Today I noticed in my moderation queue that Allan Lichtman did reply to my questions over the last couple days. Instead of leaving it in a comment that people may not notice, I’m going to reprint the comments in this article. The only change I’ll make is placing my questions in italics and I’ve respaced some of the answers’ subparagraphs for clarity. Aside from that, it’s the original answers untouched.
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?
I strongly oppose a punitive approach to immigration, including any laws like H. R. 4437 that could potentially punish teachers, clergy, social service workers and doctors who have a moral duty to serve all people in need, including the immigrant community. No American should be forced to choose between helping those people in urgent need of assistance because of excessive fear of facing penalties. I also favor a rigorous approach to citizenship for undocumented workers such as that provided in the Kennedy-McCain framework, much of which is incorporated in the current Senate bill.
Although I believe that we need to secure our borders I believe that only long-term approach to illegal immigration is a comprehensive North American solution to immigration and Homeland Security which would include the United States, Canada and Mexico working conjointly as a community on economic development, mutual security, infrastructure, education, and labor policy.
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?
With gas prices soaring above $3 a gallon it is time to stop talking about cutting prices and start taking action. The following is my plan for cutting prices at the pump for the people of Maryland and the nation, both now and in the long term. This is a real plan for change, not the purely rhetorical gesture made by George W. Bush:
1. Provide new powers for the Federal Trade Commission to investigate and crack down on price gouging by the big oil companies. Exxon made a record $36 billion in profit last year and recently paid out some $400 million to its retiring CEO, exploding the excuse that soaring pump prices are solely the product of rising costs.
2. Impose an excess profits tax on the big energy companies with an exception for profits devoted to research into and production of clean, renewable sources of energy.
3. Eliminate state anti-competitive laws, including the Maryland law, which prevents retailers from reducing prices below a specified minimum.
4. Enforce the anti-trust laws to increase competition in the heavily concentrated energy industry.
5. Adopt a plan now for converting a substantial component of the fossil fuel economy to clean, renewable sources of energy. Components of the plan would include:
o Adopt Fuel Economy Standards: We need to adopt real, loophole-free, fuel economy standards for motor vehicles, not the shell game that President Bush has proposed. Even a modest average 5 miles per gallon increase in real fuel economy could save more than 20 billion gallons per year by 2020, according to the Alliance to Save Energy.
o Flip the Subsidies: The government must flip subsidies, tax breaks, and research and development programs from fossil fuels to clean, renewable sources of energy. This would include repealing the $12 billion in subsidies to big oil and gas companies in Bush’s energy bill and devoting the proceeds to developing and producing alternative energy sources.
o Convert Government Fleets: We can begin to convert all government vehicular fleets to low emission, fuel efficient vehicles, including the latest in plug-in hybrid technology and bio-mass fuels.
o Upgrade Efficiency Standards: We need to upgrade energy efficiency standards for appliances and buildings and create incentives for conservation and the cogeneration of energy.
o Make a Commitment to Conservation: The U. S. spend less than $1billion a year on conservation measures, a substantial reduction since the Clinton years. We need a real federal commitment to conservation as well as leaders who will work with the American people to promote a new conservation ethic.
o Advance Research: The government must establish a first-class federal research program devoted to the development of alternative fuels and conservation initiatives.
We can reduce prices at the gas pump, put consumers ahead of excess profits for energy companies, and convert to clean, renewable sources of energy. It is a matter of will, not technology. As President Kennedy said, “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone…”
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?
Maryland needs a Senator who understands how corruption eroded our government and is ready to stand as a watchdog against practices that sell out the people’s interests to the wealthy corporations. As a Senator I pledge to fulfill that role and to accept no perks or benefits from special interest groups – no junkets to foreign lands, no weekends at lush resorts, no fact-finding trips that become golf holidays. As an educator I understand the importance of setting a role model for students. As a Senator I would do no less for the people of Maryland.
I would also propose much stricter regulation of lobbying than in the sham Republican proposal. Real reforms would ban privately-funded travel and all forms of gifts to lawmakers, restrict former members of Congress from lobbying for two years, and establish an independent ethics-oversight committee. The people’s interests should never be sold out for the wealthy corporate interests.
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?
The public financing of elections is the only way to curb the dominant influence of money on our politics. For their millions in campaign contributions wealthy corporate interests reap many billions in subsidies, tax breaks, and other forms of corporate welfare. The way to get rich in America is not to drill for oil or dig for gold, but to contribute to politicians.
