Hulshof discusses his political history, plans for the future in Southeast Missourian interview

Rudi Keller: The first question, since I have known you since the time you began seeking political office...

Hulshof: Were you covering the '94 race?

Keller: I covered the '94 race and actually was hanging around when George Mazurak was covering the 1992 selections for the recommendation for Boone County prosecutor. But when did you first decide that it was politics, that you wanted to become a candidate for public office?

Hulshof: The thing, and again I will try to be succinct so we can get to more contemporary things. I want to be respectful of your time. Even in '92, and for your viewers, readers, listeners the opportunity because of our state Senator who had been prosecutor was elected to the state Senate. So before John Ashcroft left office, the opportunity that he as outgoing governor to appoint the vacancy, the two year vacancy in the prosecutor's office. You could say that was obviously throwing my hat into the ring for politics, but I viewed it more as someone who had been prosecuting cases around the state getting to be the name on the door prosecutor for the county, Boone County, Columbia and obviously my office, where we're sitting, for at least three years was across the street, a rock's throw from here, in the Common Pleas Courthouse here in Cape Girardeau, and before that as a court-appointed public defender. So that was my first foray into the whole realm of politics, but again it wasn't elective office it was trying to court the Republican Central Committee to nominate me to the governor and then the governor was going to rubber stamp whoever the committee selected.

Keller: So really the idea of, before then, sometime in 1992 it became apparent to you that this was the path to the prosecutor's office in Boone County.

Hulshof: That's right.

Keller: There was not an "I'm Kenny Hulshof and I am going to be in the attorney general's office for several more years and then I am going to pick something to run for."

Hulshof: That's correct. It was not that at all. It was an opportunity, a vacancy, make the pitch to the committee, and as George Mazurak of the Columbia Daily Tribune at the time wrote, and in fact a very interesting tidbit to that, I had the votes. Had there had been a secret ballot, I had the votes.

And there were either 33 or 35 Republican committee members. And I had received enough commitments privately, but a local lawyer who you may remember, now deceased, David Rogers, who went to get a restraining order, an injunction I guess, from the court, to force open ballot, an open roll call, I knew I was sunk then because Kevin Crane, who I was competing against, I knew the secret ballot was my ticket to getting enough votes. A public ballot, though, there were enough people who had committed to Kevin that I lost by a vote. That's the long and the short of it.

Keller: Would you have been able to run for Congress in 1994 if you had received that Boone County Prosecuting Attorney appointment?

Hulshof: I think potentially, yes. That was a situation where the Republican nominee pulled out of the race, Rick Hardy, political science professor, his name was still on the ballot, he was the only Republican name on the primary ballot but he had personal matters that forced him aside.

But In all reality, Rudi, looking back probably not. Because the vacancy in the prosecutor's office in Boone County was for a two-year period of time. I would have been running to be elected to be in my own right in 1994. I would not have contemplated suddenly dismissing that prosecutor's office and running for Congress.

Keller: Kevin Crane has told me that he spent 1993 making sure he had the contacts, building an organization. You had the previous first assistant, Bob Aulgur, you had Christine Carpenter, you had all these folks who were preparing to run on the Democratic side and I am just wondering what the Republican Party in Boone County would have thought of someone abandoning an incumbent position to run in a questionable race for Congress, whether you would have burned so many bridges if you had lost Congress and they didn't keep the prosecutor's office, would you have ever been...

Huslshof: And I think it is fun to look back and play 'what if' games, but I think, knowing my mindset at the time, had I been appointed as Boone County prosecutor, I am almost 100 percent certain I wouldn't have tossed my hat into the ring for Congress for the reasons you stated. This was an opportunity to have a Republican prosecutor but a tough election in a county that is traditionally Democratic. And so, I think I have mentioned to you off the record on occasions that Kevin Crane and I tease one another that had we had that public, that private vote, rather than the public vote, that he would be Congressman Crane and not prosecutor Crane and now judge Crane. Our paths would have gone. but for that one vote. It was 17-16 or 18-17.

Keller: Kevin said "I always tell Kenny I did him a favor by winning that. He wouldn't have been a U.S. Congressman."

Another thing that was happening at that time, Jay Nixon was transitioning into the attorney general's office. You were, in 1994, you were running against a longtime incumbent Democratic Congressman. Did you ever discuss your future with the AG's office before taking that nomination?

