|
News & Opinions |
|
ISSUES |
Editorial: "Difference-maker"Wednesday, October 25, 2000 Monitor editorial District 5 voters have been well-served by Clifton Below. In Democratic incumbent Clifton Below and Republican Jim Rubens, Senate District 5 voters have a choice between two hardworking wonks. But that's not to say they are similar candidates, or that our preference for Below is a close call. Rubens is driven by ideology, Below by facts. Rubens often impresses others as arrogant, Below as earnest. Rubens rarely questions his own assumptions, while Below always listens and learns. Rubens's characteristics rendered him a sideshow throughout his four years in the Senate. In contrast, Below became a difference-maker in only his first term. On the issues, the obvious point of comparison between the two is the income tax. Rubens is against it and the Supreme Court ruling that mandates school tax reform. Here's the problem: It's been three years since that ruling, and Rubens still doesn't offer an answer to it that is constitutional. Below is for the income tax, having crafted a reform bill that would have lowered overall taxes for most New Hampshire residents. Such was the strength of the proposal and Below's reasoned evangelism that the tax plan bearing his name almost become law. There are revealing differences behind their tax positions, too. Rubens runs a think tank that commissioned a study of the income tax. When its findings suggested that an income tax might actually enhance the state's economy, a shocked Rubens disavowed his own study, saying it had failed to measure the mythical "New Hampshire Advantage." In contrast, Below never stopped refining his plan as it advanced through the Legislature. As friends and foes identified its shortcomings, he tweaked the bill in response - even though this complicated his political challenge immensely. In the end, the price he exacted for his support of a temporary, lesser plan was money to buy sophisticated software that would enable lawmakers to better understand their tax choices in years to come. Below also played a central role in negotiating a settlement with the state's largest utility that has reduced electric rates and raised the prospect of further reductions through competition. This was numbing, exhausting, thankless work - but Below deserves credit for helping to lead the state down a far more promising road than the confrontational, all-or-nothing court fight Rubens preferred. In sum, Below's first Senate term was remarkably productive. Local voters in Alexandria, Andover, Danbury, New London, Newbury, Sutton and Wilmot should reward him with two more years in office. Rubens Turns Senate Quest Into Spending ExtravaganzaTuesday, August 29, 2000 The Valley News, Editorial If Jim Rubens intends to buy his way back into the New Hampshire Senate, he should be honest about it and say so. Enough of this I'm-being-forced-to-do-something-I-don't-want-to-by-evil-forces nonsense. The Union Leader reported Friday that the average spending in a state Senate race two years ago was $20,000. That same article reported that Rubens has already raised $67,176 and spent $23,730 to unseat Sen. Clifton Below. Below captured the seat in 1998 when Rubens left the Senate to run for governor. That's an astounding, and disturbing, amount of money for a state legislative race. For one thing, it's surprising that anybody is prepared to blow that kind of money for a part-time seat that pays $100 a year in a state that takes pride in maintaining a nonprofessional legislature. It also doesn't bode well for those who hope to minimize the influence of big-money politics on New Hampshire. Increasingly expensive campaigns will bring politicians who must spend more of their time fund-raising, campaigns that are based less on the clash of ideas than on professional political packaging and, perhaps, donors who expect more of a return on the investments they're making. Rubens, of course, accepts no responsibility for the money that's about to be spent in his name. "We are prepared to defend ourselves against what they did last time," the Republican from Etna told the Union Leader. According to Rubens, the state Democratic Party spent as much as $80,000 on Below's 1998 victory over Larry Guaraldi. Below, who has raised $22,246 and spent $6,371 so far, according to the article, says that Rubens is preparing to fight an enemy that will never materialize. The Lebanon Democrat says that he has asked Democratic Party officials to refrain from making independent expenditures "and they've all indicated they won't." And if this Senate seat is perceived to be that important, why doesn't Below have to worry about the Republican Party throwing its money around on behalf of Rubens? Moreover, Rubens has already proved himself to be not at all squeamish about loosening the purse strings to get himself elected. Back in 1994, when he was a political unknown trying to topple Senate President Ralph Hough, Rubens spent the unprecedented amount of $30,000 -almost all of it his own money - in the primary race alone. Asked about that level of spending, Rubens copped a they-made-me-do-it plea. His two primary opponents had launched a barrage of mailings in the final weeks, he said. "I had to respond. I had to be aggressive in defining myself." Rubens ended up spending more than twice what was spent by his closest opponent. But don't blame him. He was forced to. Just like this time. Editorial: Artless dodgers
Three Republicans ignore the biggest issue facing the state.Thursday, September 3, 1998 During their televised debate Tuesday night, all but one of the Republican gubernatorial candidates dodged the only real question of the 1998 campaign: What would you do as governor if a constitutional amendment to trump the Supreme Court's Claremont decision failed in the Legislature or at the polls? This is just barely a hypothetical question. The amendment is faltering in the Legislature, and the electorate would pass it only if Republican scare tactics and demagoguery cowed voters into acting overwhelmingly against their own interests. But there they were - Jim Rubens, Jay Lucas and Emile Beaulieu - mouthing the same old evasions and platitudes about the most important issue facing the state. The question is not difficult. Some weeks ago, Rubens acknowledged to the Monitor during an editorial board meeting that there were only two answers to it. If an amendment fails, he said, only a statewide property tax or an income tax can produce the revenue needed to finance public schools. But Tuesday's format did not allow for boring beneath the sound bites the candidates have perfected by this stage of the campaign. To paraphrase their pitches: Beaulieu: Taxes are not the answer on this issue. The problems in our schools began when we took God out of the classroom and began handing out condoms.
|