“I will only, only vote for an increase in the debt ceiling if we have a balanced budget amendment that passes both houses of Congress,” Labrador said.  The Republican-led U.S. House passed such a plan this week, though the Senate, which has a Democratic majority, halted progress of that plan.  Labrador said that plan, called Cut, Cap and Balance, is his ideal option for raising the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion from its current $14.3 trillion borrowing limit.  The plan also cuts more than $100 billion in spending immediately and ties future spending levels to economic activity.

Labrador said he and other Republicans are pushing for Congress and President Barack Obama to approve a  good debt ceiling deal, not just any deal.

Debt and spending dominated the discussion at Labrador’s town hall event, with many in the crowd asking for deeper spending cuts, while others wanted to preserve some programs, including Social Security, or raise taxes on the wealthy.  Labrador shot down that last idea.

“I don’t think it’s time to raise taxes on individuals, but I do think it’s time to reform the tax code,” he said.  Labrador said reforms he favors include reducing the number of income tax brackets and rates of those brackets, and closing loopholes that allow large companies to avoid paying taxes.

Those tax code reforms are similar to a debt plan backed by Sen. Mike Crapo and five other senators in the “Gang of Six,” though Labrador said he hasn’t fully reviewed their proposal.  “I look at the ‘Gang of Six’ plan as a way to get to balance (the budget), not as a solution to the debt ceiling increase,” he told IdahoReporter.com after the event.

After the debt ceiling issue is resolved, Labrador said the debate in Congress will turn to the next federal budget, which starts in October.  One of the issues he expects will go on the backburner is one he has experience with, and one that stirred up controversy in his last election: illegal immigration.

“I just can’t imagine that we’re going to have any major legislation,” Labrador said about illegal immigration.  “There’s one bill that I may work on here soon that deals with the high-tech industry.”

Labrador’s vision for immigration reform includes tighter border security, a functioning guest worker program for non-citizens, and an increase in legal immigration for people who come to the U.S. for college.

“Right now, our immigration system is broken,” Labrador said.  He also linked illegal immigration to the nation’s economic problems.  “It is impossible for us to achieve any kind of prosperous system with the immigration system we have.”

Another area of spending Labrador said needs to decrease is in defense.  He criticized Obama’s military efforts in Libya.  “We need to get out of Libya,” he said.  “We also need to make sure we draw down what we do in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

It’s been more than six months since Labrador was sworn into Congress, and he said he’s already changed his views on one issue: term limits for members of Congress.  “I think people stay [in Congress] too long,” he said.  “They start thinking that their job is that they please special interests and many of the people working in the bureaucracy and they’re not so concerned about pleasing their constituents.”

The crowd in Meridian cheered when Labrador announced his switch on term limits.  Labrador has also started to receive more national attention.  He appeared on ABC’s “This Week,” last Sunday, and said he received requests to be on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” and CNN’s “State of the Nation” this Sunday, but declined.  “I needed to come home,” he said.

Idaho is one of five states, along with the District of Columbia, where anyone can go to the E-Verify website, input some personal information, including a Social Security number, and make sure they come up clean.

Employers can volunarily use E-Verify to check whether their employees can legally work in the U.S. The system checks names and information against Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration records. The self-check program could spread to other states, though it’s not clear how popular it will be or why many workers would use the system.

“It puts people on notice if there are mistakes so that they can correct them,” said Idaho Department of Labor spokesman Bob Fick, who issued a news release announcing the program. He said the state labor department didn’t push for Idaho to be one of the first states with the E-Verify Self Check program, which is a federal endeavor. Fick also said the labor department doesn’t use E-Verify when processing claims for unemployment benefits, but rather cross-checks applicants’ Social Security numbers and driver’s licenses.

“It’s more of a PR campaign than it is something that’s actually needed,” said Brent Olmstead, who leads the Idaho Business Coalition for Immigration Reform and is a lobbyist for the Milk Producers of Idaho. He said people in the U.S. on work permits or with other legal issues might use the system. “It would probably behoove you to go through it and make sure there are no problems with your papers, so you can get those fixed before you apply for a job.”

Olmstead’s group opposed efforts by some lawmakers last year to make E-Verify mandatory for all businesses in Idaho. Several states, including Utah and Arizona, have similar laws. Olmstead said his business coalition favors national-level immigration reforms, rather than state reforms. He also said E-Verify could be difficult for some employers.

