Michigan continues to lose manufacturing jobs. What can the federal government do to help stem those losses or replace the jobs?
John Dingell: My top priority as the federal representative has always been to look out for the working families of the 15th District. As such, the shedding of jobs here in Michigan is one that causes me deep concern. Since 2001, Michigan has lost 409,700 jobs, 244,000 of which were high-paying manufacturing jobs. This year alone Michigan has lost an average of 5,130 jobs a month for the last six months. It is clear that we must help those that are struggling, while also finding ways to improve our manufacturing sector, train new workers, and compete in international markets. Since taking back the majority the Democratic Congress has made it a priority to help train workers for 21st Century Jobs. Last year we passed the America COMPETES Act, which would expand education, research and training in math, science and engineering fields. Without a doubt the US has the talent to compete globally, however, without access to education and training we will not be able to keep up with the competition. This legislation would also establish public-private partnerships between higher education institutions and businesses to educate and train mathematicians, scientists and engineers. Congress must also continue to fully fund the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. I have been a longtime supporter of this program because it has proven to be an effective program in terms of creating and retaining jobs, as well as increasing investment and sales for companies in Michigan. In Fiscal Year 2007 Michigan MEP clients reported more than $100 million in sales, $18 million in cost savings, 956 jobs created or retained, and $30.5 million in investments made in fiscal year 2007. Authorizing the full $122 million for MEP would help small manufacturing companies that are struggling and could prevent future job loss in the sector in Michigan. More importantly, this funding will be used by manufacturers to modernize so that they can remain competitive in the global marketplace.
John Lynch: First, keep taxes low and regulations fewer. Second, beef up funding for fixing the roads. Better roads would make Michigan a more attractive place to live and work. Third, encourage entrpeneurs - make it as easy as possible to start a new business.
Kelly: I can tell right now I'm not going to like this Lynch guy. Dingle seems high on math and science - cool.
Do you favor withdrawal of most U.S. troops from Iraq in the next year?
Kelly: I can tell right now I'm not going to like this Lynch guy. Dingle seems high on math and science - cool.
Do you favor withdrawal of most U.S. troops from Iraq in the next year?
John Dingell: I believe the next President should pursue a strategy to bring our troops in Iraq home both quickly and safely in a way that minimizes the danger posed to American troops and to innocent Iraqi civilians. I have great confidence that our military commanders and troops on the ground could execute that mission successfully by the end of next year. Over 4,000 American men and women have given their lives in Iraq, including 149 from Michigan, and tens of thousands more carry physical and mental scars that will last a lifetime. At least tens of thousands of Iraqis have died, and millions more have been forced to flee their homes, creating one of the largest humanitarian crises in the world. I opposed the Iraq War from the very beginning, and nothing we have learned in the five years since the invasion has led me to believe I was wrong. Our troops in Iraq are performing admirably, and have proved once again that we have the most capable military in the world. It is clear to me and to most Americans that the fault lays not with them, but with the civilian leadership that has continuously failed to provide the troops with a successful strategy that would provide for a victory in Iraq. While the President and Senator McCain believe that we are succeeding in Iraq, no strategy can be considered successful if it calls for 160,000 soldiers to remain in Iraq indefinitely. That is why I introduced legislation that would have required the President to withdraw our troops from Iraq by the time he leaves office. Unfortunately, it now appears that President Bush will avoid the responsibility of making the tough decisions needed to bring about an end to the Iraq War. I am pleased that Senator Obama has agreed to take a different approach stating he supports a withdrawal of U.S. combat forces in Iraq “in a manner that's as careful as we were careless getting in.”
John Lynch: No - I would not set a timetable. It must be determined based on the situation in the country and how it would affect the entire region.
Kelly: Finally, someone who understands that wanting to end the war doesn't mean we don't support the troops.
Kelly: Finally, someone who understands that wanting to end the war doesn't mean we don't support the troops.
