While there are some sharp distinctions between the Democratic and Republican parties—as evinced by a candidate forum held at CSU Long Beach Friday night—the race for the 47th Congressional District is not the best place to see them.
That’s because 3rd District Councilmember Gary DeLong, the Republican opponent of Sen. Alan Lownethal (D) for the 47th District seat, is perfectly willing to distance himself from his party on social matters, which led to more or less complete agreement between the candidates on several issues.
The forum, sponsored by the League of Women Voters of the Long Beach Area, posed roughly 20 pre-determined questions for the candidates, allowing two minutes of response time for each. Several questions overlapped in subject matter, with some far too broad or convoluted to allow for a substantive answer. But the first question, which asked the candidates for issues with which they disagreed with their political party of affiliation, allowed DeLong to paint himself as a more moderate Republican. He noted that while he is fiscally conservative, he supports abortion rights and marriage equality, and that he is “environmentally-oriented,” whereas, “Candidly, the Republican Party is not.”
Lowenthal, on the other hand, could not so easily answer the question, pointing only to a couple of specific breaks with party, such as his eventual opposition to an “irresponsible” high-speed rail initiative favored by almost all state Democrats.
Some highlights of the candidate’s positions from the rest of the evening, organized by subject:
THE ECONOMY
Both candidates agreed that the most important problem currently facing the United States is the economy. DeLong noted that the cost of federal government has doubled over the last 10 years—a period of time he said he chose because it includes six years under a Republican presidential administration and four years under a Democratic one. “The first thing you should take away from that is that it’s not ‘the other party’s’ fault,” he said. “They did it collectively.” He said that while spending must be cut, cuts alone will be insufficient, and that it’s important to grow revenue—which does not come by way of raising taxes. “It’s motivating the private sector by providing a hospitable business climate,” he said.
By contrast, Lowenthal stated his belief that the U.S. is now, finally, on the right track, noting that the unemployment rate has fallen below eight percent for the first time in four years. “We are moving in the right direction,” he said. “It’s not time to turn around.” He said President Barack Obama “saved us by making sure that the automobile industry did not go out, that we worked with the banks to bring back and have reasonable controls again and stop that reckless speculation that took place in the housing industry.” He urged support Obama’s deficit-reduction plan, as well as ending the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. “We cannot allow the richest Americans not to pay their fair share,” he said.
CORPORATE CAMPAIGN DONATIONS
On more than one occasion, both candidates castigated the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which in effect prohibited restrictions on political expenditures by corporations by finding that such restrictions were a First Amendment violation; and both took issues with the undue influence of lobbyists on the political process. “I’d like to see [a law] where you could only donate to a campaign if you [were eligible] to vote for that person,” DeLong said.
Lowenthal agreed with DeLong’s idea. “Outside money has become a horrible, horrible pollutant,” he said. “We’re at risk to be sold to the highest bidder.” He later highlighted his work on passing local Measure M, which he said gave Long Beach “some of the strongest controls on [campaign] contributions in the country.”
EDUCATION
Multiple questions concerned education, particularly the federal government’s role in such. Lowenthal parceled out the sources of education funding in California: 45% from property taxes, about 45% from the state legislature, and 10% from the federal government.
“What they do with that 10 [percent] I support,” he said. “They make sure that underserved populations do get served. There would not be any special-education funds if not for the federal government. There would not be funds for children who have other types of severe learning disabilities without that.”
Regarding testing, Lowenthal voiced general agreement for the standards set by federal government under the No Child Left Behind Act, believing that all states need common curricula and assessment techniques. But he decried the current system as put into practice. “[Standardized testing] provides a snapshot of where students are at a particular moment,” he said. “I think we spend an inordinate amount of time teaching to the tests and not having students learn the real skills that are going to be required for them to be successful later on. […] Right now the system that we have is really, really poorly designed […]. It has nothing to do with helping these students.” He said he believes the need is for an ongoing assessment that is not based on a “one size fits all” model.
DeLong generally balked at the notion that the federal government should have a role in state and local education. “While I do support investing in education, I think those investments should be at the classroom level, not the federal level,” he said, putting forward his belief that federal standards/guidelines/measurements are not working. “So that money is wasted. All those tens of millions of dollars in the federal bureaucracy is wasted. None of it’s helping your kids and your grandkids in the classroom.” However, he did say he was open to the possibility of reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind Act, an issue that will come before Congress during the term of the winner of the race between himself and Lowenthal. “If you can show me its benefits, then we should reauthorize it,” he said. “If not, we need to come up with a different plan.”
DeLong laid blame for budget shortfalls on the CSU system at the doorstep of the state legislature, declaring that “Alan and his colleagues in the state legislature voted [for a state budget that] draconianly cut” the CSU system, “decimat[ing]” CSULB’s budget by reducing it 30 percent over last two years. “I would not have made that vote,” he said. “[…] Alan wants to make it a partisan issue, ‘It’s the Republicans fault’. But it’s a bipartisan issue. They’re both responsible for the status of education in the state. It’s not the ‘other party’s’ fault. That’s the problem with people like him. […] They’re both not prioritizing education high enough.”
HEALTHCARE
On several occasions Lowenthal voiced his support for the Affordable Care Act—more commonly known as “Obamacare.” “I think [with Obamacare] we have made a dramatic step forward, and we need to continue,” he said. “[…] I hope that we can strengthen it, [and] certainly not get rid of it. […] We need to make efficiencies. […] The system [i.e., Medicare] is not going broke. [Under Obamacare,] There are efficiencies of over $700 billion, without any reduction in services. Those efficiencies must be maintained.”
While DeLong admitted that Obamacare improves access to healthcare and provides some other positive benefits (such as allowing children to stay on their family’s healthcare plan until age 26), it does not make healthcare more affordable and will cost the U.S. dearly if allowed to stand.
