The Texas Debates; 101; Debates for The US House and Texas Legislature

Relaxed? Relaxed? Relaxed? Relaxed? relax? Relax? Relax! Relax! Relax! Relax! Relax... relax... Relax... Relax...? Relax... Just your voice... Relax... Just your voice... Relax... Relax... Relax... Relax... Relax... Relax! Relax! Relax... Relax... Relax... Relax... Relax! Relax... Relax... On March 8th, North Texas voters will head to the polls to select the men and women who represent them in Congress, and in the state legislature. KERA presents Election 94, a series of half-hour programs

covering the candidates and the issues to help voters make an informed choice. Hello, welcome to Election 94, I'm Sam Baker. Starting today and continuing next Sunday, KERA is presenting a series of half-hour election specials examining the races for Congress and the state legislature. Our coverage focuses on contested races in Dallas and Terrent County elections. Today we'll meet the candidates running for U.S. Representative in District 3 and state representatives in District 111 and 105. First, District 3. District 3 covers Dallas and Colin Counties. The area extends as far north as Fairview, east to Rowlett, southeast to Mesquite, and includes the park cities, Lake Highlands, and White Rock communities in Dallas. Historically Republican, the third district is predominantly Anglo. Two Republicans are running for Congress in District 3. David Corley is an accountant who lives in Plano,

and Dave Schum is a pension administrator and insurance salesman from Dallas. The incumbent, Sam Johnson, was unable to attend this taping. Gentlemen, thanks for joining me. Mr. Corley, you listed crime as your most important campaign issue. Certainly, that's an issue nationwide, but I think when most people think of crime, they think of that which happens in their city or on their street or on their block or whatever. You're going to be dealing with this issue if you're elected from a national perspective. What is it that you can do to affect what happens in the neighborhood? Well, first off, I believe as a citizen, we should expect and get safe streets and safe neighborhoods. Of course, I know a lot of the stuff comes from the state, a lot of the laws. But at the federal level, you can make laws that can apply to all states that can level out what's happening in the legal system. I think that we need one thing taught reform. We need punitive damages set by law.

But on the crime level, we need specifically to control how long an individual goes into the prison. The three-structure outrule, I think they're talking about Congress. I think it's good if it applies to serious crimes. I think to some of the other crimes that may not be as applicable, but I think it's something we need to look at and get into focus with our laws in our system. Mr. Schum. Well, my feeling is that the federal government has very little to say about the crime situation. The only thing the federal government can do is give states unfunded mandates, and we don't need any more of those. The states need to be the ones and the local governments need the ones that take control of the crime situation. Three strikes, you're out, sounds good. If you're not the second or the third victim, or if you're not the second or the third family's victims' family. So we need to keep the federal government doing what they're supposed to do and let the states and the local governments handle our crime situation. Given recent events involving violent crime that have happened in your areas,

I'm sure constituents in that area are bringing this issue up. So undoubtedly, they must be asking you, can you do anything specifically about crime? Well, yes. From the federal government standpoint, we can, but we need to get our economy turned around. We need to get people back to work and give them an incentive to do well, and that's what my economic plan talks about. We need to get people in a situation where they can support their families, where they can get good educations, where they can live in nice places, and they don't have to have crime as their occupation for their lifetime. So how do you want to achieve that? Well, my platform talks about replacing the internal revenue code with the national sales tax so that we can stimulate our economy. We can downsize the federal government. We can create jobs. We can bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States. Right now, the internal revenue code is killing jobs and it's forcing companies offshore into other nations for our manufacturing. And this hurts the lower income people.

We need to bring these jobs back here because not everybody can go to college, not everybody can get a college education. We need to provide jobs for all levels of income. Are you suggesting doing away with income tax? Yes. And replacing it with the national sales tax? Yes. If we did that, and I'm not the only one advocating this, the former commissioner of the internal revenue service, Shirley Peterson, saying the exact same thing, basically the former commissioner, I mean, the former CEO of the IRS, saying the same thing I am. We've got to change our tax structure in order to become more competitive. The role of the federal government shouldn't be to invade our privacy and to put the hammer on the American people. The role of the federal government should be to create economic opportunities for the American people so that they can climb the economic ladder. Mr. Corley, does that sound feasible to you? I like part of it, does. We do have a problem with our tax system, but one of the things he did touch up on is unemployment.

