Questionnaires were distributed to candidates in March. Answers have been edited to fit the available space.
Q. Do you favor President Bush's proposal for a capital gains tax cut as an economic stimulant?
Colaco: Yes. I support any and all tax cuts that would stimulate the economy or possibly stimulate the economy. If people are out of jobs, it does not help the government with revenues.
Hariton: Yes. Reduction of the capital gains tax provides an incentive for investment in industry and a reward for the taking of economic risk.
Korman: Yes. Because a capital gains tax cut will stimulate the economy and will create jobs.
Lindblad: Bush's proposal is yet another failed "trickle down" theory "son-of-voodoo." It would soak the low- and mid-income people.
McClintock: Yes. Excessive taxation has badly damaged the economy. A capital gains tax cut would spur investment and job creation.
Meyer: Yes. But I believe the holding period should be long enough to encourage our corporate CEOs to start looking to long-term growth, not just next quarter's profits.
Salomon: No, although there is a fairness issue in adjusting the basis of the investment for inflation. This constant tinkering with the tax code is too confusing and complex, and the average taxpayer simply cannot keep up with it.
Spillane: Yes. So long as it is scaled to reduce taxes more for investments that are held longer, it will encourage risk taking and the longer-term view. Risk capital goes where the risk-reward ratio is best.
Wachtel: Yes. I support a capital gains tax as a means to stimulate the economy. However, it could be so structured so that it would provide the greatest benefits to middle-income Americans.
Weiss: Yes. I would allow a capital gains tax on the sale of stocks, bonds, works of art, etc. if the gain is not used to help job growth in the economy (though I might lower the rate).
Q. Do you support a constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget?
Beilenson: I haven't supported it in the past, but if the President and Congress can't otherwise find the political will to cut the spending and raise the taxes necessary to bring our enormous deficit problem under control, then we may well have to resort to such an amendment.
Colaco: Yes. I strongly support a balanced budget amendment. I oppose a call for a constitutional convention as has been proposed.
Hariton: No. We do not need to resort to constitutional measures if we would just have the integrity to live within our means.
Korman: Yes. Government should not spend more than it makes, period.
Lindblad: No. That's the job Congress, the legislative and executive branches are given by the people--but they shirk that responsibility.
McClintock: Yes. I have authored resolutions in the Legislature demanding that Congress pass a balanced budget amendment.
Meyer: No. What we need are responsible representatives, not a constitutional amendment.
Spillane: Yes. The permanent and Imperial Congress cannot help themselves. Their special-interest constituencies and reelection imperative keep them from doing their duty, which is to do the people's business. However, even the amendment is subject to circumvention if you allow foxes to guard the chicken coop.
Wachtel: Yes. It should also include the line-item veto for the President. The constitutional requirement to balance the budget should be subject to being suspended in time of war, national emergency, or declared economic recession upon recorded vote of two-thirds of Congress.
Weiss: Yes. However, I would oppose a constitutional convention where new proposals could be introduced.
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?
Beilenson: Yes. It is difficult to achieve very large reductions in just one year; over the next five years, however, defense spending can and should be reduced by at least $100 billion.
Colaco: No. Paying for defense is like paying for insurance. Not too many people enjoy paying for insurance; they sure are glad they have it when they need it.
Hariton: Yes. However, while I favor reductions, we must maintain a strong national defense. This is especially true until the republics of the former Soviet Union stabilize.
Korman: No. I prefer gradual reductions because the only way to keep peace will depend on maintaining strong defenses. History has taught us this lesson.
Lindblad: Yes. Three-quarters of the defense budget can be achieved instantly with smaller reductions in the oncoming years.
McClintock: I favor manpower reductions in Europe as the situation stabilizes, while maintaining full funding for weapons-system development. Our defense expenditures are dependent on world conditions, and five-year projections would be foolish to try to make.
Meyer: Yes. I support President Bush's call for a $50-billion reduction over a matter of years. To cut further will seriously weaken our defensive capability and would cost thousands of local defense industry jobs.
Salomon: Yes. By bringing back forward-deployed troops. Also, by halting many programs after research and development, but before production.
Spillane: Yes, but . . . it's too bad we have to spend a dime on it, but we had better not run the risk of war. It's time to rethink our strategy and re-size the force to what is needed--and no more. Then pay that bill. What we don't need to do is pay to defend the world from overseas bases.
