This post is going to be quite the interesting one. Back in July I had U.S. Senate candidate Kevin Zeese answer what I called the Ten Questions. However, his counterparts in the Senate race did not.
So what I’m going to do here is use the same questions, distill Mr. Zeese’s answers to some extent (the original ones are here), and use what I can find on Messrs. Cardin and Steele to complete the post. With some editorial license to make the answers “flow” better, I’ve used quotations and platform planks culled from the Cardin and Steele websites as their responses.
I decided to omit Question #10 which dealt with who they’d like to see run for President, but otherwise here’s the questions I used. Where I couldn’t find info from a candidate on the particular question I left no response.
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?
Cardin: America is a nation of immigrants. The growth and strength of our nation is in part attributable to the hard work and contribution of immigrants from around the world that made the United States their home. America continues to benefit from its rich diversity of immigrants.
Congress should bear two principles in mind when considering immigration reform and border security legislation. First, we must restore the rule of law and enhance security at our borders. The government should require the use of a biometric entry-exit screening system for all land borders, so that we have an accurate record of who is entering and leaving the United States. The government should create a “smart” enforcement regime which will produce more efficient inspections and screenings, and will allow us to target and tailor our limited resources to combat illegal smuggling of persons and contraband. Congress must also insist that America’s employers follow the law and play by the rules when hiring and paying any immigrant workers.
Second, addressing the issue of undocumented workers that are already living in the United States, I believe that immigration reform must be fair. No one should be allowed to skip ahead in line if they are undocumented. However, we should put in place a policy so that long-term undocumented workers can come forward, and if they satisfy certain requirements can remain in this country legally as workers. They should acknowledge their status; demonstrate compliance with the other laws of our nation; and be subject to the requirements of documented workers. Congress will also need to review and adjust the annual number of permitted legal immigrants to reflect the needs of the American workforce and to promote family reunification.
Congress should improve the work visa program to insure timely review and disposition of applications for those immigrant workers seeking a legal way to work in the United States temporarily.
I was disappointed that the House passed a bill focused solely on border security, but I am pleased that the Senate has passed a comprehensive immigration reform measure. The House should follow the Senate’s lead.
Steele: Congress’s unique inability to multi-task highlights our nation’s need for common- sense immigration reform. Until we see Congress take some real and immediate steps to secure our borders, we can hardly expect Americans to seriously consider proposals for dealing with those illegal immigrants already in our county and those employers who fail to adequately report them.
Nearly 1.2 million people were arrested trying to illegally enter the U.S. through the Mexican border last year alone, and an estimated 500,000 evaded capture. This is unacceptable. When a patient has a serious laceration, the doctor’s first priority is to stop the bleeding, and then they can decide if simple stitches or surgery is needed to fix the problem for the long term. First thing’s first: secure our borders and then we can deal with meaningful immigration reform.
Zeese: 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?
Steele: All one has to do is look at the price of a gallon of gas to know that our energy policy is not adequate. While current energy costs are a strain on middle-class families, they are a real crisis to many of Maryland’s working families. This is unacceptable and has had a negative impact on families all across Maryland.
To provide immediate relief for Marylanders, I have called on President Bush and Congress to enact an immediate moratorium on the federal gas tax – more than 18 cents per gallon – and an immediate moratorium on the 24 cents per gallon diesel tax. Moreover, Congress should approve legislation to suspend the tariff on ethanol imports.
But those actions are designed to deal with our immediate crisis. Congress must roll up its sleeves and work to solve the underlying problem – our dependence on foreign sources of energy. To do that, I’ve called on Congress to double President Bush’s budget request for biomass and bio-refinery research, and create market and tax incentives for E85 fuels, hybrid technologies and alternative energy sources. Tax credits for hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles need to be renewed and expanded. Additionally, we must increase fuel efficiency standards for automobiles – not just this year, but over the next several years.
Our dependence on foreign sources of energy has been an important issue for generations. Repeatedly, Washington has failed to act – and failed us – on this issue. Marylanders deserve leadership on creating and sustaining real energy independence.
Zeese: 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.
