Q&A; : Congress: 29th District

Questionnaires were distributed to candidates in March. Answers have been edited to fit the available space. Republican Mark A. Robbins and Libertarian Felix Tsvi Rogin are unopposed in the primary. Peace and Freedom Party candidates Susan C. Davies and Maggie Phair did not respond to the questionnaire. The answers of Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles) and his challenger for the Democratic nomination, Scott M. Gaulke, appear below.

Federal Deficit

Q: Do you support, in principle, reducing the federal deficit or spending more on social programs by raising the taxes of upper-income Americans, defined as individuals making about $100,000 and couples earning about $150,000? Gaulke: No. The tax base of the economy needs to be expanded without raising taxes on anyone. That can only be done by creating high-paying, productive jobs.

Waxman: Yes. The lifestyles of relatively well-to-do people will not be adversely effected by a modest tax increase. Revenues gained could certainly be put to good use, both in deficit reduction and well-conceived social programs.

Capital Gains

Q: Do you favor President Bush’s proposal for a capital gains tax cut as an economic stimulant?

Gaulke: No. I don’t favor anything George Bush does and he has no idea what he is doing as far as the economy. He should step down now for the sake of the country.

Waxman: No. Absolutely not. There is no evidence that allowing people who have made money made on investments (often speculative ones) to pay less taxes will benefit the economy as a whole. The capital gains tax should be the last place we look for tax reduction. The incentive for investments should be prospects for profit, not prospects for tax advantages.

Balanced Budget

Q: Do you support a constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget?

Gaulke: No. The federal budget is not the problem. The economics of George Bush and most of the leading Democrats is the problem. They all still cling to the myth of free trade and don’t know a thing about American system economics.

Waxman: No. While I am against the kind of deficits since Reagan took office, I do not believe it is necessary to try to balance the federal budget every year. At least since John Maynard Keynes, we have known that the federal budget is the single most powerful instrument our country has to cope with recessions, depressions, war and financial panics.

Defense Reductions

Q: With the end of the Cold War, do you favor deep reductions in the $290 - billion annual defense budget? If so, how much could it be safely reduced in one year? Five years?

Gaulke: No. I believe the end of the so-called Cold War could end up being a hot war if the failed economic policies that dominated this planet for the last 100 years are not reversed. I mean the collapse of the Versailles system.

Waxman: Yes. It would be irresponsible to estimate specific amounts for specific periods of time. The political situation in Eastern Europe is far from clear. I am totally against the philosophy that says, “Now the Cold War is over, we can forget about the rest of the world.” We have an ongoing obligation to advance human rights, to protect small countries and to facilitate the development of Third World economies.

Defense Savings

Q: What should any defense savings be used for: lower taxes, reduced deficit, spending on domestic programs?

Gaulke: There will be no defense savings to be used for anything, just like there was no “peace dividend” recovery, etc.

Waxman: I would give a comprehensive health insurance system top priority for benefits from defense savings. Certainly, deficit reduction must be included.

Welfare Waste?

Q: Do you believe a lot of money is being wasted on social welfare programs?

Gaulke: No. Money is not being wasted on social welfare programs. Most of those programs have been cut to the bone and people are suffering because of it.

Waxman: No. Numerous studies have shown that the levels of fraud and abuse in such programs as Aid to Families With Dependent Children is not nearly as high as commonly thought. In fact, many eligible recipients never avail themselves of benefits to which they are entitled.

Welfare Benefits

Q: Do you support reducing welfare benefits of parents who do not go to school, attend training or find a job; do not make sure that their children attend school or get basic medical care, or who continue to have more children while on welfare?

Gaulke: No. This is fascism and those implementing it fascists. Families, the sick, the elderly, etc., are going to be thrown out into the street and some will die because our elected officials don’t know what they are doing.

Waxman: No. The mere reduction in welfare payments will do nothing to solve underlying social problems. It may deprive innocent infants and children of basic necessities. While we should encourage people to become self-sufficient, we should not be punitive and, thus, counterproductive.

Costly Programs

Q: Do you support significantly increased funding for the following programs, all of which are costly and controversial and employ significant numbers of workers who live in yours and surrounding districts? a) The B-2 “Stealth” bomber, b) The Strategic Defense Initiative (“Star Wars”), c) The Space Station. Gaulke: B-2 Bomber, no. Star Wars, yes. Space station, yes.

Waxman: B-2 Bomber, no. Star Wars, no. Space station, yes.

Health Insurance

Q: Do you support requiring businesses either to provide health insurance to employees or contribute to a fund to provide health care for the uninsured?

