Assembly: 40th District

Questionnaires were distributed to candidates in March. Answers have been edited to fit the available space. The answers of the four Democrats vying for their party’s nomination are listed first in alphabetical order; then those of the three Republicans. Green, Libertarian and Peace and Freedom party candidates are unopposed in the primary.

Business Environment

Q: Do you believe businesses are leaving California due to a hostile business environment? If yes, how would you make California more attractive to business?

Aldrich: No. There is no solid proof this is happening, at least not to my knowledge.

Coen: Yes. Incentives for offering health insurance. A tax break for hiring employees. A tax break for positive investment spurs the growth of the economy.

Friedman: There are several issues that affect the business environment in California. Defense cuts, the recession, the rise in workers’ compensation costs are some examples. I support tough measures that will reform the workers’ compensation system so that employer costs will be decreased and fraudulent stress claims will be eliminated. In addition, I support job creation programs that foster the conversion of military aerospace technologies to civilian uses that are desperately needed in this nation--like environmentally sound rapid transportation vehicles and systems.

Kelman: Yes. By cutting through red tape presently required for all business operations, big and small; by allowing a tax credit to business for investment in hiring human personnel and their specialized training, and by offering assistance, not hostility, to business leaders when they present the problems facing them.

Heidt: Yes. The following are but a few of the needed reforms: Reform workers’ compensation; shorten and combine the permit and licensing process for employees; revise and conform stringent state safety and air quality regulations with federal regulations; reduce corporate sales and personal income taxes; make loans available to all small businesses, not just minority ones, and improve highways and mass transit.

Lorenzen: Yes. Workers’ compensation insurance reform; stimulation of capital investment for research and development of new technologies; streamline permit process to reduce the time needed to modify existing facilities or build new ones that incorporate new technologies; encourage small-business incubators, and implementation of economic impact reports on all new regulations considered at all levels of government.

Perry: Yes. I would demand that a review of business tax policies be made in relation to those of other states. We cannot afford to lose jobs to other states that have become more attractive financially to businesses.

Government Contracts

Q: Do you think state government contracts should be awarded on a “buy American” basis, w ith winning bidders being those who promise to use specific percentages of American workers to produce goods and services?

Aldrich: Yes. This should be done on a voluntary basis but not with the force of law. Tax incentives might be a tool to encourage such action.

Coen: No. America should produce the best products; then “buy American” will take place gradually. Competition is the key for success. We shouldn’t be isolated.

Friedman: Buying American is one tool to stimulate the economy. I fully support state contracts that focus on job creation for workers in California. I also support legislation that gives preference to public works job bidders who employ California workers.

Kelman: Yes. Providing that an American company is a qualified source and all things equal, the American company should receive preference and be required to employ a substantial percentage of American workers. The three cardinal rules for procurement, which should never be forgotten, are quality, delivery and price.

Heidt: Yes. Our top priority in California for the 1990s is to create more jobs for Americans. Although I am against quotas, contracts should go to California and U.S. companies first. This will get workers off welfare, increase tax revenues and eventually lead to the end of the recession. These bidders must, however, be competitive, cost-effective, committed to quality and able to meet deadlines.

Lorenzen: Yes. Preference puts America at work, increases the standard of living, decreases the welfare roles, expands the economy and provides a psychological boost to constantly improve technologies and applications.

Perry: Yes. The state ultimately benefits by returning tax dollars to Californians in compensation for goods and services. We must consider lost revenue to our own citizens that results from purchasing foreign products.

Employee Insurance

Q: Do you support requiring California businesses to provide health insurance to employees or contribute to a fund to provide health care for the uninsured? Aldrich: Yes, but our current system of workers’ compensation needs to be straightened out first.

Coen: Yes. I support the American Medical Assn. initiative, making it mandatory for employers to provide health insurance.

Friedman: We must create a health insurance system that not only provides universal coverage but also contains the escalating costs of health care. Of the 6 million Californians without health insurance, 90% work or are part of a family where at least one member works. I support AB 14, which would require employers to provide health insurance while giving employers relief from spiraling costs. This bill caps the increases in employers’ health premiums and helps small businesses obtain affordable rates by allowing them to join together in large groups.

