(00:00:00) Good evening live from the Jenna Wallace Fine Arts Center at Macalester College in st. Paul Minnesota Public Radio presents a live debate between the major party candidates for the four-year US senate seat. This is Bob Potter speaking tonight's broadcast is made possible with the financial assistance of the st. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company. This debate is the second in a series of three sponsored by the League of Women Voters with the cooperation of common cause of Minnesota tonight. You'll be hearing the views of American Party candidate Paul Helm who's showing in the 1976 Senate election against Hubert Humphrey put the American party within the state's legal definition of a major party guaranteeing the American party an automatic spot on the November ballot minor parties those which get less than five percent of the vote in a general election must file petitions to get on the ballot tonight's debate also includes, of course, the IR candidate Dave durenberger whose campaign appears to have gained considerable momentum in the past few weeks. After some initial problems getting off the ground the third candidate as you know is DF L ER Bob Short whose call for cuts in taxes and government spending has struck a responsive chord with many voters this year. But whose primary victory over party and or seed on Fraser has angered many liberals within the dfl will remind you quickly that the D FLIR and American party candidates for the six-year senate seat will debate here at Macalester this coming Wednesday at the same time the format of the debate provides for brief opening and closing remarks by each candidate and for questions from a group of three panelists are presenting print journalism broadcast journalism, and the public tonight's panelists are Gary Dawson staff writer for the st. Paul dispatching Pioneer Press, Jane bailu public affairs interviewer for a channel 13 cable television in Rochester and barbarous tular Associate dean of continuing education and extension at the University of Minnesota. The moderator of tonight's debate is Frank president of the Minnesota chapter of common cause he is now outlining the ground rules for the debate. So let's go to the podium and Jerry Frank. I'd like to request that the candidates observe the time limit closely as moderator. I will have to ask you to stop at the end of the time allotted. In order to get in as many questions as possible. I'd also like to ask the audience to withhold their Applause until the end of the evening. And now I'd like to introduce to you the candidate who by virtue of the draw will lead off the opening statements. Mr. David durenberger independent Republican candidate for the US Senate. Thank you everyone in these last few days before the election the people of Minnesota deserve more than speeches about the problems. We Face they deserve to see our comparison of our solutions to those issues. We all know that the biggest problem facing the state and Nation today is inflation because inflation hurts people not government. It takes away our ability to help ourselves and our fellow citizens. It's government's job to help those who can't help themselves. I believe too often today. We fail in that responsibility government fails to meet our need for affordable health care. It's failing to provide affordable energy. It's failing to provide equal opportunities for minorities for women for persons with disabilities. It's failing to answer the Urgent demands of small family Farmers here in all across America for wider markets for their products and a fair share of the profits that they deserve. What are the solution I'd say it is time to put government on a diet. It has become bloated with inefficiency and waste and empty promises well-meaning and necessary programs are weighted down with Administration rigid rules and regulations a government like a person can approach its weight problem in one of two ways. First of all, it can do it drastically and dangerously or it can do it safely. My option is the ladder. I advocate a safe workable diet for are overweight government. First. I say we put less food on government stable. That means we should have had a tax cut of 10% this year another 10 percent next year. I will not allow the portions on government's table to increase automatically. I will see that we index inflation out of the income tax, and thirdly I will insist on periodic weigh-ins for government, and these will come in the form of sunset legislation. Thank you. Mr. Greenberger next to speak will be mr. Short dfl Party candidate for the US Senate. (00:04:46) Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I'm delighted to be able to visit with you this evening about the issues as I see them in 1978 in running my business for the past three or four years the most important problem that we faced both management and employees of the businesses that I have in Minnesota was that of inflation so bad was that problem that in this election year. I decided to present my credentials to the people of my state on this issue and this issue primarily I did as you know suggest that it was the issue that was gripping all 220 million Americans that it was threatening the government at all levels both and a local level and the federal level in the last America had the will and the strength to solve this problem America as we know it could perish I propose that the cut should be made immediately that we did have an inclination to do that and do it now that there should be one hundred billion dollars. Or about 20% taken from the federal budget. I did submit some detailed list to all media and to mr. Derenberger of how this could be done eliminating just waste fraud and mismanagement would take 20% of the federal spending out of the federal dollar. We know what causes inflation do we have the courage to stop it? I think that we must and I believe that I have proposed solutions to do just that if we have the courage to do with that hundred billion dollar cut what we should do with it return half of it to the people that we took it from and the other half to throw away the printing press that we've been depending on then and only then will America come to grips with the problem of inflation. This is a problem that unless you do solve it. Now the way of life that we know in Minnesota the way of life that we know in America will disappear from our globe. (00:06:41) Thank you, mr. Short, including the opening statements. Mr. Paul Helm American Party candidate for the US Senate. I'd like to begin by simply pointing out or trying to correct a few misconceptions American party is basically a group of former Democrats and former Republicans got little tired of Politics as Usual in Minnesota and organize the only truly conservative party in the state. All three of us have said throughout this campaign that were conservatives. Bob Short says, he's a conservative yet. He has the endorsement of the AFL-CIO and I wasn't aware they were notorious for endorsing conservatives. And then there's Dave durenberger Republicans answer to down