Wachtel: Yes. At least $20 billion to $30 billion per year, with at least $100 billion to $120 billion cut within five years, provided that this is coupled with a corresponding massive program to redirect, retool and retrain defense contractors and their employees for civilian production, and provided also there is no re-emergence of a Soviet-type threat.
Weiss: No. First, there are a lot of nuclear and conventional weapons in a lot of decentralized, possibly loose-cannon, hands. Secondly, I would not jump so quickly to conclusions of peace in our time. However, some cuts could be made with obsolete weaponry.
Q. What should any defense savings be used for: lower taxes, reduced deficit, spending on domestic programs?
Beilenson: Defense savings should be used for two things: 1) deficit reduction and 2) investment in areas that will improve our long-term economic growth, such as education, job training, research and development, new technologies, and rebuilding our infrastructure of roads and bridges.
Colaco: Reducing the deficit and lowering taxes.
Hariton: Reduce the federal deficit and finance tax subsidies to reimburse training and retraining costs incurred by business retooling for defense work or expanding into new non-defense industries.
Korman: Lower taxes and reduce spending.
Lindblad: In priorities from highest to lowest: health care, debt, housing, education.
McClintock: Reduce the crushing burden on taxpayers and reduce the national debt.
Meyer: Savings should be used first for deficit reduction, then for lower taxes.
Salomon: Reduce the deficit.
Spillane: Lower the deficit. Interest rates will come down; investment and economic activity will increase, and the jobs created will be the best domestic program we could possibly have.
Wachtel: All three. First, there should be a reduction in taxes for middle-income taxpayers, coupled with spending designed to rebuild America's economy, to include a massive program to redirect, retool and retrain defense contractors and their employees for civilian production and employment. Deficit reduction should wait until there is a solid economic recovery.
Weiss: The first two and domestic programs that stimulate job growth, including retraining of people who lost defense-related jobs.
Q. Should the government reduce Medicare benefits for the wealthy to help alleviate the federal budget deficit?
Beilenson: No. But the government should ask wealthy beneficiaries to pay a modest amount more in premiums for their benefits.
Salomon: Yes, for the genuinely wealthy.
Spillane: Yes, but who is wealthy? Even the "wealthy" should have catastrophic coverage.
Wachtel: No. This could have a devastating impact on older couples who the government may categorize as "wealthy," but who in reality could be financially devastated by large-scale medical needs.
Weiss: No. Benefits should not be reduced on a unilateral basis particularly for those people who were self-employed paying exorbitant Social Security taxes.
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. Beilenson: No on all three.
Colaco: B-2 Bomber, not a significant increase. Star Wars and Space Station, yes.
Hariton: No on all three. Continue Star Wars at current levels. A space station project has many avenues for funding, including the private sector and international cooperation.
Korman: Yes on all three.
Lindblad: No on all three.
McClintock: I support continued research and development for all these programs.
Meyer: Yes on all three.
Salomon: Support funding at current levels for all three, provided these systems perform to specifications.
Spillane: Stealth Bomber, no. But the brilliant minds who made it possible should be kept together and working. Star Wars, yes. The Saddam Husseins and Kadafis are still there. Space Station, yes. But every dime needs to be justified.
Wachtel: Stealth Bomber, no. Star Wars, yes. Space Station, yes. I support the current level of funding for the Space Station, to be increased at a later time when the budget situation is sounder.
Weiss: Yes on all three. I would include the Stealth Bomber if it is shown that it does all it is supposed to do. I would also disagree with your use of the words "significantly increased" funding, as opposed to continued funding.
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?
Beilenson: No. It would pour more money into a health-care system that already costs too much, without doing anything to control skyrocketing health-care costs.
Colaco: No. Either one of those would result in a massive termination of employees by small businesses.
Hariton: No. I do not support "pay or play" as it is currently proposed. Rather, I favor a system in which businesses would provide health insurance to employees. Small business would receive tax benefits for doing so. In addition, small and large businesses would be encouraged to group together to form insurance buying blocks in order to reduce the cost of providing health insurance.
Korman: No. Medical coverage in the private sector is something that should be negotiated between employers and employees.
Lindblad: Yes. A portion of each profitable business' tax liability can be earmarked for health care.
McClintock: No. Such requirements would crush many small businesses. I support providing tax credits to encourage and enable businesses to offer such insurance.