“Not all businesses in Idaho have computers,” Olmstead said. “Some don’t even have electricity.”

The E-Verify system isn’t foolproof. A 2010 report commissioned by the federal government found that E-Verify was accurate 96 percent of the time, but that more than half of all unauthorized workers are wrongly labeled as authorized. Those errors are primarily due to identity theft.

Leo Morales, the immigration rights policy director for Idaho Community Action Network, said the self-checking system could be useful to people who are changing their legal status, but wouldn’t be of use to most Idahoans. “Individuals that know that they have status, and individuals that know that they don’t have status know that as well,” he said.

E-Verify and other efforts at curbing illegal immigration didn’t see much action during this year’s legislative session. Morales said the federal government has more power and ability to change immigration policy, and that state-level changes, like those passed in Arizona, can get snarled. “Doing this only takes it to court, which ends up costing the taxpayers and doesn’t solve anything,” Morales said.

Idahoans wanting to verify their legal right to work can fill out a form at the E-Verify website, which is run by the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service.

Obama spoke for more than an hour Tuesday evening, outlining broad principles he said would help “win the future,” including creating jobs, freezing spending, and reforming immigration.

“Let’s see if his actions match his rhetoric,” said Rep. Raul Labrador.  “He almost sounded like a Republican.  Now the question is if he’s going to act like a conservative, like a Republican.”

Labrador, who attended his first State of the Union speech in the Capitol, said Obama’s a good speaker, and appreciated his call for immigration reform and changes to the health care reform approved by the last Congress.  He said Congress can enforce and strengthen immigration laws in the next two years, though it depends on the specifics that Obama supports.

Sen. Jim Risch said he isn’t sure that immigration reform will come in the next two years.  “We’re deeply divided on immigration,” he said.  “I don’t know how you compromise on that.”

Risch said that while Republican and Democrats were scattered throughout the House chamber listening to Obama, by the end of the speech the mood was similar to other presidential addresses.

“We don’t need a change in tone,” Risch said.  “Democracy is not a Kumbaya process.  It is a vigorous debate and we need a vigorous debate.”

Risch said he’s focused on the nation’s financial condition, including reducing the national deficit.  He said the president’s call to freeze domestic spending isn’t enough.  “We need to do more than just freeze spending over the next five years,” he said.  “We need to cut.”

Sen. Mike Crapo said reducing deficit is the next big thing the federal government must tackle.  “The crisis that grips our nation is strangling the economy and is working against job creation and economic recovery,” Crapo said.  He added that serious spending cuts and reforming the tax code, an issue Obama touched on, are necessary.

Rep. Mike Simpson said he’s glad Obama discussed lowering the deficit and improving the economy, but said he needs to do more than talk about some issues.  “I am concerned, however, that his Administration’s actions don’t always match up with his sound bites, particularly when it comes to the regulatory agenda that the EPA and other agencies have been advancing,” he said.

Simpson also said that Obama’s plan for more clean energy must include nuclear power.  “We can never meet clean energy goals like the one the President laid out tonight if we don’t experience a nuclear renaissance, and Idaho is poised to help lead the nation in this effort,” Simpson said.

Labrador won’t be on one of the committees he said he’d asked for a spot on, the House Judiciary Committee. Labrador wanted to serve on that committee’s subcommittee on immigration, which could put together a plan handling illegal immigration. Illegal immigration was one of the most contentious issues in Labrador’s successful race against Democratic Rep. Walt Minnick.

Labrador said at a City Club of Boise debate in October that crafting immigration legislation would be the single-most important thing he’d be able to accomplish in Washington, D.C., and that GOP leaders would give him the opportunity to sit on that committee.

Labrador’s spokesman, Phil Hardy, said Labrador didn’t get to choose his committees – congressional leaders chose for him.

Both Labrador and Hardy said the government reform committee will tackle important issues. “Raul is eager to get down to business and help restore a federal government that works for Idahoans,” Hardy said.

“We need to root out government waste, fix so much of what is broken in Washington and advance investigations that address the fraud and waste that has resulted in a government in which the American people no longer have confidence,” Labrador said in a news release that included praise from the incoming GOP chairmen of the committees he will serve on.

Read Labrador’s news release below.

LABRADOR APPOINTED TO THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

First District Congressman-elect Raul Labrador will serve on the House Committee on Natural Resources and House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform for the 112th Congress.

“I ran for Congress to serve Idaho and to restore the people’s faith in government. These two influential committee assignments position me perfectly to accomplish these goals,” said Labrador.

