August 15, 2006
Two Final Debate Follow-ups
Two more sets of questions worth following up on from the first Republican Senatorial debate...
1. The first question is for both Senator Chafee and Mayor Laffey. Mayor Laffey’s fiscal proposals have focused mostly on reducing discretionary spending of various forms, while Senator Chafee blamed the necessity for high-taxes on the war in Iraq.
Yet at one point during the evening, both candidates agreed that there is a “demographic tidal wave” about to hit entitlements. To fill in some detail, I refer you to Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution, who argues that entitlements are on a path towards dwarfing all other budgetary considerations…
Entitlements, on the other hand, represented 53 percent of total federal spending in 2005 with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid representing 41 percent of the total. These three programs are growing rapidly, and along with interest on the debt, will absorb all projected federal revenues by the early 2030s.The question for both candidates is what basic principles do they believe in with regards to bringing entitlement spending under control?The reasons for this rapid growth include the aging of the population (greater longevity, in particular—not just the retirement of the large baby boom generation) and rapidly increasing spending on health care….A variety of health care reforms—from greater use of electronic records to curtailing malpractice awards—could reduce the level of spending somewhat, but are not likely to constrain spending growth very much, except perhaps temporarily.
2. The second question is for Senator Chafee: When discussing pork, the Senator discussed the complex and delicate nature of the legislative process. When discussing immigration, the Senator said he supported requiring illegal immigrants who had been in the US for two years or less to leave the country, as embodied in the Martinez-Hagel compromise.
Why then did Senator Chafee vote in favor of Senator Dianne Feinstein’s “orange card” amendment which would have given amnesty to all illegal immigrants within the United States on or before January 1, 2006 (for those really bad at math, that’s significantly less than two years) and unraveled the fragile Martinez-Hagel consensus on the Senate immigration bill?
"When discussing immigration, the Senator said he supported requiring illegal immigrants who had been in the US for two years or less to leave the country, as embodied in the Martinez-Hagel compromise.
Why then did Senator Chafee vote in favor of Senator Dianne Feinstein’s “orange card” amendment which would have given amnesty to all illegal immigrants within the United States on or before January 1, 2006 (for those really bad at math, that’s significantly less than two years) and unraveled the fragile Martinez-Hagel consensus on the Senate immigration bill? "
2 simple reasons.
1. Chafee has no idea WHAT he's voting on, just that his handlers told him HOW to vote.
2. Chafee will say ANYTHING to win re-election and not have to get a REAL job.
Posted by: Greg at August 15, 2006 9:10 PM1. Chafee has had real jobs
2. If you care so much about what the senator thinks, Why don't you just call the office and ask?
I have. Often enough that I wouldn't be surprised if my name is on their 'do not respond' list.
Posted by: Greg at August 15, 2006 9:33 PMHmm
Posted by: Spodorf at August 15, 2006 9:34 PMYeah, make that note to check the call records when you get back into the office tomorrow.
Posted by: Greg at August 15, 2006 9:36 PM1. I don't work for the office
2. Cheapshots make you sound like a 15 year old.
3. I'm not liberal enough to work in the Chafee camp.
Posted by: Spodorf at August 15, 2006 9:40 PMGreg has extreme difficulty debating without insulting his opponent. Sounds like another guy I know....
Posted by: Spodorf at August 15, 2006 9:43 PM"1. Chafee has had real jobs"
Oh, right, he shoed horses in Canada...
"1. I don't work for the office"
Funny, the natural reaction of someone not involved with Chafee would have been to say "I don't work for CHAFEE" but your answer betrays that you've intentionally split that hair.
Posted by: Greg at August 16, 2006 7:00 AMI don't mean to be picky with words. If it suits you better" I don't work for Chafee.
Posted by: Spodorf at August 16, 2006 8:31 AM"...has extreme difficulty debating without insulting his opponent. Sounds like another guy I know...."
Yeah! Sounds like Chafee! He sounded like a jerk in that first debate. Laffey stuck to the issues and held the high road.
If the Chafee folks are offended by Mayor Laffey pointing out the Senator's poor record and his complicity in each installment of the "Taxpayer Ripoff of the Week", perhaps there is a sense of guilt setting in...the uneasy feeling deep in the gut that they have been exposed for what they really are, big-government, pork-barrell spending liberals who really should be card-carrying Democrats.
Posted by: Stretch Cunningham at August 16, 2006 9:07 AMStretch, you might have a better time understanding the debate, if you weren't wearing earplugs during it. Senator Chafee did a fabulous job of sticking to the issues and even needed to be chided by the Senator for attempting bringing the Senator's family into the political spotlight.
Posted by: Spodorf at August 16, 2006 8:38 PMSpodork, are you saying the Senator chided himself? I does sometimes sound like he's debating himself when he speaks.
When he tried to sound "tough", he evoked memories of Dukakis on a tank.
I wasn't wearing any earplugs, but you must have had YOUR filter controls turned all the way to the left.
Don't drink too heavily after Linc wrecks another train tonight!
Posted by: Stretch Cunningham at August 17, 2006 3:53 PM