Interview: U.S. Rep Barbara Cubin

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

By Lucille Rice

PJH: You have managed to keep the Wyoming congressional seat for six terms and you are now running for a seventh term. What is different about this race?

BC: Basically you create a campaign plan and you execute it. The big difference in this campaign, from say Mr. Farris in '98 or Mr. Maxfield in '96 is that my present opponent is much more liberal. He is on record supporting tax increases, cutting defense spending in a time of war and supporting a government run national healthcare program. It creates a more stark philosophical contrast between the candidates when you have a true conservative, such as me, facing a true liberal, such as Mr. Trauner.

PJH: You say that it is time to develop a more simple, common sense tax code. What would this new tax code entail? Would it take those in the lower income brackets into consideration? Who does it target and how?

BC: I have always been a strong advocate for comprehensive tax code reform because our current tax code has been tweaked and modified so many times it is neither logical nor comprehensible. The Republican-led Congress has met with some success over the past five years in lowering the tax burden for all working, tax-paying Americans, as well as eliminating or reducing several of the most egregious pieces of the tax code, such as the marriage and death taxes. However, I am among a growing minority in Congress that believes the best solution to our current tax code would be to tear it up and create a tax system that works. The development of a truly fair and simple tax system will take very deliberate work and oversight by both bodies of Congress. However, I would work to ensure such a system would include the application of a single, low tax rate to all Americans; that it would require a supermajority of both chambers of Congress to raise taxes; that it would give tax credits for families with children, and tax breaks for education; and that the bias against savings and investment that our current tax code presents would be eliminated. In the past, I have cosponsored several legislative measures that would accomplish these goals because I believe the time is past-due that Congress stand up and take responsibility for how much of the American family's paycheck is sent to Washington.

PJH: Tax cuts, as you have said, put money back into people's pockets. Do you think that there is a trade-off here? Do tax cuts take money from federally funded projects aimed at the greater good of society such as education and health care?

BC: Ronald Reagan once said that the "government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." I share President Reagan's cynicism of how much influence the federal government asserts over the daily lives of the American people and I believe that government is not the best suited to determine how to spend the American taxpayer's hard-earned money. One of the reasons I first ran for office is because I wanted to work for a smaller more efficient government, while giving back to the American people more control over their own lives and finances. That means lowering the tax burden; reforming our entitlement programs to reduce significant dollars wasted on fraud and abuse; and spending those taxes the government does collect in a targeted and careful way. We have proven time and time again that lower taxes equate to more money circulating in local economies, which creates additional jobs and opportunities. I believe we can meet the obligation we have as a society to take care of those families and individuals that cannot take care of themselves without limiting the opportunities of our working families.

PJH: What are some alternatives to the fence for keeping illegal immigrants out if the barrier does not suffice?

BC: Terrorists exploit open borders. Drug smugglers exploit open borders. Open borders and lax immigration enforcement destroy the values of citizenship and language that our nation is built on. I proudly supported passage of the Secure Fence Act, providing for over 700 miles of two-layered reinforced fencing along the southwest border, as well as a "virtual fence," including cameras, ground sensors, and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles along the larger southern border - because I believe securing our borders is the first vital step in a larger effort to tighten our nation's immigration policy. Beyond border fences, however, we also need to immediately end to the "catch and release" policy at the border; enact a workable employment verification system, and enforce tougher penalties for immigration law violators. We passed these and other measures last December in the House and I will keep pushing for them until they are enacted into law.

PJH: You were quoted in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle to have recently said, " Right now, we're in Iraq, and we have to get the job done." Can you define what the job is and tell us whether or not options like 'stay the course' and 'cut and run' are really viable at this point? Is there a middle ground that we should aim for? If so, what is it?

BC: Osama bin Ladin has called the war in Iraq the center of World War III. He realizes the importance of the war on terror, whose front lines are presently located in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we need to realize it too. The intentions of the terrorists we are fighting are gruesome, and we have all experienced first hand the horrific consequences of their actions if we allow them to go unchecked. We therefore need to fight this war with the same resolve we have waged past world wars. I do not believe in establishing an arbitrary date to withdraw from Iraq. Setting a politically convenient date gives the enemy time to conserve their resources, then attack with full force when we leave. While many in the media are quick to highlight any new obstacle or stumble in our pursuit of peace and freedom in Iraq, they fail to report the significant progress we continue to see there. The state of Iraq made the move from a temporary government to elected rulers under a permanent constitution in under a year and a half; they ratified a constitution last fall; we have turned over 40 out of 111 operation bases to the Iraqi Security Forces; 98% of children under five have been immunized against polio; 47,000 teachers have been trained; and communications, transportation, sanitation, and electric transmission networks continue to be repaired and improved. We have degraded the al Qaeda network, disrupted their financing, captured or killed three-fourths of the organization's known leaders and associates, and foiled additional terror plots on our own soil. We must not allow those responsible for the 9/11 attacks to succeed.