Kelman: No. Most businesses with 20 or more employees voluntarily provide health insurance or at least a majority of the premium. Very real exceptions exist in the agriculture, restaurant, garment and other industries. Taxing small-business employers further and driving them out of business will not work. California must review, reorganize and develop new programs and spending guidelines for the millions of health dollars already collected and budgeted.

Heidt: No. It is small businesses that create the most new jobs. Requiring them to provide health insurance would force more businesses to leave the state. If the state wants businesses to provide health care, then it should provide tax credits and incentives to employers, employees and non-employees.

Lorenzen: No. Saddling business with more regulation would be counterproductive to providing more jobs. The program has been unsuccessful in providing the intended benefits where it has been tried before. It would lead us down a road that will eventually lead to rationing of health care--something Californians shouldn’t tolerate.

Perry: No. Smaller or new businesses might not be able to survive this additional expense. I would consider it for larger employers or as an option to obtain tax credits and incentives.

Health Care

Q: Do you support state Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi’s proposed $34-billion plan, financed by a state payroll tax, for health care for California workers, people with pre-existing medical conditions and the unemployed? Aldrich: No. Needs further study.

Coen: Yes.

Friedman: Garamendi’s proposal is imaginative and merits further examination. It provides for universal coverage and meaningful cost containment that I strongly support. Of particular interest is the proposal to eliminate enormous administrative duplication by integrating health coverage under employer plans, auto insurance and workers’ compensation into a single product.

Kelman: No. I am opposed to this plan in that it calls for taxation, which is, in my opinion, inappropriate at this time. I do support reform that would include the opportunity for those in need of medical coverage to join together in groups and apply their group access power to medical organizations.

Heidt: No. Raising taxes would create more unemployment, cause more businesses to leave the state and put the state more in debt.

Lorenzen: No. Garamendi’s plan lacks specifics as to who is to get what or how much care. Because the costs appear to be underestimated, the taxpayers will pay an ever-increasing amount for less care.

Perry: No. Increasing payroll tax is going to be an additional burden in the already weak business climate. This ultimately may put more people out of work.

National Health System

Q: Do you support a national health-care system in which the federal government would establish fees, pay all the bills and collect taxes to cover the cost? Aldrich: No. We need to conduct a scientific, prospective study of the Canadian system for at least 10 years before making a decision.

Coen: No. The national government cannot control something the state can run better. Does Washington know what’s best for California? No. California does.

Friedman: Our health care system is in a crisis. Costs are escalating, as are the numbers of uninsured. We desperately need reform--this reform must provide universal access while controlling costs. Two basic solutions exist. A government-financed system or an employer mandate (the “pay or play” system). I prefer the employer mandate with strong cost controls because it builds upon the employment-based system.

Kelman: No. The federal bureaucracy would grow, taxes would be increased, but medical care would not be improved. We in California are closer to the problems of California and better able to direct the implementation of a health care system. The federal government should be called upon to share the burden of financing.

Heidt: No. The federal government cannot possibly administer a program of this magnitude effectively and efficiently without wasting more of our tax dollars and going further in debt. Health insurance must be left to the private sector.

Lorenzen: No. Anyone who has dealt with or attempted to correct a problem with the Social Security system, Medicare or any other federal benefits program knows the problems with such bureaucracies. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled that when the federal government pays the bill, it can also interfere with the doctor-patient relationship through funding restrictions or other regulations.

Perry: No. The national bureaucracy created to produce such a program would not be the wisest use of health care dollars.

Air Quality

Q: Should state and federal air quality rules be eased to reduce the financial burdens on California industry?

Aldrich: Yes. Only if standard of living decreases.

Coen: No.

Friedman: No.

Kelman: No. These costs are already built into product costs and the quality of life in our area should not be diminished.

Heidt: Yes. To halt the exodus of businesses from California, these rules must be eased to standards that are reasonably attainable. There is no longer a furniture industry in this state because of these rules.

