Ten questions for…Kevin Zeese (part 2)

Aaaaaaaaauuuuuugggghhhhh! I HATE it when that happens and I get so disorganized that I misplace stuff! On June 23rd I got an e-mail from Kevin Zeese where he DID answer my Ten Questions – luckily I make a hard copy of every response I get and I found it tonight when I was straightening out the monoblogue headquarters. I just didn’t look back to my mailbox on the appropriate date. (You may insert a mental picture of Michael in a dunce cap here. D’oh!)

So the Green/Libertarian/Populist Party candidate gets my most profuse apologies! This is why we have a special Saturday night edition of the Ten Questions, because as soon as I found this I vowed to set things straight.

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 favor legal borders, legal workers, legal immigration. But to achieve that we need to face up to the real underlying issue and that is economic. I find the House and Senate as posturing rather than facing up to the real economic problems — because they have both helped cause the economic problems that spur immigration. We have tripled to quadrupled the border patrol in recent years, arrest a million people trying to cross but still have a larger problem with undocumented immigrants. Why? Because enforcement cannot trump economics and our trade and other policies have made the economic problem worse. For example, NAFTA (supported by both Democrats and Republicans) has pushed one million Mexican farmers off their farms — they get pushed into the cities where there is already economic stress and as a result millions are desperate. So, desperate they risk coming across the border. We need to renegotiate NAFTA. These and other treaties like the WTO are not really free trade agreements, they are agreements that empower big business multi-national corporations and they do so at the cost of working families in the US and south of the border. In the US workers are growing more desperate — deeper into debt than ever before, more and more without health insurance, unable to afford the rising costs — especially of energy and homes, with median family income dropping and poverty rising for five years in a row. Thus, when working families see immigrants it is easy for the big business and big government interests to divide and conquer — the immigration issue is being used by those in power to keep power. This is a phony debate, nothing was ever going to be done on it, it is pure election year grandstanding not a real attempt to solve the problem. Solving the problem of illegal immigration would require facing up to the special interests — the big business interests — that control both old political parties.

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?

We need to recognize that the 21st Century economy will have to no longer be based on fossil fuels. We have the technology to break our addiction to fossil fuels, including oil and gas but it is not being applied. Once again this is about big business and big government working together for their interests. Every penny increase in the price of oil is $1.5 billion annually for the oil companies. The most recent energy bill had $7 to $12 billion in corporate welfare for the richest companies in the world — big oil. The government is taking money from working Americans and giving it to the wealthiest Americans. We need to restructure our economy for the 21st Century, part of that is shifting from a fossil fuel economy — that is causing terrible environmental damage to our water (including the Chesapeake) and air, but most significantly to the climate change that will cause chaotic weather. We need to move quickly on a variety of fronts to increase efficiency and use technology that minimizes fossil fuels. This includes transportation, home, business and government buildings. For all of these areas we have solutions and applying them will actually grow the economy and create new businesses. If we do not act to manage this transition it will be forced upon us by crisis. We need urgent action in this area.

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?

Money in politics is at the root cause of most of the problems we face. I don’t agree with Sen. John McCain on everything but he is right when he says that our “electoral system is nothing less than a massive influence peddling scheme where both parties conspire to sell the country to the highest bidder.” If you doubt the accuracy of the statement visit opensecrets.org and see who is funding the two old parties. If you know it is true, as most Americans know, then you have to decide whether you are going to be part of this corrupt system or challenge it. I’ve decided to challenge it and that is why I am running outside of the two old parties. I’ve created a UNITY CAMPAIGN. For the first time in history three parties have nominated the same candidate — the Libertarian, Green and Populist Parties – also I have members of the Democratic and Republican Parties as well as Independents on my campaign committee (see. www.ZeeseForSenate.org). We are joining together because government no longer works for most Americans. We need a paradigm shift in the way we approach issues and need to make this a country that is truly of, by and for the people. That cannot be done by either of the old parties because they are in too deep with the wealth special interests that fund their campaigns.

