http://mycn2.com/politics/raw-video-debate-reveals-contrasts-among-4th-dist-gop-candidates-on-education-tea-party

Publication Date: May 01, 2012

Author: Ryan Alessi

Raw Video: Debate reveals contrasts among 4th Dist. GOP candidates on education, tea party

05/01/2012 07:00 PM

The seven candidates running in the 4th Congressional District Republican primary on Monday carved out different positions from each other over federal funding for higher education and preschools as well as the direction of the tea party.

They appeared at Northern Kentucky University at a forum sponsored by the Northern Kentucky Chamber of Commerce. Below is more than one hour of raw footage from the debate showing how the candidates interacted over congressional pensions, education, Social Security, taxes and the tea party movement itself.

Part I — Highlights of term limits and congressional pension discussion:

  • Thomas Massie says he will give the federal government his pension payments back, if elected (4:09 of the video) and explains why. Tom Wurtz calls that “political theater” (5:03) and says turning down benefits only encourages “rich millionaires” to run for Congress. Alecia Webb-Edgington says even state pension participation is mandatory for state lawmakers (6:02) and Marcus Carey breaks down the federal pension system (6:40). Massie responds (7:43).
  • Massie and Gary Moore would not self-impose term limits. The other five would. (Each candidate states his/her position between 0:01 and 4:08.)

Part II — Brent Spence Bridge discussion:

Earlier in the day, Republican Congressman Geoff Davis wrote that he was frustrated at the pace of the new Brent Spence Bridge construction. The project needed $65 million by this summer for the next design phase but the state legislature appropriated only $44 million.

None of the candidates favored tolls to help pay for a new Brent Spence Bridge, although Walt Schumm said he could support tolls in “public-private ventures” if a private company wanted to help finance the bridge as a last resort. (4:35)

Part III — Federal tax reform

  • Wurtz calls tax loopholes “crony capitalism” (0:40) and most of the candidates advocate some variation of reforms that include lowering the corporate income tax rate but closing such loopholes.

Part IV — Highlights of federal education funding:

  • (3:40) Four candidates — Moore, Webb-Edgington, Schumm and Brian Oerther — say they want the federal government to continue funding Head Start programs that help low-income children get pre-school education. Massie, Wurtz and Carey say no.
  • Massie argued that home environments have a bigger effect on students’ future capabilities than pre-school educations. And he said “big government has contributed to” the number of split homes. (5:30)
  • Oerther (3:50) and Webb-Edgington (7:35) come down on the side that it’s much less expensive for taxpayers to fund early childhood education on the front end than pay the cost of prisoners, who are typically less educated. To Massie, Webb-Edgington added: “I do not believe the federal government is forcing people to get a divorce.”
  • Massie says he would advocate for Northern Kentucky University but not for government funding because “if you’re asking me for pork tonight, I’m here to tell you the pig has been picked clean.” (0:25)
  • Wurtz also says the federal government only manages to “screw up” education funding (2:30). “All we’ve done is throw trillions of dollars down a rat-hole,” he said.
  • Webb-Edgington said she strongly opposed a state bill to allow the independent University of Pikeville to become a public university because of the effect it could have on NKU (1:15).

Part V: Highlights of discussion of student loan rates and Social Security:

  • Schumm explains his opposition to keeping interest rates on federal student loans at 3.4 percent (0:20). Wurtz elaborates on that position (1:16).
  • All of the candidates agreed that Congress should allow the rates to go back to 6.8 percent (2:27)
  • Each of the candidates gave his/her position on whether the retirement age for Social Security should go up and whether the system should implement means testing in which the wealthiest retirees would receive the least in benefits. (Discussion starts with Carey at 3:08)

Part VI — Debate over the tea party and Pell Grant discussion:

  • Watch how the candidates react to a question submitted by audience member Erin Parker, who asked how many of the candidates considered themselves to be part of the tea party movement (2:40).
  • Carey responds to Massie (3:12) by saying the tea party has been “co-opted” by a group that just wants to support Ron Paul. And Moore agrees that the movement has been “hijacked” (4:14). Massie responds at 6:05.
  • NKU President James Votruba submitted a question about the Pell Grant and G.I. Bill programs aimed at access to college, and he aimed it at the candidates who called for keeping the government out of education — Massie, Carey and Wurtz. (0:01 to 2:00).
  • Schumm favored changing the Pell Grant system (2:01).

Part VII — Closing statement highlights:

  • Moore takes a couple jabs at Massie (starting at 5:00) over economic development in Lewis County, although he doesn’t name Massie.
  • Massie calls himself “probably the most fiscally conservative person in this race” (1:15).
  • Webb-Edgington says looking at candidates’ education level is important (7:00).

About Ryan Alessi

Ryan Alessi joined cn|2 in May 2010 as senior managing editor and host of Pure Politics. He has covered politics for more than 10 years, including 7 years as a reporter for the Lexington Herald-Leader. Follow Ryan on Twitter @cn2Alessi. Ryan can be reached at 502-792-1135 or ryan.alessi@twcable.com.

