Golnik and Tsongas Spar in Sunday Congressional Debate
Both candidates for the Massachusetts' Third Congressional District race came together at Concord-Carlisle High School on Sunday in a debate sponsored by the League of Women Voters.
With just about one month left until Election Day, supporters and interested voters from across the Massachusetts Third Congressional District gathered at Concord-Carlisle on Sunday for debate between Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (D-Lowell) and challenger Jon Golnik (R-Carlisle) hosted by the League of Women Voters.
For anyone not in attendance, here’s a recap of views on certain issues provided by both of the candidates.
The Role of Government
Tsongas noted the shift between the 800,000 jobs lost during the last month of the Bush administration and the 300,000 jobs added last month along with the support of Republicans such as Romney campaign advisor Mark Zandy to highlight the impact of the stimulus packages passed several years ago.
She also noted work done in the district helping businesses as well as working to stop companies from sending jobs offshore, something Golnik agreed with and noted that was happening due to high corporate taxes.
Golnik believed that government’s role should be providing confidence to the private sector, who has not invested over $2 trillion to hire new workers due to fears over future tax and regulatory policies, particularly related to the Affordable Care Act.
He also supported reducing corporate tax rates from 35 to 25 percent and believed that the $225,000 per job brought from the money spent on stimulus could have been done far more efficiently by the private sector.
Later in the debate, Golnik took a jab at Tsongas’ earning the “Champion of Small Business” award from the National Small Business Association citing that the group received several million dollars from the Federal Government, something many small businesses could not depend on.
Tsongas meanwhile focused on the BP Oil Spill as an example of why some regulations are needed, although regulations in areas such as the Affordable Care Act could potentially be removed.
Green Jobs
For Golnik, the proof was clear that in terms of job creation, the market should be the primary driver and that ecologically-focused “green” jobs can’t be produced at a large enough rate during a slow economy, particularly under government subsidies.
He also noted that jobs created through government subsidies were not stable, and with high unemployment in certain towns in the district, that should be the primary focus at the current time.
Tsongas disagreed, citing 75,000 jobs created through wind energy tax credits over the past few years as well as a responsibility to future generations on the issue of climate change.
Federal Government Spending
Again, both sides disagreed here, with each candidate largely echoing national party talking points.
Golnik believed that the issue was a spending problem, again noting that the $225,000 per job provided by the stimulus packages that he stated earlier could have come at a much cheaper price and that an entire audit of the federal budget could be done.
While he believes that fewer cuts would likely be needed than some in Washington are looking for, he stated that ordinary citizens have needed to live within their means and the Federal Government should do the same.
Tsongas countered that the issue of revenues versus spending was a false dichotomy, with current deficit concerns coming from squandering of the yearly Clinton surpluses of the late 90s, the Bush Era tax cuts, paying for two wars on debt and Medicare Part D.
However, Tsongas also noted that she would only support repealing the Bush Era tax cuts for millionaires, and that cuts can be made in areas such as ending subsidies for agribusiness, although later in the debate she supported legislation for smaller farms that was attached to food stamp assistance, citing the over 800 farms in the new Third District.
Golnik replied that food stamps were less efficient than helping low income residents find better jobs, and noted how Tsongas had harmed low income families by a vote he stated cut nearly three quarters of a billion dollars in Medicare reimbursement.
Foreign Policy
Tsongas praised President Obama’s efforts in regards to new sanctions in Iran and the adminstration’s efforts during the Libyan uprising, although she noted that increased security at consulates is necessary to prevent tragedies such as the death of the late American ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stephens.
Golnik replied that Stephens’ death was not an isolated incident due to the weaponry used and the fact that it occurred on 9/11 and urged a stronger American presence in the region, particularly in support of “red lines” that Iran would not be able to cross without war, going as far to call Iran a “failed state.”
Both candidates agreed that a nuclear Iran would be unacceptable and that American troops in Iran would also not be acceptable, with Tsongas saying that more work needs to be done to define red lines and Golnik saying that America’s role if red lines are crossed should be logistical support to Israel, who would provide troops on the ground in an invasion of Iran.
Campaigns and Money
Tsongas called the Citizens United decision “outrageous,” stating her belief that outside groups should be forced to disclose the amounts of their spending as well as where their money comes from, something she said Republicans in Washington had blocked.
Golnik countered saying that Tsongas had outspent him 7 to 1 in 2010, and by a larger margin this time due to support from left wing groups.
Women’s Issues
Here was one of the few areas where both candidates largely agreed on something, in particular, that women should receive equal pay for equal work compared to men, something put into law by the Lilly Ledbetter Act.
The two differed from there on women’s issues, with Golnik citing that President Obama and his supporters like Tsongas were harmful to women due to unemployment and increasing personal debt incurred by women across the country.
Tsongas struck back, noting that women would be unduly impacted by Congressman and Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan’s plan for Medicare, citing that Golnik strongly supported it.
Immigration
Both candidates agreed this was an important issue and that employers hiring undocumented immigrants should be punished, with Tsongas stating that incoming immigrants should learn English and pay taxes and that bipartisan legislation would be needed.
Golnik however could not support amnesty for any immigrants who violated current immigration laws.
Gun Laws
Tsongas supported a return to prohibiting assault weapons and limiting the size of ammunition magazines while Golnik believed that gun laws are ineffective in stopping gun related tragedies and that it was inappropriate to use mass shootings for political gain when it came to Second Amendment rights.
League representatives have indicated a full video of the debate will be available on the Concord-Carlisle Public Access website later this week.
Iron Mike
6:37 am on Monday, October 1, 2012
Tsongas must have been a disappointment even to her ardent Democratic supporters.
All she did was parrot her 2008 and 2010 big government talking points. She seemed disinterested and unenthusiastic. Maybe this make-believe 'pretend you care' is getting old for her?