Currently, there are 15 million people that are out of work or under-employed. About eight million of them are unemployed, about six million of them are under-employed, and then we have about one million, just quit looking. And they just said, I can't find a job they quit. Economic problems are not having a job can lead to crime, but our government could do a lot. And you see, we have what we call now a group of people that are part-timers or attempts, and these people that they are underpaid, they're under-worked, and they don't have any benefits. We're talking about insurance benefits. There's none there for them. The federal government, in my opinion, could make a law which would force all corporations to level the play-in field. If an individual worked over 40 hours, he'd get time in a half. If he worked over 50 hours, he'd get double time. If he worked over 60 hours, he would get triple time. This would force corporations to play on the same field. Now they all have incentive to downsize, get rid of people, put in part-timers, and there's no regulation of this, and it's creating a lot of problems. Had an article in the Dallas Morning News on Tuesday which said that 3% of the people now work as temps.

And we have over 100 million people working, and it's over 3 million people are doing this. And this is a very fast-growing industry, and seems to be one of the industries of the future, which in turn has some severe economic restrictions on our country, on the way things are going, but if the federal government will make a law, they'll level this play-in field and force companies to treat all people alike. And if they force them in this over-time situation, regardless of what the salary is, that they pay the time in a half, double time and triple time, they'll hire more people, they'll have more economic benefits, and also think the corporations will benefit immensely from it, too. Of course, wouldn't one of the arguments against that idea, though, be that the fact that corporations are using temps, this is the way that some people who are unemployed now are actually finding work, even if only temporarily. That's correct, but the problem with it is, they're going to use that to their economic advantage, so they can play less benefits, not be a corporate citizen, and make it fair if everybody involved. This is our country, and everybody involved should have a break on it,

but they're not giving it to them. It's just a way of, sure, it makes it cheaper, it makes it downside, but it doesn't work. Mr. Shum, you're an insurance salesman. I'm curious, what's your stand on the Clinton health care reform plan? Are you supported or any of the other plans being offered? I'm opposed to any federal involvement in our health care system. For some reason, and the reason is the internal revenue code, we've developed a system where every individual in this country looks to his employer for his health care coverage, and it's the only type of insurance we look to our employer for. The reason being, we give tax breaks, tax incentives to corporations, and it's easier for them to buy the coverage of each individual responsible for his own health care. We would go to higher deductibles, and we would have less pressure on overuse in the system. One of the big problems we have right now is overuse, because people are used to paying $5, $10 to go to the doctor through the PPO's and the HMO's, and they have no concept of what's actually being billed to their insurance company. If they had a $1,000 deductible,

they would be more conscious of the dollars that they're spending on the health care. So I feel that the individual needs to be responsible for their own health care coverage. Mr. Corley briefly, in the time we have left, you want to respond to that? I believe we do need a high national health care plan. I agree with some of his things about incentives, but there are about 30 to 35% of the people are either have no insurance or can't get it. And some people go back and welfare simply because they can get insurance. The Clinton plan, I think, basically has too many bells and whistles, and doesn't put enough economic incentive in it. We need one that basically does cover everybody that does have some strong economic incentives for hospitals, doctors, pharmaceuticals, and various medical suppliers to make the thing out where it worked. But as a citizen, we deserve it, and should have some form of it to get it. OK. Thanks to both of you for joining me. Next, we'll look at the race for a state representative district 111. District 111 covers portions of southeast

and southwest Dallas County. The area includes sections of the Oak Cliff community and parts of the cities of Cedar Hill, Duncanville, Glen Heights, Lancaster, and a small section of DeSoto. The district is largely democratic with an African-American voting majority. The incumbent in district 111 is Democratic on Davis. She was unable to attend this taping. Jan Gore, also a Democrat, is a political consultant and administrator. She lives in Dallas. Ms. Gore, thanks for joining me. Thank you for having me. I was curious, you ran in this district before in the last election. I certainly did. You're back again, why? Because, basically, the people called and asked me to run. And I thought about it. I prayed on it. I visited with some people about my running. And the unanimous decision was that I should run to represent the people of District 11 because they have not had the level of representation. I feel that we need in our district.