Look at the campaign contributions accepted by his opponent, Congressman Ben Cardin, from the pharmaceutical and health products industry. For his 2004 re-election Cardin accepted $29,500 from the pharmaceutical and health products industry, far more than any other member of congress from Maryland, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. He accepted $8,000 from Pfizer alone. In 2003, he was the only member of Maryland’s congressional delegate to follow the lead of the pharmaceutical industry and vote against The Pharmaceutical Market Access Act, which would have authorized the importation of low-cost, safe prescription medications from Canada.
For his 2006 Senate campaign Cardin has accepted $40,000 from Constellation Energy, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. This is the company that is pushing to raise electric bills for their customers in Maryland by 72 percent. Overall he has raked in more than $63,000 from electric utilities.
You cannot serve both the common interests of the people of Maryland and the private interests of lobbyists and wealthy corporations. You cannot claim to be standing up to the pharmaceutical industry and the big energy companies when you’re raking in their cash.
I would ask: Which matters more: affordable prescription drugs, a decrease in living costs, reasonable gas and electricity prices, or swelling the already deep pockets of wealthy corporations?
As a candidate I pledge to take no PAC money from private corporations. As a Senator I pledge to take no perks, as indicated above.
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?
Since announcing my candidacy for the United States Senate last September, I was the first Democratic U.S. Senate candidate to specifically propose and advocate a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, with specific goals and timetables. My original timetable, announced at my campaign kickoff on September 28, 2005, I specified that troops be withdrawn from Iraq no later than the end of 2006.
Unlike some of my opponents, I have consistently and emphatically challenged President Bush’s pretenses for the war in Iraq, and his lack of strategy for victory in the region for the last three years. I have also shown my disapproval for the war by attending anti-Iraq War rallies, meetings, forums, and protests throughout Maryland and the D.C. area.
Occupation creates insurgency; only sovereignty creates stability, which cannot be imposed externally, by force. Our continued military presence in Iraq inflames the insurgency and makes Iraq a magnet for terrorism. The president says that Iraq is the front line in the war on terrorism. It was not, however, before his misguided invasion. The CIA’s own National Intelligence Council warns that Iraq and future conflicts “could provide recruitment, training grounds, technical skills and language proficiency for a new class of terrorists who are ‘professionalized’ and for whom political violence becomes an end in itself.”
It will take years of renewed diplomatic ties and an unobtrusive positive promotion of humane, Democratic values ultimately to end tensions in the region. Therefore, I propose the following:
Ending the War
• As a United States Senator, I would not support any funding for perpetuation of the war beyond 2006, except financial and logistical resources aimed towards bringing American soldiers home from Iraq.
• I would also sponsor a Senate Resolution specifically calling for the prompt withdrawal of American troops.
• As part of my withdrawal plan, the United States would make it clear that it has no ambitions for permanent military bases in Iraq or American control over Iraqi oil.
Reprioritizing our Military Objectives
• There are too many urgent needs at home which are being neglected because our financial, logistical, and National Guard resources meant for homeland security are stretched too thin worldwide.
• We must utilize our National Guard to strengthen our Homeland Security by better securing domestic transportation hubs and American borders.
• National Guard personnel can assist in the rebuilding effort of American cities recently uprooted by natural disasters.
Finding and Eliminating the Threats from al-Qaeda
• The terrorist group responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks is still the biggest threat to American security.
• America must refocus our efforts to find and eliminate Osama Bin Laden and other al-Qaeda members worldwide.
Regaining American Credibility Throughout the World
• America must work proactively to restructure diplomatic ties with our allies and rejoin the world in multilateral initiatives to promote peace and protect our environment.
• I support the investigation into any unlawful abuse of detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison and Abu Gharab detention facilities.
• Those who break the law should be prosecuted, and conversely, any detainees found to be innocent should be freed.
• Promote positive Muslim-Judeo-Christian relationships in the entire Middle East, including in Iran and within the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. America needs to again provide real, proactive leadership to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict such as displayed under the Clinton administration.
Leading Iraq into the 21st Century
• Monitor the development of Iraqi forces with renewed support from our allies.
• Help Iraqis establish fair labor practices and vibrant local economy that will ease transition into the world economy.
• Promote strong public education and programs that emphasize democracy, international engagement, and tolerance of all cultures.
• As an expert on voting rights and democratic systems I would travel to Iraq as a Senator and offer my assistance in developing a working democracy.
