Finally, a candidate who responded in time! Bonus points for that, he sent them to me back on June 7th. Originally I had trouble getting in contact with his campaign, so once I finally did a week had passed so he had that extra week to answer the Ten Questions. (If you recall, the original date was May 31st.)
Without further ado, here are the questions and the answers Dennis provided to me.
Question #1:
There are several schools of thought regarding the problem of illegal immigrants, or as some would call them, “undocumented workers.” Some solutions offered range from complete amnesty to sealing the border with a wall to penalizing employers who hire these workers. Currently there are competing House and Senate measures – in particular the House bill has spawned massive protests around the country. While I have listed some of the possible solutions, it’s no exhaustive list. What solutions do you favor for the issue?
First and foremost – the flow of illegal aliens must be stopped. If that means more patrols, enhanced technology, bringing in the National Guard and building barriers, then let’s do it!
Second – we need to implement formidable disincentives so that businesses do not hire illegals. That means sizable fines and other legal sanctions. We need to be able to have employers verify an immigrant’s status.
Third – we need to register all aliens. If you do not have a valid “citizen” or “visitor” I.D., then you discontinue all public assistance.
Fourth – We need to recognize that we can’t deport 12 million people. Currently, we cannot track down all the individuals for whom there are open arrest warrants, and we know their names, where they live and where they work. Identifying, much less deporting, 12 million illegal aliens with no incentive to identify themselves is unrealistic. For those who meet the requirements on a selective system, we must assimilate them into our society.
Basically, I like the concept of “Closed Borders and Open Doors” with a selective, but fair, immigration policy. Diversity has been a strength of America. However, we are a nation of laws, which must be enforced.
Question #2:
Another top-burner concern is the current spike in the price of gasoline. Again, this is a broad issue with many scenarios that can be played out. Possible solutions that have been bandied about in recent days are a temporary suspension of the federal 18.4 cent a gallon tax on gasoline and easing environmental restrictions on gasoline blends (as happened after Hurricane Katrina). Further down the road but possibly affecting prices on the futures market would be the approval of additional oil drilling in ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico. If you were elected, what solutions to this issue would you pursue and why?
The energy issue is solvable, but it may require the American people and American businesses to compromise to achieve a strategy of conservation and energy independence.
First – The mileage standard for auto and truck performance must be increased at least an additional 4-5 miles/gallon, including SUV’s.
Second – We must provide incentives and approve exploration of the liquefied natural gas resources located on the northern slope of Alaska.
Third – We have limited refining capacity. We must build more. In addition, we need the ability to produce and blend bio-fuels, particularly ethanol.
Fourth – Mobilize the scientific community and provide researchers the funds, facilities and mandate to develop alternative, commercially viable fuels and sources of energy.
Fifth – We need to re-allocate subsidies to the large oil companies and utilize those funds to encourage the development of new power plants and install environmental technology to existing fossil burning power plants to eliminate dangerous mercury emissions.
Question #3:
Recently the news has featured ethics scandals involving GOP donor Jack Abramoff and former House member Duke Cunningham of California as well as Democrat House members William Jefferson of Louisiana and Allan Mollohan of West Virginia. If elected, what steps would you take to help eliminate ethical improprieties among our elected representatives?
This one is really simple. No ability for lobbyist organizations, including trade associations to give, raise or steer campaign contributions to anyone in office or running for office. Take that ability away, and you have instant reform. The role of the lobbyist is to educate and inform, not control the power to vote.
Question #4:
Along that same line, many people have seen the vast sums of money that seemingly are required to run for public office and were under the impression that campaign finance reforms such as those enacted with the McCain-Feingold bill were supposed to relieve this inequity. On the whole, however, the money trail has not ceased even with these laws. How do you favor strengthening these laws to make them more effective, or do you agree with some First Amendment advocates who think these laws should be eliminated?
Campaign financing is a more difficult issue. Money – and the ability to raise it – is a measure of viability of a candidate or cause. I do believe that citizens’ ability to express their desires and concerns via political involvement is a First Amendment Right.
Public financing has some merit, but how do you decide the criteria for who gets the money? If you leave that policy to elected office-holders, I can assure you they will create a system that will limit funds to challengers.
McCain-Feingold had good intentions, but produced the unintended consequences of creating independent 527 organizations. There are legitimate pros and cons to that occurrence. Reform is needed, but it needs study and honest input.
Question #5:
While the above issues have captured the headlines, our War on Terror (particularly in Iraq) is never far from our minds. It goes without saying that the vast majority of us support our troops; but the question is whether you favor our current approach or something different in terms of sending additional troops, seeking more multinational support, or a complete pullout. Maybe your thoughts are someplace in between these listed or would be considered “out of the box” thinking. What approach would you favor?
It is too late to argue the merits of being in Iraq. The question is how do we objectively measure and achieve a winning outcome? The consequences of losing Iraq will affect the next several generations. I do not support an arbitrary time-frame for withdrawal. An exit strategy needs to be fully developed with definitive objectives that can be measured before any meaningful withdrawal of American resources. We must win with honor, secure Iraq for the Iraqi people by providing means of law and order and basic infrastructure, and return our troops as quickly as possible!
Question #6:
Related to the above question is the controversy over Iran’s nuclear program. The oil-rich nation claims that this program is for the peaceful use of generating electrical power for its citizens, yet on the other hand its leadership has threatened the nation of Israel with annihilation hinted as being from a nuclear bomb. While the President has the final decision, what course would you advocate he take (a pre-emptive military strike, diplomacy either through the UN or some other way, or leaving them alone as a sovereign nation) and why?
