In the past two years, Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Madison, has positioned herself in Congress to be at the center of two of the next great national debates - reform of our nation's energy and health care policies.
In both debates, Baldwin will serve the 2nd Congressional District, and the nation, far better than would her opponent, Madison Republican Peter Theron. For that reason and others, Baldwin has earned our endorsement in the Nov. 4 election.
From her seat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, Baldwin helped write the Energy Independence and Security Act, which among other things increased fuel-efficiency standards for U.S. automakers and committed taxpayer funding to increasing production of biofuels.
Theron has made the simplistic argument that the increased efficiency standards have killed the GM plant in Janesville. Nonsense. It was the swift shift by consumers toward smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles - caused by soaring gasoline prices - and GM's inability to prepare itself for such a shift that is causing the Janesville plant's demise.
Had the nation continued on the course of fuel efficiency improvements started by the Carter administration but halted by President Ronald Reagan, the American auto industry and the nation's foreign policy positions would be much different and better today.
And, of course, the problem of global climate change wouldn't be as critical as it is today.
Theron, however, remains "skeptical" of man-made global climate change. He discounts the overwhelming agreement by the scientific community about the climate change crisis as being driven by government grants. No candidate with such a view belongs in Congress. His belief that the alternative energy solutions will be implemented at impactful levels through the free market alone is naive and short-sighted.
The candidates also are on opposite spectrums of the health care debate. Baldwin remains a staunch supporter of universal health care. Theron supports presidential candidate John McCain's potentially disastrous plan to encourage individuals to shop for their own health care. The best solutions to health care cost and access issues nationally mostly likely rest somewhere in the middle of their positions, but Theron's assertion that "as much as possible, get the federal government out of" health care simply isn't workable.
Baldwin serves on the Energy and Commerce health subcommittee, which she says is at the "center of epic debates" about health care. Her commitment to making sure fewer Americans are without health insurance is commendable. And her insistence that the federal government must negotiate lower costs of pharmaceuticals for American consumers is correct.
Baldwin also has played a major role in securing federal funding for Monroe Clinic's efforts to move toward a transparent and paperless records system. She correctly points to this as another way to reduce health care costs nationally.
We do believe Theron was on the right side of the financial bailout bill argument. Baldwin's two "yes" votes for a rushed bill with no clear focus on economic fixes for Main Street America were disappointing. Theron is correct when he says more time should have been taken to assess the situation and determine more precise fixes. Beyond that, however, his support for a flat tax, an elimination of the estate tax, and a capital gains tax "holiday" are more of the same policies that have served only to increase the gap between the rich and the middle class.
Baldwin, by far, is the better candidate for her constituents' interests. She deserves a sixth term in Congress.
In both debates, Baldwin will serve the 2nd Congressional District, and the nation, far better than would her opponent, Madison Republican Peter Theron. For that reason and others, Baldwin has earned our endorsement in the Nov. 4 election.
From her seat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, Baldwin helped write the Energy Independence and Security Act, which among other things increased fuel-efficiency standards for U.S. automakers and committed taxpayer funding to increasing production of biofuels.
Theron has made the simplistic argument that the increased efficiency standards have killed the GM plant in Janesville. Nonsense. It was the swift shift by consumers toward smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles - caused by soaring gasoline prices - and GM's inability to prepare itself for such a shift that is causing the Janesville plant's demise.
Had the nation continued on the course of fuel efficiency improvements started by the Carter administration but halted by President Ronald Reagan, the American auto industry and the nation's foreign policy positions would be much different and better today.
And, of course, the problem of global climate change wouldn't be as critical as it is today.
Theron, however, remains "skeptical" of man-made global climate change. He discounts the overwhelming agreement by the scientific community about the climate change crisis as being driven by government grants. No candidate with such a view belongs in Congress. His belief that the alternative energy solutions will be implemented at impactful levels through the free market alone is naive and short-sighted.
The candidates also are on opposite spectrums of the health care debate. Baldwin remains a staunch supporter of universal health care. Theron supports presidential candidate John McCain's potentially disastrous plan to encourage individuals to shop for their own health care. The best solutions to health care cost and access issues nationally mostly likely rest somewhere in the middle of their positions, but Theron's assertion that "as much as possible, get the federal government out of" health care simply isn't workable.
Baldwin serves on the Energy and Commerce health subcommittee, which she says is at the "center of epic debates" about health care. Her commitment to making sure fewer Americans are without health insurance is commendable. And her insistence that the federal government must negotiate lower costs of pharmaceuticals for American consumers is correct.
Baldwin also has played a major role in securing federal funding for Monroe Clinic's efforts to move toward a transparent and paperless records system. She correctly points to this as another way to reduce health care costs nationally.
We do believe Theron was on the right side of the financial bailout bill argument. Baldwin's two "yes" votes for a rushed bill with no clear focus on economic fixes for Main Street America were disappointing. Theron is correct when he says more time should have been taken to assess the situation and determine more precise fixes. Beyond that, however, his support for a flat tax, an elimination of the estate tax, and a capital gains tax "holiday" are more of the same policies that have served only to increase the gap between the rich and the middle class.
Baldwin, by far, is the better candidate for her constituents' interests. She deserves a sixth term in Congress.
