In Case You Missed The Debate Between Brett Guthrie And David Boswell, Read One Person's Account.
Report on the 3rd District Congressional Debate
By Katie Moyer
10/10/08
Last night, State Senator David Boswell and State Rep Brett Guthrie attended a debate in Bowling Green, KY. They are vying for the U.S. Congressional seat in Kentucky’s 3rd District. The local news station, Bowling Green Daily News, hosted the event.
First, the candidates had an opportunity to introduce themselves and tell us why they decided to run for this office. Rep. Guthrie was selected to speak first. He had a nice opening statement, explaining that he knows there is going to be a lot of debt dropped into his children’s laps. The future of America is at stake and he wants to stop the trend that we are currently following. Sen. Boswell had a well-rehearsed opening statement, albeit a short one. He introduced himself, rattled off plugs for his children and grandchildren, and turned over the floor to the moderators.
The moderator started off with a predictable first question. “Would you have voted for the bailout?” Brett Guthrie had a chance to speak first, saying that he would not have voted for an insurance deal with Wall St instead of a taxpayer-backed bailout. He said that either way, the risk lies with the taxpayers, but in this way, at least the Wall St companies would have to pay premiums to the government.
Boswell had the same to say. He said that he would not have voted for either of the bailout bills. He was on the right track at that point, but he blew it by saying that he thought they needed more regulations, and more oversight and transparency. Apparently he doesn’t realize that the “oversight” they were getting from both parties in D.C. was what got us into this mess in the first place.
After answering his question, the moderators asked Sen. Boswell what he would do to help our children pay off the growing debt with which they will be left. His answer to this was to “restore middle America,” but he did not have a specific plan of action. There was some political rhetoric to follow, but essentially, he had no viable method.
Guthrie had a better grasp of how to help our young people pay off this debt. He said that he would do it by growing industries, and mentioned that contrary to the Democratic PCC commercial, he has never outsourced jobs to Mexico. His method would be to start paying down the National Debt, and noted that in Frankfort they are required to balance the budget each year. He said prioritization is a must, and that we need to figure out which parts of the budget are expendable, and which parts are necessary.
They then asked him what he would do to ease the instability in the housing markets. Guthrie said he would have to look at the specific issues in D.C. Most likely, his plan would be to do the same insurance policy that he plugged for the Wall St bailout. Although, there are better options than an insurance policy, he was correct when he said that first we should get rid of (or change) Government Sponsored Entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Boswell had a very different idea of what needed to be done. Re-regulation was the name of the game. He was off base with this one. He denounced the regulations that the Republicans had on Wall St. and recommended that we stop the problems in the housing market today. Of course, his method of stopping these problems is to let D.C. handle it, but to not make irresponsible loans then try make up for it by selling paper.
When Boswell was asked what he would do to help fund education, he said he would support comprehensive tax reform. Assumedly, this would mean a tax credit for families with school-age children, but he did not say that explicitly.
Guthrie’s answer was more thought out, but he was still slightly off the mark. He said that education is supposed to be state supported, which is correct. However, what he should have said was that the only way that Congress can help with the cost of education is to cut spending, lower inflation rates, and drive down the cost of all goods and services, including education.
When asked about President Bush’s failed “No Child Left Behind” plan, Rep. Guthrie said that he does not like the program although it was made with good intentions. Of course, “good” depends on your idea of whether government sponsored education is a good or a bad idea. His problem with the No Child mandate was that it lowers expectations for children, while we should be rewarding schools for doing well.
Boswell had a good start with his answer. He does not support “No Child Left Behind” because it is an unfunded mandate. Unfunded mandates tend to do poorly in the real world, and he stated that he supports the Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA) instead.
Helping the poor and middle class was the topic of the next question. Sen. Boswell would “put middle America back to work” through economic development. He mentioned that he was the Commissioner of Agriculture, and that he would “roll his shirt sleeves up” to work for a bipartisan agreement on something or other. More rhetoric.