The Natural Resources Committee jurisdiction includes public lands, grazing, fisheries, wildlife, water and irrigation, energy resources, Native American affairs and mining interests. It will be chaired by Representative Doc Hastings from the State of Washington.

“Rep.-elect Raul Labrador is a welcome addition to the Natural Resources Committee. He brings valuable experience and understands the importance of public lands and natural resources to people, jobs and our economy. I look forward to working with him on issue impacting Idaho and our entire nation,” said Natural Resources Committee Chairman-elect Doc Hastings.

“Serving on this committee will enable me to have direct influence over many vital issues affecting Idaho,” continued Labrador. “I will be a strong voice for Idahoans on land use, water rights, energy development, wildlife management, Native American affairs, mineral and mining interests and a range of other policy areas important to Idaho and the country.”
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is the main investigative committee in the U.S. House of Representatives. The committee has broad jurisdiction over all federal government-wide activities and its overall authority makes it one of the most influential and powerful committees in the Congress.

Incoming Chairman Darrell Issa of California praised Representative-Elect Labrador’s appointment to the Committee saying, “Representative-elect Labrador will be a key partner in our effort to live up to the mandate of the American people to reform a federal bureaucracy that is overrun with waste, fraud, and mismanagement. Working with Raul, we can reform a broken and wasteful government so that it better serves Idahoans and all Americans.”

Congressman-elect Labrador added, “While in the Idaho Legislature I fought for less government spending and to ensure the proper role of government. During my campaign, I emphasized the need to restrain an out of control federal government. With my appointment to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I will fight to turn my words into action. We need to root out government waste, fix so much of what is broken in Washington and advance investigations that address the fraud and waste that has resulted in a government in which the American people no longer have confidence.”

Minnick has run three different TV ads on illegal immigration critical of Labrador’s comments and work as an immigration lawyer. Labrador has defended his work, while airing commercials calling Minnick’s proposals on illegal immigration amnesty, one of several loaded words in the illegal immigration debate.

Labrador’s line of work adds attention to the issue. He has said that his background in immigration law makes him better suited to go to Congress and craft a solution for what he calls his number one issue. Minnick, through his negative commercials, has tried to raise questions about the consistency of Labrador’s views on the topic.

Both Minnick and Labrador say they oppose amnesty, but defining amnesty can be difficult. Both promised in a survey by NumbersUSA, a group that wants to lower immigration levels, that they oppose a blanket amnesty offering a pathway to citizenship for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. Both have also called for an improved guest worker system and more security on the Mexican border, with Labrador suggesting the National Guard could keep watch.

Still, the candidates have different ideas on what to do about illegal immigrants already in the U.S. Labrador, whose campaign site has had a prominent link to his immigration policy for months, wants people in the U.S. to return to their home country before applying for a guest worker program or other legal status.

“It’s illegal to be in the United States illegally,” Labrador said at a Boise debate Thursday. “If a person is here illegally, they should go back to their home country.”

Minnick favors a plan that would allow people to stay in the U.S., but face some consequences. “What I would do is force them out of the shadows, give them a short period of time to register, have them go before a judge, and pay the penalty for being here illegally,” Minnick said during a radio debate in early October. “That could be going to jail. It could be deportation. It could be a hefty financial fine. Then, give them papers so that they could be here temporarily and … then they could go in the back of a line for a green card, not citizenship.”

Labrador has run radio commercials featuring Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio calling Minnick’s plan amnesty. Minnick has argued that because people would, at minimum, pay a fine, it can’t be called amnesty.

Some immigration experts say the amnesty label fits Minnick’s plan. Former Idaho Sen. Larry Craig, who was one of the leaders during President George W. Bush’s efforts to pass immigration reform, said that, politically, Minnick’s plan amounts to amnesty and would likely be a non-starter in Congress. Craig, who supports Labrador in the race, said he held views similar to Minnick when he was in the Senate, but couldn’t get a plan approved by the House and Senate.

“It always depends on how you define amnesty,” said Brent Olmstead, who leads the Idaho Business Coalition for Immigration Reform and is a lobbyist in Boise for the Milk Producers of Idaho. “Everyone defines it differently.” Olmstead said the policy ideas from both Minnick and Labrador are workable. He said his group is most concerned with improving guest worker programs that are user-friendly for both employers and workers.

