Challengers downplay Young’s years

WASILLA — For an event featuring all challengers and no incumbent, the U.S. House of Representatives forum Thursday night was remarkably restrained on the topic of Don Young.

Though that’s not to say the three men hoping to unseat Young didn’t get their shots in.

“Don Young is really out of touch,” said Harry Crawford, the lone Democrat in the race, before comparing the congressman to Kevin Costner’s character in Dances with Wolves, who characters in the film said had “gone native.”

“Don Young, I believe, has gone Washington,” Crawford said.

Republican Sheldon Fisher said Young was the “poster child” for out-of-control government spending and John R. Cox, also a Republican, aimed right at one of Young’s hobby horses, that his 38 years in Washington afford him enough clout to get things done.

“Seniority is not working,” Cox said.

Though Young was in Washington D.C. and could not attend in person, he sent in a written statement. In it, he said he is very proud of what he’s done during 38 years representing Alaska. He said that he has stood up to President Obama, that he has pushed to reform the No Child Left Behind Act to allow more flexibility and more help for underperforming schools, that he has pushed hard for resource extraction in Alaska.

And he also mentioned a couple of projects he won recently for the Valley — money to build a ferry landing at Port MacKenzie and money to improve the Wasilla airport.

As for the issues discussed, many had to do with the philosophy of governance and the rules of the House of Representatives. Young’s challengers were asked about seniority and what it can do for Alaska.

“There are other ways that a member can be effective as a young member,” Fisher said. “By working together, by finding like-minded legislators, I can be effective.”

To his statement about how seniority isn’t working, Cox added, “Our economy is still heading downstream.”

For his part, Crawford pointed out that Young lost a lot of his committee seats due to his legal troubles; the exact details of which have remained murky.

“I’m the only one here with legislative experience,” he said, referencing Cox, who is a retired Navy man and Fisher, a former telecommunications executive. “I was able to pass bills from the minority from almost the moment I got into the legislature… I’ve proven over time that I can work with people on both sides of the aisle.”

On the more philosophical end, candidates were asked if they believed earmarks should be allowed in the legislative process. Only Fisher said yes.

Asked to explain, he said, “No one, I don’t think, has been more critical of the current earmark process as I have.” But, he said, congressmen should be allowed to fund projects in their districts: it should just be an open and transparent process. Earmarks should not be slipped in at the last minute.

Crawford said that, taken that way, he actually agreed with Fisher. He said he understands “earmark” to be a term used to describe just that kind of last-minute expenditure. A project funded out in the open and given full scrutiny is just an ordinary budgetary appropriation.

“Earmarks by their very nature are done inappropriately,” he said.

Cox said he opposed them in principle but realized earmarks were necessary to “make things happen.”

On a more concrete, real-world question, Crawford said, when asked about the recently adopted mandate that employers provide healthcare to their workers, said that in a system where that is not required, someone is still footing the bill.

“Somebody is picking up the tab for every one of those people that’s going to the emergency room,” he said.

Fisher said he thinks the legislature should repeal the recently passed healthcare reform bill and start from scratch.

As for Cox, he said, “There needs to be some kind of healthcare reform but we don’t need what we have right now being shoved down our throats.

Contact Andrew Wellner at andrew.wellner@frontiersman.com or 352-2270.