Hulshof: In June of 1994, and I remember this, you talk about going full circle, we had just wrapped up the Josh Kezer case in Ste. Genevieve County. In fact I think the day the jury came back was the day of the OJ. Simpson white Bronco chase. That is how these days sort of... And I could stand corrected, but my best recollection is that... there had been a number of Republicans in the 9th District who had, who had suggested to me that I might want to consider tossing my hat in ring to run for Congress.

As a courtesy to the Attorney General, I sought an audience with him, just briefly to say look, you may hear my name in certain circles, and it may even be published that I might be a potential replacement for Congress and I wanted you to be aware of that and second, what is your policy here in the office regarding running for elected position.

The response I got was essentially, 'I don't want to punish anyone who wants to better themselves and be part of the Democratic process.' But I had to make sure that time records and that I took all vacation time and agree that at some point in October I would actually take a leave of office. And so sure was attorney general that I was going to fall short in that '94 campaign, he said 'When you lose to Mr. Volkmer, I will keep your seat warm.' You know, I will let you come back to your job. I think he appreciated the results I was getting on his behalf as a special prosecutor.

Keller: You had already committed when you made your pitch to the 9th Congressional District Committee that you would make a two- cycle effort to unseat Congressman Volkmer. Congressman Volkmer, in an interview recently, said he calls down to the, and this is an interview I did with him that I haven't published anything from...

Hulshof: Oh really. The reason I say is because Channel 8 just did a 'Do you remember who was the Congressman before Hulshof' and they did, and Harold was very uncomplimentary of the current attorney general.

Keller: "Jay kept him on the payroll. Some of myself and supporters called: 'What in blue blazes is going on? Make him take a leave of absence. The first of October he finally did.

"I told him, Jay, I am going to win this thing, As a good Democrat you need to tell Kenny that he needs to clean his desk out at the first of the year so he can find another job.

"Jay said, 'I don't know if I can do that. I have to think about that.' He didn't do that. In fact he kept him on and gave him some very prestigious cases in Northeast Missouri. He kept him on, so Jay knew this.

Did Nixon come you at any point in early 95 or late 94 and tell you that he was getting a lot of pressure from Democrats to let you go? That he was either resisting or he was leaving it up to you?

Hulshof: Jay didn't come to me about that. But the attorney general's office is a political office in the sense that somehow it was made known to me that Mr. Volkmer was not pleased by the fact that I was continuing to do the job that I had done.

And I would tell you that even after that losing election in November of '94, yes, I had make the commitment to the steering committee or the committee to make it a two-cycle effort. You know you have to take stock. Renee and I had just got married on the Friday before the Tuesday, Nov. 5 of '94. We had to get a sense of whether this was in fact the path we wanted to take, to run again in 1996.

And so there were several months going into 1995 when she and I, again we were trying to get acclimated as newlyweds, and then do we want to take on this burden again because it was tough. You may remember, that '94 election, a tough ad challenging a case that I had handled. And it was a...

I was naive in 1994, because I had never run for office before. Again, it is a little atypical for someone who has never held office to run for the United States Congress. People have done it and they have done it successfully, but when I first told my mother, for instance -- Mom and Dad are both gone as you know -- when I first told my Mom that I was going to go into politics in 1994, the two things she said quickly: No 1, she said you're too nice for politics.' And secondly, when I told her I was running as a Republican, she started shaking her head saying 'who's child are you?'

So it was kind of a joke in our family. But the first part, the nice part. I was naive seeking office. We took us a period of time in 1995 for Renee and me to determine whether we felt called to do this.

And I heard there was some misgivings by Mr. Volkmer toward the attorney general insofar as he had brought me back.

Keller: Harold Volkmer very much believes that if Jay Nixon had said, 'You know, maybe you should find yourself a life in private practice, that you would not have been able to run in '96. You would have been busy accepting calls from people who want you to write their divorce papers, or the DWI guy who needs to somehow get a suspended imposition of sentence so he can avoid ever getting that first DWI, you know, the various kinds of things a lawyer does. It is hard to specialize. even in Columbia Mo.