Lorenzen: The South Coast Air Quality District has become an unelected level of government without checks and balances. As a result, regulations have been written addressing the environmental views of a vocal few without regard to economic effect. A refinement of the laws is needed.

Perry: No.

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? Aldrich: Yes. Only if the price of oil increases to the point where our standard of living decreases greatly.

Coen: No. The area is too special.

Friedman: No.

Kelman: No. What is necessary is exploration in alternate sources of energy.

Heidt: No.

Lorenzen: Drilling leases are a federal issue. Restricting exploration should not preclude identifying and cataloguing the resources available.

Perry: No. Our emphasis would be on encouraging alternative energy sources, conservation and efficiency. Failure to do so may create the national emergency that would result in the need to increase offshore oil drilling.

Education Support

Q: Do you support giving state money to parents to allow them to enroll their children in schools of their choice, public or private? Aldrich: No.

Coen: No.

Friedman: No.

Kelman: No. This would mean destruction of the public education system in California and would harm those with the greatest need for education and the concomitant economic mobility created for those with appropriate educational opportunity.

Heidt: Yes. Public schools do the best job they can do. Until the public school system can clean up its act and provide a safe, stress-free and cost-effective environment in which students can study and compete, parents should be allowed to choose the best school for their children. The cost should be defrayed with vouchers or tax credits.

Lorenzen: Yes. Where implemented, school choice has brought an improved standard of education along with the competitive systems. Parents and children are best served through the widest variety of educational experiences that they feel are appropriate.

Perry: Yes. I support tax credits as opposed to vouchers. I do not dismiss the educational choice initiative out of hand.

College Tuition

Q: Should tuition at state universities and colleges be increased to help offset state budget deficits? Aldrich: No. Such action would just discourage lower-income individuals from attending our universities and colleges.

Coen: No. Economically speaking, students don’t have the funds at current levels. How about passing the two bond initiatives on the state ballot, spending almost $2 billion on public education?

Friedman: I am opposed to the 40% increase proposed by the California State University system that will seriously reduce access to higher education for many Californians. Although some increases may be required, they should be less drastic.

Kelman: No. There is only so much a student can handle financially before he or she is forced to drop out. Tuition has been increased in the last two years as much as 92%. The Legislature, as an example, should stop taking a dollar out of the education budget for each dollar collected by education from the lottery.

Heidt: Not if at all possible. Before increasing tuition, which would limit the number of students receiving a higher education, the state must first stop mismanaging the universities and colleges. Far too much money is being spent on administrators’ salaries and expenses. Universities must first learn to balance their budgets and streamline their operations.

Lorenzen: Some increases may be necessary. However, we cannot limit the expanse of curriculum or available knowledge, sacrifice class availability or deny admissions because we are unwilling to adequately fund our UC and CSU systems.

Perry: No. Fee increases should not exceed the actual cost increase of running the state university and college systems. Student fee increases should not be used to offset deficits from other parts of the state budget.

L. A. School District

Q: Do you support the breakup of the Los Angeles Unified School District into smaller districts? Aldrich: No. Such action would just multiply the numbers of administrators. Leave the system the way it is.

Coen: No. The school administration is much too big. But several districts would compound confusion. Each area of the district should receive proportional funds.

Friedman: No. Classes are too big and students do not have enough books. Improving the delivery of educational services and providing adequate funding for textbooks, classroom size reduction and ongoing programs is essential to ensuring quality education in Los Angeles. The most effective way to reform schools in the district would be to address these issues rather than break up the district--which could ultimately increase administrative costs.

Kelman: Yes. In general, the school boards would be more responsive to the needs of their limited-size districts and could spend more time handling their own specific problems, not just the across-the-board problems of all of Los Angeles. Smaller size should mean more attention to the needs of each school, school staff and, most important, the students.

Heidt: Yes. Decentralization of the district will reduce mismanagement and bring the control of our schools back to local taxpayers, parents and teachers. By reducing the bureaucracy, more money will be spent in the classroom.

Lorenzen: Yes. The district is too top-heavy and far too bureaucratic. Only 40% of educational dollars currently make it to the classroom. The closer the highest levels of administration are to the parents and the classroom, the more attention will be paid there.

