Andrew Rice

The Duncan Banner

October 24, 2008 03:11 pm

— The Duncan Banner emailed some questions to all the candidates running for political office that members of Stephens County will be voting on Nov. 4. What follows is this candidate's responses to these questions.

Questions to Andrew Rice, Democratic candidate, US Senate from Oklahoma:

1) What qualifications do you have for running for U.S. Senator?

Fairness and personal responsibility are the Oklahoma values I was raised by and they are the values I will take to Washington. I entered public service following my work as a Christian missionary because I believed I could make a difference for our state, our country. I came into the State Senate in one of the most difficult times in Oklahoma history. Never before had there been a tied Senate with 24 Republicans and 24 Democrats. Looking back, I'm grateful to have started in this environment. I learned very quickly that if I wanted to get anything done on the tough problems we're facing with health care, energy, veterans care and a host of other issues, I had to reach across the aisle to find solutions to problems affecting Oklahomans. I've been successful in getting things done. That's the biggest problem I see with Washington, nothing gets done. I will fight and work to make things happen.

Also, I think it is imperative that as elected officials, we listen to people. Listening to people and learning what they want and need from our government allows me to stay true to representing our state effectively. When I'm elected, I plan to continue to talk to people in state, not hide from my constituents. Too often politicians, like Jim Inhofe barely come home after they are elected. It is hard to develop solutions for Oklahomans if you don't know what the problems are in the first place.

2) Why are you running for U.S. Senator?

I am running for the U.S. Senate to put people before politics. If Jim Inhofe had done that throughout his 22-year Washington career, we would be in a much better position today. Sadly, Jim Inhofe has supported his political party and the large special interests that fund his campaign at the expense of middle class Oklahomans. For example, Jim Inhofe turned the other way and let the Wall Street CEOs write their own rules while he took $1.3 million from Wall Street financial interests for his campaigns. That's the sort of behavior that helped contribute to our current economic crisis.

3) What is the most important issue to you and how will you work to alleviate the problem if elected?

Fixing the economy is my number one concern. Everywhere I travel in Oklahoma, people are hurting. Unfortunately, through no fault of their own, the financial crisis is hurting middle class families the hardest. Jobs are disappearing, family incomes are in decline, retirement savings accounts have lost $2 trillion nationally, housing values have plummeted. Home owners who played by the rules are having a hard time making their mortgage payments, and credit markets are nearly frozen, preventing businesses large and small from accessing the credit they need to meet payroll and create jobs. Over the course of this campaign, I have championed ideas to address all of these problems and I have proposed several new ideas to respond to the rapidly evolving problems in a three-part economic rescue plan that can be found on my website, AndrewForOklahoma.com.

4) With the ever increasing costs for construction materials, road construction/maintenance costs are increasing exponentially, what can be done to alleviate the problem? In other words, can the number of road projects remain steady or will the number of projects need to decrease yearly unless taxes are raised?

In the State Senate, I have never voted for a tax increase, and I will never vote to increase middle class Oklahomans' taxes in the U.S. Senate. The biggest issue is that Oklahoma under Jim Inhofe has consistently been a donor state as far as federal highway money. We receive only about 90 cents to each dollar that we pay in highway taxes. States like North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana receive $2 to every $1 they pay in those taxes, and Alaska receives more than $5 for every $1. That is not acceptable. Jim Inhofe simply isn't protecting the Oklahoma taxpayer's investment.

This is symptomatic of a larger issue. Time and again – on everything from transportation to energy to health care to the Wall Street bailout to immigration – Jim Inhofe has stepped aside and let other Senators from other states decide how these bills affecting so many Oklahomans will be written. Rather than being an active participant at the negotiation table and ensuring Oklahomans have a voice as these important decisions are made, Jim Inhofe consistently removes himself from the equation, offers no alternative solutions, and abdicates his responsibilities as a U.S. Senator.