NumbersUSA labeled both Minnick and Labrador as “true reformers” on immigration based on their survey answers, though Roy Beck, the group’s executive director, said he’s troubled by their specific policy ideas. He said Minnick’s plan sounded like provisional amnesty and said Labrador’s plan could lead to an increase in legal immigration, which his group opposes.

“They aren’t making clear, unequivocal promises,” Beck told IdahoReporter.com. “They’ve both got very customized ideas about what to do, neither of which seem to match the anti-amnesty leaders in Congress.”

Beck also said that Minnick’s two-year record in Congress, while slim on immigration issues, included resisting support for plans that would give comfort to what he called “amnesty advocates.”

The sometimes nasty campaigning in the 1st District hasn’t helped encourage discussion on immigration, according to Leo Morales with the Idaho Community Action Network, an organization that promotes immigrants’ rights and favors a comprehensive immigration reform similar to the plan Craig worked on.

“The messages that they’re putting together don’t really resolve the broken immigration system that the federal government really needs to deal with,” Morales said.

The immigration debate between Minnick and Labrador has received national attention, with Minnick receiving scorn for his commercials and rejecting assertions that they are racially motivated. Labrador was born in Puerto Rico, and said during a television debate that Minnick’s ads make him look like an illegal immigrant.

“It’s a missed opportunity for both of them to talk talk about solutions that not only are good for immigrants but good for all of the constituents in the 1st District,” said Tyler Moran, the policy director for the National Immigration Law Center, another organization that favors comprehensive reform that could allow illegal immigrants meet a series of requirements and checks in order to obtain a temporary legal status in the U.S.  Moran pointed to a 2009 poll of Idaho’s 1st Congressional District suggesting a majority of people support such reforms.

“Regardless about what you feel about immigration, this is not working,” Moran said. “We have to fix the system.”

The two candidates both said the American economy is in trouble, and offered some similar policy changes they see as solutions. Both talked about cutting federal earmarks and reforming federal entitlement programs, which include Social Security and Medicare and other legal benefits.

Both also agreed in generally supporting the war in Afghanistan, though Labrador said he’s heard from parents of soldiers who are concerned. “These kids are in harms way and we need to have a definite mission,” Labrador said. Minnick said that mission should be denying the terrorist network Al Qaeda a sanctuary in the country.

While Labrador and Minnick sparred over a new Minnick commercial condemning Labrador’s work as an immigration attorney, both spoke briefly about how they’d fix immigration, mentioning the need for a secure border and a guest worker program. The candidates disagree over what to do with illegal immigrants currently living in the U.S. Labrador also said that, given his background in immigration law, he’d work on a national solution to the issue in Congress.

Minnick twice tried to paint Labrador as a fringe candidate for views including tighter limits on abortion rights, eliminating the U.S. Department of Education, and questioning the U.S.’s role in the United Nations.

“A person this far out of the mainstream is going to have almost no influence in an evenly divided Congress where people have to work together to solve the real problems involving America,” said Minnick, who called himself a centrist.

“The people of Idaho like my views,” Labrador said. “They support me, and you will learn about them on Nov. 2.” He also said he can work well with Democratic lawmakers, even if they don’t see eye to eye on policy issues.

The two candidates also disagreed on a federal wilderness plan backed by Rep. Mike Simpson. Minnick supports Simpson’s efforts on the Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act (CIEDRA), while Labrador opposes the plan, as does Gov. Butch Otter and Sen. Jim Risch.

“We need to oppose this legislation,” said Labrador. “Sometimes when you have a half a loaf, it’s just a half-baked solution.”

Minnick called CIEDRA a common-sense solution that Simpson has worked on for years. “You can’t please everybody on everything,” he said.

Labrador and Minnick also disagreed on how to fix how elections are paid for. Minnick called the Citizens United Supreme Court case, which allows corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money without reporting requirements, the worst decision since the Dred Scott case, which maintained slavery.

“It is a bad decision and it is turning our elections over to the highest bidder,” Minnick said.

Labrador said he was in favor of the Supreme Court’s ruling, but said all political contributions should be reported within 24 hours. “I think the finances should be unlimited, but they should be disclosed,” Labrador said.

On health care, the candidates reiterated their different approaches for fixing legislation approved by Congress earlier this year. “We have to start all over again,” said Labrador. Changes he’d like to see include letting companies sell insurance across state lines and tort reform to limit lawsuits against doctors.

