Highlights on some of the issues discussed.
Asked how they would rein in the cost of the massive program. Renzi pointed out he would target fraud and waste as a means to reduce the cost of the program while Aubertine mentioned the 3% growth cap for counties instituted by the state and further he stated he favored zero growth to the counties.
That is positive news for the counties but, Aubertine's idea does not reduce the overall cost of the program, it just shifts the cost to the state.
This is an issue Aubertine seriously misstated his position. He was asked why he had a change of position on nuclear energy and was it for political purposes. His response was seriously flawed. He stated he did have a change of heart and it occurred about 10 years ago.
WRONG, it is for political purposes. He was still a county legislator 10 years ago in 1998, and probably not even thinking about nuclear energy and in 2000 he stated this to reporter Drew Mangione, who now does all his talking.
Jefferson County Legislator Darrel J. Aubertine on other issues:
Nuclear power plants: I would support a bill that would phase these plants out. One of the things you have to look at is energy conservation, try and cut down the need to use so much electricity and make business more aware of how to be energy conscious.Gun Control:
The candidates were asked what they would do about protecting gun owner rights. Aubertine response was to do what he has done in the past. The oppressive actions in Assembly were only stopped by the GOP controlled Senate. Renzi used the opportunity to remind people of the importance in keeping the Senate in Republican control because they support gun owner rights. Then he mentioned that rights would be infringed upon if control of the Senate flips and the issue got the crowd moaning when he said, "say goodbye to your guns if Democrats get control." He was being candidly correct, it will be more difficult to own them, more costly to own them and much more difficult to use guns.
This was the biggie of the night! Aubertine stated was preparing to repay the money earned by his sister when he illegally hired her. You may say this is good and it is, BUT it took months to occur and only after a political opponent called it out during a debate, and aired it on a TV commercial. This was an admission of guilt but he continues to display ethical lapses and poor judgment by being forced to have to pay the money back.
There were more issues that will be highlighted in other posts.