Category: Maryland Politics

This edition of the Ten Questions is going to be intriguing to say the least.

One of the candidates for Senate on the Republican side is Earl Gordon. Because he listed no e-mail address, I mailed his copy to him. About two weeks later, I received a large manila envelope in the mail from the “NWGOP”. Earl Gordon is the creator (or at least I assume so) of what he calls the “Nationalist Wing” of the Republican Party.

The problem I had is that this envelope came with the cover letter, and two sets of documents. Both are double-spaced, but “Domestic Policy” was 31 pages, and “Foreign Policy” was 16 pages. Obviously in answering my Ten Questions, he chose to send me ALL of his positions.

As a sacrifice to the cause of informing voters, tonight I sat down and reread both of these treatises. Twice. And still I couldn’t find answers to all Ten Questions, he skipped over the ones on ethics and campaign finance, and sort of glossed over pork spending. Plus his Iraq answer would’ve taken me all night to retype, so I put in what I saw as the highlights.

So I tell you what. If you want the full 47 pages sent to you, his address is P.O. Box 1513, Olney, MD 20830-1513. I did the best I could, and have transcribed his answers as they appeared on my copy. Any misspellings I found were marked (sic). But capitalization, punctuation, etc. are true to the original and I sourced the pages I found what answers I did find to these questions.

My Ten Questions work out to just about two pages in a WordPerfect file. His answers that I typed make it just under four, so he did have some depth to his answers, just not enough answers.

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?

“The United States does not face an immigration crisis. The United States is just lacking an appropriate refuges (sic) policy to deal with people who were displaced by the socioeconomic disaster that was created by the pro American Neo Cons brutal military-political dictatorships in Central and South America over the past years. The United States should treat these refugees with respect and human dignity, mindful of the contribution many are making to the economic stability of the food supply (farm workers) and housing market (construction workers.) Whatever financial cost is incurred by the United States in its treatment of some of these refugees should be charged to the nation from which they came, by subtracting the cost from the foreign aid that is given to these nations by the U.S. (All foreigners should be fully aware that English is the official language of the United States, there is no need for an amendment to the constitution on this issue).” (Domestic Policy, Page 25)

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 policy of the Neo Cons presents another act of deception. The American people are told that, due to the demands for oil by nation (sic) such as China and India, the availability of oil on the world market is very limited. So based on the gospel of supply and demand, the prices are high at the gas pump.

The claim by the administration is as deceptive as Iran/Contra and Iraq WMD claims. There are absolutely no shortage (sic) of oil on the world market. The former Soviet Republics have so much oil that they can sell America that, even if the Middle East was up in flames, gas prices should not have been where they are. Moreover, whether one believes it or not, there is enough oil and gas in Central and South America that could serve this nation’s needs for the next one million years at the rate of the present consumption level. This oil could be made available to the American people in a flash, if America’s politics were free of corrupt Neo Cons influences.” (Domestic Policy, Pages 27-28)

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?

(He didn’t have an answer for this.)

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?

(Nor did he have an answer for this.)

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?

“Mr. Gordon believes that it is full time for the voters and the legislative branch of our government to give an ear to Generals Scowcroft and Abizaid, and Director Goss as well as the other Americans who are expressing grave concerns about the Administration’s Iraq doctrine, and to further warn the administration of any military ventures into Syria or Iran (1) without the expressed permission of the United States Congress and (2) acting upon irrefutable evidence that those two nations were in the process of implementing a military strike against the United States mainland or on its military bases abroad. The administration has turned the Iraq war into a quagmire and possibly worse, in terms of potential for a wider war.” (Foreign Policy, Page 5)

“Mr. Gordon strongly supports Congressman John Murtha’s call for the withdrawal of American Military Forces from Iraq. Congressman Murtha is acting in the best interest of the U.S. long term security needs. Any one who condemns Congressman Murtha’s proposal, in light of the revelations of what is taking place in Iraq, should read the history of the German sixth army in Russia during the reign of Hitler.” (Foreign Policy, Page 12)

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?

“It must be noted that during the administration of Gerald Ford, the US wanted to sell nuclear reactors to Iran, because Iran was led by the Shah, a man they saw as America’s friend. The reactors the Americans wanted to sell to Iran were the kind that could produce the materials to construct nuclear weapons. Many of the senior government officials who wanted to sell nuclear reactors to Iran are some of the same people who are now pushing the war in Iraq and for democracy throughout the Middle East.