Fraser. Has the support of the feminists the Don Fraser supporters and Americans for Democratic action, and he's about as conservative as Al Capone was in favor of the FBI. There are other issues besides spending and inflation and this campaign many other issues and they have not been discussed in this campaign and they should be and I hope tonight we will address a few of them. There's gun registration. It's still an issue. The Equal Rights Amendment is still an issue the Panama Canal giveaway is still an issue because there will be legislation to implement those treaties coming up defense policies of this country are major issue and Foreign Relations is certainly an issue. It's particularly the method we're handling our friends and our enemies abroad. I hope we can get to those issues tonight. And I'd like to conclude my opening statement with congratulations to the League of Women Voters a group that I haven't always been on the best of terms with or been one of their biggest fans, but I want to compliment them on their integrity and inviting all the major parties, Minnesota to appear tonight. Thank you. Mr. Helm. Mr. Dawson. Would you begin the question? Mr. Short residents of northern Minnesota seem to be increasingly frustrated with Urban politicians who want to set aside large amounts of land and water for single-purpose recreation or Wilderness. They claim these demands for quote Urban playgrounds unquote in their backyards often have nothing to do with environmental preservation and would harm their economy and unnecessarily restrict Recreation. They send a message in the primary what kind of specific legislative sensitivity can expect from Washington in the future? (00:09:28) In the closing days of the last Congress that they could expect more of the same unless they elect a man who understands the problems as it relates to that part of the country. I think I am that person. I took a very decided difference of opinion with my primary opponent on this question. I believed in the tempted to stress that the environment was created by the same God that created people and that people have a privilege of living in their environment and obligation to improve it and a duty to pass it arm. And as you know, the environmentalist as expressed in terms of the first bill on the BWC a would have wrapped in cellophane and prohibited its use except by foot traffic and or canoes if you know the history of the state up there you would know that this Wilderness is a Wilderness today because of the people who live there made it that They re grew it. They and The God Who did plant most of it. We grew it from nothing but accept waste it was left A Wasteland by The Lumber Barons at the turn of the century. I can remember going to that part of the country with my grandfather a long long time ago. When what you now consider to be Wilderness was a short stand of Timber most of the families that live there work hard. They do like to fish they do let the right to Recreation on those legs. And when you move from a hundred and twenty five lakes 225, you obviously have creating problems for people in terms of access and what their recreational facilities would be now certainly we all understand the need to preserve Wilderness and there were 800 miles of nothing except canoe in part of this Wilderness their this was a federal land grab a dictation by Eastern lobbyists who believe in preserving for posterity. Lands that they want to take under the power of condemnation and I can tell you that I believe thoroughly that the people of that part of the country resent the intrusion into their personal affairs by the strong hand of the government under the guise of preserving the Wilderness. There is a Wilderness there today because of the dedication and the care of the people that live there and I would like to Champion their cause in terms of preventing future land grabs of this type from occurring in northern Minnesota, you know that the principal (00:11:53) lobbyist. Thank you, mr. Short. Mr. Helm. Would you like to respond? My stand on the BWC a is a simple and just leave it as it is because as mr. Short has said the people up there have made it the tremendous type of wilderness. It is today. The purpose of government is to protect its citizens seems to me that government has been turned to another purpose. It is denied. So a lot of small loggers their livelihood denied a lot of retired people the privilege of using the cabins Li purchased on lakes unless they can row a boat which many of them won't be able to and denied a great many Resort owners their livelihood by destroying not only their business but the land value so they can't get back their investment. That is the purpose of government government should be protecting people not harming them and I think this is a misuse of government what was done up there? Thank you. Mr. L. Mr. Derenberger. Yes my concern with regard to the BWC a is a concern both for the people and for the resource. I am not going to start the BW say we build back through the process as mr. Shorter suggested. He will do it was a political solution a solution that a lot of people were not satisfied with but it was a solution to the land use issue the important thing now for the people of northern Minnesota and for all of the people who are designed to benefit from that resource is to manage it to invest the kind of resources into that particular use so that everyone can enjoy it without destroying the resource, but my concern is deeper. It's for the future of the people of all of the state of Minnesota and particular Northern Minnesota. It's for what comes next with wild and Scenic rivers with rare to with coastal zone management and all of the other proposals for public rather than private stewardship of land and I think that the most urgent question before us in the Congress in the coming year. We'll be answering the question for all of these people and for all of us as to how much is enough. And one of the first ways you go about answering that question is to wisely use the resources that we already have including the BWC a and then you have to balance the economic uses and the recreational uses of the balance. This is particularly true before we start converting any more of the national forest system the Wilderness and I will be glad to take upon myself the responsibility for bringing people together on that issue. Thank you. Mr. Derenberger, Miss Bela. Dress this and park in your opening statement. But I know he'd be interested in a further response and that of mr. Short and mr. Derenberger labels are tossed around during a campaign. Sometimes recklessly (00:14:32) some would say but labels like conservative Ultra conservative (00:14:36) liberal Ultra liberal moderate and (00:14:38) Progressive. Were you to assign a label to yourself? (00:14:43) How would you describe yourself and why? I would call myself a Ronald Reagan Republican. Or Ronald Reagan conservative really I was a republican the better part of my life that I can tell you this and - County Ronald Reagan couldn't get a nominated for dog catcher