Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
07.09.2008 2:12 am

Steelman v Hulshof: forum mainly highlights differences in style, not substance

Special to the Post-Dispatch
  • Email this
  • Print this

Missouri’s two Republican candidates for governor — state Treasurer Sarah Steelman and U.S. Rep. Kenny Hulshof — participated Tuesday night in what both campaigns said was the duo’s first forum in the St. Louis area.

For 90 minutes, the two took turns answering questions posed by about 80 people attending the joint appearance, held at the Brentwood Community Center and hosted by the Clayton and Missouri River Township Republicans.

For the most part, the forum underscored one point — Hulshof and Steelman agree on many issues.

Such as:

1)Transportation –Both are wary of putting more state money into mass transit, despite the rising fuel costs for cars and trucks. Both view such spending as being largely the responsibility of the free market and private business.

“It’s difficult to fund mass transit in this state,” Steelman said.

2) Job-creation –Both dispute any suggestion that it’s the duty of government to create jobs.

“The duty of the government is to get out of the way and let entrepreneurs create jobs,” said Hulshof.

Both called for fewer government regulations on business.

3) Reassessment –Both called for changes in the state’s property tax system, and both praised state Senate President Pro Tem Mike Gibbons, R-Kirkwood and now a candidate for attorney general, for his success in getting a new law passed that requires a mandatory roll-back of tax rates by all governmental jurisdictions when property reassessment occurs.

Hulshof proposed freezing assessed values of property when the property owner is 65 or older, until the property is sold or transferred. Steelman promised to “put all of the tax code on the table” and have experts review all state taxes.

4) Income tax repeal — Hulshof said he is “open to this idea” of eliminating Missouri’s income tax and replacing it with a sales tax. He added that he didn’t support the idea on a federal level. Steelman reaffirmed her plan to have all state taxes reviewed.

5) Abortion, stem-cell research and the death penalty — Both underscored his/her opposition to abortion and embryonic stem-cell research, and his/her support for the death penalty.

Hulshof did note, however, that he has worked as a public defender and as a prosecutor in death-penalty cases. The ultimate punishment, he said, “is something that should be reserved for the worst of the worst.”

Steelman recounted the debilitating illness that has beset her mother, who has told her family that she feels useless. Steelman emphasized that her mother’s life still had worth, adding, “I am pro-life and that means from the beginning until the end.”

6) Eminent domain — Both said they opposed the use of eminent domain to take property from one private owner to give it to another. Both said the process should be used only for public projects, such as roads.

7) The Sunshine Law and government e-mail — Both agreed that e-mail transmitted on state or government computers, Blackberries or other devices were public information that should be made available under the state’s Sunshine Law.

Hulshof said that officials’ communications on private equipment was not subject to the Sunshine Law. Steelman said she wanted to expand the Sunshine Law, but she did not get specific.

Both said he/she embraced “transparency.”

8) Fee offices — Hulshof reinterated his proposal to put all the state’s license fee offices up for bid, thus doing away with the traditional system of the governor awarding the office contracts to political allies. Steelman said she would leave alone fee-office operators who ran their offices well; those not run properly would be put up for bid, she said.

9) Concealed weapons– Both emphasized his/her support for the Second Amendment, and each expressed support for lengthening the state’s concealed-weapon permits to five years, from the current three years.

When asked about allowing concealed weapons on public transportation, Hulshof said that would be up to the entity operating the system. Steelman would allow concealed weapons on public transportation, adding that if she was on a bus, she might want to carry a gun for protection.

10) Healthcare — Both advocated a private approach to expanding access to health care.

“We have to look to the private sector,” Hulshof said. “We have to look to the competitive model.” The aim, he added, is “for us to be better investors in our own health care decisions.”

Said Steelman: “We need to have a consumer-driven market, instead of an insurance-driven market. The free market is the solution to lowering costs.”

11) Gov. Matt Blunt’s biggest successes and failures –Hulshof praised the governor for “doing what he promised he was going to do” and reforming the state’s legal system to curb lawsuits and cap punitive damages. Hulshof said too many people have “a lottery mentality” about lawsuits.

Steelman lauded Blunt for fully funding the state’s foundation formula for public education.

As for failures: Hulshof said he would have handled the Medicaid cuts differently, although he did not get specific. Steelman said, “I, too, would approach governing differently than he did.”

So, what big differences came up during the forum?

Steelman mentioned her call for eliminating the state ethanol mandate, which she ties to the rise in gas and food prices — and which Hulshof opposes. He said it was a “standard,” not a mandate, and disputes any link to the rising costs of energy and food.

He alluded, but very indirectly, to Steelman’s ties to trial lawyers (Her husband, David Steelman, is one.)

BIGGEST ISSUE DISPUTE?

The Second Injury Fund.

Hulshof repeated his contention, made at a press conference earlier Tuesday, that experts say the fund — which provides coverage for people with existing disabilities who are hired by Missouri firms, and then suffer another injury — will be insolvent within a year or two.

Hulshof wants the fund changed so that a person can successfully receive a payment for total disability only once. Those who receive benefits, and who later get a job, would see their payments reduced or phased out, under his plan.

Steelman says the fund has no financial problems. It ended this fiscal year with $21 million, which she said is higher than than the $16 million at the end of fiscal year 2005.