Hulshof: Again, we are looking back and playing what-if games, but I would respectfully disagree with Mr. Volkmer on that score. Whatever his comment to you that we had some high profile cases in the Ninth District. In fact, I am trying to think, there may have been one case, and my case file would actually prove if it was true or not, there were some high profile cases around the Ninth but I don't think there were any, there was one case outside the Ninth that was actually moved to one of the counties in the Ninth on a change of venue.

The point being, I think I could have joined with a firm and, especially on the salary I was making as an assistant attorney general, probably could have made more money in the private sector and could have found a place to continue to run. But I know that Harold certainly thinks that, but for that fact that jay brought me back he was defeated.

Keller: How much did you play in lunchtime basketball games in the attorney general's office with Jay?

Hulshof: We had a regular, the office itself, just down the street at one of the local churches had a gym and even at the Highway Patrol Academy just a mile, and so there was a noon basketball game for those attorneys who had the opportunity to maybe take a lunch hour. And Jay, he had surgeries here and there and he joined us sometimes and sometimes not.

We had an office team that played in tournaments and church leagues and we played in the Show Me State Games and so we had a number of instances where we would be on the same court together.

Keller: Do you remember guarding Jay or him guarding you?

Hulshof: I am not sure, maybe in a pickup game possibly, but usually the attorney general's office, we were playing someone else.

Keller: Is this game you are playing now with him a little different?

Hulshof: I have actually said, and I told him I have said this, I was interviewed one early early morning on a St. Louis television station, and it was one of these morning shows where the hosts are pretty humorous so it was a nice relaxed interview, and so one of the co-hosts said maybe instead of these millions of dollars it should be settled on the basketball court. And without thinking, I said then you are looking at the next governor because Jay can't go to his right.

I've told him I have said this, and the camera guy laughed because I think one of the camera guys I have actually played ball with. But the point is there was an office relationship. It wasn't as if; I mean he let our division do what we did and that was we would go to counties and work with local law enforcement or work with the Highway Patrol and occasionally we would have instances outside the office but they were not many.

Keller: This game is a little more for keeps than those basketball games.

Hulshof: Oh yeah, this one is.

Keller: The other question that really impacts whether or not we would be sitting here talking today is your pursuit of the presidency of the University of Missouri. How emotionally invested were you in achieving that job?

Hulshof: You and I our orbits didn't cross. There have been some other instances, where I even contemplated, I contemplated running for governor gainst Matt Blunt. And the conversation where he and I got together on a Monday in November 2002 and each of us declared we were going to run for governor. On Friday that week is when my father passed and being an only child, you know my Mom was still alive. That also was very much a life event where I put my personal ambition aside to do what was in the best interests of my family. So there have been instances along the way where outside factors have come in to sort of nudge me in a direction.

But you asked about the university presidency position.

Elson Floyd, the former university president, became a good friend. He was a change agent. He really wanted to try to reform the university system. So he would often come to Washington, D.C., on a regular trip to talk about funding or things we could do to help with campus appropriations or what have you. So I was caught off-guard quite frankly when he said the the University of Washington State had pulled him out there.

It provided some interesting questions for me to ponder about if the university, the Board of Curators were to go in a non-traditional route, someone not from the world of academia, someone from the public sector, someone from the private sector or someone from the political world.

That was the first real inkling if thinking that this might be something for me and then I had a very brief conversation, I can't put this in the time reference, Gov. Blunt called and wanted to know if i was interested. And I think it was something, it was something that over the course of time, my wife and I, it was something we talked about, do we give up a seat in Congress, one that we worked very hard in a district we cultivated very diligently?... But I don't know how to gauge, I really don't know how to respond to a question about how interested.

I allowed my name to be considered. I had a meting in room such as this with the Board of Curators. It was confidential, or at least at the time I was hoping it would remain confidential, but over the course of time some very industrious reporters sort of put two and two together that I was getting excused absence from my time on the floor at the time the Board of Curators was meeting. And then suddenly the intensity of people were, reporters were camped out in my office wondering where I was. And so we had to actually disclose then yes, I am one of those being considered.

You know I love the university system. I lived within walking distance of Faurot Field in Columbia and it was something where I allowed my name to be considered. But I saw Gary Forsee this morning for instance, and I am a big fan of his and obviously the curator wanted to go more in a business world model than a political world model.

Keller: All these things are forks in the road, all these places. The presidency of the University of Missouri. There was no inkling that Matt Blunt was not going to run for re-election at that time. You know, we have been playing a lot of what if games in this conversation up to now, so I will do the last one...

