Lautenberg and Zimmer clash over earmarks, bailout bill in their last encounter

Both professing to be champions of New Jersey’s middle class, but for different philosophical reasons, U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-Cliffside Park) and his opponent, former U.S. Rep. Dick Zimmer, engaged in their second and final debate tonight in the studios of NJN.

Objecting to Lautenberg’s indulgence in pursuing earmark projects, Zimmer said in times of economic peril, the people need a fiscal conservative like himself.

For his part, Lautenberg made no apologies for being a partisan Democrat who grew up poor and depended in part on the government to get a shot at the American Dream.

“This should be about looking forward and not looking at carping at your opponent,” said the 84-year old Lautenberg, a retired businessman and 24-year veteran of the Senate.  “I’m proud of what I’ve done for New Jersey. Re-elect me to the Senate and I will do your bidding.”

“By any measure, he’s been ineffective,” said Zimmer, an attorney and lobbyist who served in the U.S. House from 1991 until 1997, and repeatedly made known his frustration over Lautenberg’s lack of eagerness to engage.

“I have reluctantly come to the conclusion he is too old because he has been unwilling to run a campaign that shows he is up to a campaign,” Zimmer said.

The rumble over the role of government defined the hour-long debate moderated by NJN News anchor Kent Monaghan.

Holding up a dollar bill, Zimmer asked Lautenberg if he gave the incumbent the bill would Lautenberg give him 61 cents in return.

“Of course not,” said Zimmer. But that is what New Jersey gets back for the money it pays the federal government in taxes, the Republican said.

NJN Political Director Michael Aron later pressed Zimmer on the issue.

The challenger throughout seemed to be complaining about Lautenberg’s pursuit of federal dollars for earmark projects at home, while simultaneously objecting to New Jersey’s ranking as 50th among the 50 states in money it gets back versus money it contributes in taxes.

A contradiction?

“The earmark system is bad,” clarified Zimmer. “It is a waste of taxpayer dollars for everyone, especially people in New Jersey.”

To make matters worse, Lautenberg doesn’t do a good job of playing the game, Zimmer added.

Aron noted a $200,000 grant Lautenberg secured by the Colingswood Theater, which enabled the people of Collingswood to install an elevator to enable the handicapped to get onto the stage.

Zimmer again objected to the system, which allows a U.S. Senator to reward – at his discretion - a favorite municipality for the sake of some votes and a press release.

Lautenberg hit back.

“It’s shocking that Dick Zimmer would say to those disabled that that’s a waste of time,” said the senator.  

Channeling John Kerry from 2004, Zimmer said the war on terror is more of an intelligence than military operation.

Hit with a question from Gannett Newspapers’ Bob Ingle about whether the government should mandate healthcare coverage, Lautenberg said, “We should mandate it for children and make it affordable for the entire population. You should have a choice for the private plans you want. Almost 50 million people do not have coverage.”

Zimmer said he does not favor a healthcare mandate.

Calling the multi-billion dollar Wall Street bailout a blatant piece of corporate welfare, the challenger hammered Lautenberg for voting “aye” on the package. The senator, Zimmer said, has been “unable to name a single thing he did to avert the financial crisis. We can do better. It’s time for a change.”

Lautenberg cited Zimmer’s desire to make President George W. Bush’s tax cuts permanent, and noted that his challenger believes it’s all right to give tax breaks to the wealthiest, even as he resists making capital available for new businesses – a feature of the bailout package, Lautenberg argued.

Zimmer decried as weak the bill’s limits on golden parachutes and other corporate excesses, and repeated his assertion that he would not have voted in favor of the bailout.

Throughout the debate, the senator tried to fight off the charge that he is too old for the job, arguing that he serves as chairman of what he described as two important subcommittees: environment and commerce.

“The electorate brought me back because they know I was effective,” he said of his 2003 return to the Senate after a two year hiatus. “Even in this last term, I made sure that Homeland Security grants were given on a risk basis.”