I'm a resident of District 11. What's been missing in the representation you've had so far? I think perhaps the fact that our people in the district sometimes don't know what the representative does and what kind of services that we can do for them. And a lot of times it's on leadership to go to the people. And let the people know what your position is and how you can help them in the community. And a lot of times you'll get just a lot of response with other needs from the people by just being available. I think that's the key word. It's being accessible and available to the constituents. And that hasn't been the case. That has not been the case. Let's talk about some of the issues that you've got in your campaign.

One of them, of course, is juvenile crime. Absolutely. You favor sort of a different approach. These days, people are saying, let's get them off the streets, get them out of the way, lock them up, and we don't have to worry about that problem anymore. You want to take a different approach. I feel that ignorance and poverty are the parents of crime and violence. And I think that we need to bring those programs and those services closer to the community. I believe that community and business, as well as government, should form a partnership and work to help alleviate some of these problems. I am willing to work with the community because that is where it all starts. With parents, I am a parent. I have three sons and anybody with children know they are not really ever grown.

But I have sons who are in that critical, endangered, species category. I worry about them. Black men. I worry about them because I know that they can be out there and not doing anything and get caught in the crossfire. So you are talking about reaching kids before they commit a crime or before they are too far gone? Before they are too far gone. We can bring programs like some of the programs that are presently available in the community for instance, drug treatment and drug rehab. These are the kind of programs that the state needs to concentrate on funding because the people can get the young people there. And if we don't do something for our young people and something to save our children, none of us are going to be safe. Briefly, very briefly, we just have a short time left.

You have been involved in the community for a long time do you think you can be more effective as a state representative than you can as a community activist? Absolutely. Everyone knows that I have no problems with making decisions and carrying through on programs. But as an elected official, you have just that extra strength and extra arm that you need to make things happen for the community. And that is what I worry about. And that is what I want to do. Okay, thank you for being with us, Ms. Gore. Finally, the race for a state representative, District 105. District 105 covers the southeast corner of Dallas County and the west side of Mesquite. With some 80,000 voters, District 105 is 70% Anglo. There are four candidates running for District 105 in combat. Our grant office is not seeking re-election.

Two Democrats and two Republicans are seeking the office. Mike Anderson, a Republican, has served on the Mesquite City Council. Richard Stokeley, Jr., is also a Republican, a resident of Mesquite. And he is an accountant. The Democratic candidates are a Dale Tillerie, a Dallas attorney, and Rick Callahan, a Dallas real estate representative. I'd like to thank all of you for being with me today. As I went through all of your biographies and campaign platforms and whatever, I think you've all mentioned crime as a very important issue for you. First of all, the topic of juvenile crime. How do you propose to reduce it, Mr. Anderson? I think one of the things we're going to have to do is start making juveniles more responsible for their actions. And we're going to also have to put them into action and be responsible for their actions. And we're going to also have to put them into more disciplined atmosphere. Currently, juvenile crime is totally on the rampage. They are out killing kids and innocent bystanders without remorse or fear of our judicial system.

I believe we're going to have to provide a structured environment in favor of a boot camp that would be not a prison, not a jail. But it would also teach them a trade that would help them when they get out of the boot camp to get a job and become a productive member of the community. It's a rehabilitation. Correct. Mr. Stokeley. I'd like to favor the boot camp theory. I've talked a lot about that with people in our district. We need to instill values in the children, teach them the difference between right and wrong and try to get more community involvement through the charges and through other organizations. I think that kids don't have enough things to do nowadays and we need to try to get more things for them to do after school, get more activities available for them. The children that are very violent need to be kept in some kind of boot camp system where they are worked and taught skills that they can come back out in the community and realize the difference between what's right and wrong and work hard for trying to get back into the school system. If they continue to be violent or to be working against the communities, we need to put them in prison with the people