Guthrie’s plan is to apply his business experience to push for more manufacturing jobs. He said we should push technology education and get people into schools where they can focus on learning skills that can be used in the real world. He brought up McCain’s plan to focus on skills training and technology education. Another good policy of his was to lower the tax rate in general, which would allow people to pursue higher education and real-world experience.
A controversial topic, drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), was the next question. Brett Guthrie’s goal is definitely to drill in Alaska, and also to search for the oil in Florida, Colorado, the East Coast, West Coast, etc. He would like to see other energy sources flourish as well, such as nuclear power or coal, of which we have abundance in KY. He noted that we are faced with a National Security issue because we are giving all kinds of money to other countries, and many of those countries do not particularly care for the United States. If we are to get out of the grip of our enemies, we need to develop our own resources. His answer was fantastic, but he could have mentioned lower taxes on energy-producing industries, and the potential for coal-to-liquid technology.
Boswell aped the Democratic leadership in his response. He said, as usual, “we can’t drill our way out of this.” He spoke of the Energy Bill that “he helped to write” and said that gas was less than $3.00/gal “because of that bill.” He dropped some more names of people who support him and the energy bill, and said that we need to wean ourselves off of foreign oil.
At this point in the debate, the candidates had the opportunity to ask each other a question. David Boswell was the first to take a question, and was asked if he would support the Union decision to take away secret ballots from their voting laws. Sen. Boswell, since his father was a Union worker, said that he was a big supporter of Unions. He pointed out his support for The Prevailing Wage Act, the Davis-Bacon Act, and said that he was opposed to “Right to Work.”
When Boswell had a chance to ask his question, he chose a very good topic, on which Rep. Guthrie could have capitalized. Unfortunately, Guthrie came up with the same tired old Republican rhetoric for privatizing Social Security. He said that he was not for privatization, and that the government should fund it. He would like to see D.C. coming together and working in a bipartisan manner to come up with a solution for the Social Security issue. Unfortunately, nobody told Rep Guthrie that the Constitution does not allow for government to play nanny to the population. There is no money in the Social Security fund, and there will be nothing left for the next generation of Social Security recipients. We need to privatize the program now, and be sure that future generations will be able to draw from the Social Security fund.
The moderators continued with the questioning. They asked the candidates whether they would support nuclear power. Guthrie would support both nuclear power, and coal liquefication, although he said that some of his constituents might not be happy about the concept of using nuclear technology. On the topic of subsidies for car manufacturers, he would support a loan program to get cars to meet environmental standards.
Boswell would not support nuclear power. He brought up the Chernobyl incident and said he would be afraid of a similar incident on U.S. soil. Instead of nuclear power, he would support the carbon credit scam, and carbon sequestration to help save the environment. He would also support government subsidies of the auto industry.
When asked how he would create new jobs, Sen. Boswell said he would support tax incentives to create new jobs. Hopefully he didn’t mean corporate welfare.
Guthrie would lower taxes, saying that we “can’t tax our way into prosperity.”
Both candidates said that they do not support same-sex marriage. Boswell believes in the sanctity of marriage, and Guthrie said he supports what is in the Constitution, but that marriage should be between one man and one woman.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee aired a commercial earlier this month saying that Brett Guthrie’s business was exporting jobs to Mexico and that he supports trade agreements like NAFTA. He was asked his thoughts on this commercial, which he had mentioned earlier. He defended his business, and explained that the only place to which they export jobs is in Kentucky’s 2nd District, and that he is not apologetic about that.
Boswell agreed that the negative ads create a bad environment for bipartisan agreement. However, he defended his campaign by noting that the Democratic CCC aired the commercial, these things happen all the time, and that it had nothing to do with him or his campaign committee.
Sen. Boswell was asked what he thought of the war in Iraq, and what he would do to stop it. His plan is a timetable withdrawal, and supports giving full benefits to the men and women who would be returning from the war.
Guthrie sided with the Republicans on this issue. He would like to see a withdrawal soon, but thinks it would create a dangerous situation in Iraq. He thought that Congress should keep its nose out of the business of the generals there, and that we need to turn our attention away from Iraq, and back to Afghanistan where, supposedly, it belongs.
