In preparation for the upcoming election, the River Cities' Reader asked candidates to respond to the following: "Compare yourself to and contrast yourself with your opponent(s) in terms of your respective positions on the issues you think will be most important during the next term of the office you're seeking."
We sent this question to more than 70 candidates in contested races on the ballots in Scott and Rock Island counties. More than 30 candidates answered the call, and their responses are included here.
Keep in mind that we asked candidates to be brief, to be specific, to contrast their positions with those of their opponent(s), and to back up their claims. We'll leave it you to decide how well they followed those guidelines.
This exercise is intended as a supplement to other information voters should consider before casting their ballots.
U.S. House of Representatives, Iowa District 1
Ann Hutchinson
Democrat
www.annhutchinson.com
In an age where it's often difficult to tell the difference between two candidates, the race for Iowa's First Congressional District between my opponent, Jim Nussle, and me is a refreshing change.
The differences between the two of us could not be more dramatic.
To begin with, I bring 15 years of local government experience to the race. That means that I've spent the last 15 years addressing the concerns of local families, local schools, and local businesses. My number one priority has always been - and will continue to be - the well-being and prosperity of eastern Iowa families.
After 12 years in Washington, D.C., my opponent has stopped working for eastern Iowa families and started working for the special interests. If you've been following politics, you know that there is a huge mess in Congress right now. They've squandered the $5.6 trillion surplus, they've failed to provide a prescription-drug benefit through Medicare, and they've allowed Iowa to sink to 50th in the nation in Medicare reimbursements. My opponent is a part of that mess.
For further examples of the differences between the two of us, take a close look at the issues.
On the issue of the economy and the budget, our records are studies in contrast. As mayor of Bettendorf, I took the city from million-dollar deficits to million-dollar surpluses. My opponent, meanwhile, in his first year as chairman of the Budget Committee, took the country from a surplus of $127 billion to a deficit of $159 billion - a plunge of $286 billion (White House Office of Management & Budget). This represents the biggest one-year financial turnaround in U.S. history.
On the issue of improving our roads and bridges, I believe that Iowa needs to put its own priorities first. If we work to improve our infrastructure, new jobs and economic opportunities will follow. However, my opponent, at the urging of his leaders in Congress, decided to employ a restrictive budget formula that left nearly $46 million in federal transportation money for Iowa on the table. That's money we don't have to expand and improve the I-74 bridge.
On the issue of improving Iowa's dismal Medicare-reimbursement levels, again I believe that Iowa has to be our first priority as elected representatives for the state. The Medicare-reimbursement system is fundamentally flawed. Iowa ranks eighth in the nation in terms of quality of care in our hospitals, but we're last in the nation in reimbursement. That's a system that needs to be torn down and started anew. Inexplicably, my opponent voted to give more money to New York and Pennsylvania hospitals at Iowa's expense. It seems unbelievable, but you can check the votes yourself: HR 428, Vote 194, May 22, 2002; and HR 4775, Vote 206, May 24, 2002.
I could go on and on. Take any issue - Social Security, prescription-drug costs, you name it; when my opponent has had the opportunity to help eastern Iowa, he has let us down. After 12 years, he's forgotten whose side he's supposed to be on. I'll never forget that I work for you.
Jim Nussle
Republican
www.jimnussle.com
Thank you for the opportunity to address some important issues before Election Day. I am proud to serve Iowa in the U.S. House of Representatives. I currently also serve as chairman of the House Budget Committee and also sit on the Ways & Means Committee - a committee that has jurisdiction over Social Security, Medicare, and taxes.
I have outlined a few issues below that are very important to me. I have also illustrated where my opponent and I may disagree on some of these vital issues. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me by calling (563) 324-0094 or visit my Web site at (http://www.jimnussle.com). I have also made all of my positions known through the nonpartisan Project Vote Smart. That Web site is (http://www.vote-smart.org). Unfortunately my opponent failed to fill out this survey and let the voters know where she stands on the issues.
Social Security: Iowa's seniors have worked hard and deserve a secure retirement. Any Congressional action that affects retirement or Social Security must ensure that the system remains a solvent and secure component of seniors' retirement planning now and in the future. That is why I am opposed to any initiative that increases the retirement age or reduces benefits. I am also opposed to any privatization of the Social Security system. My opponent "said she is not opposed to the concept of devoting Social Security contributions to private accounts, but has not fully examined the issue" ("Bettendorf Mayor Hutchinson Announces Bid for Congress," Quad-City Times, October 9, 2001). I have fully examined the issue, and firmly believe that Social Security should not be privatized.