Meyer: No. The truth is not being told to American consumers about the cost of mandatory health care. I support President Bush's efforts to contain costs and to make low-cost health coverage available to small business through private, risk-pooling plans.
Salomon: No. I have a comprehensive program, too detailed for inclusion here, to make health care more efficient and to provide health insurance to the poor, make health insurance affordable for the middle class and, in general, make the health insurance industry more competitive.
Spillane: We need to wean ourselves from employer-based insurance. Employees should be paid what employers now spend on their insurance. Employees should get tax deductions for what they spend on their choice of competitive insurance carriers. Jobless should get a refundable credit to buy insurance.
Wachtel: No. I do not support this because a better approach would be a program to provide large-scale tax incentives to businesses that provide adequate health-care insurance for employees and their families.
Weiss: No. This is a question that should be decided by input from several factions. Also, putting more regulations and restrictions on business will not help the economy or the average worker.
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?
Beilenson: Yes. It is the only way to control rising health-care costs, ensure coverage for everyone, and still allow patients to choose their own doctors and other health-care providers.
Colaco: No. I support reforming the system we have.
Korman: No. Socialized medicine throughout the world has proved to be second-rate.
Lindblad: Yes. This is socialized medicine and I support it.
McClintock: No. Such a system has been an unmitigated disaster in Canada, resulting in unacceptable delays in obtaining needed surgeries.
Meyer: No. The answer to the health-care crisis lies in the private sector. Cost control, risk pooling and even "safety net" low-cost coverage (like uninsured motorist coverage) can all be accomplished outside of government.
Salomon: No. See answer to previous question.
Spillane: No. Big government bureaucracy is wasteful, inefficient and ineffective.
Wachtel: No. This would prove to be a costly budget-buster. It would create a new layer of federal bureaucracy and become the basis for a disastrous foray into socialized medicine. It would either be ineffective or incredibly costly, and probably both.
Weiss: No. First, I don't think added government bureaucracy is the answer. Secondly, I want a system that government, business, insurance, health-care providers and consumer groups can all agree upon, as opposed to one dictated by legislation.
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?
Beilenson: Yes, but only as a last resort. Currently, strong pressure from the U.N. is working, and we should continue to pursue that course vigorously.
Colaco: Yes. I am very saddened that we could not have taken care of it when we were there last year.
Hariton: Yes. If Saddam Hussein continues destabilizing the Middle East region, and negotiations and economic sanctions fail, then United Nations military action may be necessary.
Korman: Yes. Iraq signed the agreement with the U.N. and should abide by it.
Lindblad: No. U.S. foreign policy should not be the foot soldier for international oil interests that coddle the leisure days of consumption and waste in transportation.
McClintock: Yes. A nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein would be a mortal danger to our nation.
Meyer: Yes, but only if other actions fail. We should take military action only as a last resort.
Salomon: Yes. Do everything in our power to keep Hussein from obtaining nuclear weapons.
Spillane: Yes. That was the deal. If we don't make him stick to it, our word will be perceived as worthless and invite adventurism.
Wachtel: Yes. We should have taken care of this last year when our forces were in a position of strength over there. Hussein's nuclear weapons capability must be eliminated, either with the support of the U.N. or without it. It is extremely important that we do everything possible to keep nuclear weapons and all weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of Third World leaders.
Weiss: Yes. The man is a loose canon and terrorist and must be made impotent--particularly in the nuclear arena. I would rather see the military activity undertaken by members of the Arab League.
Q. Would you have unconditionally supported Israel's request for $10 billion in loan guarantees to help resettle refugees from the former Soviet Union?
Beilenson: Yes, I would have supported the request either with or without the conditions the Bush Administration sought to impose.
Colaco: No. America and its people must be first.
Korman: No. Loans without guarantees is bad business.
Spillane: No. But we should be evenhanded. We haven't demanded that the Arabs stop the intifada.
Wachtel: Yes. These are loan guarantees, not grants or giveaways. Israel had proved itself to be reliable and dependable in meeting such obligations in the past.
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?
Beilenson: Yes. The Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to apply to children of individuals who enter the country in violation of our laws, and it is patently unfair and illogical to automatically grant citizenship to such children.
Colaco: No. We need to not provide welfare benefits to illegal aliens.