“If we don’t make any changes [to Medicare and Medicaid], they’re going to blow up,” he said. “That’s the first thing you need to understand: some change needs to be made.” He said that while we cannot make changes for people currently benefitting from pertinent services, and probably cannot make changes that will affect anyone 55 or older, “[for] the next generation—like myself—we absolutely need a different system. […] Both sides need to work together to figure it out. There is not a Republican solution to this problem; there is not a Democrat solution.”
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS
The question was: “Do you believe current environmental regulations are too strong, too weak, or just right?”
“We need to get off a carbon-based economy,” Lowenthal said. “[…] We don’t want to hurt citizens as we do it, but we must start to invest in that environmental protection.” From there he digressed to highlighting the work he did beginning in the early 1990s to bring attention to air-quality problems in Long Beach, but never directly answered the question.
By contrast, DeLong said, “I think it’s all of the above.” From there he admitted that Lowenthal did good work by being one of the first people to bring attention Long Beach’s air-quality problems, but noted that in 2005, when DeLong was running to be elected, the problem remained. “But don’t think these [recent improvements to air quality in Long Beach] were made in Sacramento,” he said. “We don’t know what they do in Sacramento, but it wasn’t this. These changes are made at the local level. This is Mayor Foster; he’s been a hard driver. It’s been his city council, which I’ve been a member of. […] We have done more in the last six years than [was done] the 50 years before that. It’s amazing what’s happened. But these are local initiatives that are done at the local level.”
DeLong praised the “green” improvements made by the Port of Long Beach, but said he advocates for even more regulation in the future. “I don’t mean to be critical,” he said. “I think they’re doing a great job. But we’re going to step it up and take it to the next level. […] I see a zero-emissions port. It may not be in our lifetime; it may be in the next generation. But they’re absolutely going to get there.” As for too much regulation, as an example he pointed to California Environmental Quality Act, which he views as an originally wonderful piece of legislation that has been “hijacked by special-interest groups” looking to delay projects “to extort millions of dollars” out of whichever organization is executing the project.
OUTSOURCING OF PUBLIC SERVICES
Lowenthal stated that he was not prepared to answer the question “Are there current public services that you think should be outsourced to private institutions?” because it didn’t specify the level intended (city, state, federal?), though he did say he can’t imagine outsourcing at a federal level; and that, for example, he opposes Medicare being converted into a voucher system, which he views as similar to outsourcing.
“I’m absolutely open to the outsourcing,” DeLong said, speaking generally. “If the private sector can do it and maintain or improve the quality of service, and they can do it for a lower cost, I think that’s in all of our best interest. Now, there are certainly core missions of government at the local, state, and federal level that you absolutely want a government employee to do. But there are many things that you don’t. […] The most immediate thing that comes to mind is any large capital project. Why would you want to have your own construction crew to go build that building? I would absolutely look to the private sector to do that. But, you’ve got to do that in a regulated environment and make sure all the bids are competitive. You’ve got to make sure you’ve got appropriate oversight at the government level. […] But most people don’t care [whether the work] is done by a public employee or a private employee; they just want a service provided, and they want top quality service.” As a prime example at the local level, he cited refuse collection, where the City picks up trash and private companies pick up recycling, with both doing an outstanding job.
MEDICAL MARIJUANA
One question generated more audience buzz than any other: “What’s the federal government’s role in the regulation of medical marijuana?” But the candidates were in complete agreement as to the answer, with both calling on the federal government to remove cannabis from its Schedule I classification.
“The problem is a lack of guidance from the federal government,” said DeLong. “The federal government is being too strict. The country wants to go in a different direction, and the federal government is not responding to that. It needs to listen to the states and the cities and the counties, and it needs to modify its position on medical marijuana.”
“I agree 100% with what Gary just said,” Lowenthal stated. “I think the federal government should get out of the way and declassify marijuana as a dangerous drug. The people of California have spoken. […] I think it is unconscionable that the federal government gets in our way and does not allow us to carry out the people’s mandate.”
FOREIGN POLICY AND IMMIGRATION REFORM
The candidates also basically agree on the questions concerning the conditions under which the United States should intervene in the affairs of other sovereign nations (answer: only when there’s a threat to U.S. national security) and illegal immigrants. “[Deporting all illegal immigrants] is not a reality,” DeLong said. “That’s not going to happen. We need to take care of who’s already here, give them the ability to work and be a productive member of society. It’s in all of our best interests.”
ON THE OTHER CANDIDATE
Lowenthal said little about DeLong specifically. For his part, DeLong’s most serious attempts to differentiate himself from Lowenthal came not in the form of differentiating their positions, but from pointing to shortcomings in the term of Lowenthal’s stewardships. He noted that Long Beach’s current budgetary problems, which contribute to issues such as our currently having too few police officers on the streets, stem primarily from “because of his [and his council cohort’s] vote [in favor of] outrageous pension increases in 2000—as much as 50% for some employees. [… Pensions] are the number-one cause of [Long Beach’s] budget problems.”
Then DeLong closed with a litany of problems that came to be during Lowenthal’s current tenure in the state senate: California has highest sales tax in the country, second-highest gasoline tax, third-highest income tax, third-highest unemployment rate, third-highest foreclosure rate, the worst credit rating nationwide, the state’s debt tripled in last 10 years, etc.
In many respects Lowenthal is urging voters to stay the course charted by President Obama, the head of Lowenthal’s party. Meanwhile, it seems DeLong may feel his best bet to win the 47th District seat is to appeal not so much to philosophical differences as to job performance, hoping that residents unhappy with the city’s and state’s problems will change tack a little—but not too much—to the political right.
[Note: Under ECOMNOMY, a quote by DeLong reading “public sector” has been corrected to read “private sector.]