Budget, taxes, and economy: As chairman of the House Budget Committee, I am committed to a federal budget that is fair, that meets our nation's obligations, and that ensures our security according to our shared priorities. The triple threat of terrorist attacks, the war against terrorism overseas, and the worsening economy led to the return of budget deficits. In fact, the economic downturn and the bipartisan spending done in response to the events of September 11 account for 91 percent of the decline in the surplus in 2002 and 79 percent in 2003. I am committed to returning the government to balanced budgets as quickly as possible. To do that, Congress must control its spending habits. I remain committed to budget discipline and believe we can find areas to reduce spending by staying focused on our national priorities. The budget resolution that I wrote and that passed in the House of Representatives did just that by funding our priorities and holding the line on spending in other areas. I was proud of the landmark tax relief we approved in Congress last year with the president's support. A strong economy is key to ensuring a healthy revenue picture for the government. It is widely acknowledged that the tax relief that began last year helped to keep America's economic troubles from getting worse. Without tax relief and the economic stimulus package Congress approved, 1 million more Americans would be out of work today. When you are trying to improve your economy to provide jobs - as I believe we must - the very last thing you should do is raise taxes. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified before my committee that repealing a tax cut would be perceived as a tax increase. While I favor reducing taxes for Iowa families, my opponent allowed property taxes in the city of Bettendorf to be raised 37 percent in one year (Quad City Times, March 23, 1988). Also, while I have worked hard to pay down over $450 billion on the national debt, my opponent allowed the outstanding debt in the City of Bettendorf, where she is mayor, to increase 167 percent between 1992 and 2001 (City of Bettendorf Auditor's Report, 2001; "Net General Obligation Bonded Debt").
Prescription-drug coverage as part of Medicare: I support a drug-coverage program under Medicare that is affordable, accessible, and completely voluntary, and that is why I voted for and advocated the Medicare Modernization & Prescription Drug Act of 2002. The House passed this comprehensive legislation in June, but unfortunately the Senate's leadership has failed to take any action on this important issue. The House bill is focused on providing the most help for those seniors who need it most, but benefits all seniors.
Medicare Reimbursement: It is widely known that Iowa is discriminated against in the reimbursement payments made under Medicare to health-care providers. Simply put, Iowa does not receive as much money for the same services that are provided and reimbursed at a higher rate in other areas. What happens with Medicare affects the availability of health care for Iowans of all ages. I have worked hard in Congress to correct this wrong, and we have seen progress on the issue. In the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999, we added provisions to hold all rural hospitals harmless from the negative impact of the Prospective Payment System for three years and improved the Critical Access Hospital program. As a result of that law, there are 39 Critical Access Hospitals in Iowa today. In addition, we provided financial incentives for resident physician training in rural areas. In 2000, the Medicare Benefits Improvement & Protection Act provided equitable treatment for rural disproportionate-share hospitals caring for a large portion of low-income Medicare patients, provided an inflationary update for all Iowa hospital inpatient and outpatient departments, extended the Medicare Dependent Hospital program for rural areas, updated target amounts for all sole community hospitals, and provided increased Medicare access to telemedicine in rural areas where medical specialists are not readily available. I've met with the president about Medicare-reimbursement issues, as well as with Secretary of Health & Human Services Tommy Thompson and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Director Tom Scully. I've testified before Congressional committees. The Ways & Means Committee has jurisdiction in the House over Medicare issues. As a member of that committee, I was able to attach an amendment to the Medicare and prescription-drug bill that passed the House in June that would increase Iowa's Medicare hospital reimbursements by $123 million over the next three years. It is these kinds of efforts can provide short-term relief for Iowa's hospitals and other health-care providers. Iowa's problems with its Medicare-reimbursement levels are proof that the overall system doesn't work. Small adjustments made to tweak the system are not enough, and I will continue to advocate for overall reform of the reimbursement system. However, I will continue to push for incremental improvements in the system while also advocating and working for larger structural improvements. My opponent has only offered criticism of the prescription-drug bill that passed the U.S. House, and also the important money that will come to Iowa ($123 million) under this bill as Medicare-reimbursement funds. In fact, she attacked the $123 million in new Medicare money for Iowa that I authored to be inserted in this bill as "piecemeal" (Des Moines Register, September 7, 2002). With the dire situation in which our hospitals find themselves, I am very pleased that I was able to use my seat on the Ways & Means Committee to secure these funds for our state.
