As I alluded to last week, there were two “new” entrants into the U.S. Senate race who had filed late, and I didn’t become aware of their websites until the other day. So now David Dickerson and Mike Schaefer are linked from monoblogue. In addition, both were sent a copy of the Ten Questions and I informed them that, because they didn’t have a “turn” originally I’d place them in at the first opportunity.
Well, tonight was the first opportunity, and Mike Schaefer grabbed the brass ring away from Thomas Hampton by answering the Ten Questions with lightning speed – I got them back the next day. The total of respondents is now five, with three upcoming when their turn comes up (one is a week from Friday.)
Without further ado, here is Mike Schaefer’s answers to the Ten Questions. I think he misunderstood Question #10 but the answer will stand. The only editing I’ll do is for format.
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?
My campaign demands we think outside the box.
In WWII we prohibited the sending of US dollars to countries we were at war with. And I think with any country as we needed our monetary base at home to remain strong.
We need to promptly ban the sending of US dollars by wire, mail, or personal delivery, from a USA base to a recipient in Mexico. Most of these dollars are untaxed US earnings. And the act of modest-income earners fulfilling their moral equivalent of our athlete’s “Buy Momma a House” with their new-found riches, works to impoverish the Mexico illegals who are struggling to find decent housing, decent food and clothings, and assist their children with the new-found costly lifestyle. We must force those who earn bucks to spend it here, this helps our economy too, and the incentive of the Mexican poor to come to Lama-land and send hom the riches to their loved ones, will VANISH and so will the desire of many to leave their loved ones if they cannot be sending them pots of gold.
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?
Additional oil drilling is a positive, we need to be less energy dependent. Tax credits for purchase of hybrid or electric vehicles need to be increased and promoted. A luxery tax on inefficient new cars is needed, let people buy Hummers but pay a 20% federal luxery tax for any vehicle that does not meet certain standards of efficiency to be set by the states or the feds.
And we need a cap of $2 million on CEO pay, it would be five times the pay of the US President, now 400K. They can have stock options but the $60 million pay taken last year by at least l0 CEO’s earns them prosecution for misapproriaton of shareholder equities. This would not mean much at the pump but the oil companies are prominent among the violators.
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?
I have known Cummingham for over ten years. He has serious mental blocks and deserves what he got, guess being treated like a hero for all those years before running for Congress made him think he was invincable. Am happy to see this issue be on the front burner. I would double the budget for the Department of Justice’s public integrity unit and have monitoring of all local, county, state and federal officials by random surprise checks and US Attorneys ordered to bring all published or unpublished criticism of official ethnics to the attention of the DOJ public integrity unit for evaluation.
Please see my website. www.mike4senate.net, this is my leading issue. I applaud Nancy Pelosi for pushing the removal of Jefferson from his Committee.
I think pension benefits ought be reduced 50% or eliminated upon conviction, or the actual funds paid in refunded, without intereset, so that the Congress can terminate its relationship with those who dishonor it.
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?
We should not eliminate these laws. I think they are enforced without common sense sometimes. I was once in a federal campaign and took $25,000 from my stock account, a margin loan against my securities, and considered it a loan to the campaign. The FED pointed out that loans can only be made by banks, not be national brokerage firms, and thus the $25,000 was a gift to my campaign by Charles Schwab & Co., which exceeded the then $1,000 limit and anyhow corporations are prohibited from making any donations. I was fined $3,500 and resented the total abuse of federal statutes to punish an innocent oversight—when the same amount of time should have gone to investigating some chicanery. (Soon after the laws were changed to permit brokerage firms and other non-bank financial sources to make loans to candidates—I warranted thanks for raising the issue). I prefer a level playing field and have considered limited expenditures in any election to a certain multiple of the salary of that office, like Congress(is it $150,000?) races might have a $300,000 limit in primary and $600,000 limit in general. Some of these guys have raised millions; would require that any banked political money exceeding the foregoing limits be returned to sender, or given to a charity, or confiscated by the US. Today incumbents bankroll millions to fighten-off any competition; that is not putlic service. America thinks that a good percent of its elected officials are political prostitutes and you don’t get any argument from me there. Las Vegas and San Diego,Cal. are sending at least two local legislators to federal prison this years, we need more of that. And perhaps we should cut 50% all legislative salaries, the taxpayers would benefit and this would encourage self-made financially independent men and women of character instead of ‘job seekers’ who file for any open elected job which inevidentable pays a lot more than they ever earned in their life. Really!
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?