Minnick, who also favors tort reform, said he’d prefer repealing portions of the plan, not the whole law. “Let’s keep what’s good and repeal what’s bad.”

The debate, hosted by the City Club of Boise and soon to be rebroadcast by Boise State Public Radio, comes just days before votes in the 1st District will be tallied.

The claims in Minnick’s ad are based on legal documents. Labrador, as well as former law enforcement officials contacted by his campaign, denounced the ad.

The commercial focuses on Carlos Lopez, an illegal immigrant who was arrested in 2001 after a methamphetamine drug ring in Canyon County was busted following the death of one of its members. Labrador represented Lopez, who faced less serious charges than others arrested in the case. Lopez ultimately agreed to lesser charges, after Labrador stopped serving as his lawyer.

Minnick’s ad claims that Labrador helped Lopez leave the country to avoid the federal charges.

Thursday, Labrador said Minnick accused him of breaking the law or violating professional ethics. He said during a news conference that Minnick may be the one running afoul of the law with the commercial.

Labrador said he is looking into whether the ad violates defamation law. Minnick’s campaign manager, John Foster, said he isn’t worried about a legal challenge over the commercial.

The source of the ad’s attack on Labrador is a court motion written by former Assistant U.S. Attorney Kim Lindquist asking that charges against Lopez not be dismissed.

“What the government sees is an attorney’s specific and preexisting plan to have his client released from this court on standard conditions and then have him deported to Mexico so as to avoid the federal charges,” Lindquist wrote in 2002. The motion also accused Lopez of leaving southwest Idaho after turning himself over to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to be deported.

Labrador said all his actions followed his legal obligation to serve Lopez, and that Lopez’s deportation was not, as the ad claimed, a plan to flee to Mexico.

Foster said the ad accurately depicts Lindquist’s motion. “He was fleeing charges in a federal case,” Foster said. “The way he did that was by getting deported after promising a judge he would stay in the country.”

The U.S. attorney’s office wouldn’t comment on the content of the ad. Thomas Moss, the U.S. attorney during the Lopez case, said that Labrador did nothing illegal or unethical. “In my personal opinion the television ad is unfair in that it distorts the facts in a prejudicial manner,”Moss said in a statement supplied by Labrador’s campaign.
Foster said Moss’ opinion isn’t relevant. “Mr. Moss was a political appointee who was not directly involved in this case,” Foster said. “As the record makes clear, the assistant U.S. attorney involved had a very different view at the time than the one Mr. Moss holds now.”  The U.S. attorney’s office is non-partisan. Moss has made several campaign contributions to GOP candidates and committees.

Another law enforcement official familiar with the case, retired INS senior special agent Kent Nygaard, said Labrador was just doing his job.

Nygaard endorsed Labrador at a Tea Party Boise event earlier in October.

Minnick defended the commercial during a debate in Boise Thursday, saying that voters need to understand Labrador’s work as an immigration lawyer to understand how he would serve Idaho in Congress. ”It gives me no pleasure to run advertising that points out the history and background of my opponent, but that background is very important,” Minnick said.

Minnick also claimed that Lopez was accused of running a meth lab. Foster said Minnick misspoke during the debate, meaning that Lopez was part of a meth gang.

State Rep. Raul Labrador of Eagle portrayed himself as a solid Republican, discussing Ronald Reagan and the American Dream, while Rep. Walt Minnick highlighted his middle-of-the-road position on many issues. Both candidates, as well as independent Dave Olson, lobbed accusations of being inconsistent or ineffective.

Minnick was asked to defend his TV commercials attacking Labrador’s work as an immigration lawyer. Minnick claimed Labrador profited from the broken immigration system he now rails against. He said the ads were factual and point to Labrador’s integrity.

“This inconsistency speaks to the quality of character that reflects on your ability to be a congressman,” Minnick said.

Labrador said Minnick’s ads take comments from Labrador out of context, which is a form of lying. Labrador also defended his commercials, which take on Minnick’s votes, not his business work. “I have chosen to attack his record, and I think that is valid in a political campaign,” Labrador said. He also accused Minnick’s ad on immigration of trying to make him look like an illegal immigrant.

Dealing with illegal immigration policy specifically, both candidates reiterated their positions. They said say they support more border security and an improved guest worker program. Labrador wants people in the U.S. illegally to return home before they can re-enter the country legally. Minnick favors a new process where people would “be forced out of the shadows,” and face a judge that could deport, imprison, or levy a fine on them, with the option of letting them stay in the U.S.