PJH: What is your attendance record? There have been allegations of politicians having 'blind party allegiance'; do you always vote the party line? What is your response to Trauner's concern with your support of Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert before the results of the investigation on the Mike Foley incident are released?

BC: My roll call voting record for the 109th Congress is 91% I am a Republican and I believe in the principles of smaller government, states rights, and the protection of personal freedoms that form the base of our party's doctrine. The vast majority of the constituents I represent are Republican. Therefore, it should be no surprise that more often than not, I vote with my Republican colleagues. Before casting any vote, however, I and my staff carefully weigh the benefits or costs that bill will create for our state. If the measure is not a step forward for Wyoming, I vote against it. I opposed CAFTA, despite strong pressure from the administration and Republican leadership in Congress, because of its detrimental effect on Wyoming's ag industry. I voted against a popular second supplemental spending measure for hurricane assistance because it didn't contain offsets or recognize the disaster assistance needed by the West due to drought. I oppose the President because I believe his immigration reform package does not go far enough. I was sent to Washington to represent Wyoming and that is what I constantly strive to do. The actions of Mark Foley were a despicable and disgusting betrayal of his office, the American people, and most concerning, the safety of our nation's children. I did not know Mark Foley well, but I do know the Speaker well and he has always proven to be an honorable and decent man. Before he was elected to public office, he taught and coached in the Illinois school system for sixteen years. I fully support a full and transparent investigation into the Foley incident and will likewise support the appropriate punishment of anyone involved.

PJH: In a Wednesday interview with Planet Jackson Hole, your opponent Gary Trauner directed a question to you: " how does she decide she wants to balance the budget given the fact that we've had 420 billion dollars in debt over the past six years and we're still running, even though it's getting slightly better, we're still running 250 billion dollar debts.'" What is your response to Trauner's question?

BC: Mr. Trauner is being hypocritical. He attacks the debt and federal spending while supporting policies which will increase federal spending dramatically. He supports a citizenship plan for the 12 million illegal aliens presently in this country. U.S. Senate Bill 2611 estimates such a plan would cost the taxpayers $4.8 billion a year over the first ten years. He supports a government run national healthcare system, which ten years ago was labeled Hillarycare and was soundly defeated. Taxpayers would once again be left picking up the tab for this new government program. With support for policies like these, his accusations have no credibility. When Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, we balanced the budget, ended the 30-year raid on Social Security, and put our fiscal house in order. The result of this work was the creation of record surpluses which allowed us to begin paying down the public debt. Since then, costs of the continuing war on terror and the recovery efforts after the monumental natural disasters of 2005 have come with a steep price tag. I fully support the war in Iraq and will continue to fight to provide our troops with whatever resources they need to be safe and, with time, victorious. To be fiscally responsible, however, means making tough choices. If spending in one area increases, we must find ways to decrease federal spending in others. Too often when efforts are made to reduce our federal spending levels, the focus is on discretionary spending. The only way we are ever going to truly eliminate the deficit is by reforming the bureaucratic monster that is entitlement spending. Combined, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid spending will rise from 8.4 percent of GDP today to 18.9 percent of GDP by 2050. While we have passed bills this Congress to slow the growth of entitlement spending and eliminate fraud and abuse to programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, it is not enough. Wyoming's taxpayers know how to balance their own checkbooks. They should be able to send their tax dollars to the federal government each year with an expectation that this money will also be spent wisely. Fortunately, we are also starting to reap the budgetary rewards of the tax cuts we enacted over four years ago. Just this month, the Administration released the final budget numbers for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006. The long and short of it is that the FY06 deficit is $248 billion, or $71 billion less than last year's deficit. This number also means that President Bush's promise in February of 2004 to cut the deficit in half by 2009 has been met three years ahead of schedule. Opponents of tax relief want people to believe that the only way to cut the budget deficit is to raise taxes. This is just simply not the case. We still have a lot of work to do, but these numbers prove that the Republican philosophy of reduced taxes and fiscal restraint will continue shrink the budget deficit.