Today Iran is ruled by a group of men who would have loved to inherit those nuclear reactors from the Shah. Had they done so, Iran would have at least five hundred to a thousand nuclear bombs today. And they would have to be thankful to the Neo Cons.” (Foreign Policy, Page 9)

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?

“Mr. Gordon opposes every effort by the administration to tamper with the social security system. This system is the only federal program that guarantees citizens some form of social security from complete economic destitution. There are no valid reasons to disturb the program at this time, without replacing it with a system that offers better social security guarantees to the American people, something the President’s plan does not do. If the administration wants to tackle a big issue that is of value to the American people, it should tackle the national health care issue. Ducking this issue in the light of the frequency of international travel and the international medical situations that are presented by AIDS, SARS, the Asian Bird Flu, and international terrorists using chemical and biological weapons, is tantamount to ducking a vital national security issue.” (Domestic Policy, Page 11)

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?

(This is the closest answer for this question I could gather.)

“…This economic expansion should take the shape in many forms including the following:

(1) This country should seek an 80% improvement in the quality of life for all its citizens in the next twenty five years, because at present America is becoming one big, congested, semi-socially dysfunctional society.

(2) One of the best way (sic) to reverse this trend is by the impostition of a national economic development plan that is coordinated by a Office in the Federal Government that should be designated the National Economic Development Counsel. This counsel would be responsible for choosing at least ten different areas in this country, in ten different States where the Federal Government should then designate as national economic expansion zones and to build twelve new Philadelphia-size cities in the next twenty five years, with the surrounding industrial, living, and social infrastructure to support a population of at least sixty million Americans.

This project should be funded by private and government funds. This kind of economic activity would generate a boom in economic growth and at the same time creating a society where congestion would decrease and the quality of life would improve tremendously, not only for the present generation of Americans but for all future generations. (These cities and their surrounding areas would be built with the most advanced environmentally friendly technology and human imagination in history.)

The revenue that would be generated from all of the above economic activities would be sufficient to augment the other sources of income that would go to pay for a national health care plan as well as a more advanced and humane national education system. What the Republican Party and this nation need is not narrow minded so called sham compassionate conservatives. This nation needs constructive, visionary, and big thinking compassionate capitalists with big investment plans.” (Domestic Policy, Pages 14-15)

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?

“What America needs is an economic anti-desertion law that makes it illegal for American firms to close a manufacturing plant in this country and go build the same kind of plant in a foreign country. This law should be based on the law that makes it a crime for a member of the U.S. Armed Forces to desert the Armed Forces. A clause should also be added to this law that makes it a crime for any public official or private banking entity to give support to any deserter. If we do not take these kind of legislative actions the neo cons are going to lead this nation down the path that the Romans of ancient times tread.” (Domestic Policy, Page 9)

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 couldn’t find a specific answer to this question, but this is Mr. Gordon’s self-description.)

“Mr. Gordon is John Adams/Teddy Roosevelt/Lincoln/Goldwater/Ike/William P. Rogers/and Melvin Laird oriented.” (Domestic Policy, Page 31)

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

This is the final set of prewritten answers to the Ten Questions that I have. But I just sent copies to the final four stragglers who entered the race, and one has written me back saying he’ll answer the questions once he gets through the questionaires that have a deadline. (You mean I’m not the only one asking questions? Wow.) So on Friday there may not be anything in this space, but most likely on that day I’ll go back over the people who have not answered the Ten Questions yet and prod them once again to answer.

And one week from tomorrow I’ll begin the Ten Questions for the state Delegate and Senate races. I have three answers back, so I suppose until more arrive I’ll just do one each Wednesday and Saturday until I get really backed up. This is an executive decision I made about 10 seconds ago. Besides, I’m going on vacation in August so hopefully things will collect in my mailbox and I’ll have a crush those last 3 weeks before the primary.

A day late but hopefully not a dollar short. In actuality, though, when I changed the rules to the Ten Questions, Daniel Vovak was moved up about 11 days from his original slot. But I think I like the new “first come, first served” rule better because I think it’s going to encourage participation.

Daniel Vovak has achieved more notoriety than most U.S. Senate candidates. In the first place, he wears an old-fashioned powdered wig (think George Washington) to most of his public appearances. Secondly and related to that, he’s involved in litigation against the Maryland Board of Elections because, on the ballot, he’s listed as Daniel “Wig Man” Vovak. He calls it the case of the missing “the.” And, finally, his frequent self-produced internet commercials have created some buzz, and some of them are downright funny (while others completely miss the mark.) By the way, so as not to get dragged into a court case, I added back that “the.”

