Walz, Gutknecht square off in Mankato — Part 2
The race and debate draw national attention.
(Part 2 of 2 parts)
Two years ago Minnesota Republican 1st District Congressman Gil Gutknecht had a cakewalk of an election. Not so this year against high school teacher and retired National Guardsman Tim Walz of Mankato. The two candidates faced each other Thursday night at Bethany Lutheran College in Mankato in a Debate Minnesota sponsored forum to an audience of 400.
An earlier assessment of the debate is covered here as well as in the national media, thanks to excellent reporting by Mark Fischenich of the Mankato Free Press and MPR.
While moderators Bill Salisbury of the St. Paul Pioneer Press and Joe Spear of the Free Press tried to keep the debate on track, the two candidates spent much of the time accusing and rebutting each other over perceived negative advertising.
Tim Walz was particularly incensed over Gutknecht campaign ads claiming that Walz's tax policies would cost Minnesotans an average of $2,396 per family, and that Walz supported amnesty for illegal immigrants.
The candidates' views on Iraq, support for veterans, tax cuts, transportation, farming and energy issues have been covered in a previous post. But they also debated immigration, health care, education, and Social Security.
On immigration. The Republicans have hit hard on the immigration issue in the last year, sensing they can create a winning position out of the growing number of Latinos coming from Mexico seeking better economic opportunities. The issue is particularly apropos in southern Minnesota because of the large number of meat and egg processing facilities that generate many low-wage, low-benefit jobs. It is not known how many of these jobs are held by illegal immigrants, because most of the workers can produce some sort of documentation, be it legitimate or not.
It is widely recognized, however, that the federal government, which could easily ferret out false documentation through the use of national databases, is not enforcing immigration laws. But immigration enforcement has maintained a "don't look, don't tell" policy under the Bush administration. In the debate Walz pointed out, for example, that in 1999 under Clinton there were 417 fines for hiring illegals; in 2005 under Bush there were only three.
Gutknecht noted that while the U.S. was a "beacon of hope" for people around the world wanting to come to this country, it was unfair to let illegal immigrants "cut in line," imposing a tremendous cost on U.S. society by lowering wages and raising costs for school districts. As he has claimed in TV ads and mailers, he said that Walz supports amnesty.
Walz challenged Gutknecht to prove the allegation.
(NOTE: A discussion of Gutknecht's claims can be found at the Free Press, Minnesota Monitor, and Bluestem Prairie.)
On education: Walz noted that Gutknecht voted for the Budget Reconciliation Act, which raised student loan rates. He also said that college tuition has gone up 67% in the last four years, causing the U.S. to fall behind in education while China is building hundreds of new universities.
Gutknecht countered that education needs to limit costs, and that throwing money into the system will not get better results. As an example, he said, "Fifteen blocks from the Capitol" in Washington there are public schools that are the most expensive in the nation yet also the worst.
(NOTE: What does this say about Congress, which according to law governs the District?)
"If you're looking accountability," Walz said, "no one is more accountable than teachers. If Congress were as accountable as teachers, we'd be out of Iraq." He added that Congress doesn't make a social commitment to support mothers and childcare.
On Social Security: Gutknecht said he favors young workers being able to put their Social Security savings into private investment accounts, citing a plan advocated by his predecessor in Congress, former Democrat, now independent Tim Penny. Walz answered that such private accounts would simply "move $1 trillion into the pockets of Wall Street." The solution to making the Social Security Fund solvent, he said, is to raise the cap at which Social Security funds are no longer taken from employee paychecks. Currently, Social Security withdrawals are not withdrawn from annual salaries above $90,000.
On health care: Walz listed this as the number one issue facing the U.S. today, especially for the uninsured and small farmers. He said that health care in America is in effect guaranteed for all, but that it's very expensive, forcing the uninsured into emergency rooms instead of less expensive primary care clinics. At least one member of each farming family has to have an outside job just to get health care insurance benefits.
