(This is a discussion of the recent Voters Guide published October 26 by the Minnesota Daily. The 4th CD guide was prepared by JESSIE VAN BERKEL. You can read my position, then an accurate discussion of the positions of my opponents.)
Please note that the truncated format of the Daily guide omitted some of my important explanations, and I have added those below in brackets [].
How will you address the federal budget deficit?
MY POSITION: "[If I were just going to give bullet points, I would say] Reprioritize the budget, work for racial equality so you get more people participating in the economy and education, with better outcomes. Restore families and traditional values to drive population growth to replace people in the workplace and also support people in retirement ... [I've signed the Contract with America, so we would definitely] repeal ‘Obamacare’ and also repeal some of the unused stimulus money [...like the $45 mil that's going to go to build the light-rail train to tear up University Avenue and kill businesses and jobs. I would also be cutting departments and agencies and returning their functions, revenue and power to the states.]
"Finally, increase revenue by driving private-sector job growth and economic growth."
DISCUSSION
Betty McCollum attacks any income over $250,000 per year (as Obama notoriously said, "I mean, I think at a certain point you've made enough money"), by ending the Bush tax cuts for that income at the end of the year. She will go back and fight to end those cuts in the lame duck session after November 2. I pointed out on MPR's Midday with my opponents that those first $250,000 do not get invested to create new economic growth and jobs. It's the income earned above that that many Americans put at risk and hope to get back, with a return that is justified given the taxes they'll have to pay. Otherwise, they'll invest it in more promising areas like securities, private equity, etc. McCollum's ideas will not prevail in the new Congress, and I hope all the Bush tax cuts will be extended in the lame duck session.
Teresa Collett does not seem to realize that tampering with Social Security and Medicare this way is dangerous to our long-term commitment to aging with dignity, which will help all of us, and should be a bedrock of American civilization. Her idea is uncivilized, and I responded to this idea when it was raised at the League of Womens' Voters debate October 21 by saying "I'm against balancing the budget on the backs of Social Security and Medicare."
BETTY MCCOLLUM: McCollum says her plan is to pass the middle class tax cuts, to extend the tax cuts put in place by George W. Bush, but only for the first $250,000 of income. She says, second, to "look at" removing tax giveaways for corporations that export jobs outside the United States. Finally, she says "Everybody needs to be looking at tightening up their belt, so all options need to be on the table." She thinks her plan "will help balance the budget."
TERESA COLLETT: Collett's plan is to "support re-enacting the hard spending caps that we had 10, 15 years ago, which required Congress to limit spending on certain things." Then she would "put the entitlement program on a regular budgetary schedule," because, she says "Medicare, Medicaid [and] Social Security are offline."
Her reasoning is that "When you’ve got half your budget offline, you really can’t plan for the spending. How much money do we really have if you can’t look at half the things you’re spending money on? Then of course your budget’s not going to be accurate."
"They’re non-discretionary spending, so they’re not part of the ordinary budgeting process."
