Candidates give views on ethics, Bush policies
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20060305-9999-1n5issues.html
By Dani Dodge
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
March 5, 2006
In a race where integrity is everything, Republican candidates running to replace disgraced former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham agree on one thing: If they win, they won't take gifts from lobbyists.
Not only would they refuse gifts and travel from lobbyists, but they would expect their staff members to do the same, according to a questionnaire GOP candidates answered for The San Diego Union-Tribune.
Former Del Mar Mayor Richard Earnest went one step further.
“I will refuse to accept anything of value from any person or entity other than an immediate family member, and I will fire any member of my staff who does so,” he wrote.
As well as determining how the Republican candidates viewed ethics in Congress, the survey explored how closely candidates align themselves with the president's policies and asked them to explain how they would do things differently from the current GOP-controlled Congress. The survey targeted only the Republican candidates in the race because of their large number – 14 – as well as the turmoil within the party.
There are four other candidates in the race: Democrats Francine Busby and Chris Young, independent William Griffith and Libertarian Paul King.
While the majority of the Republican candidates tended to agree on issues, their plans for how to clean up Congress and rein in spending varied greatly. The only areas of complete agreement were in lobbying reforms. Candidates said lobbyist gifts should be banned and pledged not to take gifts regardless of whether a rule is made.
The majority of candidates agreed with President Bush's conduct in the war, tax cuts and surveillance without a warrant, while rejecting his guest-worker program either wholly or just the portion that could allow amnesty for illegal immigrants.
All but two – former Superior Court Judge Victor Ramirez and retired ship inspector Milton Gale – supported the president's desire to make tax cuts permanent and abolish capital-gains taxes.
Candidates also supported Bush's conduct in the war.
“With our help, I believe the Iraqi people will succeed in establishing an elected government that will no longer tolerate terrorist activities,” businessman Alan Uke wrote.
But three candidates – sales director Bill Boyer, Gale and Ramirez – said they objected to the open-ended nature of the conflict.
“I support the president's intention to defend America,” Ramirez wrote. “However, the military objectives in the war against Iraq were accomplished in mid-2003.”
The same strong majority of 11 supported Bush's policies of surveillance without a court warrant, although Uke had a caveat: only during times of war or national crisis.
“The intelligence community isn't eavesdropping on your telephone calls to hear about our personal lives,” wrote lobbyist Brian Bilbray, a former congressman. “They're listening for someone's plan to instigate grave and massive devastation to our country.”
Ramirez, Gale and Boyer opposed the policy. Boyer noted that judges are available 24 hours a day to approve the warrants for eavesdropping if necessary.
Banning “earmarks” also split the field of candidates. While the majority believe that banning earmarks – funding that's quietly slipped into bills before approval – would help clean up Congress and reduce the deficit, five candidates felt earmarks had their place.
Real estate investor Delecia Holt, who also does homeland security contracting, said earmarks can help areas hit by natural disasters. Former Chargers defensive back Scott Turner pointed out that earmarks can contribute money to worthy causes like the Boys & Girls Club.
Bilbray said problems arise when earmarking is done in secret, so he proposed a ban on earmarks done behind closed doors. Boyer said Congress should vote on each earmark. Uke believes each district should have a small budget for earmarked projects.
Candidates had a number of ideas for cleaning up the political system, including campaign finance reform, tougher penalties for congressional misconduct, enforcing ethics rules more strenuously, outside oversight of ethics and strengthening the House ethics committee.
Earnest, Boyer and defense contractor Scott Orren said term limits may help. Bilbray, state Sen. Bill Morrow and businessman Bill Hauf suggested corrupt politicians shouldn't get congressional pensions, a clear reference to Cunningham, who will continue to receive an annual pension worth roughly $40,000 during his prison sentence of eight years and four months. Uke, Morrow and Earnest recommended more limits on members of Congress who become lobbyists.
Holt said better use of the federal reporting and tracking systems could help identify misused funds, illegal gifts and “ . . . contracts to companies and countries with special interests that harm this nation.”
Other candidates chose simpler solutions: California Highway Patrol Sgt. Jeff Newsome said lobbyists should be banned from the District of Columbia and government offices. Attorney Howard Kaloogian, a former state assemblyman, said, “Elect people of character.”
Candidates also thought it was high time to rein in government spending. Morrow suggested across-the-board cuts in all but defense spending. Hauf and Earnest proposed a complete review of government expenditures similar to President Reagan's Grace Commission. Uke, Ramirez and Kaloogian want to freeze spending.
“Implement a freeze on the total dollars spent so that regardless of how much revenue comes in, we only spend as much next year as we do this year,” Kaloogian said.
As you have seen on San Diego TV stations, Kaloogian;s ads
show him in Sacramento. His campaign address, Sacramento.
If Kaloogian is running for congress to rep. one of our dists. he would do well to do his ads in San Diego and his campaign address should be San Diego. Many folks have picked up on this.
Isn't that a kind of empty suit comment? I mean it is such a cliche, and never happens in practice because it is just that stupid. That is the comment of someone who has not bothered to make any choices, and/or doesn't have a clue.