"We need universal health insurance," he said. "UnitedHealth," which is under investigation for financial irregularities, "proves that a private system is not the answer."
Gutknecht argued for maintaining the private system, noting the success of Health Savings Accounts in Owatonna and the growing number of Minute Clinics that can provide primary care for as little as $39 per month.
The summation: While these issues provided a stark contrast between the two candidates to what seemed to be an equally divided audience, the question remains as to how much these policy differences will affect the outcome of the vote. Walz faces an uphill battle against a six-term incumbent with established name recognition and a conservative image, which appeals in southern Minnesota, but also a reputation for an independent streak from his Republican brethren.
However, Gutknecht must swim against what could be a Katrina tide of nearly universal disapproval for Congress, extremely low approval rates for President Bush, growing dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq, cynicism about the political process, stagnant or falling real income for the middle class, and a general belief that after six years of Republican rule it's time for a change.
Faith-based and security issues may have been the key difference in the last election. In this debate between Gutknecht and Walz they were not even on the table.
(Part 2 of 2 parts)
Two years ago Minnesota Republican 1st District Congressman Gil Gutknecht had a cakewalk of an election. Not so this year against high school teacher and retired National Guardsman Tim Walz of Mankato. The two candidates faced each other Thursday night at Bethany Lutheran College in Mankato in a Debate Minnesota sponsored forum to an audience of 400.
An earlier assessment of the debate is covered here as well as in the national media, thanks to excellent reporting by Mark Fischenich of the Mankato Free Press and MPR.
While moderators Bill Salisbury of the St. Paul Pioneer Press and Joe Spear of the Free Press tried to keep the debate on track, the two candidates spent much of the time accusing and rebutting each other over perceived negative advertising.
Tim Walz was particularly incensed over Gutknecht campaign ads claiming that Walz's tax policies would cost Minnesotans an average of $2,396 per family, and that Walz supported amnesty for illegal immigrants.
The candidates' views on Iraq, support for veterans, tax cuts, transportation, farming and energy issues have been covered in a previous post. But they also debated immigration, health care, education, and Social Security.
On immigration. The Republicans have hit hard on the immigration issue in the last year, sensing they can create a winning position out of the growing number of Latinos coming from Mexico seeking better economic opportunities. The issue is particularly apropos in southern Minnesota because of the large number of meat and egg processing facilities that generate many low-wage, low-benefit jobs. It is not known how many of these jobs are held by illegal immigrants, because most of the workers can produce some sort of documentation, be it legitimate or not.
It is widely recognized, however, that the federal government, which could easily ferret out false documentation through the use of national databases, is not enforcing immigration laws. But immigration enforcement has maintained a "don't look, don't tell" policy under the Bush administration. In the debate Walz pointed out, for example, that in 1999 under Clinton there were 417 fines for hiring illegals; in 2005 under Bush there were only three.
Gutknecht noted that while the U.S. was a "beacon of hope" for people around the world wanting to come to this country, it was unfair to let illegal immigrants "cut in line," imposing a tremendous cost on U.S. society by lowering wages and raising costs for school districts. As he has claimed in TV ads and mailers, he said that Walz supports amnesty.
Walz challenged Gutknecht to prove the allegation.
(NOTE: A discussion of Gutknecht's claims can be found at the Free Press, Minnesota Monitor, and Bluestem Prairie.)
On education: Walz noted that Gutknecht voted for the Budget Reconciliation Act, which raised student loan rates. He also said that college tuition has gone up 67% in the last four years, causing the U.S. to fall behind in education while China is building hundreds of new universities.
Gutknecht countered that education needs to limit costs, and that throwing money into the system will not get better results. As an example, he said, "Fifteen blocks from the Capitol" in Washington there are public schools that are the most expensive in the nation yet also the worst.
(NOTE: What does this say about Congress, which according to law governs the District?)
"If you're looking accountability," Walz said, "no one is more accountable than teachers. If Congress were as accountable as teachers, we'd be out of Iraq." He added that Congress doesn't make a social commitment to support mothers and childcare.