Cardin: We need a comprehensive energy policy that will make America energy independent and a leader on energy policy that protects our environment. To accomplish this goal we need an Apollo-type commitment to develop more cost-efficient alternate and renewable energy sources. We should encourage conservation by raising Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency standards and providing incentives for energy efficiency and conservation, while developing alternative fuel sources. I have cosponsored legislation that provides incentives for alternative-fuel vehicles, energy-efficient improvements to homes and businesses, and that would establish a renewable portfolio standard, to help create a long-term commitment to renewable energy. I also support efforts to make the federal government more efficient, and to increase funding for mass transit to provide Americans with greater options. A balanced approach is essential to a successful long-term energy plan, and that balance is missing from America’s energy policy today.
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?
Zeese: 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…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.
Cardin: Ben Cardin believes that Congress must strengthen ethics rules and improve transparency in order to clean up Congress and restore the trust of American people in their government. He believes that we need to make the following changes in law to hold Members of Congress, their staffs and lobbyists accountable for their actions. One, require lobbyists to file their lobbying disclosure reports once a quarter. Second, upgrade the current online disclosure system in order to make it easier to oversee lobbyist spending. Third, there needs to be a longer separation – at least two years – to help ensure that current Members of Congress are not compensated for work done while still in Congress. And finally, members of Congress and their staffs should not be given travel packages or gifts from lobbyists.
Steele: There are several items on Steele’s ethics agenda, some of which have been previously mentioned – quarterly electronic lobbyist disclosure, a four-year (as opposed to two) separation between Congressman and lobbyist, and the elimination of gifts, travel, etc. He would also eliminate the floor privileges of former members of Congress or any members-elect who are registered lobbyists. Further, establish and require mandatory annual ethics training for members of Congress and Congressional staff, to educate them on the rules and laws that govern Congressional ethics and require the biennial publication of an up-to-date ethics manual for Members and Congressional staff, containing any new requirements and laws that govern Congressional ethics.
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?
Zeese: 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.
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?
Steele: There is no doubt that war requires sacrifice and fiscal constraint. We have a responsibility to ensure that our armed forces have the supplies, the equipment, and the technologies they need to get the job done.
It is imperative we improve conditions on the ground so we can bring our troops home as quickly as possible and have the Iraqi people take control of their own destiny. At the same time, we should not publicly state a timetable for implementation. I do not support a “cut and run strategy.” Any politician out there talking about timetables and timelines is playing into the hands of our enemies who have an enormous capacity to wait. It would be a disaster for us to cut and run, as it would destroy our credibility in the region for at least a generation. At the same time, it is the Iraqi’s themselves that will ultimately have to make democracy work in their country. We should stay there only long enough to give the Iraqi people the tools they need to secure the very democracy they voted for three times. After that, it’s up to them.
Zeese: 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.
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. 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.
Cardin: I am convinced that we must change course in Iraq.
The President came to Congress in October 2002 and asked Congress to authorize force against Iraq. I voted against giving the President this authority.
I have remained an outspoken critic of President Bush’s policies in Iraq. There was no connection between the events of 9/11 and the Saddam Hussein regime. The Bush Administration distorted and misused intelligence information about Saddam Hussein’s actual WMD capacity. Saddam Hussein did not have nuclear weapons and did not pose an imminent threat to the United States.
The President prematurely disbanded the Iraqi security forces. After overthrowing Saddam the President protected the oil ministries, but not the weapons and ammunitions depots, which were looted by insurgents and are now being used to attack American forces. The President did not provide the heavy armor needed for our troops and equipment. The President did not plan for an insurgency. Finally, the President invaded Iraq and then attempted to reconstruct Iraq without seeking any significant assistance from the international community.
We have paid a heavy price. More than 2,500 American soldiers are dead. More than 18,000 American soldiers have been injured. We have spent over $300 billion to date on the Iraq war and reconstruction. Our troops have performed with honor and distinction and have done everything that we have asked of them. Yet the violence among the ethnic communities continues.
We need to immediately change course in Iraq, which should include the drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq. We currently have approximately 130,000 troops in Iraq, roughly 20 percent of which are Guard and Reserve troops. Military experts have recommended a drawdown of approximately 10,000 troops a month. It is not necessary for us to announce a specific timeline for the withdrawal of our troops. It is reasonable to expect, however, that one-half of our combat troops should come home by the end of 2006, and that all of our combat troops should come home by the end of 2007. We should make sure that our National Guard are the first to come home, as they were never intended to be used as the primary military force for overseas conflicts. Our Guard units should be available for local needs.