I oppose earmarks, oppose travel paid for by lobbyists, oppose sweetheart book deals and want to see money having less influence on politics. I favor televsion and radio stations — who are licensed to use the public airwaves — to be required to provide enough time for candidates to let voters know what they stand for. I also support inclusion of all ballot approved candidates in all debates and candidate forums. And, we need to end partisan administration of elections — elections should be administered in a non-partisan way by civil servants rather than political appointees. Our democracy is in serious trouble and major changes are needed.

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 FEC is an agency that does not work (sadly like many government bureaucracies). The Federal Election Commission should be changed so that it is not a deadlocked Commission with three Democrats and three Republicans. We should add three non-Dem/Repubs so that things can get done and people are represented. According to Gallup 38% of Americans see themselves as independent of the two old parties, 31% are Dems, 29% are Republicans. The FEC should represent that breakdown rather than be an agency that protects the two parties. I favor a voluntary check off system that is well advertised so that people can contribute to a fund for political campaigns. That is how public campaigns should be financed. Re private speech, the same limits that apply to campaigns should apply to so-called 527 organizations and the reporting of who is funding these efforts should be immediately transparent so people know who is paying for the message and what their interests are.

Campaign finance is another example of many issues — where the public wants reform and where the two parties do not provide it — because reform will threaten their hold on power and weaken the special interests that fund their campaigns. According to a brand new bipartisan poll released by the watchdog group Public Campaign*, 75% of voters support a voluntary system of publicly financed election campaigns – that includes 80% of Democrats, 78% of Independents, and 65% of Republicans. The poll shows this support is being fueled by the explosive corruption scandals that have rocked Capitol Hill. And even more interestingly, the poll shows that candidates who pledge to support a public financing system get a significant political boost over candidates who do not. See: http://www.campaignmoney.org/polling

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?

The United States cannot bring stability to Iraq as we have made too many mistakes, e.g. invading based on inaccurate or false information, Abu Gharib, Fallujah, Haditha, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, searches of homes in the middle of the night, checkpoint searches and killings at checkpoints. We need to announce that we are leaving and do so promptly. Actually getting out in an orderly and safe way will take approximately six months, at the longest. During that time we should go through a reconciliation process where we recognize the damage we have done and pay for it. That is the real pottery barn rule — you break it you pay for it. If the Iraqi government wants a peace keeping force we should help to organize one through the Arab League or other regional power, if that fails then through the UN. But we need to get our toops out. They are not able to resolve this matter and are just sitting ducks. I agree with many in retired military, foreign service, intelligence and national security experts who say the Iraq war was a mistake of historic purposes and the longer we stay the bigger the mistake gets. We are making the US less secure by staying, stoking the potential of a civil war in Iraq, helping a theocratic state come into existence. As General William Odom says — all we fear is made more likely by staying in Iraq. The sooner we exit — in an orderly and responsible way — the better. I hace a lot more information about this on my web site www.ZeeseForSenate.org and on my non-profit organization web site www.DemocracyRising.US.

The real issue in Iraq is the desire of the leadership of both parties to control their economy and the economy of the Middle East — for as long as it has oil. See http://democracyrising.us/content/view/483/151/. It is evident that the United States is not planning on leaving. We are building the largest embassy in the world in Baghdad — ten times larger than the typical embassy, the size of 80 football fields. We are building 14 long-term military bases. We are putting down long and deep roots and plan on staying. The challenge is to change our economy so we are no longer dependent on foreign oil – indeed on fossil fuels at all. That is where we should put our resources and focus — not on militarily and economically dominating the Middle East. See http://democracyrising.us/content/view/469/151/.

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?