He was the very first person to send in his TQ answers back in early May, so today he’ll finally get his due. And as with Kevin Zeese, Daniel provided links as part of his answers – here they will just be text so you can copy and paste them in your browser, or just follow the monoblogue links to his website and blog. And, because upon reading the answers I believe he used some positions and comments he’s posted to the website, I’ve slightly edited them to be one continuous answer by deleting a few quotation marks.

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?

“Our borders are out of control to the point where private individuals are exceedingly more effective than the government at protecting America against terrorism. The federal government has a department that controls immigration, called the ³Immigration and Naturalization Service.² That department needs to be eliminated or its laws enforced beginning immediately.” http://www.vovak.politicalgateway.com/cand.php?id=305&isid=568&page=issue

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?

“If Americans want to pay less in gasoline costs, America should use Iraq’s oil. It is a small price for that country to pay for giving them democracy.” http://www.vovak.politicalgateway.com/cand.php?id=305&isid=837&page=issue

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?

The American system seems to be working, as unethical officials are being caught. In time, more will be caught.

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?

My campaign is already implementing campaign finance reform. We have spent well less than $5000, the FEC requirement for filing paperwork.

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?

“All wars are political since politicians begin wars, not generals. Logically, politicians are responsible for ending the wars they create. The usual method of changing a policy is for people to pressure politicians to change the status quo. Hence, to oppose a war is not an act of disloyalty to our nation (or its soldiers) but an act of patriotism, because the American system is used to make a change in American policy. In Iraq, the mission has been accomplished and most troops need to return home immediately. I believe that if troops return home gradually then American soldier deaths will ultimately increase dramatically. I sense a Vietnam-type quandary rupturing in Summer 2006 with a divided nation wanting to remove all troops from Iraq or to substantially increase the number of troops. The American public will elect leaders outside of the traditional thinking of Washington, D.C. By contrast, I support The Afghanistan War, which is rooted in stopping terrorist groups. All terrorism must end.” http://www.vovak.politicalgateway.com/cand.php?id=305&isid=578&page=issue

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?

America needs to continue to negotiate with Iran.

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?

“I believe social security should only be for retired people, not for health care purposes. There must be firm, age-based eligibility requirements and they should be consistent. Before there is any financial change to the current social security system, the private amount that each person has invested into it over a lifetime must be easily accessed through the internet and through a local office.” http://www.vovak.politicalgateway.com/cand.php?id=305&isid=573&page=issue

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?

Congress needs to cut spending. Period.

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?

America should take steps to preserve our core manufacturing positions.

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.

Gerald Ford
Jimmy Carter
George H. W. Bush

Each of those candidates is a proven winner. Ford is my favorite, though.

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

By the way, I know Daniel reads my blog occasionally because he also said as much in his reply, and took my advice for longer blog posts to heart. Knowing that, I do have to take issue with his answer to Question #10, because Gerald Ford was never elected to serve as President or Vice-President, being elevated to the post when President Nixon resigned. Constitutional scholars may recall that Ford was the first Vice-President appointed under the auspices of the 25th Amendment, which provided for the President choosing a VP in the event of a vacancy – in this case, the resignation of Vice-President and former Maryland governor Spiro Agnew. The 25th Amendment was passed and ratified in the wake of the Kennedy assassination as President Johnson had no VP for the 14 months he served to finish Kennedy’s term.

Now, if he’s speaking of the several terms Ford served in the House of Representatives, being a proven winner would become a true statement. But the same could be said of our Congressman Gilchrest or hundreds of others in Congress.

I was going to be mean, but I’ll be nice. It’s just a bit perturbing when front-runners don’t answer questions.

I think I’m going to make a rule change, as I’ve done for my newly-released Maryland General Assembly version of the Ten Questions. From here on out, it’s going to be first come, first served. This means I’ll have Ten Questions for this coming Friday and a week from today as I have two sets on ice. I also need to get these out to the latecomers to the race and haven’t accomplished it yet. That’s certainly on my growing “to-do” list.

So what will happen is that all who have not gotten a copy of the Ten Questions will get them, and the ones who haven’t answered will get a reminder.

Since I finally finished my All-Star break tradition (of two years) I can get back to reading and such later this week. I’ve been a terrible reader of blogs lately and things are beginning to back up with topics I’ve been meaning to discuss sitting beside my desk.