Perry: Yes. It would be in the best interest of the San Fernando Valley. Reduction of the oversized administration is needed to cut costs and return control of local schools to the families and neighborhoods that would support them.

School Bonds

Q: Do you support reducing the votes needed to pass a school construction bond issue from two-thirds to a simple majority? Aldrich: No.

Coen: Yes. Our government and society are based on a simple majority. In most cases, this would emphasize support and votes.

Friedman: Yes.

Kelman: Yes.

Heidt: No. Any bond issue ultimately increases taxes and shifts the burden of paying them to our children. If new classrooms are needed, utilize existing schools and military bases that have been or are being shut down.

Lorenzen: No.

Perry: No. Despite my sympathy for public school fund needs, I oppose any effort to weaken Proposition 13 and the spirit behind it.

Death Penalty

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

Aldrich: Yes. In cases where there is a history of prior convictions for violent felonies resulting in the death of victims.

Coen: Yes. I am strongly in favor of capital punishment. Victims are not being treated fairly.

Friedman: The death penalty is appropriate in limited circumstances.

Kelman: Yes. Murder, which is premeditated or created as the result of the commission of a felony. I must admit, however, that I am torn by the specter of a single innocent person being executed. I would personally support, without any reservation, life in prison without any possibility of parole, as long as “without possibility of parole” left absolutely no loopholes.

Heidt: Yes. First-degree murder.

Lorenzen: Yes. Capital crimes, first-degree murder, death as a result of terrorism, rape arson or torture.

Perry: Yes. Premeditated or heinous murders, killing a police officer or judge, or those who pay to have such crimes committed.

Gun Control

Q: Do you support any form of limit on the sales of guns to individuals? Aldrich: Yes. Any weapon not generally used for hunting or personal protection.

Coen: Yes. Three-week waiting period, age 21 and over. Ban on automatic guns. I support the Second Amendment and the right to own a gun.

Friedman: Yes. I support the ban on assault weapons and restrictions on automatic weapons and handguns.

Kelman: Yes. Registration and an appropriate waiting period for the delivery of any gun is proper. An FBI, CIA or other police agency investigation should be made. No semiautomatic or automatic weapons should be sold to individuals.

Heidt: No. Emphasis should be on crime control, not gun control. I support spending our time intercepting the shipments of black-market weapons to known felons and drug dealers. Law-abiding citizens should be allowed to protect themselves.

Lorenzen: Individual gun ownership by law-abiding citizens is a constitutional right. We already remove that right from ex-felons, the mentally disadvantaged and those who have been irresponsible.

Perry: Yes. I support the rights of law-abiding adult citizens to own guns to protect their person, family or property. I oppose the sale of any guns to convicted felons or minors and military assault weapons to citizens. I support a reasonable waiting period to review the criminal record of a gun buyer.

Police Intervention

Q: Do you support making it a crime for a police officer to fail to intervene if he or she witnesses another officer using excessive force against someone? Aldrich: No. It is my understanding that the current penalties are sufficient, especially the civil ones now in place.

Coen: Yes. Just because one is part of a fraternity doesn’t mean that eliminates that person from the law. Police officers should live by our rules as well.

Friedman: Yes. I support SB 1261 by state Sen. Ed Davis (R-Santa Clarita), a former police chief, which would make it a crime for a police officer to fail to report the excessive or felonious use of force by another officer.

Kelman: Yes. Today every officer is sworn to enforce the law. If an officer believes excessive force is being used, at least a battery, if not a felony, or worse, is being committed in his presence. Failure to act under such circumstances makes the observing officer an accomplice, aiding and abetting such a criminal act.

Heidt: No. We should support our police instead of harassing them. Although I believe that the use of excessive force is wrong in some situations, these are matters best left to police departments to regulate.

Lorenzen: In the field a lot depends on perception and snap judgments. The line between justified and excessive is often subjective. As a result, law enforcement could be chilled by the effects of this type of legislation. Existing law already addresses this issue. The veil of authority does not permit unjustified force.