Inhofe voted against the $8 billion highway trust fund bill on July 30, 2008 when it was clear that Oklahoma and the rest of the nation were facing critical shortages in highway funding. That $8 billion in funding was attached to other critical tax relief for Oklahoma – an extension of the college tuition tax credit, a measure to prevent more Oklahoma families from being ensnared by punitive tax increases through the Alternative Minimum Tax, and tax cuts for small businesses getting squeezed by the credit crisis. Why didn't Inhofe support this critical legislation with emergency highway funding and tax cuts, paid for by closing overseas tax loopholes for hedge funds? Because his party leadership told him not to. He later changed his mind and voted in favor of this legislation – but only when he got the go ahead from his party leaders. Whose side is he on? Oklahoma deserves a Senator that puts the interests of Oklahomans ahead of partisan politics.

5) Oklahoma has a prison capacity of about 25,000. We stay filled at between 96% and 98% yearly, which is well into overcrowded status. What is the answer for prison overcrowding in Oklahoma and how will you work to alleviate the problem? Do you think taxes need to be raised to solve the (any) problem?

Taxes do not need to be raised to fix this problem. What we need to focus on, however, are expanded Drug Court efforts that include rehabilitation, education and workforce training for nonviolent offenders. We need community leadership that addresses the problems that begin with broken homes, substance abuse, poor school attendance, food insecurity and poverty.

6) Recidivism is measured as the percentage of all prisoners within a given year who return to incarceration within three years. For fiscal year 2005, the recidivism rate is 27.8%. What will you do to lower that percentage?

Drug Courts in Oklahoma counties and elsewhere have shown marked decrease in recidivism rates. The results come from the program's ability to help people with substance abuse issues address their addictions, learn skills, find jobs and change their lives. As a result, they are far less likely to be repeat offenders. While Drug Courts do not offer a one-size-fits-all solution, they are a step in the right direction.

The last six questions come from a Duncan Banner reader.

7) What have been some "positives" that have happened during your campaigning?

Meeting Oklahomans who want better representation in Washington reminds me why I am running for the U.S. Senate. Oklahomans are tired of the bitter partisanship that's been driving Washington and elected officials like Jim Inhofe. Republicans and Democrats alike are looking for someone who, regardless of their party, will listen to them and fight for them. They don't get that from Jim Inhofe anymore, and they're looking for a change.

8) How can we make public schools better?

As U.S. Senator, I will make it a top priority to adequately invest in our public schools so that we can attract and retain the top teachers, modernize facilities and reward students and parents who support public education. Unfortunately, George Bush and Jim Inhofe have deliberately starved public education of the federal resources necessary to adequately serve our communities. The federal government has to stop implementing universal mandates on public schools that come from theoretical think tanks in Washington D.C. That's what No Child Left Behind was. It was a theoretical solution to the real problem of underperforming schools. It was not created by teachers, and while it has been good for some school districts in some areas of the country, they applied a blanket solution to the whole nation and bogged many of our schools in the process. Then, they decided not to fully fund it. That's where we stand today, and what we need to do is emphasize local control over curriculum while providing federal assistance for school infrastructure and energy efficiency investments that will save all schools money in the long run.

9) Do you stand with your party affiliation on the issues of abortion and marriage? Why?

No, I don't look to any political party for my personal beliefs. On abortion I think government can play a significant role in preventing unintended pregnancies, such as providing effective family planning programs, teen pregnancy prevention programs and supporting pregnant women and new families who need support to go forward with their pregnancies. This would include increased funding for child care, after-school programs and nurse home visitation programs for new moms. Regarding marriage, I believe that marriage is a religious institution that is legally defined as a union between a man and a woman.

10) Would you ever cross party lines in a voting session? Why?

Certainly. I have done so many times in the State Senate. The majority of the bills I have written that have become law were co-authored by a Republican member of the House of Representatives. In an evenly split State Senate, we have to work together to accomplish anything, and I often reach out to Republican members to work on bills that are important to my constituents. In a couple of instances, Democratic members of my own caucus were opposed to these bills, but it takes political courage to be an effective legislator, and I'll continue crossing party lines when I'm in Washington.

11) Are you for or against Tort Reform? Why?
My wife is a physician so this is an important issue for my family. In the State Senate, I have supported some tort reform measures, including certificates of merit, but I have opposed others, including collateral source provisions and hard caps on settlements. Currently, there are harsh sanctions in Oklahoma that judges can use to punish and disbar lawyers who bring frivolous lawsuits. The problem is that judicial elections are not publicly financed allowing lawyers to donate huge sums of money to judges for their elections. To make sure those sanctions can be enforced, we might consider publicly financing judicial elections.