Advertisement

Bennett Versus Tranel

Error message

  • Warning: array_merge(): Expected parameter 1 to be an array, bool given in _simpleads_render_ajax_template() (line 133 of /home/pdccourier/www/www/sites/all/modules/simpleads/includes/simpleads.helper.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to get property 'settings' of non-object in _simpleads_adgroup_settings() (line 343 of /home/pdccourier/www/www/sites/all/modules/simpleads/includes/simpleads.helper.inc).
  • Warning: array_merge(): Expected parameter 1 to be an array, bool given in _simpleads_render_ajax_template() (line 157 of /home/pdccourier/www/www/sites/all/modules/simpleads/includes/simpleads.helper.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in include() (line 24 of /home/pdccourier/www/www/sites/all/modules/simpleads/templates/simpleads_ajax_call.tpl.php).

Jesse Bennett

Travis Tranel

 

Election 2016: 

Assembly District 49

Jesse Bennett

 

Age: 42

Party: Democrat

Residence: Rural Wyalusing Township

Job: Co-owner of Driftless Land Stewardship LLC (a natural areas management firm); Farmer, Hazelton Brush Goats (commercial meat goats)

Family: Wife of 22 years, Jaye Maxfield

Education: Philosophy/sociology at UW-Platteville (unfinished); Merchant Marine Chief Engineer via apprenticeship; Additional formal education in ecology, firefighting and botany

Political experience and other public service: No past political office. Have served on DNR rule-making committees and on a legislation drafting committee. More than 20 years of board experience in non-profit conservation. Former volunteer firefighter.

Website: www.bennett4assembly.com and www.facebook.com/bennett4assembly

Travis Tranel

 

Age: 31

Party: Republican

Residence: Rural Cuba City

Job: Dairy farmer at Tranel Family Farms and State Representative, 49th District

Family: Married to Steph. Children are Evelyn, Violet, Ossie, Meadow and Quinn.

Education: 2007 Graduate of Loras College, B.A in Finance and Economics

Political experience and other public service: Elected to Assembly 2010; reelected since 2012. Chairman of the Assembly Tourism Committee and serves on Governor’s Council on Tourism, Past President of St. Joseph’s Parish, Sinsinawa, member of the Wisconsin Farm Bureau, Knights of Columbus, National Rifle Association, Ducks Unlimited, and Platteville Area Chamber of Commerce.

Website: TravisTranel.com

Question-and-answer

 

What do you think are the most important issues facing Wisconsin and Assembly District 49 today?

Bennett: Economic uncertainty; education funding; health and elder care costs; roll-back of government transparency and democratic process; hopelessness and lack of participation 

Tranel: Funding of rural schools continues to be a challenge, much more so than our urban and suburban counterparts. Schools have fixed costs, regardless of enrollment. Our current funding formula relies too heavily on student numbers. Rural kids deserve the same educational opportunities as everyone else.

 

All 72 counties recently held meetings to try to find funding for their transportation infrastructure problems. What solutions would you support in order to pay for repairs for deficient bridges and roads? Would you be in favor of increases to the vehicle registration fee, the fuel tax, the sales tax, and having a wheel tax? Would you be in favor of an increase in funding to the State Highway Program, rather than the $447 million decrease proposed in the state budget for 2017-2019? 

Bennett: First, I would strongly prioritize maintenance over huge expansion projects. Maintenance can be done by smaller local construction firms and will thus be an investment in local economies rather than going primarily to a few massive construction firms. Currently, we are funding large scale projects over maintenance due to the influence of lobbyists and the revolving door between industry and the DOT.

Second, I would ask why, with the most expensive state budget in history, we don’t have money for things like roads and schools. The budget hole is primarily caused by bought-and-paid-for politicians funneling tax money to their campaign contributors via tax credits and the replacement of public services with for-profit companies.

Third, we need to look at the cost of debt service. A surge in transportation bonding has raised debt service costs from $90.3 million in 2000 to $472 million in 2015. Giving tax breaks to the wealthy and racking up debt is not fiscally conservative.

Thinking longer term, our transportation system is stuck in the 20th Century. If we’re going to compete in the global market we need investment in a 21st Century system (e.g. modern freight and passenger rail, telecommuting via high-speed internet, intermodal maritime transport, etc). We can accomplish this with a “New Deal” style jobs program targeting 100 percent employment.

Would you be in favor of increases to the vehicle registration fee, the fuel tax, the sales tax, and having a wheel tax? If necessary, and the hole we’re in may very well require it, I would entertain a modest gas tax increase. Such an increase would be shared equitably across the broad spectrum of road users (as opposed to a registration fee increase or a dyed diesel tax which would not be shared by non-resident road users). In addition, a modest gas tax increase would incentivize the move to fuel efficient vehicles and mass transit. 

Would you be in favor of an increase in funding to the State Highway Program, rather than the $447 million decrease proposed in the state budget for 2017-2019? I believe there is money in the budget which is currently being funneled, via tax credits and privatization, to wealthy campaign contributors. That said, until we un-rig that system, we need to fund road maintenance. Currently we’re paying increased vehicle maintenance costs, paying for accelerated deterioration due to lack of routine maintenance, losing business due to unfavorable experiences, and paying record levels of debt service. I would support a budget increase.  

Tranel: I attended the Grant County “Just Fix It” meeting to listen to constituent ideas on how to address our road funding challenges. Concerns over the lack of a long term funding solution led me to vote no on the past two state budgets. The DOT needs to do more to find savings, cut costs and streamline projects. After this is done we need to have a bipartisan discussion that has all options on the table. I would only consider new revenue enhancement measures if a significant portion was dedicated to funding our rural roads in Southwest Wisconsin. It can’t all go to Milwaukee or Madison.

Rate this article: 
No votes yet