Perry: Yes. If excessive force is being used, it is the duty of the officer to protect the rights and safety of all citizens--even suspected criminals being apprehended or detained.

Campaign Funding

Q: Should political campaigns be taxpayer-funded to reduce the importance of special-interest money? Aldrich: No, because ultimately some “special interest” would decide who got the money.

Coen: Yes, if a limit is established on the amount of money spent.

Friedman: I support campaign finance reform that includes partial public financing and contribution and expenditure limitations. Reasonable limits must be placed on taxpayer funding and, of course, these reforms must not give an unfair advantage to incumbents. These reforms would make elections more competitive.

Kelman: Absolutely! Incumbents raise hundreds of thousands of dollars from those who would seek favor. A candidate, no matter how well qualified (unless independently wealthy), cannot get his or her message to the people and the “same old gang” continue to get reelected because the people never really get to see what each candidate stands for.

Heidt: No. Although there is a need for campaign reform, raising taxes is not the answer. If a candidate doesn’t want special-interest money, all he or she has to do is refuse it.

Lorenzen: No. There is no reason for education, senior programs, health care and poverty programs to compete with candidates for limited financial resources. One’s ability to wage a credible campaign should be based on support from the community at large, not on the amount of taxpayers’ money they can appropriate for themselves.

Perry: No. The last place that we need to spend taxpayers’ money is on publicly financed campaigns for politicians.

Personal Finances

Q: Are you willing to make public your state and federal income tax returns for the last five years at least two weeks before the June 2 primary election? Aldrich: Yes, if I can find them.

Coen: Yes.

Friedman: I already publicly disclose a summary of my finances in the Statement of Economic Interests that I file.

Kelman: Although I believe that my finances, up to the day I am elected, are my own business and should remain private, I also believe that upon election, all returns and statements, thereafter, should be made public. If, however, all other candidates in the 40th Assembly District agree to make public their returns, I would do likewise.

Heidt: Yes.

Lorenzen: No.

Perry: Yes. And I challenge my opponents to do the same.

Affirmative Action

Q: In general, do you think affirmative action in employment of women and members of minority groups has not gone far enough, has gone too far or is about right? Aldrich: About right.

Coen: Affirmative action should continue at a similar pace. But don’t interfere with freedom to choose, for the best candidate should always be picked.

Friedman: In some cases it has worked effectively; in other cases it hasn’t. I support affirmative action programs that recruit and train women and minority job applicants. I oppose quotas.

Kelman: Affirmative action in employment is not an appropriate concept and can create reverse discrimination. Only the best-qualified applicant, regardless of gender or color, should receive the job.

Heidt: Too far. Individuals should be hired on the basis of ability. With increasing numbers of traditional minorities in the work force, it is unclear who is the minority and who is the majority.

Lorenzen:.The rights of individuals to competitively seek employment is already established in current law. If there are abuses, the present system has mechanisms to solve them. Because affirmative action has been successful in addressing past discrimination, some groups are wrongfully attempting to be redefined as minority to promote their own agendas.

Perry: I absolutely oppose affirmative action that results in quotas. I do support affirmative action programs that focus on hiring from within minority communities based on merit and ability.

Abortion Rights

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

Coen: Yes.

Friedman: Yes.

Kelman: Yes.

Heidt: No.

Lorenzen: No.

Perry: Yes.

Abortion Funding

Q: Do you support state funding of abortions for women who cannot afford them? Aldrich: Yes, but within reason.

Coen: Yes.

Friedman: Yes.

Kelman: Yes.

Heidt: No.

Lorenzen: No.

Perry: No.

Parental Consent

Q: Do you support requiring minors to notify their parents or a judge before having an abortion? Aldrich: No.

Coen: No.

Friedman: No.

Kelman: Yes. No young woman should be without the opportunity to discuss her decision-making process with a responsible party who cares about her as a person.

Heidt: Yes. I support traditional family values.

Lorenzen: Yes.

Perry: Yes. No action taken concerning a minor should interfere with the responsibility or authority of a parent or guardian. Only in cases in which the parent or guardian is suspected of misconduct should be state or a judge take precedence.