that are going to be that way for the rest of their lives and get them out of society. Does it sound like a good plan to you, Mr. Teller? Sam, in my discussions with people in the district, it has been just so clear that juvenile violence is really a central issue and I have a two-point program really to address this. The first thing I propose is, juveniles that use handguns or guns in the commission of violent offenses, they should be tried as adults and the reason is very straightforward. It should be us in the community, the people who decide which juveniles are such a danger on the streets that they should be removed from the streets and from the society. But it's not enough to attack the problem after it's already been created. Let's also go a step further and in the early education years, especially kindergarten through sixth grade, I want to establish programs

that will help institute respect for people's lives and respect for people's property so that with this combined program, we get by the community's choice the most serious and deadly offenders out of the way and then we also emphasize with the youth and the children coming through the early elementary years of education reinforcing respect for people's lives and property. I think this way we can begin to get a grip on juvenile crime. Serious punishment but early prevention. Absolutely. Okay, Mr. Callahan. Well, I also echo the fact that juvenile crime is a critical problem. I feel like some of the things that need to be done is self-esteem enrichment. I think that's the predominant problem. I think that's the reason they join a gang in first place. They really don't have a strong family unit that they can identify with. As far as some of the things that we can do with regard to improving the problem is I would like to make sure that in their Texas Youth Commission facilities and also our county detention centers

and if these children are given probation or a pro then I think before we even consider doing that and they need to have a GED or other form of high school equivalency as well as also getting a marketable job skill. If they don't have those two ingredients there then I think they're going to continue to be a problem with the Texas Department of Corrections. I think those are the things that we need to really really take off and make sure that we improve on right there. Another aspect of this question about crime, violent offenders, particularly those and we've had plenty of cases of this in Texas. Those who commit crimes are put in prison, get out of prison and become repeat offenders. How do you choose to deal with that? Well I think there again before they should be even be given an opportunity for a probation or a pro then we need to make sure that they have an education or a marketable job skill. I feel like especially the non-violent offenders those who are out hot checks are perhaps still a car in their youth. I think that those people can be rehabilitated. And I think that as far as employers go out there they need to change their priorities and realize it

without a job, without a marketable job skill, without an education that there's no hope for that person and he'll again and again become a recidivist. So we've got to change our way of looking at that. I think we need more drug and alcohol testing and also treatment and rehabilitation there, especially from the non-violent criminals as well as the violent criminals. But if we can't get a handle on the drug and alcohol problem which is recently a statistic indicated that 87% of the people that are in the Texas Department of Corrections have a drug and alcohol problem. I think that's the underlying cause of most of the crime that we see. This is Hillary. I believe your question is centered on what are we going to do about the most violent offenders? And I believe in that regard when we're talking about repeat violent offenders, there should be no early release. Once you've established yourself as a repeat, a fender of violent crimes against person, you don't get early release. Furthermore, I suggest that we're going to have to implement programs to try to get the job training

and the education skills that Mr. Callahan pointed out because we've got to get a rehabilitative aspect to prison. That's very important. If we're going to release people back into society. Mr. Stockley, what do you even though it's something that's being presented or proposed on a national level, what do you think about the three strikes you're out? I agree with that 100%. I think we're too easy on the people that are in jail now back in the older days. It used to be 10 years hard labor. Those people went to prison. They worked hard. They didn't get to sit in an air conditioned room and watch TV and they didn't want to go back to prison. They got out and they thought it was better to get to work and become a productive citizen in society. Again, they'd rather go back to the hard times. I think that our prisoners should be self-sufficient. They should take care of themselves and not be such a deterrent and take away from the pocketbooks of the citizens. If you spend more money on a prisoner, then you do send in your own kids and raise them to put them through college. I think that needs to change.

We just have to get tougher on the criminals, any criminal that's violent, especially to children or people. We need to keep them in jail the first time for the whole term not early release at all, especially our violent criminals. Mr. Anderson? Sam, this is an important issue. I really believe that we should never see a repeat child molester that's a murderer. These are violent criminals. And I agree with the three strikes in your end theory. These repeat violent offenders are going to have to be taken out of today's society. The problem that we have in the prison system is that we haven't come up with innovative solutions to make room for beds for the violent offenders versus the non-violent offenders. We've got to come up with solutions that will have rooms in our prisons and other locations for our non-violent offenders. Some training, trying to get them back involved in the community, but the violent offenders, they're going away for good. Well, you do bring up a problem. It's going to be my next question, really, which is, in the meantime, why you're trying to rehabilitate inmates or whatever, where are you going to find room to put them?