I favor full international sanctions and isolating Iran if they fail to be part of the Community of Nations. If they truly want only nuclear power, we should assist and control the output of fusionable material. Iran will threaten to bargain with oil and access to oil. In the long run, it will destroy their economy, so I don’t believe they would withhold oil or access to oil as a long-term weapon. Military strikes are a last resort, and only after an attack or the threat of an eminent attack on Israel or others in the Middle East.
Question #7:
Back to domestic issues. One pillar or goal of the Bush administration was to enact Social Security reform in the second term, but it has stalled because of claims there’s no problems with the program and privatization reforms are simply a way to enable Wall Street to profit. Do you think the Social Security program is fine as it is, or what changes would you advocate happening with the program?
Social Security is a disaster, and unless common sense returns to the Congress, instead of protecting and defining ideologies, we will have a new generation of poor and no system surviving past 2050. Social Security needs to be maintained at current levels to assure a reliable safety net for Americans approaching retirement. We must also assure all working Americans that their private sector pensions will be remain secure and available at their time of retirement. Borrowing from Social Security trust funds has weakened the financial stability of the system. Measures must be taken to assure that adequate funds will be in place to provide full benefits to retirees as originally promised by Congress.
Question #8:
Some in Congress have raised the question of “pork” or excessive earmarks because our federal budget always runs in deficit and eliminating these earmarks would be a simple way to help balance the budget. But no Congressman or Senator wants to cut their district’s or state’s project. To balance the budget, would you consider sacrificing some of your district or state’s federally-funded projects or would you prefer measures to enhance federal revenues to meet the gap?
The system of “earmarks” has been an integral component of the U.S. budgetary process. In past years, this system, if used in a prudent and limited basis, allows the funding of priority projects when that response is appropriate. Unfortunately, in the past several years, out-of-control spending by Congress has resulted in absolute abuse of this budgetary mechanism. Earmarks have exploded from approximately 1,700 to 16,000 in the past five years. This is irresponsible and unacceptable. Earmarks should be continued as long as there is timely and full disclosure as to the sponsor of the earmark, the reasons for its request and its appropriate justification.
Question #9:
Now to the question of trade. When I go to a store, many’s the time that I see a product is made in China – hence we run a large trade deficit with that nation. President Bush has advocated a hemisphere-wide free trade zone that would add Central and South American countries to the umbrella originally created by the NAFTA agreement a decade ago. Given these items, and knowing also that the number of manufacturing jobs in this country remains flat to slightly lower even in this era of steadily expanding employment, where do you stand – do you see free trading eventually shifting our economy to one mostly comprised of service and technology jobs, or do you feel we should take more steps to preserve our core manufacturing positions?
We can no longer think in terms of the U.S. economy alone. We are truly a global economy. Free trade or limited restricted trade benefits both buyer and seller in the long run. The promotion of trade between nations also promotes peace. Nations that trade have an economic stake in each other do not make war on each other – military or economic.
Another economic truth is that production follows cheap labor and nothing will ever change that. But America can and does compete. Who does the world look to America for brain power, technology, medical breakthroughs, particularly when it comes to quality, dependable high skill-level workers? They look to the U.S.A. Where do the world’s automobile manufacturers, computer manufacturers, medical manufacturers come? They come to the U.S.A. for those skills and quality. What universities and educations are the most sought after? It is the U.S.A., again. We should welcome and embrace global trade, because in the end, the world wants and needs what we produce and consume.
The trade deficit is primarily an illusion – we are the largest market in the world today. If we buy the goods of the world in sheer volume, we buy more than the rest of the world. To believe that the rest of the world or individual nations buy an equal amount of our product is unrealistic. China may, in the future, alter that balance. We need to monitor China’s expansion plans very carefully and develop a strategy of containment.
Question #10:
This question should present you with the shortest answer. Given that in 2008 either you will be seeking re-election to the House and hoping for some coattails at the top of the ticket, or preparing to work with a new President (for the Senators), if you had a short list of 3 to 5 names you’d like to see seek the job, who would they be? Please note that they do not have to be candidates who are considered to be running for the post at this time.
As a Moderate, Common-Sense candidate for the U.S. Senate, I would favor candidates that show an ability to govern from the middle.
I am drawn to Sen. Biden’s approach to international issues. I admire John Kerry’s plan to make sure that all children have healthcare. I appreciate John Edward’s concern for the poor. I am a fan of General Wesley Clark and his strong military leadership. However, the 2008 election is, politically, a lifetime away. After evaluating all declared candidates, my support will go to the candidate whom I believe can best lead America through consensus, integrity, and an ability to develop common-sense policies.
******************************
I appreciate these thoughtful responses, they were among the best I’ve received thus far.
Because Tuesday is a holiday, I’m going to skip doing the Ten Questions for that day and resume with them on Friday. There are 12 more U.S. Senate and local U.S. House candidates to go, so next week will be the halfway point for the hopefuls’ responses. Also next week I’ll finish compiling a similar set of questions for local House of Delegates and State Senate candidates. I just checked the Maryland Board of Elections website and there are 19 people who would get these because they’ve filed (20 if you count one I’m aware of who has yet to file.) So those will be scheduled starting in mid-July.
Keep your eyes peeled on monoblogue, because I have the feeling the local folks will be much more accomodating in answering these questions. I have one question to rewrite, otherwise they’re set to go.