John Dingell: Yes, I support the current proposal for the Michigan ballot that would expand stem cell research in Michigan. Last month the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health held a hearing on stem cell science. This hearing highlighted the need for increased access to more stem cell lines and the potential stem cell research holds for future cures for diseases such as Parkinson’s disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes and multiple sclerosis. Yet despite all of this possibility, Michigan has one of the most restrictive laws regarding stem cell research. Currently, Michigan law prohibits researchers from deriving new stem cell lines forcing them to rely on other universities and researchers for new lines. Furthermore, because State and Federal dollars are not available for research, universities such as the University of Michigan must rely on private funds. Given that the healthcare industry is one of the few industries that is still growing in Michigan, I believe that it is our duty to do what we can to further such growth. In Congress I voted twice to pass bipartisan legislation that would lift research restrictions on embryonic stem cells. However, the Bush Administration vetoed this legislation. The current proposal for the Michigan ballot would contain language stipulating that only unused embryos created at fertility clinics can be used for research and only if the would-be parents donate those eggs for that specific use. I support this proposal because I believe that we must do whatever we can to expand stem cell research. Michigan is facing a brain drain, many young minds are fleeing the state to conduct research where funding is available and restrictions are less onerous. Expanding stem cell research could be an opportunity for Michigan to not only continue to attract top researchers, but also attract new researchers who may have been discouraged by Michigan’s current law.
John Lynch: Absolutely not - embryonic stem cell research destroys embryos - the tiniest human beings. Remember you and I were once embryos! Adult stem cell research has already had many successes, emryonic stem cell research none that I am aware of.
Kelly: I don't think Lynch has even read this proposal. Idiot. The embryos to be used for this are the ones that are going to be thrown away because they aren't viable. I guess we should send them all to him instead so he can SAVE THE EMBYROS.
Do you favor a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage?
Should the United States institute a cap and trade program to limit greenhouse gases? Should the country take any measures to limit greenhouse gases?
The federal government has assumed a large role in local education policy with the enactment of No Child Left Behind. Do you support that legislation, and is it appropriate for the federal government to assume such a role?
Kelly: I don't think Lynch has even read this proposal. Idiot. The embryos to be used for this are the ones that are going to be thrown away because they aren't viable. I guess we should send them all to him instead so he can SAVE THE EMBYROS.
Do you favor a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage?
John Dingell: No. The Constitution of the United States has been amended just 27 times in 220 years. When those amendments have affected the privileges and rights of citizenship, it has been to expand upon them by expressly providing for those rights that we consider fundamental, the right to free speech, to freedom of religion, and to keep and bear arms, or to provide equal protection under the law for all Americans, regardless of color, or to provide the vote to all Americans, regardless of gender. To take the extraordinary step of amending the Constitution to deny individuals the rights granted to them by the properly exercised authority of a state government is an act that would demean the Constitution and the Congress.
John Lynch: I favor an amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman - because that's what it is! That would rule out all other combinations. I consider this currently one of our highest priorities as a nation.
Kelly: One of our highest priorities? Wow. And yikes.
Kelly: One of our highest priorities? Wow. And yikes.
Should the United States institute a cap and trade program to limit greenhouse gases? Should the country take any measures to limit greenhouse gases?
John Dingell: Yes, the US should take action to curb global warming and I am taking a leading role in Congress on this issue. The science is no longer in question, the earth is getting warmer and human activities are a part of the cause. The best scientists in the world are in agreement: we need to reduce greenhouse gases by 60-80 percent by 2050 and I am currently working to draft legislation instituting a cap and trade program that would do just that. However, I should stress that this is no easy task. We have no help from Congressional Republicans, a skeptical White House and a variety of views from Democrats. My goal as Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee is to draft a bill that is fair and balanced – one that protects both the environment and the economy.
John Lynch: I am not in favor of a cap and trade program. I do think we should take reasonable steps to limit greenhouse gases - research into methanol (not ethanol) as a replacement for gasoline seems promising as well as other alternate fuels.
Kelly: I think a little more detail beyond "reasonable steps" is in order from Lynch. I'd like to at least hear some acknowledgment that you know it is a big problem.
What is the greatest threat, in your opinion, to America's national security?
Kelly: Hey, I thought it was the gays.
Kelly: I think a little more detail beyond "reasonable steps" is in order from Lynch. I'd like to at least hear some acknowledgment that you know it is a big problem.
What is the greatest threat, in your opinion, to America's national security?