Minnick was asked to explain comparisons he’s made between illegal immigrants being fined and fines for speeding in a school zone. Minnick said crossing the border is a more serious crime, but that both could punished with a financial penalty. “You can pay a penalty, and that is paying a price,” he said.

Both candidates said they wouldn’t raise taxes during difficult economic times, with Labrador saying there were many spending cuts that could re-balance the federal budget. Minnick said U.S. tax policy needs to be re-evaluated, with both political parties agreeing to decisions that could be difficult-to-swallow.

Minnick tried to distance himself from the Democratic Party, saying he votes with Republicans as often as Democrats on divisive issues, and announcing the possible formation of a “centrist caucus” in Congress made up of Republicans and Democrats who straddle the middle politically. Minnick said that the Nov. 2 election could make moderates more powerful in Congress.

Labrador said Minnick isn’t a conservative just because he didn’t wholly agree with the agenda of President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. He got laughs from the crowd at the Idaho State Capitol when he said that Minnick being the least liberal member of Congress is like being the least ugly boy at a school dance.

Labrador said Minnick’s fiscally conservative views are for naught, because his votes against health care laws and the stimulus package didn’t stop them from becoming law. “Taking on Obama and Pelosi, he was never successful in defeating any legislation,” Labrador said.

Olson criticized the partisan nature of the campaigns and the debates, saying not enough action is coming out of Congress. His campaign agenda includes lowering the deficit, controlling the country’s borders, and reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil.

In his closing comments, Olson said that perhaps both Labrador and Minnick should get out of the race. “If you’re good in the state Legislature Raul, maybe you should stay there,” he said. He also advised Minnick, who has run several companies, that he should go back into business, because what he’s done in Washington hasn’t worked.

Minnick and Labrador disagreed on how to fix illegal immigration, argued over the 17th Amendment, and tried to downplay each other’s business acumen.

Minnick outlined his views on illegal immigration, which he said isn’t a pathway to citizenship. “What I would do is force them out of the shadows, give them a short period of time to register, have them go before a judge, and pay the penalty for being here illegally,” Minnick said. “That could be going to jail. It could be deportation. It could be a hefty financial fine. Then, give them papers so that they could be here temporarily and … then they could go in the back of a line for a green card, not citizenship.”

“What he’s describing is called amnesty,” Labrador said. Labrador, an immigration lawyer, would like to require those in the country illegally to return to their home countries before applying for a guest worker program or visa. “They have broken the law, and I don’t think it’s fair to the American people that they get permanent legal residency.”

When asked by a caller about the 17th Amendment, which lets citizens elect senators rather than state legislatures, Labrador said he supports a repeal, but isn’t campaigning on the issue. He said that government spending has increased since voters got the right to pick senators.

“The 17th Amendment took away the rights of states to control what happens in the Senate,” Labrador said.

Minnick said Labrador’s view is nonsense. “It is crazy and indicative of the fringe positions of my opponent that he would want to take away the right to vote for a U.S. senator from an Idaho voter and give it to the Legislature when the state Legislature is not even capable of properly funding education, keeping our roads repaired, and is certainly not representative of how you or I would necessarily want to vote for a U.S. senator,” he said.

Labrador said his voters agree with him on more issues, including abortion, than they do with Minnick. Labrador is against abortion rights. Minnick isn’t.

Both men said that helping small businesses is key to improving the economy. Minnick said he had more business experience, including running a wood products company and starting a garden nursery business, than Labrador, who runs a law practice.

“Running a four or five or 10-person is not the same as running a Fortune 1000 company,” Minnick said.

Labrador said Minnick’s comments reflected an elitist Democratic view. “I know what it takes to grow a business,” he said.

Labrador also said Minnick’s time in the U.S. House has furthered the agenda of President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “In the two years that he has been in Congress, we have lost jobs, we have lost savings, we have lost everything, so his experience has not helped us to bring forth prosperity in America,” Labrador said.

Minnick defended his time in Congress, saying he focused on cutting spending, and said he isn’t a great supporter of Pelosi. “I would like to have someone that would better represent Idaho values,” he said.

A caller also asked both candidates about how much of their campaign funding comes from outside the U.S. Minnick said two-thirds of his contributors are from Idaho. According to the website OpenSecrets.org, which tracks money in politics, more than half of Minnick’s total money comes from outside the state.