PJH: On your website, you suggest that the health care system will only work when doctors are relieved of the worry of litigation and liability insurance costs. Is this one of the biggest flaws of our country's health care system? What about those that can't afford health insurance or health care? If reelected, what will you do to get health coverage to the 17% of uninsured Wyomingites?

BC: I'm a senior member on the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Health. I have studied the health care issue inside and out and I know the problems we have in Wyoming in getting access to affordable care. The cost of health care is simply too high - period. Waste and fraud in the Medicaid and Medicare programs, medical liability costs that have spun out-of-control, and an outdated "paper-based" medical records system are all drains on our nation's health care system that need to be addressed. These issues are extremely technical, however, and it is naive to think that a simplistic government solution can be imposed and all will be well in our health care field. We can, however, take several important steps to bring those costs down and improve access to care. The cost of care is not the only issue for us in Wyoming, where we have people who don't even have ready access to the services they need. When rising costs force a doctor to close his or her doors, entire communities are affected. Our physicians are right now facing Medicare payment cuts that could force them to stop taking Medicare. I've made it clear to House Leadership that we must fix the broken reimbursement system before the cuts go into effect in 2007. I also introduced legislation this Congress to improve access to mental health care for our seniors by doubling the number of Wyoming mental health providers that seniors can see under the Medicare program. We simply need to attract more medical providers to our state, so I have cosponsored a bipartisan bill to use grants for nursing and medicine schools to encourage interest in rural health. I will continue to fight to get Wyomingites the health care they need as we face challenges unique from any other state.

PJH: In a recent Trauner press release, he implies that your efforts to include Wyoming in federally funded energy research projects have been insufficient. What is your response to that and do you plan on moving forward with a new energy plan for Wyoming if reelected? Along those lines, what are your views on the potential conflict between wildlife habitat and mineral extraction in Wyoming?

BC: Once again Mr. Trauner is being a hypocrite. He seemingly wrings his hands over federal spending and appropriations earmarks, then attacks me for not getting more earmarks resulting in more federal spending. He needs to pick an issue and stay on one side of it. During my tenure in Washington, I and our Senators have worked together to secure over twenty six million in funding for the University of Wyoming alone - a significant portion of which has been used on energy-related research. I also believe the more important issue is what those policies I have authored and supported in Congress have done for Wyoming's economy - an economy based largely what level of energy development is occurring in the state. For over four years in Congress, I fought tooth and nail to get a comprehensive energy bill through Congress that would create Wyoming jobs, lower energy costs, and most importantly, address the very real national security issue of foreign energy dependence. I personally crafted several provisions of the bill that will, over the long-term, increase and diversify the production and national distribution of Wyoming's energy resources. Several new clean-coal projects that will create hundreds of new jobs are currently being pursued in Wyoming as a result of provisions in that Energy bill. In addition, I have spearheaded through the House this year passage of provisions to return the roughly half a billion dollars Wyoming is owed by the federal government through the abandoned mine lands program, as well getting signed into law a reduction in royalty rates for our trona industry so they can focus on competing in global markets. Regarding the potential conflicts between mineral development and wildlife habitat, I would first point out that my responsibility in Congress is to protect the public's abilities to utilize and enjoy our federally managed lands for multiple uses. Those uses include agriculture, hunting and fishing, recreation, and yes, in certain cases - environmentally sound energy development. We have the innovation and technological know-how to produce energy in a safer, cleaner way than ever before. This means responsible development can continue to occur on many of our public land holdings without threatening the ecosystem or other uses of those lands. During my tenure as the lone Wyoming Member of Congress, I have consistently worked to protect this right of access by bringing increased accountability to all of our federal land management agencies. Protecting and preserving our public lands while dually promoting Wyoming's economic drivers of energy development, tourism and agriculture requires a careful balance. I have and will continue to fight in Congress to maintain that balance.

PJH: What is the balance between aggressively seeking federal funding for Wyoming and curbing pork barrel spending?

BC: I fully support more transparency in the appropriations process and will support any reform necessary to get rid of wasteful spending and restore confidence in the system. I also think it is also necessary to note that not all earmarks represent stealthy or wasteful spending. Earmarks are not additional funding, but rather serve to designate more specifically where already allocated money is to be spent. Earmarks can often be not only beneficial but essential to rural states like Wyoming, where funding priorities do not always align with Members from more populated parts of the country. Earmarks also allow Members to make sure worthwhile projects important to their constituents do not get lost in the bureaucratic shuffle of the Executive Branch. As such, I will continue to carefully analyze any reform proposal in order to ensure an appropriate balance is struck.

- editor@planetjh.com

Reader Comments
No comments for this Article.

Leave a Comment