We need to give our top military officers, generals and admirals, more influence on the conduct of the war; and Bush needs to cultivate others nations as he has done so very well as to Britain. I am shocked at Congressman Cardin’s call for a timetable for return of all troops by next year, his press release could have been written by al-Zarqawi. His view was repudiated by the Congress the next day. We need to support our President in his military posture but we have an equal obligation to question his judgment, and seek prosecution and impeachment if evidence indicates intentional misconduct. That is why it is important that the Democrats have control of either the House or the Senate so that the conduct of the Bush Administration can come under the looking-glass instead of being protected by the abusive power enjoyed by a Congress and Senate of the same party as the President. We can never know the truth when one party controls the Executive and the Legislative, and by appointments, the Judicial branch.
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 am not optimistic as to the efficiency of the United Nations, these nations seeing how America has handled inspections problems re: Iraq might now be more open to a USA inspection team doing a credible audit of the capabilities of involved nuclear nations, both friends and foes. The UN cannot compel anything. Frankly if power-generation involves essentially the same nuclear capacity that an attack utilizes, there appears to be no solution, other than having a CIA operative reporting to the US Embassy in each county in confidence, with any discomforting information being shared with the President and leader of each house of the Congress. If the equipped nation is arrogant, or inflexible, then we must seek world opinion(media) incondemnation of that country and its leadership and perhaps termination of economic relationships with sabre-rattlers.
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?
This is the 3rd rail of politics and we can expect little from leadership of either party on this issue. I favor more liberal IRA programs, but so many people do not understans self-saving programs or have the money to fund them annually, and we must help those least able to help themselves. I think the program is working well but would increase the investigation of abuse, there are many dead-recipients whose families continue to cash benefits without any criminal consequences, possibly a payback and that’s it; and I now personally of recipients who cash their check, report it stolen promptly, get a new check issued, and months-later the US cancels the first check and charges it back the innocent business entity having taken it—this is long after the crook has disappeared, thus there is no recourse for the trusting businessperson. The government knows who the crooks are but public policy makes them untouchables. That is wrong, they belong in jail.
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?
That’s an easy one. We can find county, city, state, or joint-powers agreements, funded with very very low-cost tax free obligations, to finance anything that is a boondoggle; the President needs line-item veto so he can “kill” a number of pork items in any budget. These items are not lost, the community and political leadership then decides (a)level of necessity, and (b)alternative ways to fund it. Do not let West Virginia’s Robert Byrd have anything to do with the budget. He is the king of pork. Always has been, always will be. We need to enhance federal revenues, but do so in order to reduce our staggaring federal debt. This is called fiscal responsibliity, which is in short supply with too many Congresspersons and Senators.
Question #9:
Now to the question of trade. When I go to a store, many’s the time that I see a product is made in China – hence we run a large trade deficit with that nation. President Bush has advocated a hemisphere-wide free trade zone that would add Central and South American countries to the umbrella originally created by the NAFTA agreement a decade ago. Given these items, and knowing also that the number of manufacturing jobs in this country remains flat to slightly lower even in this era of steadily expanding employment, where do you stand – do you see free trading eventually shifting our economy to one mostly comprised of service and technology jobs, or do you feel we should take more steps to preserve our core manufacturing
positions?
We must preserve our core manufacturing so long as it is efficient. Any country importing to the US should have equivalent exporting from the US to their country. It is disheartening to call a US firm’s help-line and be speaking to someone on the other side of the world with limited ability to speak English and not a clue as to the community or state where the caller resides. The government can do it. If I wanted to mail 100,000 political mailers from Canada or Mexico, at cheaper postage, the USPS requires payment of both the US and foreign postage for any mailings exceeding 200 items. I wish this protective attitude existed in other commerical areas of government operations.
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.
You overlook that I am not running for the House, my term will be six years and I am up for re-election in 2012, to my 2nd and last term as a US Senator.
Have no idea who will be in Maryland’s political world in 2012. If I had to name three, they would be:
(a)John Sarbanes, assuming he wins a Congressional bid now or before 2012; Democrat.
(b)Marin Alsop, new Conductor of the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra; if she finds a “home” in Maryland, and in 2012 having six years leading our state in a cultural manner—she would be a respected candidate who would perhaps bring harmony to a cacophony of political sounds in the 100 member US Senate;
(c)Marcus Allen, a doctor of chiopractic medicine, who will at that time be a leader in city, county state or federal office, an African-American success story, who would bring credit on Maryland as a Democratic Nominee and who has a great interest in political issues affecting Maryland, health care, and is not the football legend but Maryland is used to great names.