Comments

  • Cumberland Gap wrote on May 02, 2012 09:58 AM :

    Since Massie wants to end the federal money coming in to help Kentucky schools, that would leave a black hole of several hundred million dollars. Candidates should ask Massie why he wants to makes these cuts to Kentucky schools and increase class sizes for Kentucky children? All research agrees larger class sizes result in poor education.

  • TSM wrote on May 02, 2012 11:16 AM :

    The terms of service (limits) have no barring. Doing a good job is doing a good job. Term limits only give people in general a hope that someone they don’t care for has a limited term. Not that I haven’t wished someone to be out. The only thing that this really addresses is name recognition.

    What regulations are hindering the bridge construction?

    Uneducated voters, lazy, disenfranchised, don’t pay attention. What a jerk, the only reason he has any clue as to what a few constituents want is because he has been given a few pointers from a one sided argument. We already have rich congressmen/ woman. Yes we all look for a best price in business and home, why because we are smart shoppers. That does not mean we don’t take all into consideration before we choose who works for us.
    What we need are people who actually give a crap. People who care about the general population (the So called lazy, disenfranchised, uneducated families who have no time to waist on their political BS).

    Education is key, (as an uneducated constituent) I feel strongly that everyone should have the same opportunity. So having said that, if you choose! to give funding it should be distributed on an equal opportunity basis. So no matter what the criteria, grades, race, funding and so on it should equal out. This needs to include what an individual receives from private grants to scholarships. I am a firm believer in it starts in the home and by our mentors. Equal and balanced so if there are no good mentors give it to them. I personally had the opportunity to stay home with my child giving him more opportunity to grow and learn than most but if they start with a good base they have a good cornerstone. I also volunteered to be there for others.

    Interest rates, I agree that if you chose to do so then you chose to do so. If you agree to a contract than it is agreed upon. The funding that went to banks was bs. If we had to use funds to go to housing then it should have went to housing not banks. The banking system was flawed (by corruption) and they should have just failed. Bad business is bad business.

    SS – The government has sucked this forum dry. It is flat out stealing and the government should be held accountable. If this fund is optional it should be optional. We could have been putting funds into banks, IRA’s and so on. Quit taking the money if we will not get any of it. You can’t have it both ways.

    And for the record I could care less what or who is in office now and what they have done. What I care about is what you plan to do and what you have done in the past!

  • Bruce Layne wrote on May 02, 2012 02:37 PM :

    Thomas Massie won this debate. I loved his closing comments.

    Tom Wurtz did a great job in this debate too.

    Brian Oerther seemed like the odd man out.

    The others looked like career politicians to me. We’ve had more than enough of that.

    The candidates were asked if they considered themselves to be members of the TEA party. That’s a tough question for most of them, because their voting records clearly disqualify them, yet they know that the TEA party’s call for lower taxes, much lower spending and constitutional government resonate strongly within the 4th district, and in fact, all of Kentucky. They also know that any false claims to being a TEA party candidate would be loudly and publicly rebuked by those in the TEA party. It would be bad to claim to be a TEA party candidate and have everyone hear in response, “OH NO YOU’RE NOT!” David Williams made that mistake early in last year’s governor’s race and it was all downhill from there. I was amused to watch some of the neocons and career politicians in this debate waffle around the issue and then try to denigrate and marginalize the TEA party.

  • MRH wrote on May 02, 2012 09:56 PM :

    I disagree with Mr. Layne whole-heartedly. Massie sounds rehearsed. He is being coached 100% of the way and at the majority of the events I have heard him speak at he has had to refer to his notes or phone. I don’t believe he is capable of leading anyone as he is being led by Rand Paul and his cronies. I have no respect for Rand Paul: he used the Tea Party and continues to do so. I don’t believe Massie is doing this for anything but power. In his closing statement Massie says that the days of being endorsed by DC and other politicians are over. Yet he himself is endorsed by Ron Paul, so why would I vote for him?

    I agree Wurtz did a great job. If I hadn’t had the opportunity to meet Brian Oerther in person and hear his plans (yes, he actually has excellent ideas and knowledge that surprised me), I would be voting for him. I have met Oerther twice on the campaign trail. When is the last time a candidate asked you what you would like to see happen in our district? It happened to me for the first time a couple of weeks ago when Oerther asked me and actually took the time to listen to what I had to say. We talked for 10 to 15 minutes.

    I am voting for the odd man out. I don’t care that he lacks the polish of the other candidates. He is not a politician, yet he is well informed and actually has our best interests in mind. I appreciated his comment that the only endorsement he is seeking is from the constituents. I believe that he is a man of his word and should be given the chance to show the politicians in DC what it means to represent us.

    I encourage everyone to take the time to think for yourself. Don’t vote for a candidate because someone else is telling you to, whether it’s an endorsement or another politician. That’s how this country found itself in the mess we are in.

  • Michael Strunk wrote on May 03, 2012 05:43 AM :

    It is laughable to think Massie won this debate. Only a lack of objectivity would cause one to conclude that. That is a Massie supporters strong suit though.

What do you have to say?





SUBSCRIBE NOW

Subscribe to email updates.

Subscribe and get the latest political intelligence delivered to your inbox.

Copyright © 2013 cn|2