4th U.S. Congressional District Q & A

We asked the four candidates who are on the Sept. 14 primary ballot competing to represent the people of Wisconsin’s Fourth U.S. Congressional District (incumbent: Gwen Moore) to respond in 100 words or less to six questions. We also asked them to provide their background and platform in 100 words or less.

Gwen Moore (Democrat)

I have had the privilege of serving the people of southeastern Wisconsin since 1989. My top priorities are bringing more jobs to Wisconsin’s Fourth Congressional District and supporting working families. I am also actively working on reforming the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, improving affordable housing, ensuring that the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs address the needs of our troops regarding Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and expanding food and nutrition programs like school breakfast; the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children; and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

gwenmooreforcongress.com

Paul Morel (Democrat)

My focus is on small and mid-size business job creation, making our programs fiscally sustainable, and reestablishing personal freedoms. I am a small business owner and work with clients in a wide range of industries. I have a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from Purdue University and a Master of Business from Carnegie Mellon University. Beyond my education I always bring a pragmatic approach to solving problems across a variety of industries. I served as both an enlisted paratrooper and as an armor and armored cavalry officer in the U.S. Army.

morelforcongress.com

1. Do you support the proposal to add a robust public option to the federal health insurance overhaul passed earlier this year?

Moore (D, inc.): I have long supported the addition of a robust public option, and I am fully of supportive of HR 5808, which would establish a public option in the health exchanges created through the act. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently estimated that this legislation would save $68 billion from 2014 to 2020 and have premiums 5 to 7 percent lower than private plans. In addition, if a public option were available, the private plans in the exchanges would face real competition. This option would not only keep rates down, but would improve health care coverage and quality for all.

Morel (D): I would support a full-cost buy-in option for Medicare. I believe the current health care legislation is simply not fundable and will either collapse or will require a drastic increase in funding which is unsustainable. Countries with single-payer systems are facing serious funding issues and it would be imprudent to follow such a path knowing the current problems. Gaming financial projections is not the same as prudent planning. Serious funding shortfalls will leave the very people we are trying to help with either no access or limited access to health care.

Lipinski (R): Quite honestly, I am going to do everything in my power to eliminate that whole mess. It never should have passed in the first place. Congress should have seen that it was unconstitutional from the start and never even considered passing it. If many of them would have just read it or even a portion of the bill, many red flags should have popped up for them.

Sebring (R): No. It’s not within the power of Congress because it’s not within the enumerated powers of the Constitution to create a national takeover of health insurance, which is what a public option ultimately would do. Moreover, it is absurd to think that adding 100 new bureaucracies that will interfere with the doctor/patient relationship, adding taxes on services that are already priced too high, and expanding the number of services and people covered will do anything to reduce the price. Up to 80 percent of the cost of health care is related to government interference.

2. What changes would you make in U.S. educational policy?

Moore (D, inc.): Access to a good education should be a fundamental civil and human right for all children. We now have an historic opportunity to shape our educational system by making extensive improvements to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. These reforms could include a litany of variables, including: providing adequate support and funding targeted at high-need children and their schools, ensuring reliable testing, providing strong professional development for educators and school leaders, fostering a strong and diverse curriculum, providing support for students beyond the classroom, guaranteeing small class size, involving parents and communities, expanding access to technology, and more.

Morel (D): I would immediately end the federal Department of Education and return all the money directly to states based on population. Even in Milwaukee we can’t find a one-size-fits-all approach to run successful schools. It is implausible that Washington could add any credible help with our local education issues short of returning our tax dollars. We need to end the chasing of federal education money rather than focusing on making our education system the best we can make it. Let’s make education a state and local issue again where we can actually make a meaningful difference.

Lipinski (R): I would start by trying to eliminate the Department of Education. Think about it. Each state is covered under the 10th Amendment to literally govern itself without interference from the federal government. We do not need Washington dictating how we run our “public schools.” We are not a communist state where the government dictates what is being taught. Each state can mandate that themselves just fine. Besides that, eliminating the Department of Education will free up millions of dollars toward our budget.

Sebring (R): There is no constitutional authority for federal involvement in education in any way. As it has given more money, it has demanded more control, even as costs and quality have declined. Education is not a one-size-fits-all proposition, and it is unlikely that federal bureaucrats are the best arbiter of what good education consists of. Education is best left to parents, students, local and state governments in that order. Even the NCLB law has elements in it that are likely to decrease quality further, and increase costs of education more.

3. Do you support creating a foreign workers policy for Mexican citizens?

Moore (D, inc.): I believe in a comprehensive immigration reform process in which we enforce our border, but also realistically deal with those who are already here. Enforcement-only practices have done nothing but drive undocumented immigrants further into the shadows and harm our communities by tearing families apart. Immigration reform should create a fair path for the over 11 million undocumented people already here to assume the responsibilities of citizenship. It is also important that we crack down on dishonest employers that take advantage of these vulnerable people and that we unclog the legal channels that allow immigrants to come over properly.

Morel (D): I support granting work visas to people from around the world, including Mexican citizens, if they want to come here and work hard. I believe that allowing people here to work must be a net benefit to our country and those visa holders must remain self-sufficient without the need for any safety-net programs (e.g. food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, public housing, etc.). I do not support amnesty for people in the United States illegally. I favor a streamlined work visa application process for current undocumented workers who meet the self-sufficiency standard in the United States.

Lipinski (R): No. We need Americans, who are here legally, to get to work.

