August 27, 2006
Chafee-Laffey IV: Third Panel Round
Republican Senate candidates Lincoln Chafee and Steve Laffey debated on television on WJAR-TV Channel 10 this past Saturday. Here are the notes I jotted down during the panel's third round of questioning...
Bill Rappleye asks how exactly the US should free itself from dependency on foreign oil.
Senator Lincoln Chafee discusses the increasing demand for oil created by increased consumption by China’s huge population.
Rappleye: But what do we do in this country?
Chafee says that 60% of US consumption is from transportation, so we need to raise CAFE standards. Chafee notes that he drives a hybrid, but it was made in Japan. Government should force industry in the direction of 50 mpg cars, so the US can become a leader in hybrid vehicles.
Mayor Steve Laffey touts his specific plan to get America off of foreign oil (available at electlaffey.com). The US needs to raise CAFÉ standards from 27 mpg to 40 mpg, pass tax credits for hybrids, and offer 20 year producer and consumer credits. We need to get off foreign oil to win the War on Terror, and we won’t unless we create program on the scale of putting a man on the Moon.
Chafee says he’s worked in the Senate on raising CAFE standards, so Laffey should be endorsing his candidacy.
Michelle Johnson asks if America needs to build a fence on its southern border.
Laffey says yes for reasons of national security and stopping illegal immigration. Also, it’s not humane to have people walking days through the desert in hopes of getting to America.
Chafee says he voted in favor of a bill that had strict border security and a path to legality for currently illegal immigrants. We also need to address poverty in other countries to stop illegal immigration at the source.
Johnson asks Chafee how working illegally in Canada influenced his position on this issue.
Chafee tells an anecdote about contact with the RCMP at the racetrack where he worked that led him to obtaining landed immigrant status.
Gene Valicenti asks Chafee how old he was at the time.
Chafee: About 23.
Laffey volunteers that he’s never worked illegally in any other country. Also notes his campaign won’t run an ad about Chafee’s youthful indiscretion.
Johnson asks Laffey about Chafee’s experience as an example of how countries sometimes need people from outside to do work.
Laffey answers that Chafee going to Canada is not quite the same as poor people crossing into America and then reiterates his opposition to the “Kennedy” bill.
Chafee asks Laffey if he supports the Sensenbrenner bill (the House’s enforcement-only immigration bill).
Laffey says he hasn’t read the specific House bill, but he supports securing the border first. Then second step is then to enforce law against employers. Laffey goes on to criticize Chafee’s support for the provision of the Senate bill that he says gives foreign workers 4-5 times as much money as domestic workers at the same job site.
Chafee: “You’re a one man filibuster” who doesn’t offer solutions. What bill do you support?
Laffey says he would support a bill that would secure the borders first.
Chafee asks Laffey if he would oppose the House bill.
Laffey reiterates that he has not read the House bill, but would support it if it is a bill that secures the borders first.
Jim Taricani asks how much aid the government should give to people to get out of poverty and if that aid should come with restricitions.
Chafee says that America is at the top of the world because of our great social programs. Welfare re-authorization is just coming up now and the goal is to build the middle class.
Taricani asks about the role of individual responsibility in people getting themselves out of poverty.
Chafee responds that the Clinton compromise which got people to work for there welfare was a good thing, but you have to pay attention to day-care when you consider this issue.
Laffey says that the ’96 welfare reform, with 5-year limit on benefits, was good policy. But America is not great because of its social programs, it’s great because it’s a place where everyone has a chance to get ahead. Unless the financial direction of the country changes, this won’t continue to be true.
Taricani asks Laffey how tax cuts benefit poor people.
Laffey invokes the multiplier effect, attributing it to JFK. When small businesses get tax cuts, they can afford to hire more employees, and everyone does better.
Chafee says that JFK’s financial plan is not something to brag about, because we had Vietnam, and then got deeper and deeper into debt. The country didn’t get out until 1999, when Democrats and Republicans worked on revenues and expenditures together.
Laffey says he won’t criticize John or Bobby Kennedy
Chafee says he’s talking about financials, not people.
That part about Chafee's horse-shoeing abilities being "needed" in Canada, as an excuse for his illegally working there, as being analogous to the plight of those living in poverty, was just so sad, that it ended up being funny!