Hulshof: If I had been selected as president of the university system I cannot imagine tossing my hat into the ring to run for governor. This is interesting. I have never sat down as you are doing, going "this is your life" and then going through and saying look at this fork in the road, if this had changed and this had changed.

Keller: In each one of these, each one of these...

Hulshof: You are right each one of these...

Keller: And that is what I had done. Each one of these instances was what would have been a place, OK, you could have gotten to here, but it would have been a much different path.

Hulshof: I think that is fair.

Keller: The prosecuting attorney of Boone County could have led to a statewide race at some point or a state Senate race. But also there is the question, Nixon was clearly running for governor for two years prior to this election. The attorney general's office is something, you had worked in the attorney general's office, you had been a prosecutor, you had to have had some, from being a member of Congress, the interaction between federal and state prosecuting and the attorneys. Why was attorney general not an attractive race?

Hulshof: There were a handful of supporters who had suggested, again this was before Matt Blunt's announcement. I mean, lets put that in context. There were some who suggested this would be a foot in the door, if you will, of statewide elective politics.

And if you look at history running and being elected to statewide office in one's first run, I think Joe Teasdale is the only person who comes to mind in recent memory who actually won a statewide election the first time. But leave that again for the lawyers to check history.

So it was something to, again I, even with the low approval rating of Congress, it has been an extraordinary privilege to be the voice of about 650,000 people. And it's something our family and my wife, who is now a stay-at-home mom and just, she holds our family together and I am off every week to Washington D.C. and home Every weekend,

We have made it work. She has especially made it work. And so it was member of Congress, a governor. it is easier to say instead of running for Congress to run for governor.

This has never been, to be honest with you Rudi, this has never been though, something about my political ambitions because again it would have been almost accidental to be the Boone County prosecutor. And it was accidental in a sense that Rick Hardy pulled out of the race. And now Matt Blunt not deciding to run for re-election.

I respect others who have a very detail, organized, this-is-my-future and how I get to this high pinnacle of the political world. Mine has been just the opposite. Mine hasn't been because our family is not political. We're farmers. So this has been opportunities along the way, and some of them I have fallen on my face. You know that '94 race, we came close. Had we not come close I probably would not have run in 1996.

But that anti-incumbent mood, and Mr. Volkmer got 50 percent and I got 45 percent and the third party Libertarian got 5 percent of the vote. Had it been a blow out, 60-40, that would have been, I would have been done with politics.

Keller: If a certain "1" had not been left off the vote totals...

Hulshof: You are exactly right. The '96 primary, you are exactly right. Montgomery County, right along Interstate 70, and Bekki Cook, I know here in Cape Girardeau County, I know Bekki and John and I have known them many years and Bekki was Secretary of State.

And the official Web site, or the official numbers from the Secretary of State had left off a "1" of the 262, so I got 1,262 votes instead of 262 votes

So instead of losing by 835 votes won by 165. And so, it just has been some interesting things along the way.

Keller: The Democrats are continuing to run against Matt Blunt in a lot of ways. Blunt's record, treating you as almost an extension of the current administrations. Is it difficult to defend a record you had no part in crafting?

Hulshof: Part of that is, it is easy, again this is an election, we're again 63 days away, and the word that has been used and I would suggest overused has been the word change. And what does that mean?

Obviously Sen. Obama is running as a candidate who has, and I don't mean this in a pejorative term, a thin political resume. I don't want to downplay what he's done, I mean he is the nominee to be president of the United States so obviously he has enormous stature.

But, the whole issue is that of change and so, first of all I have not had any of those battles in Jeff City. I don't have any of the battle scars, you know, I don't have any axes to grind, you know, I don't have scores to settle. And so my whole platform has been one of, I offer a fresh perspective to the partisanship that has become more and more prevalent in our state government.

The thing about Matt's record is there are things I would have done differently. There are things, though, that I embrace. I mean the idea of tort reform and reining in abuse of lawsuits or meritless lawsuits, I support that. Worker's comp changes, I support that.

Ball State University just came out and said at least the climate of the state of Missouri, we are No. 1 in the country as far as the manufacturing climate.