We sent this question to more than 70 candidates in contested races on the ballots in Scott and Rock Island counties. More than 30 candidates answered the call, and their responses are included here.
Keep in mind that we asked candidates to be brief, to be specific, to contrast their positions with those of their opponent(s), and to back up their claims. We'll leave it you to decide how well they followed those guidelines.
This exercise is intended as a supplement to other information voters should consider before casting their ballots.
U.S. House of Representatives, Iowa District 1
Ann Hutchinson
Democrat
www.annhutchinson.com
In an age where it's often difficult to tell the difference between two candidates, the race for Iowa's First Congressional District between my opponent, Jim Nussle, and me is a refreshing change.
The differences between the two of us could not be more dramatic.
To begin with, I bring 15 years of local government experience to the race. That means that I've spent the last 15 years addressing the concerns of local families, local schools, and local businesses. My number one priority has always been - and will continue to be - the well-being and prosperity of eastern Iowa families.
After 12 years in Washington, D.C., my opponent has stopped working for eastern Iowa families and started working for the special interests. If you've been following politics, you know that there is a huge mess in Congress right now. They've squandered the $5.6 trillion surplus, they've failed to provide a prescription-drug benefit through Medicare, and they've allowed Iowa to sink to 50th in the nation in Medicare reimbursements. My opponent is a part of that mess.
For further examples of the differences between the two of us, take a close look at the issues.
On the issue of the economy and the budget, our records are studies in contrast. As mayor of Bettendorf, I took the city from million-dollar deficits to million-dollar surpluses. My opponent, meanwhile, in his first year as chairman of the Budget Committee, took the country from a surplus of $127 billion to a deficit of $159 billion - a plunge of $286 billion (White House Office of Management & Budget). This represents the biggest one-year financial turnaround in U.S. history.
On the issue of improving our roads and bridges, I believe that Iowa needs to put its own priorities first. If we work to improve our infrastructure, new jobs and economic opportunities will follow. However, my opponent, at the urging of his leaders in Congress, decided to employ a restrictive budget formula that left nearly $46 million in federal transportation money for Iowa on the table. That's money we don't have to expand and improve the I-74 bridge.
On the issue of improving Iowa's dismal Medicare-reimbursement levels, again I believe that Iowa has to be our first priority as elected representatives for the state. The Medicare-reimbursement system is fundamentally flawed. Iowa ranks eighth in the nation in terms of quality of care in our hospitals, but we're last in the nation in reimbursement. That's a system that needs to be torn down and started anew. Inexplicably, my opponent voted to give more money to New York and Pennsylvania hospitals at Iowa's expense. It seems unbelievable, but you can check the votes yourself: HR 428, Vote 194, May 22, 2002; and HR 4775, Vote 206, May 24, 2002.
I could go on and on. Take any issue - Social Security, prescription-drug costs, you name it; when my opponent has had the opportunity to help eastern Iowa, he has let us down. After 12 years, he's forgotten whose side he's supposed to be on. I'll never forget that I work for you.
Jim Nussle
Republican
www.jimnussle.com
Thank you for the opportunity to address some important issues before Election Day. I am proud to serve Iowa in the U.S. House of Representatives. I currently also serve as chairman of the House Budget Committee and also sit on the Ways & Means Committee - a committee that has jurisdiction over Social Security, Medicare, and taxes.
I have outlined a few issues below that are very important to me. I have also illustrated where my opponent and I may disagree on some of these vital issues. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me by calling (563) 324-0094 or visit my Web site at (http://www.jimnussle.com). I have also made all of my positions known through the nonpartisan Project Vote Smart. That Web site is (http://www.vote-smart.org). Unfortunately my opponent failed to fill out this survey and let the voters know where she stands on the issues.
Social Security: Iowa's seniors have worked hard and deserve a secure retirement. Any Congressional action that affects retirement or Social Security must ensure that the system remains a solvent and secure component of seniors' retirement planning now and in the future. That is why I am opposed to any initiative that increases the retirement age or reduces benefits. I am also opposed to any privatization of the Social Security system. My opponent "said she is not opposed to the concept of devoting Social Security contributions to private accounts, but has not fully examined the issue" ("Bettendorf Mayor Hutchinson Announces Bid for Congress," Quad-City Times, October 9, 2001). I have fully examined the issue, and firmly believe that Social Security should not be privatized.