Illegal Immigration

Q: Do you support the adoption of new measures such as increased border patrols and physical barriers to try to stem the flow of illegal immigration from the south? Aldrich: No.

Coen: Yes.

Friedman: Yes.

Kelman: No.

Heidt: Yes.

Lorenzen: Yes.

Perry: Yes.

Terminal Illness

Q: Do you support the so-called “right to die” initiative on the November ballot that would allow doctors to end the lives of people who are terminally ill in a “painless, humane and dignified” manner? Aldrich: Yes.

Coen: No.

Friedman: Not answered.

Kelman: Yes. If death is absolutely imminent, no human being should be reduced to vegetation or caused to suffer excruciating pain. Only the person whose life is in question should be able to make such a decision, not a doctor or the person’s family. Advance directives would be appropriate.

Heidt: No. During the last decade, the sanctity of life has diminished. With drive-by shootings, abortion and now this, we are becoming a society that puts convenience ahead of life itself.

Lorenzen: No.

Perry: Yes. Government should not interfere with someone’s personal, rational decision to end the pain and suffering caused by a terminal illness.

Welfare Benefits

Q: Do you support Gov. Pete Wilson’s proposal to reduce welfare benefits for a family of three by 10% immediately, to $597 a month, and by another 15% for families with able-bodied adults who are not working? Aldrich: Yes.

Coen: No. This is a limited proposal at best, and it hurts the needy. We need to get away from that.

Friedman: I support the part of Wilson’s welfare reform that would reduce the welfare grant for new residents in the state. To end the cycle of welfare dependency, we must increase job training, improve work incentives and offer more day-care issues. Welfare reform should address these core issues. The job training programs currently in existence are so severely underfunded that they must turn away 60% of welfare recipients who apply and want to learn a job skill. Wilson’s proposal to slash the grant by up to 25% punishes children while failing to provide any job training or meaningful work incentives for their parents.

Kelman: No. The governor’s plan is not acceptable in that it immediately causes suffering among those who have the least. I support the absolute requirement for any able-bodied person to work or not receive assistance, but we must provide adequate child care and incentives to cause someone to want to work. If an individual loses all assistance funding and earns less, there is little incentive to produce.

Heidt: Yes. Welfare reform is long overdue. I don’t believe Wilson is going far enough. We need to build in more incentives to get people off welfare and into jobs promoting dignity and independence from welfare. Families on welfare must get the message that having children is their responsibility and they must not be rewarded for having more children than they can support.

Lorenzen: We need welfare reform. We can no longer attract new residents seeking increases in welfare payments, or encourage the breakup of the family as a prerequisite to receiving benefits. Able-bodied adults should be expected to contribute some effort to the society in exchange for transitional sustenance.

Perry: Yes. I support some parts of the initiative: limiting the amount of aid new California residents receive in the first year to the amount they would have received in their previous state, reviewing automatic increases. We must reach a delicate balance between helping individuals in need and discouraging reliance on welfare as a permanent income.

Child Care

Q: Should businesses be required to subsidize child care for employees? Aldrich: Only if the business can afford such a program.

Coen: No.

Friedman: State government should be a major force in the development of quality child-care facilities by continuing to provide tax incentives to companies that wish to establish child-care centers for employees and exploring new options, such as creative financial assistance in the form of grants or revolving loans for start-up funds for new centers.

Kelman: Yes. Appropriate child-care facilities make it possible for employees, both male and female, to be present at work. The cost of such benefit would, in almost every case, . . . be made up in reduced absenteeism and increased productivity.

Heidt: No.

Lorenzen: No. Child care is primarily a responsibility of the family. However, this should be addressed in employer-employee negotiations.

Perry: No.

Proposition 13

Q: Do you support any change in the laws enacted by voters in 1978 as Proposition 13? Aldrich: No.

Coen: No. Proposition 13 should remain for old home buyers and be extended to new home buyers.

