDERS.
THEY SHOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH A
TRADITIONAL BANKRUPTCY WHERE THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE
BEEN THE BANKS BACK STOP BECAUSE
YOU COULD NOT GET GUARANTEES OUT
OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR BANKING
COMMUNITY TO KEEP THE COMPANIES
RUNNING.
>> THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT
DISCUSSION.
WHAT YOU JUST HEARD IS REALLY
THE DIFFERENCE IN LEADERSHIP.
PETE IS SAYING IT WAS POORLY
EXECUTED BUT PETE PULLED THE
TRIGGER TO ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN.
NUMBER ONE.
NUMBER TWO, HE PULLED THE
TRIGGER FOR THE SAME THING TO
HAPPEN TO REWARD THESE WALL
STREET BANKS THAT WERE
IRRESPONSIBLE.
THE MONEY WAS OUTSOURCED AROUND
THE WORLD.
WE CAN SIT ALL DAY LONG
GOVERNMENT PROGRAM WAS WELL
MANAGED.
TELL ME ONE THAT IS.
>> Tim: DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT
ANALYSIS?
>> I AM AFRAID I HAVE TO.
THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO HAVE IT'S
HANDS OFF OF BUSINESS AND TREAT
EVERYONE SIMILARLY.
>> YOU CAN'T HAVE THE GOVERNMENT
SUPPORTING THEM AND SAYING THEY
SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT?
>> THE LAWS ARE ON THE BOOKS.
THE BANKRUPTCY LAWS OR THE
BOOKS.
IT COULD HAVE BEEN YEARS.
IT WOULD HAVE WORKED MUCH BETTER
THAN IT DID.
>> SO PRESIDENT BUSH WAS WRONG?
>> I SHE HAD WAS WRONG.
>> I WAS A TRUSTEE OF A
BANKRUPTED RAILROAD.
IT WAS A STATE OWNED ENTERPRISE.
WE WE WERE ABLE TO WORK WITH
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS AND
INDEPENDENTS WE SAVED THE
RAILROAD.
DIDN'T COST TAXPAYER'S MONEY.
WE SAVED TAXPAYER MONEY.
>> WILL YOU SUPPORT WHOEVER THE
WINNER IF IT'S NOT YOU?
>> MY OBJECTIVE NOVEMBER 6th.
ELECT MITT ROMNEY AS PRESIDENT.
ELECT 51 REPUBLICAN SENATORS
INTO THE U.S. SENATE TO MOVE AN
AGENDA FORWARD.
>> EITHER OF GEESE GUYS DEBATE
THE NOMINATION YOU ARE ON BOARD?
>> I AM ON BOARD.
OKAY, GENTLEMEN.
WE ARE OUT OF TIME.
I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ANSWERS, GOOD
LUCK ON TUESDAY AND WE'RE ON
FACEBOOK AND YOUTUBE AND
TWITTER.
SEE YOU NEXT WEEK RIGHT HERE ON
"OFF THE RECORD".
¶
¶
¶
Generated by CCExtractor
http://ccextractor.sourceforge.net