Pledges of bipartisanship came from both Democratic challenger Brad Schneider of Deerfield and Rep. Robert Dold (R-Kenilworth) during a debate Sunday in Lake Forest as Dold threw away a pledge made to Grover Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform to never raise taxes.
Both Dold and Schneider talked about the economy, government spending, balancing budgets, the Middle East, women’s health and other issues in front of more than 600 people in a forum sponsored by the League of Women Voters, Patch and the Union League Club of Chicago.
When asked if they would support deficit reduction solutions which would both increase revenue and reduce spending, Dold and Schneider said they would. For Dold this was a departure from a pledge he signed for Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform before being elected to Congress two years ago.
All but four Republican members of the House of Representatives have signed the pledge. The issue came up when the candidates were asked if they would support the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan calling for new revenue and reduced spending. "I would say yes," Dold said.
Dold then touted his support of the Cooper-LaTourette financial plan as an alternative to the House Republican Budget authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), his party’s vice presidential candidate. He was one of eight co-sponsors—four Democrats and four Republicans.
“,” Dold said. “All options have to be on the table.”
After the debate, Patch asked Dold if his support for the Cooper-LaTourette budget meant he had voted for more government revenue in contradiction of the Norquist pledge. “I did say that,” he said.
Schneider stressed his commitment to working across the aisle as well and criticized Dold for his support of the Ryan plan.
“I’ll do it in a way we will be able to get more than 38 votes,” Schneider said of his intentions to work with Republicans. “The day after (Cooper La Tourette was defeated) he (Dold) voted for the Ryan budget that will replace Medicare with a voucher system.”
Dold has said the Ryan plan he supports makes no changes for people over 55 and still gives people the opportunity to keep traditional Medicare.
Dold did tell the gathering he does not believe any tax increases are a good idea with the economy still in a fragile state while Schneider wants people earning in excess of $250,000 per year to pay the tax rate in effect before the Bush era cuts were passed in 2011.
“We need comprehensive tax reform,” Schneider said. “We should bring back the tax rates (for those earning over $250,000 per year) we had in 1999, the last time we had a balanced budget when spending as a percent of GDP (gross domestic product) and revenue met at 19 percent.”
.
That was very clever, thank you for explaining the reason that some liberals are forced to name call those with whom they disagree. You added some needed humor to the site.
You don't need to keep beating a dead horse by telling me that Dold is unfit for office. No member of the blue or red War Party is fit for office, including Dold and Schneider. That should be understood at this point for anyone that has been paying attention.
Now read this: https://w3.courtlink.lexisnexis.com/cookcounty/Finddock.asp?DocketKey=CABA0L0AAGIJC0LD Now wait for Guido to tell you the case has nothing to do with Dold and you shouldn't vote the crook out of office because "they are all the same" :) Vote Dold out, he is not worth to represent you, or guido or anyone.
You didn't even read my last post.
First, Dold and Rose Pest Solutions are separate legal entities – 500+ years of common law back this up. As I understand it, RPS is not the alter ego of Dold – so when Mr. Dold answers that he has never been sued successfully, he is being both legally truthful and truthful in a common sense sort of way. Second, this looks like it was a breach of contract case (there is no detail). Businesses get sued all the time for breach of contract – it may or may not have been a willful breach of contract, it may have just been a misunderstanding between the parties for which a judge ruled against RPS. Finally, the question “Have you ever been convicted of a felony, sued successfully or had a restraining order placed against you?” is designed to determine if Mr. Dold has ever done something intentionally very bad (or been guilty of gross negligence) to someone else – i.e, has he broken a major law (felony), committed a tort where someone was hurt or lost money (sued successfully) or threatened to attack someone (restraining order). It isn’t about corporate breach of contract cases. We get you don’t like Mr. Dold. Enough said.
Guido...you meant "your" not "you're." I'm sure.
I have never accused Mr. Schneider of being a crook – he sounds like a good person to me, I applaud him (and Mr. Dold) for running for Congress and putting up with some of the crap thrown at him. I don’t like a lot of the attack ads that have been run against either Mr. Schneider or Mr. Dold – it would be nice to focus on the issues. I object to people like you – under the veil of anonymity – making spurious, infantile charges - your recent posts are a “real” contribution to the civil exchange of ideas that makes our democracy work. There is no evidence that either candidate for the 10th district is a crook. Period.
Some great discourse on here. Way to elevate above the fray.