John Dingell: The greatest security challenge this nation will face in the 21st Century will not be a rival power, such as China, or a rogue state like North Korea. Rather, the threat that will pose the greatest challenge to our nation, and to every nation around the world, is the threat posed by global problems that cannot be solved solely through the use of military power or traditional diplomacy. This includes not only the threat of terrorism and extremist movements, but also old problems like nuclear proliferation and new problems such as depleting natural resources and rising global temperatures. President Bush’s foreign policy viewed any concession by the United States as an affront to our sovereignty, and shunned international institutions in favor of unilateral action. This must be replaced with a foreign policy vision that emphasizes increased international cooperation and shared sacrifice in order to achieve strategic goals. More so than at any time in the history of the world, the fates of all the world’s people are interconnected, and the well being of this country depends on our willingness to work with other nations to find common solutions to security threats.
John Lynch: Violent jihadism as we saw on September 11, 2001.
Kelly: Hey, I thought it was the gays.
John Dingell: When my dear friend Senator Kennedy put together the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act almost eight years ago, it was presented as way to ensure that all students would get a quality education. Public schools would be provided with federal funding in order to help them meet the accountability standards put in place. I supported NCLB because although it was not perfect, I believe that the overall goal of enhancing our public education system is worthy of my support. Since then we have seen this Administration continually underfund this bill, in fact, President Bush’s 2009 budget proposed funding $14.7 billion below authorized levels for NCLB. This brought the cumulative shortfall to $85.6 billion since the President signed this legislation into law. As a result, many state and local governments, whose budgets are already strapped, are forced to pick up the tab. The federal government made a deal with the states when we passed NCLB. We would set challenging standards, but we would help the states meet them. Congress made a commitment to properly finance this massive education reform bill, and I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure this happens. While I do not believe Congress will finish its work on NCLB reauthorization this year, I look forward to working with the next Administration to ensure that the concerns of state and local educators are adequately addressed. Congress must do all that it can to ensure that our public education system is training our children for the 21st Century Workforce and it is my belief that with a new Administration in place we will be able to do so.
John Lynch: I do not support it. I see virtually no role for the federal government in education. Decisions regarding public education should be left to state governments, local school boards and above all parents.
Kelly: I know the only person I criticize is Lynch, but he just makes it so easy. And he deserves it for saying things like the federal government should not have a role in education.
Do you favor making permanent federal tax cuts that expire in 2010?
Do you favor a woman's right to abortion? If no, please note any exceptions.
Kelly: I'm putting my response first this time because I have a good guess about what Lynch is going to say. We can't kill the embryos!
Kelly: I know the only person I criticize is Lynch, but he just makes it so easy. And he deserves it for saying things like the federal government should not have a role in education.
Do you favor making permanent federal tax cuts that expire in 2010?
John Dingell: I believe that we can afford to keep that portion of the Bush tax cuts which benefit lower and middle income workers. In 2001, the President and the Republican Congress implemented a tax plan that gives 60 percent of the tax breaks to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans, with 43 percent of the breaks going to the wealthiest one percent of Americans. Since then, the income gap between the richest Americans and the rest of the country has grown at an unprecedented rate. For example, the top 1 percent of earners took home 23 percent of all income in 2006, the highest total since just before the 1929 stock market crash. I am in favor of providing further tax relief to most Americans by enacting common sense solutions, like taxing the income of hedge fund managers who make tens of millions of dollars per year in fees but pay no income tax at all, and instead are taxed only at the lower capital gains rate. Early in his first term, President Bush liked to describe himself as the “C.E.O. President,” and now that C.E.O.’s are making record salaries while workers are being laid off, I think we know what he meant by that. It will be the job of Congress in the coming years to ensure that our economic and tax policies are fair for all Americans.
John Lynch: Yes - I consider this a top priority.
Kelly: Ok, here is my chance to criticize Dingle. This is actually against democratic tax policy in general. They always like to complain that big tax cuts are given mostly to the wealthy. Here, Dingle writes that 43 percent of tax breaks go to the top one percent, and then goes on to say that those earners took home 23 percent of all income in 2006. Doesn't he realize the flaw in his argument that he himself has just pointed out? The top wage earners in the country pay the most taxes, in fact, the top 1 percent of earners pay about 33 percent of taxes. It only makes sense, then, that tax cuts go mostly to the wealthy. They are the ones paying all the taxes!
Do you favor expansion of health care coverage to include all Americans?