Now, though, we're still seeing our unemployment numbers creep up and that is of concern, but part of the things they looked at. They looked at the tax rate, the looked at the cost of litigation here, a whole host, a range of 18 or 19 factors. And so a lot of policies that have put in place have put Missouri on the cusp of something very good and beneficial.

So, it is what it is. Matt Blunt's not on the ballot, neither is George Bush. But Sen. McCain of course is being tarred with the same sort of, painted with the same sort of brush, do you want a third Bush term?

That is just the political discourse when you are trying to say that it is time for a change.

Keller: The Medicaid cuts that Gov. Blunt was able to persuade the Republican legislature to approve in 2005. From what I could find was that you basically supported that as a step that was needed at the time to balance the budget.

Hulshof: What I have said, and I don't dispute your... Let me put it another way. We had more than 1 million Missourians that were on public assistance through Medicaid, almost one in five of us. Our eligibility compared to surrounding states was elevated in many instances, I don't remember all the eight states surrounding us. But it provided a unique incentive then for people from surrounding states to actually come into Missouri to take advantage of our Medicaid program. And, more importantly the quality of care given to those patients on Medicaid was not the best

So what I have said is that under the budget that we had it was unsustainable. Similar to what I talk about with Medicare and ultimately with Social Security at the federal level. The entitlements at the federal level. It's not the discretionary spending and the bridge to nowhere and all those things. I don't support the Bridge to Nowhwere, but it is those things like in this instance Medicaid that something had to be done.

Now, it's easy for me to be a Monday morning quarterback and say I would have done things differently. I would have done things differently, for instance, on how the chronically ill.

The chronically ill, what we've seen, and these are just really rough numbers and again I would say to those who are going to look at every jot and tittle here, but roughly a quarter of those on Medicaid who were deemed to be chronically ill, and my definition would be those that have two or more maladies, illnesses or conditions. Almost 70 percent of the monies going out on Medicaid were for the chronically ill.

And again we've seen the same thing with the federal program on Medicare. And so there is a way I think...

I am still not certain why they chose the path they chose on dealing with the chronically ill. But I wasn't in the room so I don't know why the decisions were made. I think the contract was in my view too generous but, and there was a way to help the system to be better and help people be in better personal health had they dealt with that more differently. But that is getting a little, I don't want to get too much in the weeds here about that...

But now though, and so the health care plan we rolled out, and you, we can talk about that. What this does is hopefully elevate the discussion between the two differences. No longer then is it going to be sufficient, at least in my view, for the Attorney General to say the Blunt Medicaid cuts.

Let's talk about going forward now. Here is what I want to do for those no longer eligible for Medicaid -- Health Savings Accounts, uh, we've looked at what happen in Massachusetts and Indiana and a few other states and we have modeled my plan on basically what some other states have done but tailored it to the state of Missouri.

But Jay's plan is a simple one, let's put everybody back on the Medicaid rolls.

Let's forget about looking back at '05. Let's now debate, and I really wish we could debate, let's debate where you think or how we should deal with our state's most vulnerable because I have a plan that I think resonates with Missourians on how to deal with the state's most vulnerable. One is a government solution -- that is the Attorney General's. Mine says let's go to the private sector and help these folks who are working in our state who no longer qualify under the Medicaid eligibility rules.

Keller: Currently the state surplus is sitting at $833 million. According to figures I got earlier this year from the state Department of Social Services, it would cost $260 million of state money to restore the Medicaid to the level that it was in 2005, where if you were making 77 percent of the poverty level as an adult you were eligible for Medicaid. The cut was down to 23 percent of the federal poverty level to be eligible for Medicaid after 2005.

Even not looking at the future revenue of the state of Missouri, you have got enough surplus to pay, to restore that for three years. It has been my experience that state revenue always grows. There have been very few years where state revenues do not grow.

I could see a way to start from the surplus and phase into current revenue a restoration of the Medicaid program and then build something like yours on top of it. Because, I mean, I have looked it over and I am not quite sure where... The chart here has quite a bit of money that you have come up with but I am not sure where it comes from. You have one box that has $562 million and it says it is going to have $50 million from general revenue, and other revenue is $501 million. I am trying to look it over and find out where the $501 million is coming from.

Hulshof: Let me take this same chart, for instance, the, and I will adopt your number although I would actually challenge the numbers, as far as, lets say, $250 million. When you compare our plans side-by-side, Jay's plan. Of course, we are talking about large sums of money. In fact, as you see though our chart the actual, the 590 number, Jay's number is $250 million higher than that.