Budget, taxes, and economy: As chairman of the House Budget Committee, I am committed to a federal budget that is fair, that meets our nation's obligations, and that ensures our security according to our shared priorities. The triple threat of terrorist attacks, the war against terrorism overseas, and the worsening economy led to the return of budget deficits. In fact, the economic downturn and the bipartisan spending done in response to the events of September 11 account for 91 percent of the decline in the surplus in 2002 and 79 percent in 2003. I am committed to returning the government to balanced budgets as quickly as possible. To do that, Congress must control its spending habits. I remain committed to budget discipline and believe we can find areas to reduce spending by staying focused on our national priorities. The budget resolution that I wrote and that passed in the House of Representatives did just that by funding our priorities and holding the line on spending in other areas. I was proud of the landmark tax relief we approved in Congress last year with the president's support. A strong economy is key to ensuring a healthy revenue picture for the government. It is widely acknowledged that the tax relief that began last year helped to keep America's economic troubles from getting worse. Without tax relief and the economic stimulus package Congress approved, 1 million more Americans would be out of work today. When you are trying to improve your economy to provide jobs - as I believe we must - the very last thing you should do is raise taxes. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified before my committee that repealing a tax cut would be perceived as a tax increase. While I favor reducing taxes for Iowa families, my opponent allowed property taxes in the city of Bettendorf to be raised 37 percent in one year (Quad City Times, March 23, 1988). Also, while I have worked hard to pay down over $450 billion on the national debt, my opponent allowed the outstanding debt in the City of Bettendorf, where she is mayor, to increase 167 percent between 1992 and 2001 (City of Bettendorf Auditor's Report, 2001; "Net General Obligation Bonded Debt").
Prescription-drug coverage as part of Medicare: I support a drug-coverage program under Medicare that is affordable, accessible, and completely voluntary, and that is why I voted for and advocated the Medicare Modernization & Prescription Drug Act of 2002. The House passed this comprehensive legislation in June, but unfortunately the Senate's leadership has failed to take any action on this important issue. The House bill is focused on providing the most help for those seniors who need it most, but benefits all seniors.
Medicare Reimbursement: It is widely known that Iowa is discriminated against in the reimbursement payments made under Medicare to health-care providers. Simply put, Iowa does not receive as much money for the same services that are provided and reimbursed at a higher rate in other areas. What happens with Medicare affects the availability of health care for Iowans of all ages. I have worked hard in Congress to correct this wrong, and we have seen progress on the issue. In the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999, we added provisions to hold all rural hospitals harmless from the negative impact of the Prospective Payment System for three years and improved the Critical Access Hospital program. As a result of that law, there are 39 Critical Access Hospitals in Iowa today. In addition, we provided financial incentives for resident physician training in rural areas. In 2000, the Medicare Benefits Improvement & Protection Act provided equitable treatment for rural disproportionate-share hospitals caring for a large portion of low-income Medicare patients, provided an inflationary update for all Iowa hospital inpatient and outpatient departments, extended the Medicare Dependent Hospital program for rural areas, updated target amounts for all sole community hospitals, and provided increased Medicare access to telemedicine in rural areas where medical specialists are not readily available. I've met with the president about Medicare-reimbursement issues, as well as with Secretary of Health & Human Services Tommy Thompson and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Director Tom Scully. I've testified before Congressional committees. The Ways & Means Committee has jurisdiction in the House over Medicare issues. As a member of that committee, I was able to attach an amendment to the Medicare and prescription-drug bill that passed the House in June that would increase Iowa's Medicare hospital reimbursements by $123 million over the next three years. It is these kinds of efforts can provide short-term relief for Iowa's hospitals and other health-care providers. Iowa's problems with its Medicare-reimbursement levels are proof that the overall system doesn't work. Small adjustments made to tweak the system are not enough, and I will continue to advocate for overall reform of the reimbursement system. However, I will continue to push for incremental improvements in the system while also advocating and working for larger structural improvements. My opponent has only offered criticism of the prescription-drug bill that passed the U.S. House, and also the important money that will come to Iowa ($123 million) under this bill as Medicare-reimbursement funds. In fact, she attacked the $123 million in new Medicare money for Iowa that I authored to be inserted in this bill as "piecemeal" (Des Moines Register, September 7, 2002). With the dire situation in which our hospitals find themselves, I am very pleased that I was able to use my seat on the Ways & Means Committee to secure these funds for our state.