on the Republican ticket. Because the whole Twin Cities area Republican organization is just as liberal as the Democratic organization and out State. I find that the Democrats and Republicans are conservative and are unhappy with the domination of the Party by the Twin Cities area people within each of those parties. The American party came along and presented a conservative alternative in the Twin Cities and out state. And by conservative we mean to conserve the best of what is in this country and I don't see liberalism with its socialism and big spending programs that have gotten us into all of his problems as qualifying as conservative liberal means liberal spending apparently. Thank you. Mr. Helm. Mr. Derenberger. Would you like to respond? Yes, as far as my own posture is concerned. I guess as a candidate, I no longer have a right to make that determination. I think those kinds of labels are a matter of perspective and they're the kinds of decisions and kinds of attributions that people have to judge me on depending on my position. I have spent all of my life in some form of community service and I have never thought of myself as a liberal in the sense or a conservative or anything else. I have my roots in in rural Minnesota and I came to the cities to get work and I have spent a good part of my working life serving people my approach to every problem is as a problem solver that if I am going to spend part of my time and make a commitment to Public Service. It has to be with the idea in mind that I will bring people together to help resolve the problems that face them and whether or not the way I go about it is characterized as one or the other. Is not that important to me the endorsements that I've had in my campaign that have been referred to have come from both the liberal and the conservative side the Americans for Democratic action on one side who didn't endorse my stand on issues but endorse principally my character and my integrity and on the other hand Ronald Reagan and a variety of conservative organizations have done much the same thing and I'm pleased with this kind of support for my candidacy I can mr. Derenberger. Mr. (00:17:20) Short. I am a Democrat a lifelong Democrat and I take a position at might be considered fiscally conservative in relationship to the problem. That is a people problem today that have inflation. I have been interested all of my life in people's problems. I believe that our party as it Representatives people in our government has been able to solve people's problems from the days of Roosevelt through the days of mr. Carter. I think that the primary People problem today is that of inflation? I believe that the members of the democratic party have an obligation and can in fact solve this problem. They must solve it in order to preserve people's programs that we've all worked so hard for in order to relieve the burden placed on all 220 million (00:18:13) of us. Thank you, mr. Short missed or mr. Derenberger. Do you believe a policy of Freer trade helps or hurts Minnesota Farmers workers consumers and business interests. Okay, the the issue of free trade versus fair trade is something that we have been dealing with in a political sense for for quite some time. I guess I come at the issue is preferring a free trade policy. There are many instances that people can suggest that a that a fair trade utilization of heavy duties in some case boycotts that sort of thing is appropriate to our industry. However, I think every time we give up some of this Freedom we find ourselves in a situation where it gets very difficult for us to call a halt and when we start picking and choosing that makes it much more difficult, I think as far as the farmers are concerned their interests are best served by politics staying out of the process our government could do so much better job if it only performed a greater advocacy role in the field of developing foreign markets for our for our Foods. The food for peace program and a variety of other programs providing needed foods for people all over this world could be accomplished so much better just by a greater effort on the part of government and without consideration for the whole question of import duties and quoted now in some cases, it's quite obviously in terms of particularly with regard to food. I think that there are appropriate occasions when to sustain a nation whose food producers are more than 8 million in number a rather Unique Kind of a production situation. It is important to provide some import quotas to protect beef Farmers for example in Minnesota from from imports from some other country, but that is a matter of national consequence of national importance to maintain the kind of food producing system in this country that's unique in the world and that is provided Us in this country and subsequently people all over this world with Of the best food at the least cost of any production unit in this in this world. So I come down preferably always I think on the side of free competition with the government playing a role always providing more markets for products that are produced in this country for consumption in other countries. Thank you. Mr. Derenberger. Mr. Short (00:20:55) quite obviously. I think that America's policy is best served with free trade, but it must be fair trade and it must be sensible and I see very little to begin importing sugar when our sugar beet farmers are not getting the cost of production plus a reasonable profit. I see very little to begin when our steel industry is producing at less than capacity and we import the cheap steel from abroad I think that you've got to have a sensible free trade system that would permit us to Avail ourselves of the resources of the world at the best possible cost, but we can't Our own people in so doing now if we once recognized but we should have recognized long ago for our Farmers that we are to the world in food. But opic is to the world in oil then we will for the first time get for our Farmers what the price that he needs which would be cost of production plus a reasonable profit when trading that gray that's needed. So so badly in the third world countries particularly to feed the hungry bellies of all the world (00:21:59) Thank you, mr. Short, mr. Helm. One thing I think we can do for Minnesota Farmers as well as Farmers across this country is start doing a little changing of the laws so that the American Farmer does not have to meet higher standards of quality and higher standards and processing than his foreign competition does to produce the very same product and that's one reason you can get many foreign products edible products cheaper than you can buy American Products. They're not stuck with the high standards our government imposes on our own Farmers. So it seems to me that we should be imposing on Imports that have the same high standards of quality and nutrition that we impose on our own Goods produced here in this country. I too believe in free trade, but I think that food can and should be a strategic weapon we can get some of these countries to start stopping