In the sense that this is new general revenue money. Now, you could say there is $800 million it the surplus. So are we willing then to commit, in the first year alone, again this is an annual infusion of money, and again, that is assuming we take the number you have thrown out, because I have seen numbers that are much higher.

Then we get to this plan. I will tell you exactly. This a fiscal note we have that the cost.

Keller: You have several charts, savings and foundation. 560...

Hulshof: To deal with those who no longer qualify for Medicaid, and that is those that are eligible for the HSAs, the health savings accounts and we have of course a preventive requirement there. We encourage people to be healthy and to do that, you know, hit your doctor's appointments as they come up and all those type of things that focus on wellness, and then if you have a healthy year you can either cash the money out and put it in your pocket or you can roll it over to the next year's HSA. So the cost of that is $562 million. The cost share, because we ask for some copay, and I think and these are just off the top of my head, if you did it, 137,000 people it roughly works out to $82 a person as far as the copay, but we even talked about a sliding scale.

The majority of the $562 million comes from disproportionate share hospital money that is intended for, the state already has the money. It is intended to help the uninsured, so those monies have already been deposited here, the hospital tax, the provider tax. So those funds are already here, so the impact on GR, that's the column here, is $50 million just for the HSAs. That is assuming we cover 137,000. Again, part of this, when you get into the numbers is I don't want to do anything that would put the state's fiscal picture in jeopardy.

And so when we picked the number 137,000 people, I think that is 150 percent of the federal poverty level. And I probably should have been more precise last week when we talked about this with the press. We should have had the chart immediately available but we did not and that is my mistake.

Because we talk first of all about the HSAs, and then though, for those who don't qualify for the Health Savings Accounts, the next chart talks about, the next line talks about additional tax incentives. And that too depends upon who is eligible, would you do a tax credit, a tax deduction, this a way to encourage people. This is what Massachusettss has done only we don't have the mandates of the Massachusetts plan.

So the point is we have an additional $10 million or $20 million in tax incentives to encourage people to purchase their own health insurance. The point is, I guess we will have to have the political discussion Jay and I about whether the current budget surplus, whether we should eat up or use the entire this year's budget surplus or a big chunk of it just to put people back on an old failed system that I think long term is unsustainable.

Keller: There was an exchange of news releases and attacks earlier in August about votes you had made in Congress on oil legislation, um, and that um, and I guess... Here's one: Remember when Kenny Hulshof was suggesting that Sarah Steelman didn't understand the nuance of Congressional votes. Is it too easy to attack you on, by taking one thing out of a bill, like for example the Maine Lobster Institute where Sarah Steelman sent ...

Hulshof: Lobster boy

Keller: Or is it fair to say to a member of Congress, if you are voting for that it is probably so you can get people to vote for the things you are asking for in the next bill that comes along and so therefore it's all log rolling and you should be held accountable for every earmark in every bill that you vote for regardless of whether you even knew it was in there?

Hulshof: You've asked me a couple of questions. You asked, is it too easy. Here's the thing and I think somewhere over the 12-year career I have cast between 7,000 and 8,000 votes. And some of those are procedural but even the procedural votes often have a political, a political angle to them. When the Republicans were in the majority and the Democrats would make an offer to recommit a motion back or a bill back to committee and often it would have a political purpose to that vote. Unfortunately, that is just the essence of politics in Washington D.C.

So is it easy to, to boil your question down, is it easy to take a vote and mischaracterize it? Yes. It is easy to say that 100,000 or $150,000 went to the Lobster Institute. What do you have to say about that, Mister?

What I have to say is the University of Maine is a land-grant institution just like the University of Missouri. They were focusing on research and conservation, making sure waters are not overfished. This is a $4 billion industry. There are 10,000 commercial fishermen. Lobster happens to be the third- or fourth-most exported item from the Northeast to other countries, so when you view it on the merits and not just reading the Lobster Institute and you actually look at it, well, some people, and ultimately I am accountable to my constituents, some 650,000 people. And it is easy then. It just took me a minute to explain what the Lobster Institute was, but it is easier to say this guy is not a fiscal conservative because of this one vote.