For their last question, the candidates were allowed to ask each other again. Guthrie started off with a question about whether or not Boswell would support a pro-life speaker of the House. Sen. Boswell answered that he had a 100% rating when it came to abortion laws, and that he always breaks away from the Democratic leadership to support the right to life. However, the Kentucky Right To Life PAC said that Boswell was “disingenuous” and chose not to endorse him.
Guthrie, who was endorsed by the Right To Life PAC, was asked by Boswell to elaborate on the previous question of whether or not he would support the bailout. Guthrie had already stated that he would not have supported either bill, saying it will cause a global crisis, and an economic collapse. He said that the banks have to start trading to create “more credit” and said again that he would have supported an insurance plan.
There was still some time left, so the candidates had time for another couple of questions. The first was about helping veterans returning from Iraq. Both candidates agreed that returning soldiers are a priority. Boswell said that he would prioritize revenues to make sure that veterans had proper care. He acknowledged his position on the Veteran’s Affairs Committee. Guthrie said that veterans are a top priority, since they put themselves in harm’s way to secure our country. He brought up the fact that we spend billions of dollars on the war, so of course we should be able to take care of our veterans.
The final question was about Universal Health Care. Neither candidate supported the plan, each for a different reason. Boswell thought the U.S. needed a framework for Universal Healthcare before we can establish the policy. Guthrie denounced the single payer healthcare plan, calling it “rationing of hospitals.”
Brett Guthrie certainly won this debate. His answers were well thought out and articulate, while David Boswell’s arguments were more of the same political rhetoric. Unfortunately Guthrie was not completely on track with all of his arguments. He should have supported privatization of Social Security, refused to endorse industrial subsidies, and agreed to let Wall Street bankers fail instead of propping them up with either bailouts or insurance. Nevertheless, Guthrie will be much better for our Commonwealth, and a win for him will be a major success for the state of Kentucky.
Editor's note: Katie Moyer is a member of the group, Take Back Kentucky -- I think.
By Katie Moyer
10/10/08
Last night, State Senator David Boswell and State Rep Brett Guthrie attended a debate in Bowling Green, KY. They are vying for the U.S. Congressional seat in Kentucky’s 3rd District. The local news station, Bowling Green Daily News, hosted the event.
First, the candidates had an opportunity to introduce themselves and tell us why they decided to run for this office. Rep. Guthrie was selected to speak first. He had a nice opening statement, explaining that he knows there is going to be a lot of debt dropped into his children’s laps. The future of America is at stake and he wants to stop the trend that we are currently following. Sen. Boswell had a well-rehearsed opening statement, albeit a short one. He introduced himself, rattled off plugs for his children and grandchildren, and turned over the floor to the moderators.
The moderator started off with a predictable first question. “Would you have voted for the bailout?” Brett Guthrie had a chance to speak first, saying that he would not have voted for an insurance deal with Wall St instead of a taxpayer-backed bailout. He said that either way, the risk lies with the taxpayers, but in this way, at least the Wall St companies would have to pay premiums to the government.
Boswell had the same to say. He said that he would not have voted for either of the bailout bills. He was on the right track at that point, but he blew it by saying that he thought they needed more regulations, and more oversight and transparency. Apparently he doesn’t realize that the “oversight” they were getting from both parties in D.C. was what got us into this mess in the first place.
After answering his question, the moderators asked Sen. Boswell what he would do to help our children pay off the growing debt with which they will be left. His answer to this was to “restore middle America,” but he did not have a specific plan of action. There was some political rhetoric to follow, but essentially, he had no viable method.
Guthrie had a better grasp of how to help our young people pay off this debt. He said that he would do it by growing industries, and mentioned that contrary to the Democratic PCC commercial, he has never outsourced jobs to Mexico. His method would be to start paying down the National Debt, and noted that in Frankfort they are required to balance the budget each year. He said prioritization is a must, and that we need to figure out which parts of the budget are expendable, and which parts are necessary.