With the rule change, I will have the Ten Questions set for another week and I’ve already gotten my first response back for the General Assembly version. So there’s at least 3 posts and possibly more to look forward to.

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.

A few weeks ago, I noted that at the time there were two “tardy” filers for the U.S. Senate seat in Maryland. Now there’s several more, but what I offered both of these gentlemen at the time was the first open slot that I had after they returned the questions. (The very late filers will have the same opportunity, as will those who haven’t answered yet.)

So because Corrogan Vaughn didn’t respond in time for his turn today, I’ll turn the slot over to David Dickerson, who was kind enough to respond rather quickly. He missed last Friday’s edition and had to wait a whole week because I skipped TQ on July 4th. But tonight it’s the self-described moderate Democrat’s turn to answer the Ten Questions.

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?

We are Americans first, so we all have to stand united and protect the constitution. We cannot offer Amnesty to any illegal immigrants, but we can be humane and offer processes for everyone to work towards becoming American citizens. We need to secure the border, and we can start by requesting the Mexican and Canadian governments to work with us. The Great Wall of China and the Berlin Wall did not work in the long term, but we can start ‘cracking down’ on the businesses that hire illegal immigrants. Every human being is looking to make a better life for themselves and their family, so there is no need for us to act against many of the illegal immigrants. If companies cannot find the employees, then the U.S. government needs to do a better job of issuing ‘Temporary Working Visas’ as a rapid response to small business needs, in the event an American cannot fill the job.

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?

As U.S. Senator, I would immediately recommend that our country has a meeting with the OPEC members to forge an agreement that prevents another Energy Crisis that we experienced in this country. I remember the day sitting in the car with my father at 3:00a.m. because we had to stand in line at the pump to get gas. China and India’s development has placed more demands for fuel, thus we are seeing a rise in the prices. When the Premier of China visited the United States, he had stopped off in Nigeria to forge relationships and agreed to invest in their infrastructure development. We should reconsider our policy of nation-building in Iraq, and look to secure our relationships with oil producing countries around the world. Does oil drilling in ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico solve the long term strategic problem? No! We also need to immediately be concerned with our National Security and begin developing an Alternative Energy source. Exxon did purchase Reliance Electric years ago, and then they put them out of business when they had invented an Electric Car. I would recommend that we work with Germany and Japan to develop our Alternative Fuel research and development in Maryland. My experience in working in Germany and Japan could support that idea.

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?

Term limits, campaign finance and lobbying reform. If all men are created equal, then it should not be that the major press only favors the candidates with the money. Our founding fathers never established term limits, but did they expect Edward Kennedy to be in the U.S. Senate since I was born in 1962? I propose no more than two terms of office for the U.S. Senate. However, I still think that it serves our democracy for the better by allowing candidates at the last minute to file in this state without requiring them to have petitions signed. The winds of change need to allow for someone to step forward without any barriers.

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?

Yes, let us strengthen these laws and establish a ceiling of the amount of money a candidate can raise for their campaign. Moreover, should it be allowed that candidates can dine in Hollywood and Las Vegas to obtain funding for their Maryland campaign? By establishing term limits, it will disallow candidates from Congress to use their influence on Federal government committees to raise money from around the country. Remember Corzonne in New Jersey using his own $60 million to win the U.S. Senate seat? Well, he did, and then he went on to become Governor of the state.

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?

I served in the military as an Air Force Security Police Combat Arms Instructor, and my Chief Master Sergeant lives on the Shore, so I better be careful with this answer. We are all Americans, so arguments in the U.S. Senate do not solve problems. Our Congress decided to go to War in Iraq, and we cannot change that decision. We cannot completely pullout our troops, but we can craft an “Exit Strategy” that is endorsed by the U.N. Security Council. We need Europe, Russia and China’s financial and political support after we redeploy. A post-Iraq has to be supported by the world community. If we pullout of Iraq now, then we would be providing Iran the opportunity to invade Iraq and seek revenge for the Iraq-Iran War. We need to create a timetable for our exit, and have the Iraqi government get serious about it. When is the world going to wake up the Arab League. Do the Arabs care about the peace and stability in the region, or do they just watch us do the dirty work?

