Assembly: 43rd District

Questionnaires were distributed to candidates this month. Answers have been edited to fit the available space.

Family Sick Leave

Q. Gov. Deukmejian recently vetoed legislation that would have granted workers as much as four months of unpaid leave every two years to care for sick children, spouses and other family members without fear of losing their jobs. Do you favor this type of legislation?

Friedman: Yes.

Passi: No.

Lindblad: Yes.

Rotter: No.

Teacher Salaries

Q. The Legislature approved a 4.7% cost-of-living raise for school employees, and Gov. Deukmejian reduced it to 3%, placing the difference in an account for special education programs. Should this money be used for salaries?

Friedman: Yes. Until Los Angeles builds more schools, we lack the classrooms needed to meet the governor’s goal to reduce class size. Therefore, use this money now to attract and retain quality teachers.

Passi: Yes. The school system is top-heavy in regard to the salaries. Teachers deserve more.

Lindblad: Yes. The U.S. society shows a callous disrespect for instructors and teachers. This is perpetuated in the students’ eyes when teachers are shortchanged.

Rotter: No. I support a voucher system that will enable parents to choose the type of education which best meets their children’s needs. This would allow parents (not the government) to decide how education expenditures should be spent.

Big Green

Q. Proposition 128, the so-called “Big Green” initiative on the November ballot, seeks to eliminate ozone-depleting chemicals by the year 2000, phase out pesticides known to cause cancer and require that trees be planted in all new developments. Do you support this initiative? Friedman: Yes. It enacts sweeping, much needed environmental protections.

Passi: Yes. Time is running out on our precious environment.

Lindblad: Yes. This kind of legislation by initiative, or in any form, is at least 40 years late. Corporations must be controlled by the people to act responsibly.

Rotter: No. Proposition 128 is a convoluted scheme which would create a new bureaucracy and likely cause as many (if not more) problems than it solves.

Tree-Cutting

Q. Proposition 130 on the November ballot would restrict clear-cutting of forests, allow the sale of $710 million in bonds to preserve ancient redwood forests and provide $32 million to retrain unemployed loggers. Do you support this initiative? Friedman: Yes.

Passi: Yes.

Lindblad: Yes.

Rotter: No.

Limited Terms

Q. Proposition 131 on the November ballot, authored by Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp and Common Cause, would limit most statewide elected officials to eight consecutive years in office, and senators and Assembly members to 12 years. Proposition 140, sponsored by Los Angeles County Supervisor Pete Schabarum, is more stringent, limiting lifetime service to eight years in the Senate and six in the Assembly. Do you support limiting the number of terms state legislators can serve? If yes, how long should the limits be? Friedman: No. These measures are anti-democratic because they deprive voters of the right to select their representatives. Also they will lead to greater dominance of the Legislature by special interests and bureaucrats who are permanent.

Passi: Yes. The bottom line is that power corrupts. We must eliminate these career politicians. We have plenty of qualified people who would do better jobs. I support 140.

Lindblad: Yes. Twelve years seems to be too lengthy . . . so four or six is appropriate to turn over the “deadwood.”

Rotter: Because of their power and influence, incumbents win virtually all elections. This is one reason I strongly support Proposition 140, which sets sensible term limits and reduces the amount which the Legislature can spend on itself.

Sales Tax

Q. Proposition 133 on the November ballot would raise state sales and use taxes by 0.5% for four years to raise $7.5 billion for drug enforcement and treatment, anti-drug education, and prison and jail construction and operation. Do you support this initiative?

Friedman: Yes.

Passi: Yes.

Lindblad: No.

Rotter: No.

Liquor Tax

Q. Proposition 134 on the November ballot would substantially raise taxes on beer, wine and liquor, and dedicate the revenue from the tax hike to programs for the treatment of drug and alcohol abuse. Do you support this initiative? Friedman: Yes.

Passi: Yes.

Lindblad: Yes.

Rotter: No.

Inmate Laborers

Q. Proposition 139 on the November ballot would allow private companies to hire state prison and county jail inmates as laborers. Do you support this initiative? Friedman: I co-authored legislation to allow prison labor while protecting jobs of law-abiding workers.

Passi: Yes. Our prisoners cost us $20,000 a year in the present system.

Lindblad: No. the U.S. capitalist system feeds itself on the backs of slave labor already.

Rotter: Yes. Proposition 139 would reduce the burden which the prison system imposes on taxpayers.

Death Penalty

Q. Do you support capital punishment? If so, do you think it should be imposed on those convicted of importing or selling drugs? Friedman: No.

Passi: Yes, I support the death penalty and would expand it to drug importers. Lindblad: No. Capital punishment and drugs are satiated in the U.S. popular culture by the media. These are problems, not solutions.

Rotter: No. We should do all we can to save human life, not destroy it.

Handgun Controls

Q. Do you support additional limits on handgun purchase or possession in California? Friedman: Yes. I have introduced legislation to make possession of firearms in public (already illegal) a felony instead of a misdemeanor. I also introduced legislation to require parental consent for possession of firearms by minors. Both bills failed because of NRA opposition.

Passi: No. I support the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and oppose gun control aimed at the honest citizen.

Lindblad: No. Our constitutional right to bear arms protects us from totalitarianism.