The fiscal cliff didn't just happen overnight. Remember how long the governor's mansion was controlled by Republicans? Yes, Blago was a joke. And Madigan is a scumbag. But the real crime is that the republican party can't get a strong enough candidate to beat them. Once again, please stop with the blind devotion until your party can get someone strong enough to unseat these idiots. Thompson and Edgar weren't that far back. What has happened?
I don't agree with the Schneider/Madigan connection unless you can show me some sort of political/financial relationship. Madigan is so scummy that I don;t think for a second that his influence reaches beyond Springfield and the General Assembly. Having said that, if you want to make a Dold/Schneider comparison and tell me that a vote for Schneider is a vote for fiscal irresponsibility, I'm not sure I agree with that either, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, a vote for Dold is a vote for a group that has no problem taking this country to that fiscal cliff to prove their ideology - rather than actually addressing and solving the problem that exists. I have no use for the stamp-their-feet-and-hold-their-breath crowd. But in reality, both of them are 1 of 435, and you and I both know their influence on this topic, employment and any number of big ticket topics is incredibly minimal ...
Look at the list of press releases in his own web site (right column) http://www.doldforcongress.com/pages/jobs_and_the_economy/221.php. There's not ONE ITEM there that relates directly to the district and money that Dold brought in.
What I liked about Schneider – from a fiscal perspective, he is probably right in that we need to let the Bush tax cuts expire, particularly on those who have the ability to pay more. I like the fact that he apparently supported Mark Kirk at some point, that he wants to fix (not end) Obamacare and that he, like Dold, has a moderate demeanor. I think Schneider is being entirely reasonable in not disclosing his wife’s salary. I also disagree with the comment that Schneider = Madigan – I don’t see any evidence of that and Mr. Schneider is running for Congress, not State Rep. (were he running for State Rep, I would want to know if he supported Mr. Madigan).
What I like about Dold is, first and foremost, his support of Cooper-LaTourette and his willingness – on a host of issues – to break with his party. I like his independence and I think he is a good fit for the 10th District. The best argument for Schneider is that he is Democrat and, if you don’t like the current Republican majority, the only way to overturn that is to get rid of moderates like Bob Dold. I personally have very little confidence that a Democratic House will take the difficult measures – read spending cuts – that are necessary in conjunction with revenue increases. Therefore, Dold – an Eagle Scout, is my man.
If a Congressman can't point me to project - and especially a single project - where he brought money in, he's not doing his job.
In addition, in response to the question, would you support Simpson-Bowles? Dold said “yes.” Schneider says we will have to come together – to find bi-partisan revenue increases, spending decreases – but he isn’t prepared to commit to Simpson-Bowles, Rivlin-Domenci or any other plan. He indicates that “Congress will have to come up with a bi-partisan plan that everyone can understand the choices we made are the right choices for the future of this country” and “we can explain it in a way that will get more than 38 votes”. [MEMO To PATCH and Steve Sadin, you also omitted Mr. Schneider’s position on Simpson-Bowles as well – again, why?]
Four possible reasons – none of them flattering to Mr. Schneider. First, perhaps Schneider is naïve about how Washington works. Second, perhaps Schneider hasn’t spent the time reading these proposals (should be job #1 for a congressional candidate). Third, perhaps Schneider is worried about alienating part of the Democratic base that is opposed to Simpson-Bowles. Fourth, perhaps Schneider just isn’t that committed to deficit reduction and solving our national debt problem. In any event, Mr. Schneider’s statement gives me much less confidence in his ability or willingness to find a solution to these issues. Will Mr. Schneider support a deficit reduction plan only if Nancy Pelosi or Jan Schakowsky does?
If I can go off-topic for a second, as we've seen, the whole "strictly-partisan" thing rubs me the wrong way, and that includes the Dems and an example such as Schneider's potential. When does it end? Let's say Romney wins. I have no doubt the Dems will pull the same obstructionist garbage that the GOP did for the last four years, and all of it is disgusting. Anybody have any idea when it will end? The only solution I see is if a VERY strong independent wins the presidency. And all of us know the chances of that happening anytime soon.
Under a parlimentary system with first past the post voting, you would either vote Democrat or Republican. I know that works against voting for the individual (like Dold) - but it might be an improvement.
In the end, all of this is on us - the electorate. We say we don't like the way anything is run, but we don;t do anything about it. We do the same things over and over. We hold NO ONE accountable, we don't have the smarts to organize around any new ideas and we don't drill down far enough to watch where these problems really begin - money and parties.