Friedman: Homeowner protections must be upheld. However, due to a loophole in the law, some large commercial property owners do not pay their fair share of property taxes--they do not have their property reassessed even when a change of ownership takes place. I support a split-role tax where commercial properties would be taxed at a more equitable rate.

Kelman: No. What I support is an additional law that would call for tax base analysis of property purchased after Proposition 13 versus property purchased before Proposition 13. Some comparable properties in the same locale are presently being assessed at 10 times the Proposition 13 property. The law would place a cap on newer acquired property and allow only the same annual increases by percentage as on Proposition 13 property.

Heidt: No.

Lorenzen: No. Additionally, we should exempt savings interest from taxation, treat the sale of a home or business as a capital gain and return to the citizens of California the ability to deduct consumer interest on their tax returns.

Perry: No.

B-2 Bomber

Q: President Bush has urged that production of the B-2 bomber--which is assembled at a Palmdale plant--be cut from 75 to 25 planes. Do you support this reduction? Aldrich: Yes. Twenty-five bombers will meet our strategic needs.

Coen: No. I would cut it to 50 to both save money and jobs.

Friedman: With the end of the Cold War, we can expect a reduction in defense spending. As demilitarization occurs, however, there is great opportunity to transition into new domestic industries desperately needed by this nation. We must accept the challenge of retraining our work force. The Palmdale cuts should be made in accordance with a sensible job conversion plan.

Kelman: Yes. Although it is hard for me to approve of actions that will cause further unemployment, I do no believe the B-2 bomber is an essential part of our defensive capability. I would favor using part of the dollars saved to train the displaced work force in job skills that are sought by other businesses and industries.

Heidt: Although the loss of jobs will have a negative effect on our economy, the decision to still produce 25 planes is a reasonable compromise. It is a mistake, however, to completely abandon our defense programs.

Lorenzen: No. Although the threat of the Soviet Union no longer exists, this does not mean that global greed has been removed. The Persian Gulf experience proves that our security is constantly at risk and that we must always be prepared to address that risk.

Perry: Yes. The savings should be used to improve our local economy by providing job training, education and creation of high-tech enterprise zones, as well as cut taxes and reduce the deficit.

Thomas or Hill?

Q: Who do you think more likely told the truth, Anita Hill or Clarence Thomas? Aldrich: Both of them told the truth to a certain extent. Thomas a little more.

Coen: Unknown. But I was unhappy with the questioning by government and unhappy with the President’s choice.

Friedman: I believe Anita Hill. But the issue goes far beyond whether or not I thought she was telling the truth. I am outraged at the process that was used by the Senate Judiciary Committee to try to elucidate truth. The very issue of sexual harassment in the workplace was obscured by the manner in which the proceedings were conducted. And I am dismayed that a person who is clearly unqualified was confirmed to the Supreme Court.

Kelman: I have absolutely no way to know what the truth actually is. I do know, however, that the process was a complete disaster and neither party will ever again be considered truthful by a large portion of our population. The issue should have been addressed when it first surfaced.

Heidt: No comment.

Lorenzen: Clarence Thomas. Had the charges been true, Hill should have made them when they occurred or at prior confirmation hearings.

Perry: Only the two of them will ever know. More importantly, I support all reasonable steps to eliminate sexual harassment from the workplace.

California Life

Q: What single change would most improve life in Southern California? Aldrich: We should work to improve our government by making it more representative of the people’s needs and desires.

Coen: Crime control, through comprehensive education, equals jobs.

Friedman: To say a single change would improve life in Southern California is too simplistic. Our state needs extensive changes to halt the declining quality of life and to provide for the growing needs of our residents. I support job creation programs, implementation of growth controls to halt overall environmental decline, health insurance reform that provides universal access and cost containment, meaningful changes in the workers’ compensation system that decrease costs to employers while improving the benefits for legitimately injured workers, and far-reaching reforms of our educational system.

Kelman: The reduction of crime and gang-related violence. People are entitled to pursue their lives without the constant threat of violence to themselves and their families.

Heidt: Cleaning house in Sacramento. The “business as usual” attitude in Sacramento must end. While our public schools erode and crime increases, incumbents vote themselves pay raises. While voters approve term limitations, incumbents scramble to find other offices to hang onto.

