That's not the kind of legacy anyone wants to leave their children, said Scott Kleeb, Democratic contender for the U.S. Senate.
Kleeb faces Republican challenger Mike Johanns, the former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, for the Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Chuck Hagel, who chose not to run for re-election.
Kleeb stopped in McCook on Sunday evening as the last stop on his campaign swing across western Nebraska and told the crowd of about 24 that the national debt has increased more in the past seven and half years than with the past 42 presidents combined.
"We have got to make a change," he said. "We can't keep sending the same people back and expecting different results. If we do, we're to blame."
Kleeb pointed to the escalating oil prices, increasing energy costs that are affecting nearly every sector of the economy, rising healthcare costs and the lack of water policy for Nebraska as issues that have to be addressed sooner rather than later and with a new perspective.
"If something is not working … if you're happy with what we have now, then vote for (Johanns). He's a good guy," Kleeb said. "It's not about him, it's about him being part of a system that got us to this point where we are now."
The U.S. has got to get out from its dependence on foreign oil, he believes, and eventually, away from oil itself. "We can't drill our way out of this," he said.
The $700 billion that is spent annually on foreign oil could be spent investing in alternative fuel source, he said, such as ethanol, wind, solar, biodiesel and other renewable sources of energy. This would be especially good for Nebraska, he said, that "sits in the heart and soul" of alternative energy resources.
"We are on the cusp of a revolution in the way we consume and produce energy," Kleeb said and believes strongly that Nebraska is poised to become one of leading producers of these energy sources.
But that won't happen with no comprehensive energy strategy in place, he maintained. The $2.5 billion included in the Farm Bill for alternate energy resources sounds like a lot, he said, yet that same amount is spent each week in Iraq.
The lack of an energy strategy comes from a failure of leadership, he said. But nothing changes if nothing changes.
"We haven't had real leadership to get us there," he said. "But we know what has to happen. Folks know what the facts are. There is a difference between talk and action."
In addition to the necessity of alternative energy, Kleeb said his priorities included more funding for economic development in the Farm Bill; a national infrastructure plan between public and private entities, similar to a bill introduced in 2007 by Sen. Hagel and Sen. Christopher Dodd (D.-Conn.) and broadband internet access, as "broadband today is what electricity was years ago."
He also touched briefly on the Iraq War and emphasized that the solution in Iraq must come from Iraq.
Although schools and hospitals are being built with American dollars, the Iraq government must take ownership and invest some sweat equity or financial efforts to make it their own, he said, much like the way matching funds are used here for projects.
"There is no American solution -- it has to come from Iraq," he said.
Kleeb noted that donations and volunteers have exceeded his expectations during this recent campaign tour of western Nebraska. This is good news, he said, considering the third district of Nebraska, which covers the western half, is the fifth most conservative district in the country.
Still, he's taking nothing for granted: Kleeb pointed out that during his last run for public office, against Adrian Smith for the 3rd Congressional District seat, his campaign was gaining momentum until Nebraska was visited by the Vice President twice, the President once and seven members of Congress, including the Speaker of the House.
"They stopped what we started," he said. "but I think people fundamentally realize that we can do better than this."
Kleeb grew up on a military base overseas, the son of two teachers in the Department of Defense. He taught American History at Hastings College and is also director of the Morgan Ranch, a Nebraska-based beef company that promotes locally-grown food and responsible business practices. He lives in Hastings with his wife, Jane, and two young daughters.
![[mccookgazette.com]](http://www.mccookgazette.com/images/nameplate31.png)

Comments
I don't know if my comment should be directed at Mr. Kleeb or to the author of the article. The first line would, in my opinion, lead the less informed to think that the $9.4 trillion national debt was run up in the last 7 years. This comment is clearly partisan in nature as the logical conclusion is that G.W. Bush took the country from owing nothing to owing $9.4 trillion dollars. The difference in the national debt and the annual budget is that the national debt is "checkbook balance" of the country, including all surpluses, deficits and loans. The annual budget is what is approved to be spent. A budget surplus occurs when revenue, i.e. taxes, fee, loan payments from other countries, etc., exceeds the amount needed to fund all approved spending. A deficit is the opposite and requires the government to borrow money to cover the approved spending. This adds to the national debt. The decision to spend money is made in Congress and the President approves or disapproves the request. Until we, the people, require Congress to live within their means just as we have to do the national debt will continue to climb. "Spend" your vote wisely.
J.A. Walker
I wish to respond line for line. The number indicates the line from the top being addressed:
1 True, with key word being 'budget,' and was two months before 9-11-2001, when the budget went out the proverbial window. Who caused that???
2 People running for office has been using that same old phrase for at least fifty years, on both sides of the isle, and no one has yet to prove up.
3 True, simple and true.
4 True, dollar for dollar. But then, 42 presidents ago, the average person made about $5.00 per month, if any money at all.
5 If this is true, then we cannot send anyone, as both parties have failed to do as he states.
6 True? Wasn't Global warming the culprit, or was it the war that was the fault two years ago? The reasons change faster than this one can keep up with.
7 Aparently, all conservatives are poured from the same mould, and only Liberals use unique and one-time molds. Hmmmm. Ponder that word.
8 Gasoline is only one of the Hundreds of products, and medicines, derived from oil.
9 Picture your car with a 300 ft tall wind generator on top, so the electric motors can push your vehicle down the road. Ah yes, it would be a bit top heavy, also.
10 True, but, that also has been used many times over.
11 There comes that 'concervative's' war again. Didn't any Liberal support taking on the 'bad guys' in 2001?
12 & 13 Same generic blah blah blah that all out of power candidates espouse (again, both parties).
The balance would require me rechewing my comments, and my fingers tire, so- - agree, or disagree, that is the American way. I really only ask that no one accept half-truths as full-truths, from eigther party, and vote in knowlege, not blindness. I feel this election is far more important to this country than most realize.
Arley Steinhour
What? Is Scott a Dem or Rep now. I like the guy, but to me everything sounds upside down. I don't think the Dems are going to support his campaign when he sounds like a conservative. It sounds like he's running against a typical "tax and spend" democrat. I like what he says, reduce spending, buy less foreign oil, wind power...sounds good to me.
Ted Kennedy won't like the wind power though. It was reported in Newsmax magazine that Ted shot down a bill that would have set up a windmill farm newar Nantucked be because the yacht club won't like to see it from their verandas.
All I can say is that government spending is so far out of control it may take an Armeggedon typw disaster to "reset" this country and our politics back to the basics.
Amen to jawalker61,, Truer words were never typed but how many
people can comprehend the difference between the national debt and the annual budget to use there vote wisely?
Funny how the spin doctors can try to fool you. He starts by mentioning the BUDGET surplus, and then leads you to believe that the 9.4 trillion deficit is what WAS a surplus. It was not. When I was in senior economics in HS, while Clinton was in office, we had a 4.something trillion dollar deficit. That doesn't get paid off in a couple years with our style of spending, so our current President inherited a 4-5 trillion dollar deficit. I thought maybe Scott Kleeb was above this kind of fear mongering, but maybe he's just a typical lying politician after all.