Gaulke: No. I favor a health-care system that is free to all Americans, regardless of their ability to pay and an economy that provides the tax base to do just that.

Waxman: Yes.

Health Care

Q: Do you support a national health-care system in which the government establishes fees, pays all the bills and collects taxes to cover the cost?

Gaulke: No. Build new hospitals to solve the health-care crisis.

Waxman: Yes.

Saddam Hussein

Q: If Saddam Hussein continues to refuse to obey United Nations orders to dismantle Iraq’s arms-making nuclear capability, should the United States urge the United Nations to take military action with U. S. participation?

Gaulke: No. The United States and Britain set up Iraq and then bombed the Iraqis back to the Stone Age. It was nothing but a criminal policy then and it is more of one now. It is a Bush reelection stunt, among other things. Look for Bush to bomb someone before the election.

Waxman: Yes. As long as Saddam Hussein has enormous military power--nuclear or non-nuclear--other countries in the region are at risk. It was my understanding that the purpose of the Persian Gulf War was to eliminate Hussein as a menace. We ought not settle with having just trimmed his wings a bit.

Israeli Loan

Q: Would you have unconditionally supported Israel’s request for $10 billion in loan guarantees to help resettle refugees from the former Soviet Union?

Gaulke: No.

Waxman: Yes.

U. S. Citizenship

Q: Do you support a proposed constitutional amendment that would deny U. S. citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants?

Gaulke: No. That reminds me of racism, and I don’t like racism.

Waxman: No.

Japanese Imports

Q: Should the United States make it harder for Japan to import goods into this country if Japan does not open more of its markets to American goods?

Gaulke: No. The whole matter of Japan and unfair trading is a fraud, an election ploy by Bush and he knows it. If we are ever going to attempt to get out of this depression, Japan is going to have to help us and this crazy trade war garbage is insane.

Waxman: I am in favor of worldwide free trade. In the long run, free trade benefits all parties. It contributes to economic development and leads to a substructure of cultural and political bonds. Of course, the ruling principle of trade should be reciprocity.

Industrial Emissions

Q: Should the United States move more rapidly to limit industrial emissions that may be depleting the ozone layer and contributing to global warming even though such steps may hurt some businesses and eliminate some jobs?

Gaulke: No. The ozone hole was discovered in 1956 and is not a problem, and global warming is a hoax.

Waxman: Absolutely. As chairman of the House subcommittee on health and the environment, I have reviewed virtually every claim that environmental protection exacts a price in jobs or economic growth. The claims are false. Environmental protection is fully compatible with robust economic growth and full employment.

Oil Exploration

Q: Barring a national emergency, would you ever support opening up more of the California coastline to oil exploration? If so, under what circumstances?

Gaulke: Yes. Why not? Until we move to a nuclear fission- and fusion-based grid in the U. S., I am in favor of oil development. Why do we need a national emergency to open the coastline for oil development?

Waxman: No.

Public Parkland

Q: Do you support increasing the amount appropriated by Congress to buy public parkland in the Santa Monica Mountains, which is $14 million this year?

Gaulke: No.

Waxman: Yes. The Santa Monica Mountains are one of the only major wilderness areas accessible to millions of Californians--and others--who live in congested cities and suburbs. Our wilderness areas are a national legacy that we must preserve for future generations. Once parklands are developed, they can never be returned to their pristine state. The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy should be expanded while property is still available.

Campaign Contributions

Q: Do you support reducing the amount of contributions that can be made by special-interest groups to congressional campaigns? If so, to what level?

Gaulke: It depends on what group is giving to what candidate and whether it is clean or dirty money--illegal money.

Waxman: Yes. Only if requisite funds are available from public sources. Our democracy cannot function without spirited campaigns. Even bare-bones campaigns are costly.

Congressional Perks

Q: If elected, would you decline to accept any of the congressional perks? If yes, please specify which ones.

Gaulke: I don’t even know what the “perks” are. So I really can’t answer the question.

Waxman: No. I believe any benefits that are inappropriate or not related to a congressman’s responsibilities should be eliminated. I do think, however, that some common-sense benefits--parking space, access to public cafeterias or staff--are appropriate.

School Vouchers

Q: Do you support giving government vouchers to low- and middle-income parents to allow them to pay their children’s tuition in private or parochial schools? Gaulke: Yes. Because the public school system is a hellhole and should be cleaned up or we should go to a voucher system.

Waxman: No.

Death Penalty

Q: Do you support capital punishment for any crimes? If so, what?

Gaulke: No. Capital punishment is human sacrifice.

