BJ Lawson, Rep. David Price Debate Impressions....

polifrog



We are all familiar with the formal "straitjacket" style of presidential debates which often devolve into stump-speech time for each candidate. They are frequently boring affairs devoid of the vitality that conversational give and take can provide.

Not so for local debates. It is pleasing to see candidates pleasantly and respectfully joust with one another over differing opinions and approaches to governance. This past Saturday evening debate between David Price (NC-4) and BJ Lawson via WRAL was just such a debate. This debate came across as a round-table discussion rather than a formal rule leaden affair and if there were any debate rules, I was not made aware of them in the opening comments by the moderator. Excellent! Kudos to David Price for agreeing to such a format.



Is this election nationalized?
The first question centered on whether the current election had been nationalized or not and David Price stumbled out of the gate with an unsuccessful attempt to redefine the terms of the question. It is not in Price's interest for the election to be decided on national issues and his wishy-washy answer on the question indicated that while he understood that the election has indeed been nationalized he did not want to admit that it had been.

It would have been nice had BJ Lawson answered "yes, the election has become extremely nationalized", but perhaps he understands the need to not impart a feeling of disaffection to those who vote on local issues. He did, however, explore the out of control process in Washington that no longer works for us.

Is the Dept of Education needed?
During David Price's rebuttal he turned the conversation toward an attack on Lawson's support for abolishing the Dept. of Education. I truly enjoy a debate in which the candidates are able to insert topics of their own choosing as it gives further insight in the mind of the candidate. In this case Price clearly believes he has a winning argument. Price argues that abolishing the Dept of Education would remove $4 billion dollars of funding from NC schools, but he avoids commenting on how those dollars originate as taxes on NC citizens. More importantly, though, is that Price seems unaware that his constituency, which has become intimately aware of Washington spending, is under no illusion that the dollars DC seems so generous with are actually our tax dollars and that when those dollars are returned to us through the Dept. of Education that they come with strings attached.

Lawson makes the point that we were sending more money up to Washington to fund the Dept. of Education than we got back in educational grants until the recent deficit spending splurge kicked in. He went on to argue that we need to keep our resources local so that NC dollars can educate NC children.

Lawson then turned to the student loan system which he argues is another government incentivized (with low interest rates) debt bubble much like the deflating housing bubble we are currently suffering under once was. In return Price charged "this is an absurd view", with no explanation as to how it is absurd.

Bush Tax Cuts..
The last interesting exchange was over the Bush tax cuts and congress' childish decision to leave Washington before deciding whether to extend them or not.

David Price's position was interesting in that he has been in congress and should know full well who controls the nation's purse. Congress. Yet he argues that credit for the 90's economic expansion should go to Bill Clinton when, in fact, it was the Gingrich congress that forced budgetary control on the Federal government at the time. He then argues that the "Bush Tax Cuts " increased the deficit when, in fact, the deficit was decreasing until he and Pelosi took control of congress in Bush's last two years. It was in these last two years of Bush's presidency that the deficit exploded.

David Price seems to be arguing that Clinton gave us an economic expansion and Bush gave us deficit when the reality is that these matters are under the purview of congress. David Price should know better. The TeaParty does. Th fact that he makes the argument, though, leads me to believe Price is not fully aware of how much his electorate has evolved.

Summery
Taken as a whole this debate defines David Price as a politician who's power is dependent on what Washington does for the citizenry. Never have I seen a man create so much fear over losing what Washington gives us. I truly believe that when Price voted for all the Washington spending of the last 2 years that he believed that spending would translate into votes, hence the incessant references to our dependency on Washington money which we all know is really our money.

BJ Lawson, by contrast, is a man arguing for reliance on self and community but most importantly liberty. These are the qualities of a politician who is truly a man of the people rather than a man of Washington DC.

Thanks to WRAL.




out