|
|
U.S. Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Cincinnati) and his Democratic challenger, Greg Harris, both want to save social security, increase health care availability and make taxes fairer. But the two would take very different paths to those goals.
While Chabot is anti-regulation, pro-life and pro-business, first-time candidate Harris supports a woman’s right to choose and believes government needs to do the things private enterprise can’t or won’t.
50-to-1 odds
Trickle-down economics simply doesn’t serve the entire population well, particularly in the poorest parts of Ohio’s 1st Congressional District, according to Harris. The district includes most of Cincinnati, western Hamilton County and part of southwest Butler County.
Chabot has won election to Congress four times. But Harris says Chabot’s victories have been in spite of his district, not because of it. The 1st District has a significant number of registered Democrats — about 45 percent.
“(Chabot) should have been a one-termer,” Harris says.
Three better-known Democrats have tried to unseat Chabot, but all have failed.
Chabot was elected in 1994 as a signer of the Contract With America.
In 1996 he tagged Democrat opponent Mark Longabaugh, a former aide to U.S. Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri, as an opportunistic out-of-towner. Cincinnati Mayor Roxanne Qualls stepped away from her progressive roots in 1998 and lost to Chabot. The pro-life Democrat John Cranley, now a member of Cincinnati City Council, talked into the ground the effect of Chabot’s votes on poorer residents but didn’t get very far with voters.
Harris filed too late for the May 7 primary election. He’s raised about $10,000 — or 1/50th of what Chabot has — mostly through $25 donations. He has no political experience and began campaigning full-time a few weeks ago. His father is his campaign manager. But Harris believes he can beat Chabot.
“My biggest strength is the work I’ve been doing the last two years,” he says.
Harris is the executive director of Citizens for Civic Renewal, a non-profit organization working on issues such as sprawl and government reform. He’s built relationships with many local grassroots organizations.
Harris moved to Ohio from Illinois about 10 years ago to attend Miami University, where he taught for six years and earned a doctorate. He is a former program director in Americorps.
Chabot and Harris differ on many issues.
· Social security: Chabot wants to allow Americans to invest a small portion of their social security savings in the stock market.
Harris favors a government-only program that returns a steady interest rate.
“If you’re talking about social security as a safety net, we don’t want it to be subject to the fluctuations of the stock market,” he says.
· Patients’ bill of rights: In 2001 Chabot supported a bill approved by the House similar to — but less comprehensive than — one favored by the Senate, which has a slight Democratic majority. Among the differences are the House bill’s $1.5 million limit on punitive damages in lawsuits against health care companies. Republicans argue the liability limits will help keep down costs; the Democrats oppose such limits.
Harris favors a single-payer health care system, such as the one in Canada.
“Health care should be like public education,” he says.
· The Bush administration’s energy plan: Critics say the plan is loaded with incentives for the coal, oil and nuclear industries, but Chabot says the plan is designed to do what we can with existing technology.
Harris wants much more invested in the development of solar and other renewable energy sources.
· Drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Chabot supports drilling, which would affect about 2,000 acres of the refuge. He says the drilling could return a “fairly significant” number of barrels, although even the most optimistic estimates say it would only supply enough for two and half years of average U.S. demand. Harris opposes drilling.
· Corporate accountability: Chabot and other House Republicans have passed weaker versions of a corporate accountability bill. The Senate version extends mandatory corporate record keeping and the statute of limitations for prosecuting violations revealed by whistleblowers.
‘Curious priorities’
Harris says Chabot is an extreme Republican, perhaps the most right-wing congressman in Ohio. Harris cites Chabot’s 100 percent score on key votes tracked in 2001 and 2002 by the National Rifle Association, the National Right to Life Committee and the National Federation of Independent Business.
Chabot scored 0 percent on key votes tracked by the Americans for the Arts and the National Education Association in 2001 and 8 percent on votes tracked by the American Civil Liberties Union in 2001-2002.
“Steve Chabot is precisely the sort of congressman we can’t afford to have right now,” Harris says. “What we have in Steve Chabot is someone who is very loyal to a narrow ideological agenda.”
Chabot’s votes haven’t done enough to help the 1st District’s middle class and poor residents, Harris says. Parts of the Tristate have extreme pockets of poverty.
“As a congressman, you have to be familiar with your region and what’s holding it back,” Harris says. “He could just as easily be representing a rural district in Mississippi.”
Chabot has a reputation of being against pork-barrel spending. Citizens Against Government Waste and other watchdog groups regularly name him a favorite.
“That’s a myth,” Harris says. “He’s not a fiscal conservative.”
Chabot supported President Bush’s $1.35 trillion tax cut, saying it helped keep the recession from getting worse. Democrats cite the tax cut as a key reason a projected 2010 budget surplus shrank from $5.6 trillion to $1 trillion.
Fifty percent of the tax cut’s benefits go to the richest one percent of the population, Harris says.
“I don’t think these are people who need tax relief,” he says.
The tax cut includes reductions in the estate tax, eliminating it altogether in 2010. The estate tax then reverts to its 2000 levels unless 60 senators vote to make the repeal permanent, as Chabot hopes.
“My belief is that it’s immoral for the government to take up to 55 percent of what (people) have when they die,” he says. “It’s their money. It doesn’t belong to the government … I go with freedom of the individual.”
Wouldn’t it be better, Harris says, to spend the money on universal health care, saving social security?
“It’s really a curious set of priorities (Chabot) has,” Harris says.
In 2000, Chabot voted against increasing the minimum wage by $1 over two years.
“It has always been my philosophy that you help people by reducing taxes,” Chabot says. “The government shouldn’t be setting wages.”
Studies by conservative organizations indicate minimum-wage increases reduce the number of available jobs, although liberal groups contest that idea.
Harris says a living wage — not just a higher minimum wage — would be the best way to make sure Americans can meet basic health and housing expenses.
Harris makes no excuses for being a Democrat. He says part of the reason Chabot’s last three opponents lost, particularly Qualls, is they campaigned on prepackaged themes designed to appeal to as many voters as possible. Harris believes his stands, which Republicans will probably characterize as very liberal, actually have mass appeal once they’re explained. ©
This article appears in Sep 18-24, 2002.