They then asked him what he would do to ease the instability in the housing markets. Guthrie said he would have to look at the specific issues in D.C. Most likely, his plan would be to do the same insurance policy that he plugged for the Wall St bailout. Although, there are better options than an insurance policy, he was correct when he said that first we should get rid of (or change) Government Sponsored Entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Boswell had a very different idea of what needed to be done. Re-regulation was the name of the game. He was off base with this one. He denounced the regulations that the Republicans had on Wall St. and recommended that we stop the problems in the housing market today. Of course, his method of stopping these problems is to let D.C. handle it, but to not make irresponsible loans then try make up for it by selling paper.
When Boswell was asked what he would do to help fund education, he said he would support comprehensive tax reform. Assumedly, this would mean a tax credit for families with school-age children, but he did not say that explicitly.
Guthrie’s answer was more thought out, but he was still slightly off the mark. He said that education is supposed to be state supported, which is correct. However, what he should have said was that the only way that Congress can help with the cost of education is to cut spending, lower inflation rates, and drive down the cost of all goods and services, including education.
When asked about President Bush’s failed “No Child Left Behind” plan, Rep. Guthrie said that he does not like the program although it was made with good intentions. Of course, “good” depends on your idea of whether government sponsored education is a good or a bad idea. His problem with the No Child mandate was that it lowers expectations for children, while we should be rewarding schools for doing well.
Boswell had a good start with his answer. He does not support “No Child Left Behind” because it is an unfunded mandate. Unfunded mandates tend to do poorly in the real world, and he stated that he supports the Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA) instead.
Helping the poor and middle class was the topic of the next question. Sen. Boswell would “put middle America back to work” through economic development. He mentioned that he was the Commissioner of Agriculture, and that he would “roll his shirt sleeves up” to work for a bipartisan agreement on something or other. More rhetoric.
Guthrie’s plan is to apply his business experience to push for more manufacturing jobs. He said we should push technology education and get people into schools where they can focus on learning skills that can be used in the real world. He brought up McCain’s plan to focus on skills training and technology education. Another good policy of his was to lower the tax rate in general, which would allow people to pursue higher education and real-world experience.
A controversial topic, drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), was the next question. Brett Guthrie’s goal is definitely to drill in Alaska, and also to search for the oil in Florida, Colorado, the East Coast, West Coast, etc. He would like to see other energy sources flourish as well, such as nuclear power or coal, of which we have abundance in KY. He noted that we are faced with a National Security issue because we are giving all kinds of money to other countries, and many of those countries do not particularly care for the United States. If we are to get out of the grip of our enemies, we need to develop our own resources. His answer was fantastic, but he could have mentioned lower taxes on energy-producing industries, and the potential for coal-to-liquid technology.
Boswell aped the Democratic leadership in his response. He said, as usual, “we can’t drill our way out of this.” He spoke of the Energy Bill that “he helped to write” and said that gas was less than $3.00/gal “because of that bill.” He dropped some more names of people who support him and the energy bill, and said that we need to wean ourselves off of foreign oil.
At this point in the debate, the candidates had the opportunity to ask each other a question. David Boswell was the first to take a question, and was asked if he would support the Union decision to take away secret ballots from their voting laws. Sen. Boswell, since his father was a Union worker, said that he was a big supporter of Unions. He pointed out his support for The Prevailing Wage Act, the Davis-Bacon Act, and said that he was opposed to “Right to Work.”
When Boswell had a chance to ask his question, he chose a very good topic, on which Rep. Guthrie could have capitalized. Unfortunately, Guthrie came up with the same tired old Republican rhetoric for privatizing Social Security. He said that he was not for privatization, and that the government should fund it. He would like to see D.C. coming together and working in a bipartisan manner to come up with a solution for the Social Security issue. Unfortunately, nobody told Rep Guthrie that the Constitution does not allow for government to play nanny to the population. There is no money in the Social Security fund, and there will be nothing left for the next generation of Social Security recipients. We need to privatize the program now, and be sure that future generations will be able to draw from the Social Security fund.