biting the hand that feeds them if we start utilizing our vast food supply properly in our foreign relations, Thank you. Mr. Helm. Mr. Dawson. Mr. Helm, we've been told by candidates in this campaign that most of us are many of us work from January to may just to pay our federal and state and local taxes and Social Security do believe that under either the Democratic majorities in Congress. Or with the Republicans that any of that would really change in that any specific proposals have been offered that would change the situation A spendable income left to Consumers. Well, I find it very interesting every election time politicians come around and talk about taxes and inflation. We got to lower the taxes. Both parties say there's a no sooner get back to Washington or back to the st. Paul State Capitol and the immediately vote themselves an increase in Pay among other things and then they proceed for more spending programs. Now, the only way you can properly reduce taxes and at the same time stop inflation is to cut spending and that means yes and people are going to get her now. They keep telling us don't worry you can spend yourself into prosperity and if you believe that grab your credit card and give it a go and see what happens and when they tell you don't worry about the debt, we owe it to ourselves that to is hogwash last year our government. Something like forty five billion dollars on the national debt just in the interest. I don't know if anyone in this audience got any I know I didn't get any of that 45 billion that was paid out. So this idea we owe it to ourselves I think is not true at all. The politicians have been conning us for a long time. And it's time we could someone in Washington was willing to take the hard steps necessary to balance the budget so we can have a tax cut without increasing inflation and it's too bad. Mr. Derenberger said in Mankato and Katie OE we were able to hold out inflation for a number of years by printing money. If you believe that I've got some land in Florida like to talk to you about Thank you. Mr. Helm, mr. Short. (00:25:06) Well, I'm happy that mr. Helm has finally come to the realization that I've been all through this campaign that they first thing that you've got to do is stop inflation. And the only way that you can really do that is to cut the spending and a good first step obviously is to cut the kind of spending that you ought not to be doing fraudulent waste and mismanagement funds. I've detailed this all over the state of Minnesota and I believe that you must take that step. If you're going to stop the inflation that is consuming all of us and all the people related programs. Now, there are any number of tax gimmicks that people can propose Camp Roth or a combination of Kemper often indexing as proposed by mr. Derenberger, but if you think of what he's suggesting if he was going to propose that he should index now now we have the inflation and then go for your tax cut at later time, but, you know, if you cut the taxes without cutting spending the inflation that it will cause will consume the Scott before you get to the real root cause of what our problem is. I believe that you've got to cut the spending obviously before you can eliminate inflation and I believe that all of America believes that you've got to eliminate of inflation the or you might eliminate America. (00:26:18) Thank you, mr. Short. Mr. Derenberger first with regard to it a little Edge Katie OE statement, which I've heard. Mr. Helm talked about before and I thought I'd told him before that quotation is that we in America apparently thought that we could hold the line on inflation by printing money and I think every one of us agrees with that's a failure secondly with regard to mr. Dawson's question. I thought about this a great deal before I put together my own program way back in June and it seems to me that the government's going to have to operate to get a handle on inflation the same way that you and I would buy getting responsibility into the spending process and the only way we get responsibility and our own spending processes to know how much income we have coming in and that's a very Put solution, but it's a very doable one. I proposed that this year. We have a tax cut of at least 10% so that we can at least offset for the people of America the increase in inflation and Social Security taxes, which are robbing us and will in the future of all of the increases that we get in our wage and salary I said next year another 10% or an amount equivalent to the increase in inflation so that people can have some ready cash in their pocket with which to avoid having to borrow at high interest rates and then indexing inflation out of the income tax that gives you predictable income to which you can tie spending decisions. You can balance the budget. If you do that, you can tie your spending to the gross national product and you can for the first time in America brings some sensibility into the spending decisions of government. Thank you. Mr. Derenberger, Miss balogh. Mr. Derenberger public financing of House and Senate. And in the last Senate of session of Congress, it is likely to come up again in the next session of Congress. And what is your position on public financing for House and Senate and why all right, my present position on that is in opposition to to public financing public financing of Elections at the rate of $1 check off or whatever is a relatively easy way for people at a time remot from elections to check a dollar off of their taxes to support a candidate that they don't even know about we have some experience with that here in Minnesota and that experience depending on some has worked or has not worked. Well, it's quite another ballgame when you're talking about the Congress United States you talking about the United States Senate, I guess the race that I'm in right now is probably a good illustration to me of the value of not having public financing but having me as a candidate being totally dependent upon the people of the Minnesota to support my candidacy. There are two ways that people in this Society can demonstrate their support for a candidate and thus demonstrate to everyone the quality. The viability of that candidate one is by giving of their time. The other is by giving of their of their resources in this campaign against a man who was already loaned to his Campaign Committee something close to 1.3 million dollars of his own money. I have been supported by more than 10,000 citizens of the state of Minnesota in my effort to gain this seat. And I think there is a tremendous value to me and to what I bring to the United States Senate knowing that there are more than 10,000 people financially probably 20 or 30,000 people in terms of giving their time supporting my candidacy. That means a great deal more to me than to be in a situation where 92 or 93 percent of my money. Is coming from one single person or being in a situation where half of my money is coming from the government? Thank you. Mr. Derenberger. Mr. Helm. I lied to oppose public financing and if there's any