The United States should convene an international conference on Iraq which would include the government of Iraq. As the sole remaining superpower, the United States needs to mend diplomatic fences. Such a conference should achieve three primary goals. First, it should produce a verifiable cease-fire. Second, it would establish a mechanism for the completion of the training of Iraqi security forces. Finally, it would coordinate all international humanitarian and reconstruction assistance to the new Iraqi government.
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?
Zeese: 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.
Steele: The international community, including the United States, has been clear: an Iran with nuclear capability would be a severe threat to the safety, security and stability of the world. Unfortunately, President Ahmadinejad continues to defy the United States, the United Nations and a host of nations seeking to find a workable solution that would prevent Iran from having nuclear capability. As recent interviews have shown, President Ahmadinejad is a dangerous man who cares more about power than working diplomatically to achieve peace.
Therefore, the United States and the United Nations must take the next step and demonstrate the world means what it says by following through with the toughest economic sanctions. The United States should work with the U. N. Security Council to impose greater economic, political, and diplomatic costs on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. We must also forge an international coalition of world allies to impose targeted economic sanctions on Iran’s government and assets. If and when these measures fail we must be prepared to take the next step in confronting Iran’s nuclear threat.
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?
Cardin: There is no Social Security crisis. According to the Social Security Trustees’ March 2005 report, the program can continue to pay current benefits until 2041 without any changes. Therefore, this program is fully funded for at least the next 36 years – a longer period than virtually every other government program. After 2041, if no changes are made, the Trust Fund would be able to pay about 73% of promised annuity benefits. Privatization would result in drastic cuts in Social Security benefits and it does nothing to extend the program’s solvency. Ben has authored legislation that makes it easier for Americans to put money into retirement savings accounts, such as 401(k) plans and IRAs, that are designed to supplement Social Security rather than divert money away from it.
Steele: Most of us know we have a problem with the solvency of our Social Security program. Currently, our nation is faced with four choices: raise taxes, reduce spending, borrow money from the public, or comprehensively reform the system in order to pay for it. Sadly, Washington continues to fail our seniors by continuing to politicize this issue instead of securing and modernizing the program. It’s time to stop the noise about this issue and make some real reforms.
Our first priority must be ensuring that the system remain solvent and that the funds are in place for our seniors who are currently retired or nearing retirement. However, I would also support reforming the system to build in the flexibility necessary to allow the next generation of beneficiaries to have some ownership over their retirement choices.
Zeese: 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.
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?
Steele: We should start by requiring that all bills, amendments and conference reports – whether for appropriations bills, tax bills, or authorizations – identify the lawmaker responsible for each “earmark” (specific allotment of funding) and its purpose. Require this information to be posted on the Internet and publicly accessible at least 48 hours before a vote on a bill. Also, prohibit a Member from advocating for the inclusion of an earmark in any bill or joint resolution if the Member has a financial interest in the earmark and prohibit members from exchanging votes on any pieces of legislation for the inclusion of earmarks in appropriation bills.
Zeese: 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… (W)e 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?
Zeese: 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.
Cardin: As the Ranking Democrat on the Trade Subcommittee, I led the fight to oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement and other trade pacts that did not respect international workers’ rights standards. We need to enforce our trade laws and level the playing field so we can keep American jobs right here in America.
Steele: America’s trade with China accounted for $285 billion in 2005 alone; however, only $42 billion of that total came from products our country exported to China, creating a $200 billion trade deficit (which makes up nearly one third of our entire national trade deficit). We must work to close this trade gap which is only exasperated by China’s manipulation of it’s currency. The U.S. must take put strong, decisive diplomatic pressure on China to prevent this currency manipulation from happening and work to shrink our national trade deficit.
In the Senate, I will work to enact common-sense trade policies that encourage free trade while also encouraging China to adopt policies that allow U.S. companies to compete in China with the same freedom that Chinese companies have here in the U.S.
******************************
Hopefully, readers have found this enlightening. All three candidates have websites where these and other issues are discussed in depth for further reading. Unfortunately, the Cardin website covers far fewer issues than the Steele one does so I could only get material for 6 of the 9 questions.
Credit where credit is due: Cardin’s answers to questions 1, 2, and 5 are from a similar questionnaire by the Baltimore Sun. This was the questionnaire Michael Steele didn’t answer but posted his responses on his website.