On Social Security: Gutknecht said he favors young workers being able to put their Social Security savings into private investment accounts, citing a plan advocated by his predecessor in Congress, former Democrat, now independent Tim Penny. Walz answered that such private accounts would simply "move $1 trillion into the pockets of Wall Street." The solution to making the Social Security Fund solvent, he said, is to raise the cap at which Social Security funds are no longer taken from employee paychecks. Currently, Social Security withdrawals are not withdrawn from annual salaries above $90,000.
On health care: Walz listed this as the number one issue facing the U.S. today, especially for the uninsured and small farmers. He said that health care in America is in effect guaranteed for all, but that it's very expensive, forcing the uninsured into emergency rooms instead of less expensive primary care clinics. At least one member of each farming family has to have an outside job just to get health care insurance benefits.
"We need universal health insurance," he said. "UnitedHealth," which is under investigation for financial irregularities, "proves that a private system is not the answer."
Gutknecht argued for maintaining the private system, noting the success of Health Savings Accounts in Owatonna and the growing number of Minute Clinics that can provide primary care for as little as $39 per month.
The summation: While these issues provided a stark contrast between the two candidates to what seemed to be an equally divided audience, the question remains as to how much these policy differences will affect the outcome of the vote. Walz faces an uphill battle against a six-term incumbent with established name recognition and a conservative image, which appeals in southern Minnesota, but also a reputation for an independent streak from his Republican brethren.
However, Gutknecht must swim against what could be a Katrina tide of nearly universal disapproval for Congress, extremely low approval rates for President Bush, growing dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq, cynicism about the political process, stagnant or falling real income for the middle class, and a general belief that after six years of Republican rule it's time for a change.
Faith-based and security issues may have been the key difference in the last election. In this debate between Gutknecht and Walz they were not even on the table.
Powered by Blogger
2 Comments:
Gutknecht's reasons for supporting the DME Railroad aren't adding up. He's right in that a lot of ethanol will be produced, but in general it's expensive to haul by rail. The average travel distance of an ethanol unit train is over 1000 miles, with the preferred market being California. It's much more cost effective to haul by truck. A mid-level executive at a southcentral MN ethanol plant told me recently that if he had rail directly from his plant to the Roseville refinery(about 120 miles), he would still ship by truck to the refinery.
The DME currently has some unit ethanol trains from VeraSun Energy ship from South Dakota to Chicago. Verasun has neither complained publicly about the current track conditions nor is listed as a supporter of DME's lobbying front, GOTRAC. Many of the existing ethanol plants in southern MN are smaller, produce less than 40 million gallons a year, and would be unable to use the more cost effective unit trains.
In other recent comments on DME, Gutknecht said he supports improved transportation and DME because the roads are crowded from Madison, Wisconsin to the east coast. This was in a recent first district newspaper, but it disapeared from the archives before I got a chance to copy it, so I'm going from memory here. But this was a really strange comment because it goes to the heart at what is wrong with the DME project and transportation policy as a whole. In the current legislature, transportation projects go to the politically connected, not where it's needed. If Gutknecht is concerned about transportation from Wisconsin to the east coast why is he not supporting either a new railroad from Chicago to New York, or a widening of I-80/90? IMHO, I-80/90 in Ohio is a disaster and could use a lot of work.
The ultimate solution for all the ethanol in MN is to have more E85 pumps and more Flexible Fuel Vehicles. Other states that have ethanol production like Nebraska actually have railroads that go to the west coast, so they will get better prices on their ethanol. Minnesota needs to further develop its' local market for ethanol producers to get the best prices.
If Gutknecht wants to continue using ethanol as an excuse to support the DME coal train project, he should actually explain what he thinks the end market for the ethanol is, instead of speaking in generalities.
Karla Johnson
Vox Verax, On previous comment, I meant Rosemount refinery, not Roseville. Thanks.
KJ
Post a Comment
<< Home