The moderators continued with the questioning. They asked the candidates whether they would support nuclear power. Guthrie would support both nuclear power, and coal liquefication, although he said that some of his constituents might not be happy about the concept of using nuclear technology. On the topic of subsidies for car manufacturers, he would support a loan program to get cars to meet environmental standards.
Boswell would not support nuclear power. He brought up the Chernobyl incident and said he would be afraid of a similar incident on U.S. soil. Instead of nuclear power, he would support the carbon credit scam, and carbon sequestration to help save the environment. He would also support government subsidies of the auto industry.
When asked how he would create new jobs, Sen. Boswell said he would support tax incentives to create new jobs. Hopefully he didn’t mean corporate welfare.
Guthrie would lower taxes, saying that we “can’t tax our way into prosperity.”
Both candidates said that they do not support same-sex marriage. Boswell believes in the sanctity of marriage, and Guthrie said he supports what is in the Constitution, but that marriage should be between one man and one woman.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee aired a commercial earlier this month saying that Brett Guthrie’s business was exporting jobs to Mexico and that he supports trade agreements like NAFTA. He was asked his thoughts on this commercial, which he had mentioned earlier. He defended his business, and explained that the only place to which they export jobs is in Kentucky’s 2nd District, and that he is not apologetic about that.
Boswell agreed that the negative ads create a bad environment for bipartisan agreement. However, he defended his campaign by noting that the Democratic CCC aired the commercial, these things happen all the time, and that it had nothing to do with him or his campaign committee.
Sen. Boswell was asked what he thought of the war in Iraq, and what he would do to stop it. His plan is a timetable withdrawal, and supports giving full benefits to the men and women who would be returning from the war.
Guthrie sided with the Republicans on this issue. He would like to see a withdrawal soon, but thinks it would create a dangerous situation in Iraq. He thought that Congress should keep its nose out of the business of the generals there, and that we need to turn our attention away from Iraq, and back to Afghanistan where, supposedly, it belongs.
For their last question, the candidates were allowed to ask each other again. Guthrie started off with a question about whether or not Boswell would support a pro-life speaker of the House. Sen. Boswell answered that he had a 100% rating when it came to abortion laws, and that he always breaks away from the Democratic leadership to support the right to life. However, the Kentucky Right To Life PAC said that Boswell was “disingenuous” and chose not to endorse him.
Guthrie, who was endorsed by the Right To Life PAC, was asked by Boswell to elaborate on the previous question of whether or not he would support the bailout. Guthrie had already stated that he would not have supported either bill, saying it will cause a global crisis, and an economic collapse. He said that the banks have to start trading to create “more credit” and said again that he would have supported an insurance plan.
There was still some time left, so the candidates had time for another couple of questions. The first was about helping veterans returning from Iraq. Both candidates agreed that returning soldiers are a priority. Boswell said that he would prioritize revenues to make sure that veterans had proper care. He acknowledged his position on the Veteran’s Affairs Committee. Guthrie said that veterans are a top priority, since they put themselves in harm’s way to secure our country. He brought up the fact that we spend billions of dollars on the war, so of course we should be able to take care of our veterans.
The final question was about Universal Health Care. Neither candidate supported the plan, each for a different reason. Boswell thought the U.S. needed a framework for Universal Healthcare before we can establish the policy. Guthrie denounced the single payer healthcare plan, calling it “rationing of hospitals.”
Brett Guthrie certainly won this debate. His answers were well thought out and articulate, while David Boswell’s arguments were more of the same political rhetoric. Unfortunately Guthrie was not completely on track with all of his arguments. He should have supported privatization of Social Security, refused to endorse industrial subsidies, and agreed to let Wall Street bankers fail instead of propping them up with either bailouts or insurance. Nevertheless, Guthrie will be much better for our Commonwealth, and a win for him will be a major success for the state of Kentucky.
Editor's note: Katie Moyer is a member of the group, Take Back Kentucky -- I think.
Labels: General information
posted by KYJurisDoctor at 10:53 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home