of the three of us should be in favorite. I suppose I should be because if I could spend what these two guys could spend I get elected. Now the money I have raised in my campaign has in fact come from Minnesota to hasn't as in the case of Dave come from Los Angeles in st. Louis and smother areas at least according to his campaign Finance statement my ID. I'm not getting elected without State money. I'm getting elected with Minnesota money if I get elected because I'm going to represent the people of Minnesota not pressure groups from around the country Teddy. Kennedy said recently that we have government today by pressure group. I didn't take anybody's endorsement because I want to represent you people not some pressure group. Nobody will pick up the phone say Paul. We need your vote because nobody can do that only the people will be represented not pressure groups and that's a case for public financing, but I'd rather see it kept with small donations and more limitations put on out-of-state donations for State races. Thank you. Mr. He'll mr. Short. (00:31:19) People have criticized the fact that I would spend my own money on my own campaign and I would do it by way of loaning it to The Campaign Committee. I might say to you that this is required by law and I do think that I operate under Hope Springs Eternal in the human breast. I thought I would be able to raise more money than I was able to raise but I had much the same problem of Governor Rockefeller when he was running. He couldn't even raise it from Republicans. And when I with what people know in terms of My Success in Money Matters look at it, you know that they don't contribute much for my party. Now, let's look at which one you want to represent you. You want Dave durenberger who's taken $52,000 from the lumber interest of the state of Minnesota $25,000 from the construction developers $16,000 from the oil interests $8,000 from the from the automobile people 25 from the Republican Party 12 from the mining interest 10 from the insurance people 17 from Honeywell First National Bank Northwestern Bank First National Bank of st. Paul. $44,000 73,000 from agribusiness interests in the state of Minnesota, which one is going to represent the people of the state of Minnesota one, like myself who spent my own money on behalf of a cause that I've dedicated myself to for many years in public life. I just happen to have it and my grandfather told me don't open your mouth unless you're willing to put your money where your mouth is and he told me also don't take money from special interests because they'll control you once you're there. This man has been a republican lobbyist all the rest assured your store. (00:32:53) Mr. Short on another subject, which do you consider most important increasing the military strength of the United States or attempting to reach some kind of Arms Control agreement with the Soviet Union and how do you relate your response to your concern with the high cost of (00:33:11) government? And saw to as the most important issue before the government of the United States at this point and I pray and hope that stalk to will be enacted without any more delay between our country and the Soviet Union. We've got to recognize that we live in a world in which we could press a button and destroy the total world including ourselves. And so certainly that capability is in the hands of the Russians among others now as to our military posture in terms of cutting the fat out of it Harry Truman, as you know, cut the fat out of military spending during World War II when as a haberdasher member of the Senate a businessman member of the Senate before he was vice president before he was president. He took almost 20 billion dollars out of defense spending during World War II translate that into today's economics and you know that it's almost a hundred billion in terms of today's budget with inflation. We successfully prosecuted World War II while he had a Truman committee, so I think that you can take fat out of the defense Appropriations that we now have and still have a posture of a strong defense in a hostile world. But of the to obviously the most significant thing that we must do is to go into salt to because it will bring us hopefully buy us time that we need in terms of getting to know each other in a way that we can live together with the capability that each of us has to destroy the entire world by the push of a button. (00:34:44) Thank you, mr. Short, mr. Derenberger. Well, I believe that that for the most part it's not a neither or kind of a situation. I believe that this country's National Defense is directly related to its foreign policy and at a time when you have a doubtful foreign policy or you have substantial concerns about your foreign policy. There is much more pressure on you as a total Community to provide for a strong military defense many of the decisions that have to be made by the United States Congress in terms of Defense Appropriations are related to systems to respond in case of an attack the salt to agreements or something that I would love to support because as far as we are concerned as part of an international Nation, it's very important that we bring the arms race and particularly that involving highly sophisticated Weapons Under Control as soon as possible, and I'm going to be depending upon the Terms of such an agreement. I am going to be very supportive of whatever agreement the president can bring home. Thank you. Mr. Derenberger. Mr. Helm. I'm reminded of the story of the y'all to when the pope sent a message to starting Roosevelt and Churchill. Suggesting something or other and Stalin's response was how many divisions can he put in the field the deal with the Soviet Union you have to have the weapons to back up your words and seems to me that what our government has done is enter a poker game and begin by throwing away. All of the races. Those aces are the cruise missile the B-1 bomber and the neutron bomb. We should have built them and deployed them then we'd have to be able to negotiate from strength not weakness. When you negotiate with the Soviets, you better negotiate from strength and you better have the strength to back it up or they're not nugget not going to negotiate they're going to dictate and they're almost at the position now where they can do it. We better spend more money on defense cut every other departments budget, but let's increase our defense budget and catch up. Thank you. Mr. Helm. Mr. Dawson. Could you provide a question for the candidates? Each candidate will have one minute to respond. Mr. Derenberger. Would you be the first to respond? At a seminar, I think it was here at Macalester. Mr. Derenberger. You said you're opposed to a federal minimum wage that has automatic increases in it. Why do you oppose something to chiefly benefits low-income workers? Well, that's that is an assumption you're making in terms of a broad scale approach a minimum wage. What I tried to do in that session as I have in many sessions is to discuss the impact of across-the-board minimum wage legislation on a job market in