Hariton: No. This would add a new and dangerous dimension to the Constitution. Any child born on U.S. soil, on U.S.-flagged ships or airplanes, or any U.S. possession is an American, regardless of their parents' citizenship status. It has been that way since the beginning of our republic.
Korman: Yes. It is a way to stop illegal immigration.
Lindblad: No. National borders should be opened and the economy of Mexico should be assisted to provide the people an acceptable living standard.
McClintock: Yes. We cannot continue to provide unlimited social services.
Meyer: No. That is a preposterous political play by Tony Beilenson to change his liberal stripes now that he is running in a more conservative district. I generally do not favor amendments to the Constitution. It brought us this far, leave it alone!
Salomon: No. If the parents can't get a job, they won't come here and the children won't be born here.
Spillane: Yes. When the U.S. needed new people, citizenship by place of birth was fine. Also, legal immigration was and is fine--then and now. But to bestow legality and privileges to the offspring of someone defying our laws makes a mockery of our law and the legal immigrants.
Wachtel: Yes. There is an old maxim that one should not profit from their own crime. Illegal immigration is a serious crime; untold hundreds of millions of people around the world covet U.S. residency and citizenship. I can see no justification for the prize of U.S. residency or citizenship to be accorded to those who seize it or obtain it through illegal means.
Weiss: No. A child born unexpectedly in New York on a flight from Europe to California would have citizenship. Why take that privilege away from the child of parents who made an affirmative, though illegal, move to partake of the fruits of this country's greatness.
Q. Should the United States make it harder for Japan to export goods into this country if Japan does not open more of its markets to American goods?
Beilenson: No. Although we must continue to pressure the Japanese, Chinese, and other countries to reform their unfair trade practices, these practices account for only 10% to 15% of our trade deficit. Trade retaliation damages our own economy and leads to losses of American jobs. Our principal emphasis must be for U.S. manufacturers to make products that Americans will buy.
Hariton: Yes. Those countries that open their markets to the United States should find open markets in return. If, however, a country's markets remain closed to U.S. products, and we must resort to protectionist legislation, such legislation must be flexible enough to respond to changing market conditions.
Korman: Yes. International trade terms and conditions should be fair.
Lindblad: Yes. But the real problem is the competitiveness lacking in U.S. products.
McClintock: No. Increasing taxes on American consumers will hurt our economy--not Japan's.
Meyer: Yes. But only if directly tied to their restrictions. I am not a protectionist, but "managed trade" to level the playing field is necessary. Carla Hills is doing a great job in opening Japanese markets. We must win the trade war with Japan the old-fashioned way--we must earn it.
Salomon: Yes. Furthermore, Japan should be required to set aside at least 1% of its gross national product, which is much less than what our presence saves it in military costs, for our joint disposal each year in agricultural relief programs in the former Soviet Union and around the world.
Spillane: Yes. The Japanese are intelligent, hard-working and have no conception of what we call fairness. They believe world trade is a war and they do what they must do to win. When we get serious about reciprocal rights, they will cooperate because they must.
Wachtel: Yes. Free trade must be reciprocal in nature. Japan cannot be permitted to have full access to our market if they continue to shut us out of their markets. The chronic, massive trade deficits we have been running with Japan pose a serious threat to the future prosperity and economic health of this nation.
Weiss: Yes. There is no shame in requiring level playing fields for the United States and its trade partners.
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?
Beilenson: Yes, but I do not agree that such a policy would hurt American businesses. We know that substitutes for CFCs will eventually have to be found, and we know that we must greatly reduce our reliance on fossil fuels which are contributing to global warming, so any incentive we can give to industry to develop and convert now will put us in a much more competitive position later.
Colaco: No. We must move cautiously because we can worsen the recession and possibly end up in a depression.
Hariton: Yes. Although one must take a balanced approach when considering environmental issues, in the circumstances as described in your question, where there appears to be a clear danger to human life, and where the damage to the atmosphere may be irreparable, we must protect our lives and health, and the lives of the generations to come.
Korman: No. There is no sufficient data to support the theory that man-made emissions are depleting the ozone layer.
Lindblad: Yes. Although business profits may drop, non-polluting industries need incentives to become competitive.
McClintock: No. We are suffering from a severe recession, and now is not the time to add new impediments to job creation.
Meyer: Yes. But striking a balance is the key. Republicans make the best environmentalists because they are willing to temper an aggressive protection of the environment with reason.