Kelly: Ok, here is my chance to criticize Dingle. This is actually against democratic tax policy in general. They always like to complain that big tax cuts are given mostly to the wealthy. Here, Dingle writes that 43 percent of tax breaks go to the top one percent, and then goes on to say that those earners took home 23 percent of all income in 2006. Doesn't he realize the flaw in his argument that he himself has just pointed out? The top wage earners in the country pay the most taxes, in fact, the top 1 percent of earners pay about 33 percent of taxes. It only makes sense, then, that tax cuts go mostly to the wealthy. They are the ones paying all the taxes!
Do you favor expansion of health care coverage to include all Americans?
John Dingell: I believe that this year’s presidential election offers a historic opportunity to finally pass a universal healthcare bill. However, I am a realist and understand we cannot let the perfect become the enemy of the good. I am I have been fighting for universal healthcare coverage long before it was popular. In fact, when my father started this fight in 1936 he was one of the only Members of Congress advocating for a national health insurance system. I have continued his work on this issue; it is not just an issue of compassion; it is very much an issue of economics. Sadly, 47 million Americans do not have any health insurance today, one million in Michigan alone. Frankly there is no reason why families should have to choose between putting dinner on the table or taking their child to the doctor for a check-up. This is why, as Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, I have introduced two pieces of legislation that would ensure that all families have access to healthcare. The first, H.R. 15, is a piece of legislation that is particularly dear to me. Like my father, I believe in a national single-payer healthcare system. Every Congress since I was first elected, I have introduced this bill, the “National Health Insurance Act.” It is a simple bill, it is direct, and it would address the problem the uninsured face head on. I have also introduced, with my old friend Senator Kennedy, H.R. 2034 the “Medicare for All Act,” which makes Medicare available to those under age 65. This is another option to provide health care to all Americans, using a proven program for its delivery.open to hearing from my colleagues on this issue and look forward to working with the next Administration.
John Lynch: I favor private, market-based reforms that would lead to that outcome. Let's remember that everyone here still has access to health-care coverage if they can afford it - and that many health-related issues are not expensive to get resolved. And ER service is available to everyone. So we shouldn't make the picture bleaker than it really is, given the fact that there are gaps.
Kelly: I can't believe that this man could get elected after saying "everyone has access to health-care coverage if they can afford it..."
Kelly: I can't believe that this man could get elected after saying "everyone has access to health-care coverage if they can afford it..."
Kelly: I'm putting my response first this time because I have a good guess about what Lynch is going to say. We can't kill the embryos!
John Dingell: I personally believe abortion is an intensely private and moral decision. In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court held that, based on a Constitutional right to privacy, a state cannot prohibit a woman from obtaining an abortion during the first two trimesters of pregnancy. I support the Court’s decision and do not believe I have the right to force my views on others. As a Member of Congress, I have tried throughout my tenure to prevent unwanted pregnancies. For example, I have consistently supported legislation that would give more women access to contraceptives. It is my opinion that legislation such as this would go a long way in preventing abortions. This is a goal we can all agree on and should all strive for.
John Lynch: One of our most cherished values as a country is sticking up for the litte guy. There is no "littler guy" than an unborn child. The only right here is the child's right to life. No Supreme Court decision can make right what is intrinsically wrong, as the Court also tried to do with the infamous Dred Scott decision in 1858 making slavery a "right" of slaveholders. The only exception would be the life of the mother.
What are your plans to improve the infrastructure in your district?
What is your position on U.S. trade laws?
Kelly: Meaning: I need to go look up the laws and see what they are.
What measures do you support to counter rising gasoline prices?
What are your plans to improve the infrastructure in your district?
John Dingell: Candidate response is not yet available.
John Lynch: As I mentioned, secure more federal funds for road improvement. Let's take a look also at "transportation depots" where a variety of forms of transportation would be available from one place.
Kelly: He's big on this transportation thing... Transportation Depots? Is this what is most important to Michigan?
Kelly: He's big on this transportation thing... Transportation Depots? Is this what is most important to Michigan?
What is your position on U.S. trade laws?
John Dingell: Candidate response is not yet available.
John Lynch: Currently researching the issue more closely.
Kelly: Meaning: I need to go look up the laws and see what they are.
What measures do you support to counter rising gasoline prices?
John Dingell: Candidate response is not yet available.
John Lynch: Candidate response is not yet available.
Kelly: Read - I have no idea.
Since I seem to be becoming increasingly sarcastic, I think I will quit for tonight...
Kelly: Read - I have no idea.
Since I seem to be becoming increasingly sarcastic, I think I will quit for tonight...