Sebring (R): Provided the Mexican citizens in question are not illegal immigrants currently living and working in the United States or have not been known to be previously living and working in the United States illegally, yes. A comprehensive foreign workers policy with the requirement that limited numbers of foreign workers, Mexican or other foreign nationals, be sponsored by employers who can demonstrate an inability to hire from local workforces is a policy I could support.

4. What’s your perspective on the federal debt?

Moore (D, inc.): The long-term federal debt is very troubling. We must work to reduce unnecessary spending, such as unneeded Cold War-era weapons systems, for example. However, it is important to acknowledge the difference between long-term debt, which can be harmful, and short-term deficits, which are necessary right now to help our economy recover. Spending some now to keep teachers, firefighters, police officers, and others working is a much better alternative to a double-dip recession, which would have a substantially worse impact on the long-term debt.

Morel (D): The debt is at a nearly insurmountable level and must be addressed immediately. The country is on a fiscally unsustainable path and we must prioritize spending and strategic policies. I feel moving most military bases back to the continental United States will save nearly $500 billion per year and hardly affect our level of military readiness. By ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan we can save billions of dollars more. Moving military personnel back to the United States will allow their pay and base maintenance costs to support U.S. jobs, not foreign ones. I support a balanced budget amendment.

Lipinski (R): This is a pretty broad question. Our federal debt is sickening. It must be reduced ASAP without spending more with stimulus lies. We need to open our oil field and coal mine within the continental United States. Get away from being dependent upon foreign fuels and start creating jobs here. Eliminate NAFTA and cut ties with China’s crooked economic system and their ever growing dangerous way of making products they sell to the United States. It was not long ago that America was exporting more than we imported. Not the case anymore.

Sebring (R): As of July 28, 2010, the “Total Public Debt Outstanding” was approximately $13 trillion. The Office of Management and Budget forecasts that by the end of fiscal year 2012, gross federal debt will total $16.3 trillion. This is an unconscionable legacy to leave our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. The deficit spending must stop and the American people must prepare themselves for an era of austerity and self-reliance for some time to come in order to bring the federal debt under control.

5. Should the United States limit or ban offshore drilling?

Moore (D, inc.): Yes. In most situations it should be banned outright—such as in the Great Lakes—or when it is too deep to drill completely safely, or too close to the shore. In the other limited cases, strict oversight and regulation is needed to prevent another catastrophic oil spill.

Morel: The economic consequences of banning offshore drilling would be devastating and not actually stop drilling operations. Countries such as Mexico would immediately step in and operate rigs with far fewer safety standards. That said, I think the latest BP disaster clearly demonstrates a failure of both our government oversight and the oil industry’s safety practices. We must address both in meaningful ways to ensure not only new rigs are safe but also the hundreds of existing ones are made safe. I would much prefer expansion of alternate energy sources, such as nuclear, that can meet our energy needs realistically.

Lipinski: Not yet. And I say that cautiously. We have enough oil within the continental United States to sustain us. Our oil deposits here in America are as large as any in the Mideast. So, why are we not drilling it? Why are we not mining some of the largest coal deposits in the world here in America? Why is Congress sitting on their hands about all this? Let’s start drilling the oil and mining the coal here with legal residents. This will create jobs, eliminate overseas spending by trillions and trillions, boost the economy greatly, and reduce the deficit greatly.

Sebring: No. We need to responsibly access our petroleum resources to their fullest potential in order to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil while simultaneously encouraging private enterprise to pursue alternative and renewable energy resources. Regarding the recent Gulf oil spill, federal regulations forced oil producers to deeper water by prohibiting much safer shallow water drilling. In an attempt to maximize political advantage, our president and the bureaucracy did much to make the spill worse by not allowing and/or delaying those who wanted to join in the cleanup efforts. Virtually saying, “I destroyed the environment in order to save it.”

6. What is your exit strategy for the war in Afghanistan?

Moore: 1.) Stop escalating. 2.) Develop a public timetable for responsibly and safely withdrawing our troops. 3.) Continue to increase nonmilitary aid to address poverty, hunger, health, education, and the other challenges that make the Taliban and Al-Qaida’s message resonate so well among the people. 4.) Continue to support international and diplomatic efforts in Afghanistan. This would include a comprehensive diplomatic plan to engage regional and international stakeholders including Pakistan, India, Iran, China, and Russia in developing a common roadmap for security, stability, and nuclear nonproliferation in the region.

Morel: I believe we can win every battle and maintain absolute superiority over our enemy in Afghanistan and never win the war. Afghanistan is not a war won by fighting on the ground. I don’t believe any timeline will achieve “victory” unless we continue to redefine what we mean by victory, which is disingenuous to our military personnel. The only prudent course of action is immediate withdrawal.

Lipinski: In war, you eliminate the enemy and establish a working government for the people there and then you pull out. We did that in Japan and it worked. We tried that in Germany until the UN messed everything up. We did that in South America under President Reagan and it all worked. Let the generals win the war. They don’t come to your house and tell you how to raise your children. Don’t tell them how to win our wars. Either we fight and win that war quickly or pull out just as quick.

Sebring: Exit strategies in a time of war—whether it is Afghanistan, Iraq, or wherever U.S. troops are deployed—are military strategies to be developed and implemented by the Department of Defense Joint Chiefs of Staff in cooperation with the commander in chief.

Copyright 2012 by Bay View Compass. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.