Salomon: Yes. This situation threatens the survival of our entire species. I believe that the necessary measures should be implemented with no net job loss. In fact, some pollution reduction measures--such as a viable mass transit system--would create jobs.
Wachtel: Yes. Provided that it is first well established as a matter of scientific fact that this is indeed occurring. Irreparable, large-scale destruction of the world environment cannot be justified. There is not need for business growth and prosperity to be mutually exclusive of environmental protection.
Weiss: No. Not until there is specific evidence in black and white (not on computer projections) that there is ozone depletion, global warming and it is definitely harmful.
Q. Barring a national emergency, would you ever support opening up more of the California coastline to oil exploration? If so, under what circumstances?
Beilenson: No, at least not in the foreseeable future. The very small amount of additional oil that would be produced is outweighed by the known detrimental effects to this fragile ecological area. We have no immediate need for the oil, and it makes far more sense to hold it in reserve. If, eventually, we should need it, it will still be there--and the taxpayers, who own it, would get a much better price for it then they would now.
Colaco: Ever is a long time.
Korman: No. Until we deplete existing supplies, there is no need to endanger our coastline.
Lindblad: No. The underlying issue is to wean the U.S. public from conspicuous consumption in transportation habits.
McClintock: Yes. It is vital that we know where our oil deposits are located in the event of future crises.
Meyer: No. Not even the oil companies realistically expect offshore drilling to become a reality. We must protect our coastline.
Weiss: Yes. If the counties and local jurisdictions involved approved this, and if it could be shown that the exploration could be done safely.
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?
Beilenson: Yes. As the author of the legislation that established the Santa Monica Mountains Park, I am pushing to complete the land-acquisition program. We should be spending at least $30 million this year on parkland purchases.
Colaco: No. We must balance the budget and cannot borrow the money for pork-barreling.
Hariton: No. While I believe strongly in the preservation of the Santa Monica Mountains and favor the creation of more public parklands, I believe that funding for such projects must come from a combination of sources, including federal, state and local governments, as well as fees on private sector development in neighboring areas.
Korman: Yes. We Californians should receive our share of federal funds to maintain our open spaces.
Lindblad: Yes. Tax liability of corporations can be used to barter parkland into public hands.
McClintock: No. While I would not recommend cuts in this particular program, this is not the time to be increasing any federal expenditures.
Meyer: Yes. The Santa Monica Mountains must be preserved. This is not just pork-barrel politics.
Salomon: Yes, provided the money now appropriated is used for its intended purpose and not for unnecessary administrative staff, etc.
Spillane: Yes, but only after we balance the budget and start to pay down the $4-trillion national debt.
Wachtel: If it can be shown that additional acquisitions at this time would be justifiable on a long-term cost-benefit basis, I would support additional funding. Otherwise, not at this time. This is a worthy program, but budget limitations must be kept in mind.
Weiss: No. At this time I have a bigger concern for putting back to work unemployed workers than for buying more land in an area filled with parks and open spaces.
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?
Beilenson: Yes. I personally refuse all special-interest PAC contributions, and I have authored legislation to ban such contributions entirely. The enormous amount of special-interest money contributed to congressional campaigns is corrupting our political process.
Colaco: Yes. I support eliminating contributions from political action committees.
Hariton: No. Congressional campaigns are already limited to contributions of $1,000 per individual, $5,000 per PAC and an absolute prohibition on corporate donations. This ensures that a candidate must seek a broad base of community support rather than to cater to special-interest groups.
Korman: Yes. Not even a penny from these groups, because Congress should not be controlled by special-interest groups.
Lindblad: Yes, special-interest groups should be limited to $100 along with special-interest groups of one individual too.
McClintock: Yes. But only if applied to all contributions from organizations.
Meyer: Yes. You bet! The time for campaign-finance reform has come and I'm going to be leading the change.
Salomon: No. I support a requirement that they must contribute at least half their money to challengers.
Spillane: Yes. PACs should be eliminated. Contributions should be very limited to, say, $100 or $200 and contributions should only be allowed from people in the candidates' district. No representing anyone and everyone except the constituent.
Wachtel: Yes. I support the elimination of all special-interest PAC money. Special-interest PAC money has shown itself only to serve entrenched professional career politicians and to keep incumbents in office almost in perpetuity. The only contributions that should be permitted should be those of individual citizens.