Waxman: No. I fear that capital punishment is given disproportionately to the poor and minorities, and debases our society in its application.

Gun Control

Q: Do you support any form of limit on the sales of guns to individuals? Gaulke: No. I support the Constitution on the right to bear arms.

Waxman: Yes. I favor strict gun controls. There is no constitutional right for private citizens to bear arms.

Affirmative Action

Q: In general, do you think affirmative action in employment of women and members of minority groups has not gone far enough, or has gone too far, or is about right? Gaulke: The problem is the current depression and there not being jobs for anyone. With a growing productive economy as proposed by myself and Democratic presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche, all who want work would have it.

Waxman: This question must be answered separately for each field, for each level of employment, for each minority group.

Abortion Rights

Q: Do you support a woman’s unrestricted right to an abortion within the first three months of pregnancy? Gaulke: No. I believe in the sanctity of human life, from conception to death.

Waxman: Yes.

Abortion Funding

Q: Do you support federal funding of abortions for women who cannot afford them? Gaulke: No.

Waxman: Yes.

Art Restrictions

Q: Should Congress impose any content restrictions on what it considers obscene or indecent materials in reauthorizing the National Endowment for the Arts? Gaulke: Yes. Federal tax dollars should not go to funding pornography.

Waxman: No. Artistic judgments should be made by artists, art historians and others in the field. The NEA should be shielded from the often ignorant and philistine views of the proverbial “man on the street.” Political standards would deal a death blow to avant-garde, experimental and innovative art.

Striking Workers

Q: Do you support a law to forbid businesses to hire permanent replacement for striking workers? Gaulke: Yes.

Waxman: Yes.

Hill or Thomas?

Q: Who do you think was more likely to have told the truth, Anita Hill or Clarence Thomas? Gaulke: I don’t know.

Waxman: Anita Hill.

Quality of Life

Q: What single change would most improve life in Southern California?

Gaulke: Electing Lyndon LaRouche President of the United States.

Waxman: Less reliance on gasoline-powered, polluting automobiles. A comprehensive rapid mass-transit system would simultaneously reduce air pollution, facilitate employment for low-income people and improve the health of millions of people--especially the elderly, the newborn and those with respiratory diseases.

Public Figure

Q: What public figure do you most admire? Gaulke: Lyndon LaRouche.

Waxman: The late Claude Pepper. Rep. Pepper was a man of indomitable courage. He stood up to Sen. Joe McCarthy. He remained loyal to the most noble aspects of the New Deal for his entire life. In his devotion to the special needs of senior citizens, he set examples of compassion that we would all do well to try to emulate.

Literary Influence

Q: What, if any, book have you recently read that influenced your view of public policy? Gaulke: “The Science of Christian Economy and Other Prison Writings” by Lyndon H. LaRouche.

Waxman: Nicholas Lehman’s “The Promised Land.” A brilliant exposition of the complexities of the racial problem in the U. S. and the failure to move toward ameliorating the results of poverty and deprivation.

CONTENDERS Scott M. Gaulke, 35, of Studio City is a property manager. He is a devotee of Lyndon H. LaRouche, the political extremist who is serving a prison term for mail fraud and tax evasion.

Henry A. Waxman, 51, of Los Angeles served in the Assembly from 1969 until his election to Congress in 1974. He is Democratic chairman of the House subcommittee that has jurisdiction over health and environmental issues.

Congress 29th District Overview: Powerful Democratic Rep. Henry A. Waxman has represented this district, which was largely unchanged by reapportionment, since 1974. The district, which includes every Santa Monica Mountains canyon from Laurel to Nichols, has some of the most valuable real estate in tAlthough reapportionment changed the boundaries to include portions of Ventura County as well Los Angeles County. Waxman has drawn one challenger in the primary, Scott M.Gaulke, a Studio City property manager. The district is heavily Democratic. Where: The district includes Beverly Hills, Hollywood, Los Feliz, Santa Monica, Universal City and West Hollywood, and portions of Sherman Oaks, Studio City and Toluca Lake. To find out if you live in the district, call the Los Angeles County registrar-recorder’s office at (213) 721-1100.

Demographics Anglo Latino Black Asian 76% 13% 3% 7%

Party Registration Demo GOP Others 56% 30% 14%

Candidates: Democrat Scott M. Gaulke, property manager Henry A. Waxman, congressman Republican Mark A. Robbins, attorney Libertarian Felix Tsvi Rogin, rabbi, accountant Peace and Freedom Susan C. Davies Maggie Phair, retired social worker