Rotter: No. The Founding Fathers sought to create checks and balances on government. The Second Amendment was ratified in the belief that an armed citizenry is necessary to reduce the likelihood of oppressive government.

Abortion Rights

Q. Do you support a woman’s right to unrestricted abortions within the first three months of pregnancy? Friedman: Yes.

Passi: Yes.

Lindblad: Yes.

Rotter: Yes.

Abortion Funding

Q. Do you support government funding of abortions for women who cannot afford them? Friedman: Yes.

Passi: Yes.

Lindblad: Yes.

Rotter: No.

Day-Care Services

Q. Do you believe the state should require private employers to subsidize day-care services for employees who request them? Friedman: Yes. This will increase productivity and enable more women to work.

Passi: No. The state should give tax breaks to mothers who want to work.

Lindblad: Yes. Participating in the work force requires greater compensation and benefits for the efforts expended.

Rotter: No. Costs imposed by government-mandated benefits narrow the range of wage/benefit packages available for negotiation between employers and employees or unions.

War on Drugs

Q. Do you believe our present strategy of criminal prosecution, interdiction of supplies and imprisonment of users and dealers will ever significantly reduce the level of drug use in the United States? If no, what should be done? Friedman: No. The strategy is necessary, but more must be done to treat drug abusers, especially in prison. Until we reduce addiction, drug use will continue along with the crime associated with it.

Passi: No. I am a law and order candidate. I believe we need to get tough on drug offenders to stop the “cancer” in our society.

Lindblad: No. The analogy here is closing the door after the horse got out. Drugs have permeated and corrupted every level of government.

Rotter: No. Drugs should be legalized and the drug war immediately ended. One effect of the drug war is to raise the price of drugs, thereby increasing, rather than reducing, drug-related crime and gang activity.

Drug Decriminalization

Q. Would you consider supporting the decriminalization of drug use? Friedman: No.

Passi: No.

Lindblad: Yes.

Rotter: Yes.

Oil Exploration

Q. Do you think the present Mideast crisis justifies opening up additional parts of the California coastline to oil exploration? Friedman: No. Our coastline must not be jeopardized. We should promote energy conservation.

Passi: No. I oppose offshore oil drilling. I would promote solar energy options and other alternative, cleaner fuels.

Lindblad: No. The U.S. capitalist thrust for oil and disregard for human rights have as of August, 1990, found another Hitler--again, after the horse left the barn.

Rotter: There may be valid reasons to permit offshore oil exploration. However, the Mideast crisis should not be used as the excuse to authorize it.

Parkland Exchange

Q. Should the National Park Service exchange 50 acres in Cheeseboro Canyon in southeastern Ventura County for about 1,100 acres of the neighboring Jordan Ranch owned by entertainer Bob Hope, permitting park agencies to buy another 4,600 acres of Hope’s land in the Santa Monica and Santa Susana mountains for $10 million? Friedman: Yes.

Passi: Yes.

Lindblad: No.

Rotter: No.

Mandatory Ride-Sharing

Q. Do you favor mandatory ride-sharing in an effort to meet government air pollution standards? Friedman: I support all efforts to expand ride-sharing.

Passi: No. It’s unconstitutional. I support volunteer-based ride-sharing programs.

Lindblad: Yes. Commuters to regular jobs using freeways and surface streets must act responsibly and ride-share to protect the environment.

Rotter: No. Government has caused much of our air pollution by wasteful highway building which encourages people to live far from their jobs and by failing to enable those harmed by pollution to sue polluters for the damages they cause.

Political Funding

Q. Do you support full or partial public funding of political campaigns? Friedman: It depends on the amount of funding and the conditions for providing it.

Passi: Yes. The bottom line is that power corrupts. Limit the campaign fund-raising and publicly fund campaigns.

Lindblad: Yes. Political action groups and special interests represent established interests and not the needs of the individual.

Rotter: No. History has shown that government financing of campaigns and restrictions on private funding serves to solidify the fiefdoms of incumbents. Income Disclosure

Q. Are you willing to publicly release your income tax returns and those of your spouse prior to the November election? Friedman: Yes, if appropriately requested.

Passi: Yes, if Terry Friedman does the same thing.

Lindblad: Yes.

Rotter: No. If government power is properly curtailed, the wealth and economic interests of office holders become irrelevant.

Porter Ranch

Q. Do you support development of the massive Porter Ranch project in the hills north of Chatsworth as presently configured? Friedman: No. It is time to say “NO” to overdevelopment that is ruining our air, wasting our water and congesting our streets.

Passi: No--too much special interest involved.

Lindblad: No. Massive sprawl-type development is not a responsible way for a community to expand.

Rotter: My personal beliefs would be irrelevant. Those who wish to prevent development of the Porter Ranch should buy it. In this way, they will bear the cost of preventing development, rather than unfairly shifting that cost to landowners and taxpayers who disagree or do not care to contribute.

CONTENDERS Terry B. Friedman, 41, a Democrat from Tarzana, was elected to the Assembly in 1986. He is seeking a third term. Gary Passi, a Republican from Sherman Oaks, is a health club owner who has run unsuccessfully for several other political offices.

John Paul Lindblad, the Peace and Freedom Party candidate, is a health environment architect. He lives in Sherman Oaks.

Andrew S. Rotter, a Libertarian, is an attorney. He lives in Los Angeles.