Weiss: No. Just because one contributes does not mean the other is corrupted. Contributing may be construed as a form of freedom in the First Amendment, and I hesitate to make changes that could affect our Bill of Rights.
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?
Colaco: Yes. As long as the government does not tell the school how it needs to run itself.
Hariton: No. Reform of public schools is the key to better education. We would only serve to fragment and segregate our society if we subsidize private and parochial schools.
Korman: Yes. It will make our educational system better because it will bring private and parochial schools into the public school system.
Lindblad: No. Public education is the heart of the melting pot in this country and poor children would suffer the most.
McClintock: Yes. By placing private school alternatives within reach of working-class families, we will relieve enrollment pressure on the public schools and introduce competitive incentives for their improvements.
Meyer: No. I fear that this could cause complete disintegration of the public school system. I may go with vouchers, but only if I could be reassured that it will improve education for all citizens.
Spillane: Yes. Competition in everything, including schools, gets the best out of everyone. The public school monopoly has led to atrophied administration, low discipline and low performance.
Wachtel: Yes. Vouchers for private and parochial schools should be provided to all parents on an equal basis. Parents should be able to select those private or parochial schools that best suit the needs of their children and which they believe give them the best education available.
Weiss: Yes. By allowing the voucher system, we may be able to lower the amounts of school buildings, personnel, staff, etc. allocated to the public school system, and these savings may offset any voucher monies supplied by the government giving parents a choice of where their kids could receive a quality education.
Q. Do you support capital punishment for any crimes? If so, what?
Beilenson: In general, capital punishment is not a very effective deterrent--but I have voted for imposing it on a limited number of cases, including punishment for persons convicted of being kingpins in illegal drug operations, for those found guilty of espionage against the U.S., and for several other categories of particularly heinous crimes.
Hariton: Yes. Premeditated murder, murder of a public official or peace officer, murder during the commission of a crime, kidnaping or drive-by shooting that results in death.
Korman: Yes. Homicide and drug dealers who cause the death of a minor by selling them drugs.
Lindblad: No. The prison system in the U.S. holds the highest rate per 100,000 citizens--300 greater than South Africa. Treat the causes--not the symptoms.
McClintock: Yes. First-degree murder and treason. I have twice carried legislation to impose the death penalty for murder of a child.
Meyer: No. I oppose capital punishment not because I care about the life of the convicted murderer. Let 'em rot in jail. My concern is about the respect for life and human dignity that our society must espouse.
Salomon: Yes. First-degree murder, drug kingpins, treason in time of war.
Spillane: Yes. Only premeditated murder or treason during war and both only when evidence is clear and uncontrovertible.
Wachtel: Yes. Crimes justifying capital punishment are mostly within the jurisdiction of the states. On the federal level, treason in time of war, first-degree murder, mass murder or serial murder that fall within federal jurisdiction.
Weiss: Yes. For those already on the books, and I would hope the states would change some of their juvenile laws to include minors who kill with malice.
Q. Do you support any form of limit on the sales of guns to individuals? Beilenson: Yes. I am a sponsor of bills that would require a seven-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns (the "Brady Bill"), and that would ban the sale of semiautomatic weapons and so-called "Saturday night specials."
Colaco: No. I was born in Baghdad, Iraq, and they had gun control and the U.S. had to bomb them as a result. Gun control brings dictatorships.
Hariton: Yes. I support a waiting period for the purchase of any firearm. The essence of any good gun law is one that has little or no impact on honest citizens, but restricts the access of firearms to the criminal.
Korman: Yes. Only to those who have a criminal record or have been institutionalized for mental health problems. Otherwise, no.
Lindblad: No. Constitutional rights to bear arms should not be abridged but some licensing without limiting sales should be studied.
McClintock: No. I wrote the law prohibiting plea-bargaining for gun-related crimes and support long prison terms for convicts caught with any kind of gun. But I oppose attempts to disarm the decent and law-abiding citizens who own firearms to protect themselves, their families and businesses.
Meyer: Yes. Of course! We all do. I am a recreational shooter myself and I believe the Second Amendment guarantees my right to bear arms. But for over 50 years, it's been illegal to own a machine gun. I believe in minimal intrusion to protect the public welfare.
Salomon: Yes. Convicted felons and persons with relevant mental illness histories should not be permitted to buy guns. All gun dealers should have fingerprint scanners on a computer modem link to the FBI so that an attempt by a prohibited person could be detected. Minimal training should be required for gun buyers.