Lorenzen: Jobs! We need to create a business environment that improves the quality of life, expands the economy and re-establishes a positive attitude in California.

Perry: Improve the quality of education received by all students. This would provide direct benefits today, tomorrow and far into the future.

Public Figure

Q: What public figure do you most admire? Aldrich: Sam Nunn.

Coen: Past: Abraham Lincoln, Founding Fathers. Present: Mikhail Gorbachev.

Friedman: Not answered.

Kelman: John F. Kennedy.

Heidt: William Penn Adair Rogers.

Lorenzen: Ronald Reagan.

Perry: Magic Johnson. His courage to tell the truth in the face of adversity will be instrumental in finding a cure for AIDS.

Literary Influence

Q: What, if any, book have you recently read that influenced your view of public policy? Aldrich: “The Federalist Papers” by John Adams.

Coen: “The Federalist Papers” by John Adams.

Friedman: Not answered.

Kelman: I cannot recall any specific recent book having a marked influence on my view of public policy.

Heidt: “The Tempting of America” by Robert H. Bork.

Lorenzen: “Why Americans Hate Politics” by E. J. Dionne.

Perry: Rereading the Bill of Rights during its recent 200th anniversary reminded me that our nation is based on the profound principle of individual liberties and limited government interference in our lives.

CONTENDERS Jim Aldrich, 46, of Reseda is the owner and founder of an Encino-based computer medical consulting firm. He ran for the Democratic nomination in the 40th Assembly District in 1976 and 1978. Aldrich holds a master’s degree in science from Cal State Northridge.

Dan Coen, 25, of North Hollywood is a community relations director who recently lost his job when his employer went out of business. A Democrat, he is making his first try for public office and says he is now a “full-time candidate.”

Barbara Friedman, 42, of Van Nuys was elected last year to a 15-month term in the 46th Assembly District, which was wiped out in reapportionment. A Democrat, she filed to run in the 40th Assembly District after Assemblyman Tom Bane announced his retirement.

Joel B. Kelman, 51, of North Hollywood is an attorney who specializes in personal injury cases. A Democrat, he is a former Los Angeles County deputy district attorney and a judge pro tem with the Los Angeles County Bar Assn. volunteer program. Horace H. Heidt, 45, of Sherman Oaks is president of Horace Heidt Productions and the family-owned Horace Heidt Agency. A Republican, he is a former honorary mayor of Toluca Lake. Son of bandleader Horace M. Heidt, Heidt leads the Los Angeles Raiders Band.

Jon Robert Lorenzen, 36, of Reseda is a second-generation mortician. He attended USC and worked for the California Apartment Assn. until 1983 when he returned to the family business. A Republican, Lorenzen has never sought public office.

Brian Perry, 30, of Canoga Park is the business administrator of a medical supply house. A political newcomer, he is making his first bid for public office. He is a former member of the Los Angeles County Republican Central Committee.

Assembly: 40th District

Overview: After Democratic Assemblyman Tom Bane, a fixture in San Fernando Valley politics for more than 30 years, announced that he would not seek reelection, the race to represent his heavily Democratic district attracted four Democrats, three Republicans and three minor party candidates. The best known is Assemblywoman Barbara Friedman, a Democrat, who had been searching for a new political home after losing her Griffith Park-Los Feliz district to reapportionment. Where: The district includes portions of the communities of Encino, North Hollywood, Panorama City, Reseda, Sherman Oaks, Tarzana, Van Nuys and Winnetka. 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 58% 30% 4% 8%

Party Registration Demo GOP Others 54% 35% 11%

Candidates: Democrat Jim Aldrich, research analyst Dan Coen, community relations director Barbara Friedman, assemblywoman Joel Bernard Kelman, attorney Republican Horace H. Heidt, businessman Jon Robert Lorenzen, businessman Brian Perry, businessman Libertarian John Vernon, businessman Peace and Freedom Jean K. Glasser, teacher Green Party Glenn Bailey, community issues specialist