We have county officials now who are complaining because we've got too many people belonging in state prisons who are in county jails. If you're elected, you're going to have to deal with that budget. Where are you going to find the money to find the necessary best to put these people? Mr. Stockley? I touched on that while I go. I think that the prisons right now are too nice of a place for some of the people to go to. A lot of people you hear about commit a crime to go back to prison because it's easier there. And I think that they don't see it as a tough place to be put into. We've got bases that are being closed throughout the state. I think these bases ought to be utilized as prison facilities and keep the jobs for the local communities there that were lost when the bases were closed. That would be one place. And otherwise, in that, we need to make them self-sufficient. These prisoners need to be working and paying part of their own way and paying their debt back to society while they're in prison. And not just laying around watching TV and working out and getting ready to come back out in society and be a menace again. Mr. Hillary? In the area of, excuse me, prison overcrowded.

I also agree that what we're going to have to do is convert the use of the closed military bases and hospitals to use for prison overcrowding relief. Now, what I target is there's a population in our prison system of at least 15% who prisoners are either in firm or they're over the age of 65. I believe by targeting this group, locating them into the closed hospitals and military-related bases that we get the least dangerous element of the prison system into what is going to be a less secure prison area. But I think by leaving if they less secure prison area, we don't have to designate and commit so much in the way of funds to get these closed military bases and hospitals up to a high security level. So I propose, let's target first, freeing up this 15 or more percent by putting the sick inmates and the over-aged 65 inmates

into the military and hospital-related military closing. Miss Callie. I feel like we're going to continue to build prisons. We've got several that are online right now. We're going to build more. I think one thing that I would like to work to do is reopen the case to get away from this 95% level. In our federal prisons, there are about 140 to 180% occupancy. I don't understand why the Texas Department of Corrections has to be at 95% at least weakened lobby for 100% occupancy. I think it's very fair. I'm also in favor of these hospitals and military institutions being utilized for it. I'd also like to study what we call the warm bed concept where we can rotate prisoners every eight hours into sleeping quarters. Therefore, we can expand the amount of numbers of people that we can put in the institution. I think those are some of the ways that we can do it. And the last thing, and in terms of the nonviolent criminals, there are certainly other programs or rehabilitation aspects

that we can do. They don't need to be locked up in the maximum security prisons that they can be in detention centers. Briefly, in the time we have left, we've already discussed crime, but if you're elected, one of the things you will have to deal with is the budget. Apart from crime, what's top priority in budgeting for you? There's no question. Education spending is the biggest priority. I just don't agree with what Robin Hood has done. I don't think that it's resolved the problem. It's not fair. We need to find a better equalization method to do that. And when I go to Austin, that's what I work to do to find a better equalization method. Mr. Tullary. I agree with Mr. Callahan, obviously. The educational funding issue is probably the major budget issue. I believe one thing I would like to do is address the fact that people at least have the idea or lead to believe that lottery and gambling related funds were going to be dedicated to education. I'd like to address the funding from that aspect and hopefully obtain a more satisfactory and acceptable funding level for the districts.

Briefly, yes, it's definitely. I agree with them on education being an important issue, but I think we need to have reform throughout the government and make sure that we have the money being well spent, money in the schools needs to go directly to the classrooms and to the teachers. And we also have to make sure that there's no more taxes. People have had too many taxes. We've got to stop it, no income tax, no state income taxes. Okay, briefly, Mr. Anderson. Thank you. The state is currently funding 45% of the public education. Property tax is covering the rest of that. In 1950, the state funded 80% of public education with property tax carrying 20%. The more we rely on property tax, the more inequities we have. We must come up with a new solution. Thank you for joining us for this KERA election 94 special presentation. Remember, the primary election is Tuesday, March 8th. I'm Sam Baker. Thank you very much.

Thank you.