Campus remembers John Baluh p. 4
a student newspaper of the university of tulsa
november 5, 2012 issue 10 ~ volume 98
Jim Bridenstine
John Olson
Q&A with Jim Bridenstine and John Olson Victoria McGouran Witt Womack Walker Womack J. Christopher Proctor Election Day is tomorrow, and important races are coming down to the wire, both at the national and state levels. In the presidential race, President Barack Obama maintains a slim lead in national polls and a decent advantage in the Electoral College, but with numerous swing states still undecided, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney could still pull off the victory if afforded enough support. At the state level, the congressional race between Democrat John Olson and
Republican Jim Bridenstine for Oklahoma’s First District—which includes Tulsa and Bartlesville—is drawing towards an exciting conclusion. Independent Craig Allen is also contesting the seat. Though the district has only elected one Democrat since 1948, conditions may be favorable for a potential change in political party. Bridenstine narrowly upset Republican incumbent John Sullivan in the GOP primary, creating an unexpected open-seat race. The following is a question and answer with the two major candidates, Olson and Bridenstine. Olson was interviewed in person while Bridenstine was interviewed via e-mail correspondence. The responses have been edited for brevity and clarity. For full interviews visit The Collegian on Facebook.
Q: Why do you think you should represent Oklahoma’s First Congressional District?
Bridenstine: I am committed to upholding the Founders’ vision for the United States as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. I am committed to restoring fiscal responsibility within the Congress. Today we are incurring debt that will jeopardize the economic and personal security of future generations. My life experience, academic achievement, demonstrated leadership and service to our country show that I am well prepared to represent Oklahoma’s 1st District.
Olson: Well, I think I’d bring a commonsense approach to Washington. That’s something that my opponents—neither one of them—have really done. They’re both bound up with ideology. And when you look at the issues that we’ve been talking about—when you look at taxes, when you look at energy, when you look at those things, the platform that I’ve run on and the platforms that they’ve run on are very different things, and I am very much more aligned with the people in the district.
Q: Are there any topics on which you disagree with the mainstream Democratic/Republican party? Bridenstine: I favor limited government and good stewardship of the federal taxes paid by the people and companies of Oklahoma. I am a fiscal conservative and believe we must have and implement a plan to restore federal fiscal responsibility. Many people identifying with the Republican Party believe this also, but in past years some Republicans have contributed to allowing federal spending to grow at unsustainable rates.
Olson: I think that I’m concerned about the right to bear arms. I believe that the right to bear arms is written out in the Constitution and so you should have the right to do that. I support the Second Amendment I have an “A” rating by the NRA.
Q: What will be your three highest priorities if you are sent to Congress? Bridenstine: One: balance the federal budget. Two: repeal ObamaCare and replace it with health care reforms that address real needs while not raising taxes or compromising doctor-patient relationships. Three: pursue North American energy independence.
Olson: Budget, energy, and education. The first thing I want to get done is pass a budget. The second thing that I think is very important is the NATGAS Act. Education is a big thing—every other country in the world is investing in it, and if we don’t (invest), then we’re going to be left behind.
Q: Do you think the federal government has a role in education, and what should we do to improve a system that both sides perceive has serious flaws?
Bridenstine: The Department of Education is a fact and millions of students and most universities and colleges depend on the Department of Education for student loans and institutional funding. However, decisions concerning education are best made by the states and localities where educational institutions are sited. Over time, federal oversight of education should diminish and the responsibilities and funding now channeled through the Department of Education should be distributed to the states and localities, and in the case of private universities, to the trustees of those institutions.
Olson: Education on a whole does have a federal component because it is in our national interest to have a well-educated workforce that can compete with the rest of the world. At the federal level we pushed for No Child Left Behind, but the federal government never funded it, and so we pushed all those requirements on the states and said “Now you pay for them.” And I don’t think that’s the right approach. We’ve got both of those levels, and at the end of the days we’ve got to invest in education, not cut education funding, not try to do away with the Department of Education.
Q: Economic inequality has increased in America since the early 1980’s. What do you think caused this shift? Is it problem for our country? Bridenstine: Economic outcomes diverge for multiple reasons. One major factor is that the number of single-parent households has grown dramatically, and singleparent households are much more likely to fall into poverty than traditional two-parent households. People in entry-level jobs earn less than experienced employees. Over time, entrylevel employees increase their income. These kinds of economic inequalities are inevitable in a free society and become a problem for our country only when politicians encourage envy to advance their own political agendas.
Olson: Back in the 1980s, I think that the top CEOs were making about 187 times what the average worker was making. And, that rate has gone to about 487 times what the average worker is making, so it’s tripled. That’s because of tax cuts and loopholes that very rich people have been able to take advantage of, which costs us revenues going into the system that helps and benefits everybody. We’ve got to go back to the tax rates under President Clinton when the happy debate that we had in Congress was “what do we do with all the surplus?”
Q: In your opinion, what caused the economic collapse of 2008 and the ensuing recession? Bridenstine: The recession that began in 2007 was caused by Congress compelling financial institutions to loosen historically sound home lending standards with the objective that anyone who wanted to purchase a home should be able to do so without regard to ability to make payments on a home mortgage. Additionally, the Federal Reserve’s “easy money” policy artificially kept loan payments and the cost of financing of new housing construction low. The result was a run-up in the price of new homes and the creation of a housing “bubble” where housing values were unrealistically high.
Olson: The financial collapse was caused by too much deregulation and banks doing crazy things and making dangerous bets with other people’s money and nobody watching over to see what they were doing. The debt was caused by two wars that we didn’t pay for and tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans. So those two things came together at that perfect storm under the Bush Administration and created the recession that we are now in recovery from. (Regulation) puts everybody on a level playing field- meaning: that companies that are trying to do the right thing are not put at an economic disadvantage.
See Q & A on page 3