• As a Senator I would introduce legislation for an investigation similar to that of the Truman Committee during World War II to assure that aid money is well-spent and wealthy, politically-connected corporations are not making illicit profits at the expense of the American taxpayers and the Iraqi people.
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 strongly oppose a preemptive strike by the Bush administration. Such action would weaken the security of Israel, undermine the war against terrorism, overextend our already thinly stretched military and pose a grave threat to world peace. I have long proposed the carrot and stick approach to Iran, with negotiations that combine both real sanctions against Iran, with cooperation on meeting the nation’s alleged energy needs.
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 social insurance system – a basic income safety net for all working Americans. I will work tirelessly to strengthen Social Security and fight any attempts to privatize Social Security, which would cut guaranteed benefits and explode our national debt.
I also oppose “privatization-lite” as advocated by my opponent Ben Cardin. This misguided scheme would have the managers of Social Security, rather than individuals, invest a hefty share of your payments in the stock markets, rather than relying on bonds that bear the “full faith and credit” of our national government.
Privatization-lite would imperil the economic security of seniors and homeowners in Maryland. By, in effect, dumping government bonds to free funds for stock market investments this privatization plan would by simple supply and demand drive down the price of bonds and drive up interest rates, putting a drag on Maryland’s economy and eroding the property values of every homeowner in our state. The plan would reduce guaranteed Social Security benefits with private account benefits at the mercy of the ups and downs of the market. It would raise the administrative costs of Social Security by requiring a permanent new bureaucracy to handle private accounts and potentially subject its managers to political pressures on their investment decisions. Even worse would be “passive” investments by Social Security managers with no control over how corporations spend our money. If the market declined it would mean either a reduction in benefits or a government bailout, with money that we don’t have in times of deficit spending.
As the first steps to strengthening Social Security, I support committing Congress to stop the raid on the Trust Fund to finance other unrelated budget items, such as the mismanaged and seemingly endless Iraq War. Congress should pay back to the Social Security trust funds those money borrowed and spent for purposes other than Social Security programs.
I support rolling back the fiscally irresponsible Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that are draining the Trust Fund.
I support a careful study of a variety of potential reforms that will address Social Security’s funding problems while ensuring that Social Security continues to meet its purpose of providing income protection and economic security to America’s working families. Possible solutions include lifting the cap on social security taxes, while exempting from taxation the first $10,000 of income to make the payroll tax both more progressive and more responsive to changes in the economy. The payroll tax falls most heavily on low and middle income workers, and today some 70 percent of workers pay more in payroll than in income taxes. That is unacceptable.
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?
Although I oppose excessive earmarks or “pork,”which should be debated in the Senate, I would not sacrifice needed infrastructure projects in the state of Maryland. There are better ways to help balance the budget.
1. Develop a plan for bringing the troops home from Iraq and recouping for domestic priorities the enormous costs of the war.
2. End subsidy payments to corporations and farm price support payments to large agri-businesses. ($25 -50 billion)
3. Stop the administration from permanently abolishing the estate tax. Even keeping in place the an eased estate tax that affects only estates of $3.5 million of or more (5 out of 1,000 estates) with a 45 percent tax would save nearly $40 billion.
4. Improve tax collections and stop the administration from cementing in place tax cuts that affect only high-income filers and one-time bonus tax breaks for business, ($100-$125 billion)
5. Replace Bush’s confusing, wasteful prescription drug plan with a more efficient, user-friendly plan like the one developed by Boston University School of Public Health. ($40 billion)
6. Reform antiquated business practices at the Pentagon and eliminate needless and redundant weapons systems. ($60 billion)
7. Eliminate tax breaks to extractive industries and other unnecessary corporate tax breaks. ($20 billion)
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 must take steps to preserve and strengthen our manufacturing positions. Such steps would include eliminating the current tax incentives for shipping jobs and investments abroad. We should also strengthen federal support for small businesses that are the driving engine of our economy. We should drastically reduce dependence on the fossil fuel economy and move towards the development of a robust alternative fuels industries with the promise to improve the economy and create more jobs. We should reduce the deficit to keep interest rates under control and limit the financing of our debt by foreign nations. We should support workers’ rights to organize unions which increase the number of good, stable jobs and negotiate trade agreements only with adequate safeguards for labor and the environment.
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.
Russ Feingold
Wesley Clark
Hillary Clinton
John Edwards
Mark Warner
I appreciate Mr. Lichtman taking the time and answering the questions, he did have the difficult position of being first and may not have thought I was being serious in my timetable. Now hopefully the remainder of these candidates will see the treatment Allan got and be forthcoming with replies.