which all people are not alike. We find today that young people have the highest unemployment of any segment of our economy will find the 35 to 37 percent of minority young are without jobs and the problem with an index minimum wage, which keeps climbing and climbing is that it tightens up the job market and it particularly discriminates against those who have the most Difficulty in obtaining employment. So what I have said is that I advocate changes in the minimum wage law which would reflect differences from one Community to another different parts of a community and different states so that you can take care of setting a base under your minimum wage for everyone, but you can also reflect the particular student greater. Mr. Helm. Virtually every study that's been done on the minimum wage is established that every time the minimum wage has raised more young people of marginal workers are thrown out of work that being the case. It seems to me that the converse would be true. If we were to lower the minimum wage more of them would be rehired and be put back to work and if we were to eliminate it to entirely we would have maximum utilization of the marginal workers and the young people in this country because after all a job on a Saturday afternoon at a buck and a half an hour is better than no job at three bucks an hour and I'm sure the average high school kid would agree with that. It was out trying to earn enough money to buy a bicycle or something. So for that reason, I would certainly support a phasing out of the hole minimum wage program to put the young people in marginal workers back to work. They do need help and that's the way to help. Thank you. Mr. Helm. Mr. (00:39:20) Short. I knew that there would be a question that would distinguish me from the other two that are at this table. I can understand how anyone anyone with any compassion. He saw any heart could be against minimum wage legislation when you're talking about the lowest minimum that people can work out. It's not sustaining. It's not designed to be sustaining. It's designed to be something that you don't pay anybody less than that per hour. And if you look at the minimum wage and I work with all kinds of minimum wage people in my hotel. You've got to believe that they are entitled at least that for the sweat of their brow and if the minimum wage does discourage employers from hiring young then those employers should be encouraged to do so in some other way with government help or whatever. It takes we cannot in America in This Land of Plenty deny, those who are willing to work at least a bare minimum for their effort. There's got to be some inducement to take them from tax consumption to tax production and a minimum wage law in this United States is anything except mr. Short a luxury item to be his payload. You have a question for mr. (00:40:25) Short. Minnesotans are deeply concerned about Healthcare among other issues. What is your position on a national health insurance program? Would it be a comprehensive program a catastrophic program publicly funded or privately and publicly funded? Mr. Short, (00:40:44) I do not favor a national health program as such if you describe it as in the Kennedy Bill everyone, I think believes in catastrophic insurance administered either by the federal government or the private sector on catastrophic insurance today is necessary because so many people can be wiped out in terms of the real problem in terms of medical care. It's inflation. We've got the finest system of medicine known to mankind in the whole world on the whole world and inflation keeps many of our people from fully participating in it control inflation control inflation and you will be able to deliver to all at a cost that they can afford this medical system 25% If you become believe this of the New York med care costs 25% is involved in federal paperwork. There is a classic example of an area that we could cut I have suggested because I am a member of st. Mary's Hospital board that we ought to get the federal government out of the business of managing Hospital. If we did that in terms of our (00:41:44) thank you, mr. Short, mr. Derenberger. My favorite National Health security system that will help the kinds of people that young fellow call me the last Saturday night and talk to me about 63 year old father who suffered a stroke and wasn't able to work in a 60 year old mother who was being treated for cancer at that point when he made the call to me, they'd had to sell their home. They were five thousand dollars in debt and they had no place to go and there are millions of people like that in this country who need the protection of affordable health care that only the kind of K either catastrophic insurance or extended care and coverage can can provide I will not favor a government insurance program that covers 215 million people. I will not favor any program that does not provide some element of cost sharing because I will fight to keep a system that accents nutrition prevention Health Care Home Care as an alternative to institutional care because I think all of those things are terribly important to the Future and I also will favor voluntary cost constraints along the lines that we have adopted here voluntarily in Riya T of areas in the twins. Thank you. Mr. Derenberger. Mr. Helm. I find it interesting that we hear so much about how great the English and Swedish systems are but the people around the world with money aren't going there to get medical care. They're coming to the United States. I can go along with some program of catastrophic insurance because that can wreak hardship but you don't make legislation based on exceptions you make it based on averages and I for one am hesitant to turn our Healthcare over to the same people that run Amtrak in the post office. Thank you. Mr. Helm, Miss Schuler. Do you have a question for mr. Helm? Mr. Helm, do you support or oppose prompt normalization of relations with the People's Republic of China if by that you mean red China absolutely oppose it because the price they put on it is our withdrawal of recognition from our friends on Taiwan who incidentally last year a came to Minnesota and purchased 18 million dollars worth of our grain for cash money. No underwriting by the government no loans cash money on the barrelhead. That's the kind of friends. We need their a democratic country. They elect their local officials. It's not a dictatorship. People are free to leave their they're not free to leave red China. I think it would be an absolute travesty on the word of the United States. None simple Justice if we were to recognize red China at the price of turning our backs on our good friends on Taiwan. We'd be shamefaced before the world. Thank you. Mr. Helm, mr. (00:44:23) Short. I too share the concern over Taiwan. I was in the Pacific Ocean when Taiwan was Formosa and was part of that particular Holocaust in terms of our opening up red China. It's absolutely essential. I think it should proceed with with haste. You can't shut yourself off from that many people in the world and I believe that we can