Menu
44th District candidates differ on water, Medicaid, debate itself
District 44 Legislature candidates Mark Christensen and Frank Shoemaker went head-to-head at a debate Monday, differing sharply on water solutions, reforming Medicaid and the debate itself.
Attended by about 50 people at the Heritage Senior Center in?McCook, the debate was moderated by Mark Intermill of AARP Nebraska.
Starting out cordially, both candidates introduced themselves by presenting their agendas.
Christensen expressed optimism about the burgeoning ethanol plants in the area, each providing 30-40 jobs and which he called an ideal way to jump-start industry in the state.
Shoemaker cited his plans to cut taxes, which includes using tax surplus from the state budget to give aid to property owners, and conducting performance audits.
Other priorities included issues concerning farmers, affordable healthcare for citizens and the trend of consolidating services or institutions.
Things turned a little heated when the candidates disagreed on how to deal with the ballooning Medicaid budget. Christensen supported more research and streamlining the budget, along with employee programs that will set aside a portion of paychecks in a tax free account.
"We need to meet the obligations of seniors now, audit the program and work toward the future," he said.
Shoemaker countered bluntly that private savings accounts don't work. "But we need to maintain our level of care to seniors," he agreed.
Medicare has grown 42 percent the past five years, he said and at that rate is not fiscally sustainable. Health benefits needed to be more clearly defined with seniors assured of their coverage.
How to address the dwindling water supply -- and the Kansas-Nebraska Water Pact -- further separated the candidates.
"Water is not a problem we can't manage," Christen-sen insisted. His water transfer plan would bring water from the Platte River Valley to supply water to Kansas. Current CREP and EQIP programs, the elimination of invasive vegetation plus new verbiage put into the water pact "would allow us to get into compliance and allow technology to catch up with us."
Otherwise, a judge will decide what to do, he said. Shoemaker said he didn't hear any real solutions from Christensen. Water has been transferred from the Platte since 1923 and is already over-appropriated, he maintained. Yet more than 95 percent of water is consumed by agriculture, so he agreed that the need to protect our resources is imperative for the ag base. A cap on industrial allocations would be an option, he said, but the real solution would be to work with Lincoln and Omaha senators on this issue.
"Issues divide, values unite," Shoemaker said, adding that Lincoln and Omaha ultimately have the votes.
"We have to convince (eastern Nebraska) that we're part of Nebraska and stop the disconnect between urban and rural," he stated earlier.
Christensen accused Shoemaker of simply not understanding his plan.
"If you take (Shoemaker's) choice, you do nothing and let a judge decide," he said. Water is a renewable resource and by managing invasive species, incorporating transfers and technology, the solution remains in the hands of the citizens instead of a judge's.
But the real fireworks came at the end. When summing up their final comments, Christensen accused his opponent of not scheduling debates that were sponsored and moderated by a neutral party. He read a letter from a Lamar businessman that verified that Christensen had in fact agreed to a debate. But the debates offered, according to Christensen, were one-sided slanted to Shoemaker's Shoemaker responded that that was not an accurate version and is willing to debate him anytime in the future.
After the debate, Christensen clarified that he wanted a debate that was open to the public and press, with questions not formulated ahead of time but from the audience.
The debate Monday was great, he said, exactly what he thought would benefit the public the most. Shoemaker also commented afterward, repeating that he would be up for a debate with Christensen "whenever he wants" and would do so if Christensen would like to set them up.
Other subjects the candidates discussed were:
* Cutting property taxes and alternate ways to fund education
Christensen: economical development widens the tax base and becomes the easiest way to cut taxes. Encourage our schools to make cuts like private enterprises.
Shoemaker: diversify the economy, put sales taxes on Internet sales so Main Street can compete. Set up a "trust fund" type of program, much like the Department of Roads does now, as an alternative way to fund education
* Raising minimum wage:
Shoemaker: a sustainable wage would be $10 an hour, which would be hard on small employers, so not in favor of it, although urban areas are generally for it. This is a complex issue that includes healthcare and illegal immigrants that are paid as "independent contractors," making wages difficult for other people.
Christensen: have to make it so younger people or part time employees could still find work, maybe two separate wages for children and adult wage earners. The bottom line is that businesses still need to make a profit for it to work.
* Spending Lid Amendment
Christensen: against the amendment but the issue will be decided before he gets to office. A better way to curb spending is a state audit that would eliminate about 400 jobs and clarify "our needs versus our wants."
Shoemaker: the amendment would jeopardize essential services. "We simply can't afford it."
* Priority committees in the Legislature if elected:
Shoemaker: predicted the next major issue this year would be broadband Internet access so he would like to serve on Telecommunica-tions, along with the Department of Roads. Education or Health and Human Services to restrain spending.
Christensen: with term limits, its important for new senators to get vital experience as soon as possible and would prefer Revenue or Appropriations committees.