And that is where I think it is unfortunate in today's political world, when you take something out of context, when you take a 12-year career, and in Columbia, Mo., from the time that you were there and the time you've been gone and here. I am often criticized for being too conservative. And so to take a vote out of context, when I am proud of my fiscal conservative record and I've had to defend and justify that record for my constituents. But taking that vote out of context is taking that vote out of context.

Hulshof: We're creating the Homeland Security Department on the fly, we're trying to make sure the airline industry doesn't everyone go bankrupt. So what happened in 2001 and beyond, suddenly we pivoted and Congress continued to spend as it had spent.

And so what I viewed on every earmark vote, or, and we didn't have any regular earmark votes, until the Republicans, we may have had some actually while Republicans were still in control, but ultimately is to look at this year's funding level compared to last year's funding level and if it was not related to our troops in the field or national defense, if one year's funding level was above last year's, I began by thinking this is a bill I am going to vote against.

And it just looked like, and I just tell you that generally because you would have to go back specifically at those large appropriation bills...

Keller: In one of the news releases from your Web site, you talk about tax policy for seniors and veterans. You want to freeze property taxes and assessments...

Hulshof: You and I have had this discussion before...

Keller: For Missourians 65 and older with an adjusted gross income of $52,000 or less. Are you sticking with that idea, and is it fair to working families who are struggling to put their one child through college, pay for the extra curricular activities of another child who's in high school, and that if the assessments remain the same, that you are are shifting a property tax burden to those other families.

We saw a little bit of how that works here with local governments setting property tax rates when personal property values dropped in this county because a company went out of business and the number of new cars that were being registered dropped dramatically. And so personal property assessments went down. To make up the revenue, property taxes went up everywhere -- in the city of Cape Girardeau, the city's property taxes went up by 1 1/4 percent, there's a school district that has increased its property tax rate by 4 percent, all without a vote of the people, because the law allows them to adjust upwards to recapture revenue lost when assessments fall. I could see that this could end up shifting tax burden potentially.

Hulshof: Finally you get the word potentially in there. The way you set the question up suggested that it was going to happen. The point is, you and I chatted about this in an earlier venue and you made this same case, or you made the same argument. What we have said, and again I would love to debate the attorney general about this, and again we have made the call that we should have, we'd love to have six prime time debates and unfortunately I don't think that is going to happen, but that's hopefully to be determined. I think that voters deserve that. I would love to debate this issue.

You said is it fair, I think that is how you led the question. Is it fair that a senior citizen on a fixed income has his or her or their property tax assessment go up every year on a home that often has been paid for, which is backward tax increase. I support the circuit breaker, I support the fact that you get a tax rebate but that tax rebate is going to continue to go up because the assessed value continues to go up. How can you say in one instance, and I am not debating you because you are not Jay Nixon, but how can you say in on instance that the tax rebate comes back that is not of consequence to general revenue, when in fact if you hold the assessed value the same. It seems to me a fairest sense that a senior citizen at $50,000 or less, and as long as he or she continues to maintain their same home, and as long as they don't pass it on to heirs and if ever that were to occur, if they were to downsize, go into a condominium, assisted living, nursing home or what have you, once that home that they were to change the ownership, that's when this freeze goes away. But as long as they maintain that home, to me, it should be the policy of the state that the senior citizen or couple should have a frozen assessed value.

Keller: The thing about a circuit breaker credit is that this is the state using its resources to get the taxes back to somebody as opposed to altering the way the tax burden is distributed within a school district or a county, without making any kind of allowance that this person is now paying less taxes, necessarily that tax money to support that school district is going to need to come from somewhere. And that school district, as we have seen in Cape Girardeau County, and I haven't followed every instance, when the law allows a taxing district to raise its taxes because of the way assessments have changed, they are doing it, they are doing it here locally. And so, I see if the assessment burden shifts because one group of people have their assessments frozen while another group is having their assessments rising, even if the tax rates are not changing, the group that is having their assessments rising will be paying higher taxes than the people next door. That is what I am saying. Two similar houses, why is that fair, when one group should be paying more taxes than the person who lives next door. If the state's way of equalizing that, for age or whatever classification, should it be done through manipulating the local taxes or should it be done by the state stepping in with its revenue?

