Both candidates take a conservative economic stance. The difference - one is grounded in reality, while the other spouts rhetoric from a warped Economics 101. Rivers favors a balanced budget, which she knows is an issue in the forefront of this district's mind, and knows that to get there, Congress must postpone enormous tax cuts. She also believes Americans should compete "smarter, not cheaper" to stay ahead in the national economy.
Fitzsimmons, however, recites a litany of fantasy-world cuts: an across-the-board tax cut, a $500-per-child tax credit, a tax credit for parents helping children through higher education, a $5,000 tax credit to couples who adopt children - he would like to cut capital gains in half, raise wages, cut taxes and balance the budget.
How? Unlike Rivers, Fitzsimmons rarely can explain the how behind his ideas. When he does, his explanations are hardly pragmatic. For example, he said he would like to implement a 50-percent increase in financial aid. He plans to take the money from the Department of Education, which, with its $32 million budget, "does not educate a single child," he claimed. Fitzsimmons would destroy the lower educational base to fund higher education; his approach is nonsensical. He added that his method of cutting the department would be to cut the bureaucracy. Cutting bureaucracy is easy to suggest, but Fitzsimmons, as usual, lacks specifics. Perhaps he should change some of his proposed tax cuts into education dollars for all levels.
Rivers said that the recent $11 billion in changes in financial aid administrative costs eventually translate into "less money available for lending" - as well as a slower return to students. As an undergraduate at the University, Rivers had to use financial aid, which is why she said she supports such assistance. She said she is "totally and completely committed to making those doors stay open." Her work on the budget committee puts her in a position to do hands-on work with the problem. Moreover, Rivers' record in Congress proves her commitment to making higher education more accessible. After the Republicans tried to slash financial aid, Rivers worked to prevent further substantive cuts.
On social policy, Rivers is as distinct as Fitzsimmons is muddled. Fitzsimmons told The Michigan Daily that discrimination is "un-American" and that "there is no need for discrimination. At the same time, I don't believe in any set-asides or preferences." Fitzsimmons disapproves of affirmative action, as if the playing field will just level itself off. Rivers follows her party slate on affirmative action - the legal brand, which currently does not include quotas.
Rivers voted against the Defense of Marriage Act and for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Fitzsimmons, when pressed on the point of same-sex marriage, believes that "marriage is the union of one man and one woman." However, he was unclear as to what the measures were - particularly ENDA, which he suspected would give special preferences to gays in the workplace, as he was sure that it was already specifically illegal to discriminate against gays in the workplace. Wrong again. The list of characteristics against which employers may not discriminate does not include sexual orientation - hence the need for ENDA. No matter - Fitzsimmons does not support any special preferences for "them." He does not view his position as discrimination, despite the fact that DOMA effectively denies economic rights to same-sex couples.
Abortion is another issue on which Rivers has been able to articulate her position clearly: she is pro-choice. Fitzsimmons claims to be pro-choice, but would deny federal funding for abortions. Fitzsimmons' stance, then, is pro-choice for those who can afford the choice. He is also against late-term abortions - a flier his staff placed on cars in the parking lot of a Catholic church claimed that late-term abortions do not protect the health of the mother. The flier also suggested that the Pope should censure Rivers for her stance on the issue - without explaining her stance. Rivers told Congress, "The debate is whether or not we will allow women's health to be an exemption (from the late-term abortion ban)."
When it comes to the crumbling entitlements structure, Rivers again is ahead of Fitzsimmons. Rivers demonstrates an understanding of how Michigan - whose economy, she said, is sensitive to changes in the automobile industry - would be affected by the loss of a safety net, as well as the transfer of federal funds into block grants. Michigan needs a more flexible net, not the kind that runs out after a finite number of uses - or dollars. Moreover, she understands that if the net gets smaller, the resource bases need to broaden. She advocates legislating the tools to stay off welfare, such as job training, childcare, public transportation and health care to ensure "welfare reform based in reality."
Unlike many politicians, Rivers actually explains the thought process behind her votes. The same is true for her recent vote in favor of the Welfare Reform Act. She supported the inclusion of support measures for those on welfare, but the final bill did not include such measures. However, since she is committed to improving the bill in the next Congress, she voted for it, despite some concerns. Although her single vote may not have changed the outcome, she should have held out for the support measures. Most of the time she chose better - and she is always willing to explain herself.
Fitzsimmons is armed with a pie chart showing entitlements and "other mandatory" items as a large chunk - however, he could not effectively articulate what the "other mandatory" expenses were. He did say that he would not eliminate benefits for seniors, but would implement slow changes in the entitlements budget. However, ignores the fact that social security will be incapable of supporting this year's graduating University class as seniors. It appears that he would prefer to cut welfare than social security or congressional pensions.
Rivers advocates trimming the fat closer to home. She believes that Congress should be public with its pay raises rather than allowing the incremental raises to line pockets silently. She also advocates more modest retirement plans for congressional retirees. Along with these high standards, she insists that her office send back any sort of gifts or freebies - including chocolates.
Rivers combines political savvy with a folksy style - to her constituents, she is an approachable figure. In addition she shows the ability to grow and incorporate new methods and ideas. Since her last election, she has improved her approach significantly. Her experience, combined with her methods, make her an excellent candidate.
Vote Lynn Rivers.