Spillane: Yes. California law is now OK.
Wachtel: Yes. On the federal level, I would support a ban on all military, paramilitary or anti-police-type weaponry, except to lawfully authorized military and law enforcement personnel. I also would support a ban on any form of weapon out of the hands of convicted criminals and the psychologically disturbed. Otherwise, I strongly support protecting the rights of other citizens to own weapons suitable for self-defense, or some legitimate sporting purpose.
Weiss: Yes. Convicted felons and mental incompetents.
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? Beilenson: About right.
Colaco: I don't support quotas.
Hariton: If by affirmative action you mean the hiring of the most able person regardless of race, sex, etc., and if two people have approximately equal skills, hiring the one from the disadvantaged group, then affirmative action has not gone far enough. If, however, you mean anything else, affirmative action has gone too far.
Korman: It has gone too far. I oppose quotas.
Lindblad: Affirmative action has not gone far enough! Affirmative action is under attack from the right and has led to a new racial polarity in this country.
McClintock: I oppose racial discrimination in all its forms. I believe that the law should be absolutely colorblind.
Meyer: I agree with President Bush that there is a difference between quotas and affirmative action, and I am against the former. But the greatest hope for women and minorities is through private development, not government entitlement.
Salomon: I am against all forms of discrimination in employment, including affirmative action quotas.
Spillane: About right. No quotas. It's reverse discrimination, but equal opportunity is a must.
Wachtel: I oppose any and all programs that grant any sort of preference or quota to racial minority groups either in admissions, hiring, promotions or awarding of contracts.
Weiss: This is really an unfair question. The answer depends on the community, the industry involved, etc. In most cases, the answer is yes. Many service industries, for example, have more complaints because people who were brought up culturally different from others have different ways of operating and communicating, and this has caused problems. In other cases, people have not been given a fair chance to compete, and that is also wrong.
Q. Do you support a woman's unrestricted right to an abortion within the first three months of pregnancy? Beilenson: Yes. I was the author of California's 1967 Abortion Act, which legalized abortion in our state.
Hariton: Yes. A woman's right to choose is fundamental. No government entity has any right to interfere in this area.
Korman: No. I support the right of a woman to have an abortion for rape, incest or when the life of the mother is at risk.
Lindblad: Yes. The government should not legislate morals or deny a woman's right to choose. The Constitution asserts a separation between church and state.
McClintock: No. Certain restrictions, such as parental consent for minors, a 24-hour cooling-off period and informed consent requirements, are appropriate.
Meyer: Yes. We must silence the extremists on both ends of the spectrum and find the common ground. I pledge to work against the epidemic of teen pregnancy and for responsible education and adoption programs.
Salomon: Yes. The central point in this debate is whether the fetus at this point is human life. Science has not been able to answer this essentially philosophical and religious question. Under the First Amendment, government should stay out of it.
Spillane: Yes. When life begins is a religious and personal moral choice. Republicans believe in choice and personal responsibility. This is no different. I don't know when personhood starts.
Wachtel: Under the federal system set forth in the Constitution . . . abortion is clearly one of those matters that was intended to be left to the states. It is simply not a matter that belongs in Congress.
Weiss: No. Only if the life of the mother is endangered, or if the pregnancy results from a criminal act (rape or incest), and the latter abortion would be necessary much sooner than three months.
Q. Do you support federal funding of abortions for women who cannot afford them? Beilenson: Yes.
McClintock: No. Taxpayer funds should not be used to promote and subsidize the practice of abortion.
Salomon: Yes. But since I want government to stay wholly out of the matter, my ultimate goal would be to replace government funding with money from private sources.
Spillane: No. Too many people feel opposed to abortion. Their dollars should not be used. But I would contribute to a fund to allow poor women to exercise choice.
Wachtel: All abortion issues should be left to each state to decide. Congress should defer to state law on this issue.
Weiss: No. Only with exceptions stated above.
Hill or Thomas?
Q. Who do you think was more likely to have told the truth, Anita Hill or Clarence Thomas? Beilenson: From what I saw of the hearings, I found Anita Hill to be a credible witness. However, by the time she testified, I had already come to the conclusion that Mr. Thomas was clearly not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.
Colaco: Clarence Thomas.
Hariton: Both are credible. I believe both told the truth as they recalled it.