The President does not have the final decision to go to war (and a military attack on Iran would be an act of war). Under the U.S. Constitution the President cannot declare war only the Congress can. James Madison said this was the most important clause of the Constitution because they had seen Kings and Queens send countries into unnecessary and costly wars. Yet since World War II it has been the most ignored clause of the Constitution because the Congress lacks the spine to take responsibility and do its duty. If the United States bombed Iran without the Congress declaring war it would be illegal under U.S. law. Further, under international law it would be a war of aggression — the most serious offense any country can make against another. Iran is not threatening the U.S. — they are also not threatening Israel — and their religious leaders have issued an edict against nuclear weapons, indeed against weapons of mass destruction. Iran has been offering, for over a year, to negotiate with us over all issues, including Israel. We should take them up on that negotiation. Right now everything that Iran is doing is legal under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Agreement. Israel, which has 250 nuclear bombs, has not even signed the agreement. The United States is developing new nuclear weapons as well – tactical nuclear weapons — and has threatened to use nuclear weapons against Iran. This is hypocritical and undermines our moral standing to challenge Iran. Further, we are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy — President Bush lists Iran as a member of the axis of evil, then we surround them militarily with bases in Afghanistan on their eastern border, in Iraq on their western border and in the Persian Gulf to their south with our Navy. Then the Bush administration engages in the same exaggeration and manipulation that it did in the build up to Iraq. Hopefully, people will not fall for it again as Iran is a bigger challenge than Iraq. Iran is four times as large as Iraq. It we were to attack it will create further unrest in Iraq and further destabilize the region. The US will be further isolated in the world and our military force, which is already stretched to the breaking point, will be unable to handle another military quagmire. We need to change our approach. Out goal with Iran should be to make Iran our ally in the region — not our enemy. We have a lot more in common that is being discussed. If we turn them into allies we can bring stability to the region, keep our access to oil and actually resolve conflicts (including Israel-Palestine) instead of expand conflicts. For more on Iran see: http://democracyrising.us/content/view/461/151/ and http://kevinzeese.com/content/view/130/45/.

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?

The problem is bigger than Social Security, it is retirement security. As part of re-making the U.S. economy for the 21st Century we need to develop a retirement system that works. Social Security was designed as a supplement to savings and pensions — neither exist anymore. Thus, we get starvation retirement if all people have is Social Security. I have a lot of plans for remaking the economy, democratizing our economy, so that wealth is shared more equitably. Attached is my tax plan, for more see: Share the Wealth: Protect Retirement at http://kevinzeese.com/content/view/64/51/

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?

No question — wasteful earmarks are one of the root causes of corruption of politics and waste of taxpayer dollars. But, we need to do much more than that to balance the budget and reduce our debt. My tax plan, attached, would help a great deal. But we also have to end corporate welfare — over $300 billion annually — as it takes money from workers and gives to the wealthy and creates an unfair playing field for small and medium sized businesses as they do not receive the welfare that big business receives. We also cannot afford to be the world’s policeman — with military bases in 120 nations, half of our discretionary spending being on the military and spending as much as the whole world combined on military. I would look to the former military leaders at the Center for Defense Information for cuts in military programs that are wasteful, duplicative and no longer needed. Tens of billions, maybe hundreds of billions could be cut with no adverse effect on our security.

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?

These so-called “free” trade agreements are not “free” at all — what they really do is empower multi-national and national corporations. We need trade agreements that pull up labor, consumer, environmental and human rights standards, not agreements that pull them down (as these do). Under current law, a corporation can challenge a democratically passed law by going to the World Trade Organization in Europe and complaining that the law is a “restraint on trade” that allows them to overthrow the law. Democratically enacted laws should have greater power than corporations — who should be subject to the law. The U.S. is hemorrhaging jobs and is losing money on international trade. We have a record trade deficit, record federal deficit, rapidly rising federal debt limit (more than doubled in the last five years) and record high personal debt. If we continue on this course we will see a failed economy and the catastrophe’s that go with it. We must re-make our economy for the 21st Century. We need to invest heavily in education to stay competitive in the world. We need to rebuild out nation’s infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineers warns that our infrastructure is failing and there is a “looming economic crisis” because of our failure to address it. We need to shift from a fossil fuel economy to an environmentally sustainable economy that relies on abundant clean energy. How do we pay for all of this — see my tax plan.

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.

I’m not impressed with any of the front runners right now. And, don’t see many on the horizon. I am most hopeful by the Unity08.org process that is seeking to build outside of the two parties or find leaders from both parties who will put the people first.

******************************

And once again, I apologize to Kevin Zeese and his campaign. Hey, it was my screwup, I’ll take the blame. By the way, because he cited his tax plan and sent it to me with the e-mail I did link it. But the other websites he had as links I decided to leave alone; it’s simple enough to cut and paste in your own browser.