Hulshof, Nixon clash over money during gubernatorial debate

ST. LOUIS -- Republican gubernatorial candidate Kenny Hulshof claimed Saturday that Democratic rival Jay Nixon's "grandiose plans and promises" would result in $2.6 billion in new spending -- resulting in a tax increase of $1,200 for every Missouri household.

Nixon denied he would raise taxes and countered by repeatedly painting Hulshof as a Washington politician responsible for the nation's economic woes during a Saturday evening debate in St. Louis.

Hulshof has served as a congressman from Missouri's 9th Congressional District since 1997. Nixon is Missouri's longest-serving attorney general, a post he's held since 1993.

The debate was the third in a series of four leading up to the Nov. 4 gubernatorial election.

Hulshof underscored his description of Nixon as a tax increaser by airing a TV ad claiming Nixon was proposing "more spending than any candidate in state history." The ad ran both before the televised debate and during a commercial break in the middle of it.

Hulshof's $2.6 billion figure was based on a calculation of the costs of Nixon's health-care and education proposals, from preschool through grade school to college, if they were all implemented in one year.

"How do we pay for all of these grandiose plans and promises that have been offered to us by the attorney general -- again, $1,200 per household in our state?" Hulshof asked rhetorically during the debate. "I don't think raising taxes right now is the way to go."

Retorted Nixon: "Well, neither do I."

"As most folks know about the Washington playbook, when you get late in the game and you're behind and you're desperate, you start firing charges all across the place," Nixon said, referencing public opinion polls that have shown him leading Hulshof.

Nixon pledged he would "hold the line on taxes." Hulshof also pledged not to raises taxes.

After the debate, Nixon disputed Hulshof's $2.6 billion estimate of his proposals.

"It won't cost that much," Nixon said, adding: "We have a fiscally sound way to get it done."

Whereas Nixon says his plan to reverse the 2005 Medicaid cuts and expand health care to children would cost $265 million in state general revenue, Hulshof's campaign claimed it would cost $1.6 billion. Nixon's camp said Hulshof was simply making up numbers.

Nixon mentioned Washington, D.C., more than a dozen times in the roughly hourlong debate when referring to Hulshof, seeking to pin a portion of the blame for and frustration about the economy on the congressman.

"Times are tough and the failed policies coming out of Washington have made matters worse, much worse. Congressman Hulshof has been part of the problem in Washington," Nixon said in his opening statement of the debate.

Asked what was the first thing they would do to bolster the economy and create jobs, Hulshof highlighted his plan to tap into the state's rainy day fund to provide immediate tax rebates to businesses that create at least six jobs in urban areas or at least three jobs in the rest of the state during a one-year span.

Nixon answered with a general summary of a wide array of proposals -- providing four years of free college tuition to certain students who start at community colleges; embracing science and technology, promoting flex-fuel vehicles; and building windmills to generate electricity.

Hulshof said after the debate that Nixon was uttering mere "platitudes" -- not specific, immediate ways to help the economy.

Before the debate began, host station KTVI broadcast an interview with Saint Louis University political scientist Ken Warren, who said Hulshof is shouldering the blame in his gubernatorial campaign for the declining economy -- both because he is a congressman and a Republican like President Bush.

Contrary to Hulshof's assertions about Nixon, Warren said: "Both of them seem to be really fairly fiscally conservative."

In response to a question during the debate, both Hulshof and Nixon said they opposed Proposition A -- a Nov. 4 ballot measure that would repeal Missouri's unique $500 loss limit for gamblers, cap the number of new casino licenses and increase casino taxes, with the new money going to public schools.

"I support continuing the $500 loss limit," Nixon said. "I think the people of Missouri have spoken on that" by approving the loss limits as part of the ballot initiative that authorized riverside casinos in the 1990s.

Hulshof said he also opposed the ballot measure because it would do away with the electronic gamblers' identification cards, which are used in conjunction with the loss limit.

The debate ended with Hulshof lobbing an accusation that Nixon had acted unethically in office by rewarding Jefferson City cronies and shaking down entities for campaign donations.

"I'm sure Mr. Nixon probably began his career in government with good intentions, but somewhere along the way, power and politics changed him, and he lost his way," Hulshof said.

After the debate, Nixon told reporters: "I think Kenny's been pretty desperate here the last few weeks."