Korman: The Senate judged Clarence Thomas to be fit as Supreme Court justice.
Lindblad: Anita Hill certainly seems likely to have told the truth since she was by personal choice opening up her private life.
McClintock: I am concerned with discrepancies in Hill's testimony, and support Clarence Thomas' confirmation.
Meyer: Anita Hill.
Salomon: I think both lied at times.
Spillane: Clarence Thomas. I saw the dozen or more women from his EEOC office who supported him and not Anita Hill. My wife agrees.
Wachtel: Probably, she was the one telling the truth. Thomas was, and is, unqualified and unfit and should not have been confirmed.
Weiss: Offhand, I would say Justice Thomas. However, I don't know for sure.
Anthony C. Beilenson, 59, of Los Angeles is a congressman who has represented West Los Angeles and portions of the San Fernando Valley for 16 years. He lost his seat to reapportionment earlier this year and is the lone Democrat running in this district. He was a practicing attorney before spending 14 years in the state Legislature.
Robert Colaco, 35, of Van Nuys is a businessman who does computerized bookkeeping. He made an unsuccessful bid for Congress in 1990 and is a member of the Los Angeles County Republican Central Committee.
Nicholas T. Hariton, 35, of Sherman Oaks is an attorney and businessman who casts himself as a moderate Republican. He favors abortion rights and says he has raised $80,000 for the campaign. He has never held public office.
Sang R. Korman, 54, of Calabasas is an independent businessman and Korean-American immigrant. A wealthy entrepreneur, he used his own money to finance two previous bids for Congress. He lost both races in the primaries.
John Paul Lindblad, 39, of Hollywood Hills is an architect. Lindblad is the only Peace and Freedom Party candidate in the race. He is founder and chairman of the Peace and Freedom Party chapter in the San Fernando Valley and was an unsuccessful Assembly candidate in 1990.
Tom McClintock, 35, of Thousand Oaks has held a seat in the state Assembly since 1982. He has been his party's most vitriolic critic of Gov. Pete Wilson's fiscal policies, including the 1991 tax increases to close the budget deficit.
Robert (Rob) Meyer, 45, of Sherman Oaks is an attorney and belongs to the U.S. Navy Reserves. He volunteered for active duty in the Persian Gulf War in 1990 and also served in Vietnam. He has been active in various Republican clubs.
Jim Salomon, 36, of Calabasas is a self-employed national trade adviser. He is a member of the Los Angeles County Republican and Republican State Central committees. Salomon unsuccessfully tried to unseat Beilenson in 1990.
Bill Spillane, 56, of Thousand Oaks is a former airline pilot who also served 32 years as a fighter pilot in the U.S. Air Force and Air National Guard. He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross and the Legion of Merit.
Harry Wachtel, 41, of West Hills is an attorney and a former U.S. Army officer. He serves as a trustee of the Los Angeles County Law Library and on the board of directors of the West Hills Neighborhood Assn.
Stephen M. Weiss, 45, of Calabasas is a self-employed attorney and business consultant. Among his proposals are a package aimed at solving the current economic crisis through a series of measures.
Congressional District 24
Overview: For more than a decade, Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Los Angeles) has represented parts of the San Fernando Valley. But now he is running in a district that has no Westside communities, where he has enjoyed strong support. Beilenson faces no primary opposition. Nine Republicans are vying for the right to challenge him in November. Although the district has slightly more Democrats than Republicans, it is considered a swing district.
Where: The district, which straddles Los Angeles and Ventura counties, includes the communities of Agoura, Agoura Hills, Calabasas, Encino, Hidden Hills, Malibu, Oak Park, Tarzana, Thousand Oaks, Topanga and Westlake Village, and portions of Chatsworth, Northridge, Reseda, West Hills and Woodland Hills. To find out if you live in the district, call the Los Angeles County registrar-recorder's office at (213) 721-1100.
Anthony C. Beilenson, congressman
Peace and Freedom
John Paul Lindblad, environmental health-care architect
Robert Colaco, businessman, computerized bookkeeping
Nicholas T. Hariton, attorney, businessman
Sang R. Korman, businessman
Rob Meyer, attorney, Navy reservist
Tom McClintock, assemblyman
Jim Salomon, national trade adviser
Robert Spillane, airline fighter pilot
Harry Wachtel, attorney
Stephen M. Weiss, attorney, business consultant