The two candidates debated for more than an hour on 670 AM KBOI in Boise Wednesday. They will also meet for an Idaho Public Television debate Thursday, and have debates that won’t be broadcast live scheduled for the future.

Kemp told IdahoReporter.com Friday that the state government needs to reform welfare and corrections spending, modernize the public school system, educate citizens on a little-known tax that could help bolster education spending, and examine inequities in transportation taxes.

Education funding

Kemp says that the government must do a better job of examining existing systems to find waste and areas to effectively cut without affecting service levels of state departments in order to keep education funding stable in the future.  She also feels that the budgets for the Department of Corrections and Department of Health and Welfare must be placed under a magnifying glass to find ways to save money.  If the state can continue supporting public education, Kemp believes, the state will be able to meet the needs of employers for an educated workforce in the foreseeable future

Online sales tax

Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna recently called on the state to begin collecting out-of-state Internet sales taxes, money he believes would help stave off additional education budget cuts.  Kemp rejected Luna’s call, saying that Idaho already has state law requiring citizens to report taxes on online purchases, though it is little-known.  If elected, Kemp said she would work to educate citizens on the requirements of the tax and encourage more Idahoans to report Internet purchases on tax forms.  Additionally, she would provide training for tax preparers to ensure they are acknowledging the online tax requirements during their work.

Education ‘action plan’ and early graduation

The Garden City candidate believes the public education system in Idaho is outdated and not in tune with the students of today.   She wants to integrate more virtual and visual education into classrooms to prepare students for modern workplaces.  As governor, Kemp would also eliminate requirements of “No Child Left Behind” in the school system, a policy that has led to educators only “teaching to the test” and not adequately preparing students for life after high schools.

During the 2010 legislative session, a plan was passed that would allow students in Idaho to graduate early from high school and receive state-funded scholarships for doing so.  The program, known as the Mastery Advancement Pilot Project, will run for six years in select Idaho school districts yet to be chosen.  Students will be allowed to test out of school subjects and utilize summer school in order to get ahead.  Backers of the program believe it will allow more students to graduate with high school degrees and community college degrees at the same time through concurrent enrollment programs.

Kemp says that idea sounds good on paper, but that she will need to watch the implementation of the pilot program to see how effective it is.  She is suspicious of some members of the House Education Committee, who she believes may be attempting to dismantle a free, state-funded school system through the program.

Texting ban

The Legislature killed two separate bans on texting while driving during the 2010 session.  Rep. Marv Hagedorn, R-Meridian, is crafting legislation that he hopes will pass the Idaho House and Senate in 2011.  Kemp was wary of giving approval to a bill that hasn’t been finalized, but said that she would be hesitant to give the bill the OK because Idaho law already forbids inattentive and distracted driving.  She worries that if the texting ban is passed, lawmakers would be required to ban eating, shaving, and other activities behind the wheel.

Transportation funding

A task force comprised of state lawmakers is in a multi-month process of determining how the state can shore up transportation funding over the next few years.  The panel is expected to deliver results in December.  As governor, Kemp said she wouldn’t close the door on gas tax hikes, one option considered by the task force.  She hopes the recommendation also includes a plan to equalize fees paid by passenger car drivers and those who drive heavy trucks.

A recent study showed that heavy trucks are underpaying for the wear they put on the roads by about 14 percent, while light trucks and cars are overpaying by about 8 percent.  This is a position Kemp shares with Democratic gubernatorial candidate Keith Allred, who has proposed a 3-cent reduction in the gas tax coupled with a corresponding increase in fees for heavy truck drivers.

Immigration

Rep. Bob Nonini, R-Coeur D’Alene, is creating legislation to propose in the 2011 legislative session that is similar to that passed earlier this year in Arizona that, before courts stripped it of major provisions, allowed police officers to inquire about the immigration status of persons stopped in legal situations.  Kemp says the cost of illegal immigration outweighs the benefit of cheap labor provided by immigrants. “Idaho needs illegal immigration to be addressed,” exclaimed Kemp.  “Illegal is illegal.”  If elected, she would first use her position to pressure the federal government to act on the problem.  If that doesn’t solve problems, she says, she would ask state lawmakers to reform entitlement programs to keep illegal immigrants off the state’s tab.  She would also institute a cap on the number of months anyone could be on welfare programs in order to incentivize people to earn their own way.

Kemp squares off with Allred, Republican incumbent Butch Otter, Libertarian Ted Dunlap, and fellow Independent Pro-Life on Nov. 2.