I literally couldn't believe what I was hearing, when Sen. Chafee basically "dissed" JFK's economic policies, that were largely responsible for the prosperity of the 1960's. What part of the multiplier effect does Chafee not believe to be true? That's like Economics 101 -- people and corportations both make ecomonic decisions based on tax rates and incentives. And then, bringing in Vietnam, as if Kennedy was supposed to have anticipated the escalation in Vietnam after his death by President Johnson, too? If Chafee was trying to attract any old-line (what I'd call "Reagan") Democrats with that, he just gave them a very good reason to support Laffey. Wow!
Posted by: Will at August 28, 2006 12:47 AMIn past debates, I've been stunned by Linc's support for the teachers unions, and his perverse belief that pork barrel earmarks are a form of "property tax relief." Last night, he added defense of our social welfare bureaucracy to this list. Apparently, our entrepreneurs, scientists, engineers, and financiers, not to mention our armed forces, have less to do with America's greatness than our social welfare programs. Frankly, these are stunning views that I wasn't aware of before these debates. In that sense, they have served their purpose very well. And they have cost Linc this moderate independent's vote.
It was also nice to see that when it comes to poverty, Taricani clearly "gets it."
Posted by: john at August 28, 2006 8:34 AMIn past debates, I've been stunned by Linc's support for the teachers unions, and his perverse belief that pork barrel earmarks are a form of "property tax relief." Last night, he added defense of our social welfare bureaucracy to this list. Apparently, our entrepreneurs, scientists, engineers, and financiers, not to mention our armed forces, have less to do with America's greatness than our social welfare programs. Frankly, these are stunning views that I wasn't aware of before these debates. In that sense, they have served their purpose very well. And they have cost Linc this moderate independent's vote.
It was also nice to see that when it comes to poverty, Taricani clearly "gets it."
Posted by: john at August 28, 2006 8:35 AMOh, you just reminded me of the biggest one of the night: "America is great because of her social programs" -- Stunning, absolutely stunning -- a baffling lack of logic, and so wrong that I don't even know how to begin.
Limited Government and the FREEDOM to make one's own economic decisions are what made and continues to make this country the beacon of hope that it is! If social programs were the "measure" of anything, how come Sweden or France aren't superpowers?
I just can't wait to hear Dan Yorke this afternoon -- he is going to rip 'em a new one over that, and everything else!
Posted by: Will at August 28, 2006 8:49 AMThe one that made me laugh was when Chafee pulled out the 8 Biblical reasons for waging war, then proceeds to ridicule Laffey for mixing church and state with the holiday diplays on the Cranston City Hall lawn; displays that were supported by 2 court rulings, and approved by 80% of the citizens.
This is outright hypocrisy by Chafee.
Being a superpower is the measure of greatness? Then was France a better nation than the US before the end of the 19th century? Don't be ridiculous. America might be richer than Sweden, but it doesn't have a better quality of life, and all surveys show that its citizens are happier. America has guns- Wow!
Posted by: Jim at August 28, 2006 11:22 AMAmerica is great because of its social programs. Like it or not, income re-distribution is one of the most important functions of a central gov't.
Otherwise, you end up with an economy like...well, like we had prior to the New Deal: 90% of the wealth in the hands of 3% of the population.
The US gov't after WWII was the most activist that has ever existed in this country. What was the result? A broadening of wealth that had never existed prior, anywhere in the world.
Then, starting in the 80s, the cycle has reversed itself, and wealth is again becoming ever-more concentrated.
The thing is, money isn't just money. It's power. The more unequal the distribution of wealth and income, the more power the wealthy have, and the more able they are to tilt the field in their favor.
Just look at America in the 1890s. Think mega-wealthy and a whole lot of poor--truly poor people. You all want to work as one of 100 servants in someone's mansion? That's the sort of future you're all advocating.
I've read here that real poverty doesn't exist in this country. That the "poor" all have color TVs, etc. There is a reason for that. Shall I assume you want to return to the days when people were actively starving?
If so, continue to advocate tax cuts for the wealthy. Oh, and you may want to spend your next vacation in Mississipi, to get an idea of the sort of world you want to create.
Posted by: klaus at August 29, 2006 7:17 PM