Congress, 5Th District

Republican George Nethercutt is running his third campaign for Congress saying he’s done many of the things he promised in his first: cut government spending, balanced the budget and changed the nation’s farm programs.

Democratic challenger Brad Lyons is questioning whether Nethercutt will do one of the other things he promised in 1994: quit after three terms.

“I think voters deserve to know before they vote for him this time whether he’s going to live up to his commitment,” Lyons says.

Replies Nethercutt: “I’m not going to be bullied into a decision. It does a disservice to our district to have a lame-duck member of Congress.”

The 5th Congressional District covers 11 counties in Eastern Washington.

The candidates have clashed over the budget. The incumbent supported a proposed tax cut that would have reduced some of the money the federal government counts as a surplus. Lyons called that a threat to Social Security.

Nethercutt, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, voted for a spending bill that provides more money for farmers, state roads projects and research. That also reduced the surplus, prompting Lyons to call it a budget buster with “pork barrel projects.”

Lyons says his top priority is protecting Social Security. He wants a “national dialogue” to discuss ways to shore up the system. Nethercutt says a balanced budget is the key to protecting Social Security, and wants to study ways that younger workers could send part of their taxes into self-managed accounts.

The Spokane Republican says the 1996 Farm Bill is weaning farmers from subsidy programs and is working despite current low prices for wheat. He fought to remove sanctions that were blocking wheat sales to Pakistan.

Lyons, an Odessa area farmer, warns of a looming farm crisis from low prices and high supplies. He’d expand federal loan programs and lengthen repayment periods.

A third candidate, John Beal of the fledgling American Heritage Party, moves on a completely different track. The federal government should be confined to the few items mentioned in the Constitution, he says. It would then spend less, tax less, and leave more money with taxpayers.

Graphic: Where they stand …

For the text of the graphic “Where they stand,” see story: Where they stand, October 18, 1998.