15 comments

Comments are closed.

Observer:
No as a matter of fact I do NOT have a corn crop or have an interest in ethanol but I would rather pay for ethanol than be dependent on foreign oil.

I have also lived in California within 20 miles of an oil refinery and paid some of the highest fuel cost in the US. Building a refinery is not the answer for those those living in that location.

The rise in food cost is primarily due to higher fuel costs not the price of corn. In fact little of our food is made of corn. An increase in fuel cost from removal of the mandate will only increase food cost further.

Read the independent studies from places like Iowa State.

A defeatist attitude…I don’t think so..only a realistic one.

— Farmer
2:29 pm July 9th, 2008

Farmer…

California has 21 refineries and the highest gas tax in the country. Hardly a relative comparison to Missouri. (who has zero refineries and a low gas tax) Our closest refinery is Wood River, IL. In Missouri, we are dependent on oil refined in other states.

With IOWA’s major crop being corn, I doubt their study would pass the criteria of being a disinterested party.

Further, California has smog problems that Missouri does not. They need an oxygenator in their gasoline in order to try to fix some of their smog problems.

Have you taken the time to read the study presented by the Show-Me Institute? (A true independent study) If you disagree with any of their findings, I would be happy to discuss such.

If we want to reduce our dependancy on oil from overseas suppliers, we need to do two things:
1. Drill for more in the U.S. (We have plenty available)
2. Reduce our consumption.

Ethanol, while presented as an interesting alternative when introduced, has not panned out to be a solution that is economically or environmentally friendly. -The corn growers like it =$$$, but our cars and our wallets don’t. A 10+% decrease in power is not condusive to a gasoline engine meeting optimal performance.

California decided to switch to ethanol from another gasoline additive, MTBE, due to evidence MTBE was contaminating ground water, largely by leaking from underground fuel tanks.

Both MTBE and ethanol are oxygenates designed to reduce tailpipe emissions by making gasoline burn hotter. (Does ethanol produce increased temps at the tailpipe, therefore contributing to global warming?) The federal government mandated the inclusion of an oxygenate in gasoline - That federal mandate was removed in 2006.

(From a 2002 report) “The MTBE phase-out could mean the gasoline supply is short 5 to 10 percent,” Stillwater Associates President David Hackett told Reuters. “There could be significant shortfalls.”

The switch could lead to gasoline prices of $2 to $3 a gallon,(remember thiswas as reported in 2002) Stillwater said in a report. In unusual situations, that price could spike to $4 a gallon.

Ethanol extends gasoline supplies because its production is encouraged by a federal tax credit of 51 cents per gallon, ethanol is economically attractive. Without this credit, it would not be as competitive.

Just because you’re paying for some of your gas when you pay your federal taxes, rather than at the pump, doesn’t make it more economically enjoyable.

When you figure in the 10+% loss in performance (10% less MPG) and the 51 cents/gallon paid by federal taxes, we’re suffering a big loss.

If ethanol really costs you $5.00/gallon and gasoline costs you $4.00/gallon; which one do you want?

— observer
3:40 pm July 9th, 2008

I would hope that sickof$4gas would realizethat Kenny is for the people. Hehas a lovely family and knows the price of food. He isthe right man for the job! After tonight….I am convinced …You have my vote KENNY!!!!!

— jsure
9:50 pm July 9th, 2008

Re: observer’s question.

One of the more interesting jobs I have had was as a longshoreman on Seattle docks, but the thread is not about me, it about the future of our state and who can serve it best, Kenny Hulshof or Sarah Steelman. I could support either, but not Mr. Nixon.

In fairness to your question, as a matter of record, to advance the arguments I have made here, I am not a farmer or in a farm related business, nor am I employed in a ‘political job’, nor am I beholden to anyone for my income.

My mother’s family operated a farm in southeast Ohio, near the West Virginia border, hardscrabble country, and I used to help with the hay baling in the summer, which I loved. I would be proud to be a farmer.

My arguments in favor of Kenny and ethanol stand alone. Does this help?

— MOactiveGOP
8:50 am July 10th, 2008

Regarding Kenny vs Sarah:

In the general, one of the two vs Nixon.
Trial lawyer money will shift and go to Nixon, this hurts her more than Kenny.
Kenny can raise more support from rural areas than Sarah, due to innate conservatism of our rural counties and his background. This translates into more support in all areas except KC, STL, and Columbia. Kenny may be able to make some inroads in Columbia, due to his legislative efforts.
This make the election pivot on limiting Nixon’s gains in KC and STL.
This is a tough challenge for either GOP standard bearer, in this election cycle and with this presidential campaign.
Then, secondary challenge is to hold your own and gain in collar commumnities in suburban KC/STL and run well in Springfield, St. Joseph.
If GOP can do this = win. In a tough debate/ presentation style campaign Kenny can do this better than Sarah, even with her other skills. But Kenny must gain nomination without alienating women voters and suburbs. None of us know at this point what issues will be most important to those voters, and we need to get in and start talking to those folks now!

In the issue of student vs teacher, boss vs subordinate, all Kenny needs to say is that circumstances change, sometimes the old boss just does not cut it any more. Sometimes, this kind of change is good. Thanks Jay, but could you step aside for the good of the state?

— MOactiveGOP
9:32 am July 10th, 2008

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All