work out some satisfactory solution between the people of red China and the people of Taiwan that would not have us withdraw our hand of friendship that's been extended to the people of Taiwan over these past 30 years since World War Two. I applaud the action of former President Nixon and the action of President Ford and the action of President Carter to opening the doors of red China because I think it's important and essential in this kind of world. (00:45:18) I can mr. Short. Mr. Derenberger. I think the normalization that has taken place that both the previous speakers of indicated over the last eight years are very important to this country and they're very important to the peoples of the countries involved. There's a tremendous impact on foreign policy and on the u.s. Approach to foreign policy in what President Nixon did by opening the door to China that has provided opportunities for us in this country. And for people in China to work out amenable relationships with the people of China. It has opened trade relationships again between China and Japan. It's had a variety of benefit for an awful lot of people all over the world and I certainly support the kind of policies that have been supported by the last three administrations in this country. Thank you. Mr. Derenberger. Mr. Dawson. Do you have a question for mr. Short? Mr. Chard, your supporters today ran ads and Twin Cities newspapers blasting the quote supposedly neutral Metropolitan, press unquote and the quote dfl party power Brokers unquote for crying over the defeat of liberalism and Don phrase in the primary. These power Brokers were called elitists who placed themselves above voters and in judging the qualification qualifications of candidates, don't you think that's a device of technique when you're supposedly trying to heal wounds within your party. (00:46:47) Well, as you know, I don't control the advertising Department of your part paper or the Minneapolis Tribune and I think I tried to prove that in the primary election, but apparently not to the satisfaction of those who manage your paper or the other one. I can't tell my supporters what they Place him by way of ads unless I'm directed and I do direct the ads that have the name of my volunteer committee. I don't disagree with what they've said in there. There are people who are embarrassing me and my family in terms of the post campaign. They are some of the same people who have never really played in The Ballgame unless we could play under their rules and with their they pick up their bats and balls and go home and they would some of them who are involved in this particular movement are really the kind that don't care who wins as long as it's not the man who'd be there man. Now that this it seems to me is the issue and rather than how we might have answered some (00:47:49) few. Thank you, mr. Short, mr. Derenberger. Well, I guess I would I'd say Gary that I've probably met a lot of people who have reacted to the dfl primary in a variety of ways but one of the greatest reactions that I have encountered is to the technique that was used to win that particular election. And if there is reaction it's it's to style and to technique and and to last-minute tactics of one kind or another which are very difficult to overcome. And as far as as allegations of one kind or another Our concern many of times it's very difficult to prove allegation particularly when it comes after the fact, but I have found most people that want to participate in this campaign looking for integrity looking for character in in candidates, and I have found an awful lot of support from my own candidacy from these kinds of people. Thank you. Mr. Derenberger. Mr. Helm. Well, I think I can make my response short. I think the Saint Paul papers far superior to the one in ones in Minneapolis. I've said for many years. I've said for many years when I in broadcasting that if you want to be sure to vote for the right guy find out who the star and tribune are endorsing and vote for somebody else. Thank you. Mr. Helm, Miss baylow. Do you have a question that can be answered in 30 seconds one short question. The voters and residents of Minnesota who Farm are very interested in your position on Farm prices and parity and just briefly. Where are you on YouTube? Parity? Mr. Derenberger. My position is been very clearly stated that I think that the agricultural pallet policies of this country ought to guarantee the farmers the cost of production plus a reasonable profit that that can be accomplished by expanding Agricultural Product markets and new uses for agricultural products. And that one of the most important things that doesn't get talked about a lot is changing tax policies to recognize the value of the family farm and the contributions that are made by all members of that family unit including the spouse and all of the children. Thank you. Mr. Derenberger. Mr. Helm, I think as regards Farms a person we're going to have to do is have some drastic changes in The Inheritance taxes, so that the sun's don't have to literally purchase the farm over again when they inherit it in the form of taxes. It seems to me that formula can be worked out where a farmer can receive a fair return on their effort without Subsidizing inefficient farmers and rewarding the efficient ones and this is what has to be found. I don't think it can be done with a single figure 90% of parity or 80% or something else. I do believe a formula as possible and I'd like to give it a try Q. Mr. Helm. Mr. (00:50:36) Short, I believe in a hundred percent of parity for a farmer. I believe in a cost of production plus a reasonable profit. I don't think that you can ask them to continue in the Family Farm under any other conditions. I also believe that you can support that kind of price for his products. If you will get the state department the agriculture department and the justice department in some kind of common focus on what the real problem is that is finding markets at a cost at that. Some return will return that to them. It's if you look at what we did last year we (00:51:07) export thank you, mr. Short. Mr. Derenberger. Would you begin to closing statements? Like to start by thanking you in the League of Women Voters common cause and particularly our viewing audience for this opportunity tonight. I've taken definite positions throughout this campaign on many important issues. I've outlined my goals realistic achievable solutions for what I believe is uncontrolled government spending or cutting taxes and for taking hard steps to curb inflation to produce conserve energy and to give the people of this nation the help that they so desperately need there's also the still Unwritten agenda for the next four years. We need a thoughtful reasonable process for problem solving Minnesota needs a senator who can work effectively in Washington. With a broad spectrum here at home of elected officials political parties appointed committees organized labor farm groups numerous. Advocacy organizations to help him in that job a Minnesota senator can be truly a great Senator the tremendous Groundswell that I have felt for my campaign from Factory workers from Farmers from Main Street businessman from organized professions from office workers. And from the unemployed to me is a sign it tells me that our people are reaching that they are grasping for principles of government programs for progress and Leadership that they can embrace. It has been the hard work and the Collective Strength of thousands of minnesotans from all political parties and from every part of the state that has developed the momentum that my campaign has today I need and I asked your continued help and your support and your trust through November 7th and in the year Ahead and in return I will promise you that I will make it my goal to restore your faith in government and in your elected representatives. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Greenberger, mr. Short. (00:53:16) I'm happy to join the issue that may be the overriding issue should be trust trust. Who do you believe can do what has to be done in Washington in terms of combating the number one issue of our time that of inflation a man who's been speaking out on behalf of that issue almost during the past five years a man who spent all of this time eight or nine months challenging the people to believe in terms of this is the issue and what you have to do about it cut the federal spending and to do in terms of cutting that spending Return part of it to the people and the other thing throw away the printing press who do you think who do you believe can do that? Someone who's demonstrated his ability to do it in his own business someone who was approached this problem in a way that does appeal to almost every Economist in the country. I would like to sit at the conference table of the next Congress representing Minnesota because I know there are other Minds just like mine in that Congress who believe as I do in cutting the Row spending cutting the fat out of government so that we can combat inflation. If this government can't solve the problem of inflation this government could perish how can a man who criticizes me for the kind of technique and campaigning that I do he trusted to go down and sit at that conference table with no experience when he's been able to demonstrate the only experience with these head in raising a million dollars from special interest not all of it reported yet, but reported from the big Banks the big agribusiness people the people of Wayzata the people of the fancy neighborhoods, that's where he's raising his money. And if you think that he can represent the people of the cinema soda in the next Senate then you vote for I don't believe that he can and I believe that I can in terms of the proposition that inflation is the problem how you stop it is to cut the spending and if you do cut that spending we will once again return to normality in the state of Minnesota. Thank you. Mr. Shark, (00:55:16) mr. Helm. G one thing I'd like to say is my campaign is not in debt. Being a conservative we pay as we go. But I would like to congratulate Bob Short in any event because he's performed. No other service in this entire campaign is retired on Fraser and Minnesota owes him a debt of gratitude for that. I've heard a great deal about cutting taxes cutting taxes cutting taxes for mr. Derenberger. I haven't heard where you going to cut spending. I want to cut every Department of the budget except defense 10% A Year, Joe califano said that they've got seven percent waste mismanagement out of a hundred eighty billion dollar budget. That's an awful lot of money. They could afford a ten percent cut. Ever notice that political race time you hear the same tired old promises we care we're concerned trust me. Such sincerity and when they get back in office, whether they be Republican or Democrat you get the same tired old policies and aren't you getting sick of it? Now you can have a genuine change. For ten years. I've been saying the things I've said here tonight. I mean what I see and I paid the price for saying I want to go to Washington and keep saying there's fellas they're just like me right now and if they're been to more like me in Washington, there would be no Panama Canal treaty today. I want to go to Washington and do the things I've been saying and if you agree with the things I'm saying then look in your heart and vote for me because I'm the one you should have there. I mean what I say, I'm not giving you a tired old promises with some other kind of performance. I'll perform what I say vote for me November 7. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Helm. I want to thank the candidates for being here tonight to share their views with us. I would like to like to thank the panelists for participating. It has been an interesting evening the League of Women Voters of Minnesota and common cause Minnesota. Hope that you have also found it informative. Thank you and good night. You've been listening to a debate between the major party candidates for the four-year senate seat dfl are Bob Short independent Republican Dave durenberger and Paul hilm of the American party. The debate was sponsored by the League of Women Voters with the cooperation of common cause of Minnesota the panelists tonight were barber stool her associate dean of continuing education and extension at the University of Minnesota, Jane balogh public affairs interviewer for channel 13 cable television in Rochester and Gary Dawson staff writer for the st. Paul Dispatch Pioneer Press newspaper. He's the moderator was Jeri Frank president of common cause of Minnesota briefly. We might note that the the differences between the candidates in most cases were differences of degree rather than major substance on the subjects of economics and inflation Bob Short again stressed his plan to cut 100 billion dollars from the federal budget saying most of it could come through elimination of fraud waste and mismanagement David. In burger called for a 10% cut in taxes this year at 10% cut next year and in Flint indexing the income tax system from then on Paul him said that to cut inflation one must cut spending and he called for cuts in every Department of the federal government except for defense on Farm issues. All three favored generally a fair trade rather a free trade policy. Although Bob Short said that the United States government should consider itself to food what OPEC is to oil Bob? Bob Short said that Dave durenberger said that the government should attempt to make markets for American Farm producers. And Paul Helm said that food should be used essentially as a strategic weapon. We hope you will be able to join us on Wednesday of this week at the same time for another debate. This one between the major party candidates for the six years senate seat this live broadcast from Macalester College in st. Paul was made possible in part with funds provided by the saint. All Fire & Marine insurance company. The technical director was Linda Murray with help from Lynn Cruz and Paul Kelly. This is Bob Potter speaking and you're tuned Minnesota Public Radio listener supported service.