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 decided to go it alone the first time with Iraq, so let us not make the same mistake again. We have a U.N. Atomic Energy Commission, based in Vienna, Austria that should be in charge of the inspections and negotiations. Israel is equipped with a nuclear arsenal, so the other countries feel threatened as well. I have worked with people from Israel, at Motorola, in the Mossad, and I can assure you, that Israel is monitoring the situation quite carefully. The U.N. Security Council needs to be the global authority on this issue. The President of Iran is a mad man for directing his comments against Israel, but leave this one to Europe, Russia and China to work out. The world is tired of us acting as if we are the World Police with all of the answers. If the world is not united in boycotting Iran, then the boycott will not work. If they have an alternative supply chain from Russia or China, then there is no power in the boycott. A pre-emptive strike could ignite the Jihad even further, so let us use all of our diplomatic power backed by a strong military.

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?

As U.S. Senator, I would propose that everyone has the right to maximize their contributions to an IRA. The present retirees or the citizens approaching retirement have no problem, but they do have the responsibility to sustain the system for their children and grandchildren.  Current projections show that Social Security faces a long-term financial imbalance.  The Trust Fund is projected to be exhausted in 2041 (according to the Social Security Trustees) or in 2052 (according to the Congressional Budget Office), after which Social Security will be able to pay only about 75 percent of promised benefits.  Hence, reforms to restore long-term Social Security solvency are essential.  If no changes are made, revenue transfers totaling $4 trillion, in today’s present-value dollars, would be needed to pay currently scheduled benefits over the next 75 years. The amount needed to assure permanent solvency over the infinite horizon is $11 trillion.  Many of our government employees have better health and retirement plans than the normal Marylander worker, and I believe that there should be the same rights of Social Security Planning afforded to everyone!

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?

I would prefer measures to enhance federal revenues to meet the gap!

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?

Great question! Part of the reason that I decided to run for U.S. Senate is that I do not see many candidates that understand the military and global business. I’ve lived in Europe and Asia, and I can tell you, our Federal government has too many lawyers and lobbyists. We need to “make things” or we will all be working for lower wages. We need people in our U.S. Senate and Congress that understand the importance of engineering. Our wages have already been dropping over the last five years. We cannot stop outsourcing and offshoring, so we need to create new ways to gain the competitive advantage. As U.S. Senator, I will work with Maryland companies to export. I can use my international sales experience to develop business for Purdue in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Far East. Look at all of the business that Tyson Chicken got from Russia. Could that have something to do with the Clinton Administration? I would look to expand on attracting foreign direct investment in the shore to increase wages. Our US $ is at an all time low, so we are very attractive. The shore needs to think about how they can ship goods directly to Europe rather than sending them to Baltimore or Norfolk. Our country cannot sustain itself economically if we are a service society.

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.

Well, instead of names, I think that it is more important that all of us, as Americans, work together to define the personal profile of a U.S. Senator in 2008. I counted 18 filed candidates for U.S. Senate from the Democratic ticket, so that tells us something. That tells us that many people are not satisfied with many of the candidates that were running or that they believe our country needs a change. It could also mean that they feel that the Democratic Party needs to embrace a respect for life and family values. Everyone is winning by running because they are engaging in dialogue and provoking thought amongst the Maryland voters. I, for one, think that our next U.S. Senator from Maryland needs to embody the core competencies of Jefferson and Franklin, and many of our founding fathers. He or she must understand our militia or military, and that comes from service to your country. How would the Congress vote to send our men and women in harms way if they had their children in the military? I write this to you on July 4th, and do you think that our founding fathers were even thinking of passing a law that would permit the burning of our flag? Our independence was won with the help of the French, and it was the cross-cultural leadership of our founding fathers that spearheaded our victory. We need a U.S. Senator with a global thinking, understanding of our local needs, and most importantly, a diplomat with the trans-cultural competency to secure strategic alliances that win peace and prosperity for Maryland. Tom Friedman’s book, The World is Flat, illustrates that we do live in a global world! I ran for U.S. Senate because I care about the future of my state and nation, and I hope that we all begin to think of what type of person we need in the U.S. Senate. It is not about Republican or Democrat, but more about if the person understands the world, business and our military.

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

Very compelling arguments. I’ve also exchanged e-mails with David in setting this up and it sounds like he has some Eastern Shore connections, so perhaps we’ll get a chance to meet him on the campaign trail. And he supports my run for the Central Committee, so he gets points for that. Seems like a very nice guy.

But will nice guys finish last? We’ll have to see on September 12.

Editor’s note: Tonight I’ve added a “Ten Questions” category so it will be easier to read each candidate’s response that I get. This weekend I’m going to send out the Maryland General Assembly version to hopefuls in Districts 37 and 38, plus, as a special bonus, invite my cohorts in the Maryland Bloggers Alliance to do the same for their areas.

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.