Media Panel Week 2 - Mike Mulcahy, KTCA-TV

The E-Debate has certainly been interesting, but I wonder whether this format will catch on. Being a TV (and former radio) person, it just strikes me that it's much easier and more convenient for an average voter to use TV and radio to listen to debates. Of course, we all know the limitations of the broadcast media, but this format is awfully time consuming.

This struck me as I read the responses to the Internet question. No doubt the Internet is great...especially if you have access at work, and it will be a huge part of society over the next few decades. But when people are working so many hours, who wants to come home and stick his or her nose into a computer screen? Maybe we should ask public officials to dedicate more money to libraries so they can stay open nights and weekends, and we can bring our kids there to actually have a social experience and learn together instead of zoning out at the keyboard. Oh well, I realize this neo-luddite talk is probably heresy to the e-debate audience, so I'll just be quiet.

It's too bad Norm Coleman couldn't participate...although Ted Mondale's prediction of a Mondale-Coleman showdown seems a little premature. I think Mark Dayton's predictions may be on a little firmer ground. The economy has to slow down at some point, and the budget surpluses we are currently enjoying are unlikely to be sustained. If that is true, how will the candidates pay for the new programs they're proposing (everything from more early childhood education, to an improved K-12 system, to more college financial aid, to a crack-down on crime, to light rail transit, to universal Internet access) without a tax increase (which I think just about everyone has ruled out)? And you do you do it WITH a tax cut?

I would also like to hear more specifics about property tax reform. When most people hear the word they expect a tax cut. Will some pay more under a candidate's reform plan?

And finally, tune into ALMANAC Friday night to hear more from the GOP candidates.

(Coordinator's Note: Because of technical problems on E-Democracy 98's end, Mike Mulcahy's post from last week was not published with the other responses here. It is published in full in the following paragraphs.)

For some reason I am getting responses only to question No. 3 regarding transportation. I can certainly respond to what I've read so far.

All the candidates seem to do a good job laying out the big picture, and it's interesting that nearly everyone agrees there is a problem. There is a remarkable consensus on the origins of the situation and the challenges we face over the next few decades.

Mr. Dayton presents the strongest case for action, but where are his solutions? Do you support an increased gas tax or not? How much would the highway construction bonds you talk about raise? And how do you find money for transit, since the gas tax money is dedicated to roads and bridges?

Lt. Governor Benson is equally vague in offering solutions, and Mr. Freeman seems to want to depend on federal money and more cooperation from the wealthier suburbs. Is there really going to be more money flowing from Washington over the next few years with the Republicans in control of Congress? What solutions should come from Minnesota?

Allen Quist and Ted Mondale want to dedicate MVET money to transit. But that money currently goes into the general fund. How do they intend to bridge that gap? What other programs would they spend less on in order to pay for mass transit?

Mr. Mondale says there is money within the current system, but he advocates an indexed gas tax...which means the tax would increase along with the cost of living. I believe that's what Wisconsin does. But what about transit? Would he try to change the constitutional dedication of gas tax money?

Skip Humphrey comes closest to calling for a higher gas tax (although he doesn't quite come right out and say, "I want to raise the gas tax.") He also suggests a couple of ways to get around the constitutional dedication of money to roads and bridges, but again he doesn't quite commit to anything.

John Marty is also calling for using a mix of local, state and federal money...although I don't know whether the feds would approve of his idea to redirect it from light rail to buses. This would help transit in the Twin Cities...but I'm not sure what his ideas are for the rest of the state.

Mr. Pentel gives the most detailed plan. Different variations of changing the constitutional dedication have been batted around the legislature for the past ten years with a resolution.