For EVERY problem known to mankind – Tsongas feels there is a BIG GOVERNMENT solution. She parroted Obama's failed talking points on foreign policy, on our national debt, and on jobs. She wants to allow illegals to stay [comprehensive solution], and she wants to restrict our gun ownership.
Of course – just like Obama – never having created a civilian job – she proved again she has NO CLUE what role government SHOULD be playing. [Answer: Lower taxes, cut regulations, and get the heck out of the way and off the back of the private sector].
By contrast, Mister Golnik was sharp, had studied a range of issues, and totally GETS IT that we cannot continue to borrow money to pay for liberal pipe dreams.
Mike Combs
7:59 am on Monday, October 1, 2012
Even Republicans call Golnik "a serial liar", and last night he lied about Medicare cuts. Are we supposed to believe that Golnik is worried about how Medicare is funded? Then why is Golnik on the record supporting turning Medicare into a voucher system that gradually shrinks?
Under Obama Medicare benefits have not been reduced by a penny, costs have been reduced by $750K, and the program's life has been extended.
Here's a link to Iron Mike calling Golnik a "serial liar":
http://rabidrepublicanblog.com/2010/09/03/grading-the-mass-5th-republicans/
[quote]Jon Golnik: Serial liar... I’ve come to know Jon too well. ... He lied to me then, and to several RTC groups since – saying that he had nothing negative in his background.
In fact he was not registered to vote for over eight (8) years that we know about so far. Then when caught he blamed it on George W. Bush. When his DUI/drug arrest was revealed this week, it became apparent he has been blaming others most of his life.[/quote]
Iron Mike
8:53 am on Monday, October 1, 2012
Selective reading does you in again Mister Combs.
Golnik on his WORST DAY is 100% times BETTER that Niki.
Niki is a SOCIALIST - she is a big part of what's ruining our country.
Come 2014, why don't YOU run for office? You seem to know ALL the answers.
Michael H Smith
3:01 pm on Monday, October 1, 2012
About the issue and taking money from Medicare to pay for Universal Hralth care (aka Obama Care)?
The Democrats say the money taken from the Medicare budget was not a benefits line item reduction for subscribers, but rather, it was a payments to providers of services reduction for expensive, redundant and/or unnecessary procedures.
The Republicans simply label the shifting of funds as a Medicare benefits reduction.
To start: Does that accurately reflect each sides position? If not please expand or set record straight.
Are both sides saying the same thing, just splitting hairs to dispute the others claim?
A question for those supporting the above Democrat position: if benefits payments to Medicare providers, for certain procedures, is what is being cut to fund Universal Healthcare, won't hose providers simply cut back offering those procedures?
Who and on what basis decides what is unnecessary or redundant services?
Will such cuts not result in a benefits reduction to certain subscribers?
If you disagree with any of those statements, please expand.
Thanks
Mike Combs
11:17 pm on Monday, October 1, 2012
Tsongas was right about Medicare and Golnik was wrong, according to non-partisan FactCheck.org. Maybe Golnik made a mistake, but since he's known as a "serial liar", I think he was intentionally trying to deceive voters.
I hope this helps, Michael.
Key bits from the article:
"Republicans claim the president’s $716 billion “cuts” to Medicare hurt the program’s finances. But the opposite is true. These cuts in the future growth of spending prolong the life of the Medicare trust fund, stretching the program’s finances out longer than they would last otherwise."
"The biggest savings from the Affordable Care Act come from reductions in the future growth of payments to hospitals — about $415 billion over 10 years. That’s Medicare Part A. "
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/medicares-piggy-bank/
Tom Christiano
5:02 pm on Monday, October 1, 2012
As everyone knows, the United States has a population with an average age which is getting older. There are more U.S. residents over 65 than ever before, and, with the extraordinary medical advances that seem to take place every day in this country, there is a reasonable expectation that we will have more and more elderly residents in this country in the future.
Medicare was passing into Law in the mid 1960s thanks to the persistant efforts and persuasive abilities of President Johnson. The average life expectancy was much less at that time than it is now. The average life expectancy in the United States in 1900 was just 47. It averages closer to 80 now, in this part of the country (it varies quite a bit, based on demographics, income, etc.).
So what does all of that mean....simply that Medicare and Social Security are going to need to be reformed if they are going to survive in this country.
If a politician tells you that everything will be fine with those two programs forever, without any changes....well, I'm afraid they are saying what they think you want to hear in order to get your vote. I would much prefer to vote for a candidate that tells me the truth, even though that would require some sacrifices on the part of the American people.
Don
5:53 pm on Monday, October 1, 2012
Representative Tsongas needs to check her facts before reciting them in a debate. A couple of her inaccuracies:
* "...current deficit concerns coming from squandering of the yearly Clinton surpluses of the late" - if she thinks that budget surpluses are carried into the following year, she is mistaken. Surpluses can be applied to debt (which we are currently at 16 trillion and growing) or returned to its rightful owners (the taxpayer). Deficits are the result of expenditures in excess of revenues. Since Obama took office, expenditures have risen from 2.3 trillion to over 3 trillion. Tax revenues have been consistent at 2 trillion the past 10 years. Reference: OMB (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals)
* "Tsongas also noted that she would only support repealing the Bush Era tax cuts for millionaires" - the truth is that the "Bush tax cuts" were extended by a bipartisan Congress, and signed into law by Obama, and are set to expire at the end of this year. This 1 year tax relief should really now be called "The Obama tax cut." If Congress does nothing, then everyone's taxes will increase.
Golnik was not just parroting talking points, but had command of the facts. It seemed that Tsongas was not prepared to speak to any specifics and instead talked in generalities.