Hulshof: I think as a matter of fairness in our state dealing with senior citizens on a fixed income, who continue to see back door increases in taxes because of the assessed values that continue to go up, at the same time we've seen nationally this subprime correction, how do you explain to a senior citizen that the actual value of your home going down, even though the assessed value is going up, and by the way you are on a fixed income, to me, again the policy, just as you and I had this spirited discussion some time ago, you and I will have to agree to disagree.

Keller: The last issue that I was, that I intended, um,

Hulshof: We ar not going to go into my old plays or musicals...

Keller: We are not going to go into the old plays or musicals.

Hulshof: That's good. Just tell me you don't have footage of them in the archives somewhere.

Keller: We've just seen the campaign contribution limits come off. You've reaped some benefit of that, Mr. Nixon has reaped some benefit from that. We have these, you know, $5,000 or more contributions must be disclosed the right way. Everything seems to have worked out fine for you as Congressman, working with the federal contribution limits. You have had time to think about this probably since the last time I asked you about it.

Are you satisfied that the new system is going to promote both honesty in government and transparency?

Hulshof: And to fill in the blanks, especially for those watching, when we met February, March, I know it was an icy, snowy day in Jefferson City. At that time I think the legislature had just been contemplating this idea to go back even after our state Supreme Court struck down on the -- because the issues had ben joined and the Supreme Court said the unlimited contributions would no longer stand and the legislature was debating this. And you asked me that day, as I recall it, and I am sure the Democrat Party tracker would have video of this, that would you, if you were governor, would you sign this yes or no. Eventually you said a yes or no question and I said yes I would sign it.

And then you asked as a federal candidate. Here's the thing, as a federal candidate, which I no longer am, the limits are hard limits and they are good limits. I ultimately was in favor of banning soft money to the national parties. At least the limits, $2,300 per person per entity but no corporate but just individuals or PACs. It was a system that was trustworthy. It was a system that was rigid.

You know the firewalls, then, that you could not have state money and federal money commingled. That was the system that I left.

Then I come to this system that when you and I first had this discussion, you have things called pass-through committees, and while there are limits at $1,350 per person and per entity, you can create these shadowy entities or fictitious entities, or you can pass through committees by 10 times the amount. So I am here today, and I have thought about it a lot since then, we put out our ethics plan, which included hard limits, I mean a $50,000 limit maximum, but raising the limit for individuals but eliminating pass throughs. I will tell you the system we have as of last Thursday, which is unlimited with disclosure, is better government, a better government system than what we had with the shadowy pass throughs. And so this is to me a more accountable process than it was last week.

Because it is there, it is black and white, disclosed. I still would like to see limits and so what we put forward as far as our integrity package of limiting what an individual can give, even to a statewide candidate, again to try to get closer to a federal system. Although I will tell you, I also talked in that integrity plan about a millionaire's exemption and lo and behold the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the millionaire's exemption as violative of the First Amendment. So, there were things I thought were a good idea that the highest court in the land said would not sustain a constitution challenge.

At any rate, I think where we were before last Thursday and where we are, this is at least more open, more transparent than that system because limits truly weren't. It was just a shadowy network of committees that allowed, and look you could say we were part of that, and we raised $3 million in the primary. It was the system that we have to abide by. And it's like, if I gave you a bad analogy, if I thought, and I don't by the way, if I though we should take the speed limit down to 45 miles an hour for fuel efficiency on the interstates, unless and until that law were to be changed, would I drive 45 while people are speeding past me at 70 or 75 or 80, or would I go with the flow of traffic and then try to change the law? To me you go with what is legal and we have gone with what is legal. But at least this interim step is to me an improvement over the system we had a week ago.

Keller: Do you tghink you would be competitive with Nixon for fundraising if we were still under the system we were a week ago? Hulshof: I think we'll be competitive under any system because I think the power of our ideas, I think the fresh start, really the direction that I want to go. Here's the thing. I am not going to be overly critical of the attorney general but to me it is almost laughable to say I want to be an agent of change when you have been in Jefferson City politics for 20-plus years. I mean the very definition of status quo is being elected in the '80s and being in this entire ... The longest serving person in state government, now says he wants to be, and in state government I am not talking about Sen. Bond, says he wants to be an agent of change. I find that to be lacking credibility just in the sense that you are part of the status quo. And so, but this is a change election, and so everyone including the Attorney General are talking about a new election and a brighter day, 63 days from today.

Keller: Thank you very much.