http://www.dailyherald.com/politics/story.asp?id=242152
Scroll way down for Immigration question

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q&A: 8th Congressional
Posted Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Democrat Melissa Bean of Barrington is defending her 8th congressional district office; while Republican challenger David McSweeney of Barrington Hills, and independent candidate Bill Scheurer, of Lindenhurst, are trying to unseat her. The candidates responded to 10 questions posed by the Daily Herald.



Q. Why are you running for this office? Is there a particular issue that motivates you and what will be your main priority in office?


Melissa Bean: My top priorities in Congress are to restore fiscal responsibility, protect our families, promote economic growth and stand up for the moderate mainstream values of my constituents. As a fiscal conservative, I've used my 20 years of business experience to bring a greater level of accountability and transparency to government. I have worked to reduce wasteful spending and restore pay-as-you-go rules that demand more responsible budgeting.

I intend to continue leading on legislative and educational initiatives that protect our children from online predators, our seniors from identity theft, our families from environmental dangers and our communities from terrorist threats, while supporting policies that strengthen our economy and create jobs.

As I promised, I will remain accessible and responsive by reaching out to the community through town halls, leadership summits, forums, and other public events to maintain my commonsense and independent approach to the issues facing our nation.


David McSweeney:: I am running for U.S. Congress because I want to use my business experience to fight for the principles of lower taxes, less government spending, and a strong national defense.

My primary reason for running and my top priority is to help implement policies that will create a solid environment for creating new jobs in the United States. The best way to make this happen is to keep tax rates low, provide incentives for small businesses to create jobs, and to reduce unnecessary regulations that hinder the growth of small businesses.

Also, in order to create a healthy economic environment, we need to focus on reducing the large federal deficits by reducing the growth of federal spending.


Bill Scheurer: I am going to Congress to bring out troops home and take care of them when they get here. When they come home, I will come home, too.


Q. Ms. Bean, describe your main contributions and the important initiatives you've led. Mr. McSweeney: and Mr. Scheurer, what contributions would you make?


Bean: I have demanded greater fiscal responsibility in Washington by voting to cut wasteful spending and to reduce taxes, while co-sponsoring legislation to restore pay-as-you-go budget rules to help reduce the deficit.

As a proactive advocate for our area businesses, I was proud to have the U.S. Chamber of Commerce recognize those efforts. I introduced legislation to encourage adoption of older children, provide tax incentives for improving home energy efficiency and make health care more affordable for small businesses.

I have also worked to protect our families by introducing bills that enhance Internet safety programs and help fight identity theft while hosting forums across the district to educate constituents on ways to protect themselves. I remain closely in touch with the community to listen to people's concerns and address them in Washington.


McSweeney:: I believe my business experience would allow me to focus on implementing policies to keep the economy strong in the future. I would make a particular contribution in the areas of tax policy and budgeting.

As a former investment banker, I have a unique view of how low tax rates have a positive effect on economic growth and job creation in the U.S. I would offer solutions that have proven successful in the business world and apply them to similar problems with the federal government.


Scheurer: I will help bring people together from both parties to solve the big problems we face with national security, budget deficits, our broken health care system and fairness for working families.


Q. What, specifically, should the U.S. do in regard to Iraq?


Bean: Since my visit to Iraq last fall and meeting with our troops, I have been closely monitoring Iraqi progress on two fronts: building a sovereign government and strengthening security. Iraq has made progress establishing a democratically elected permanent government, but the situation on the ground is deteriorating.

I am opposed to an immediate and arbitrary withdrawal from Iraq, but we need to expedite the training and deployment of reliable Iraqi security forces so that they can take over more responsibility in securing their country and allow for a prudent redeployment of U.S. troops to return home as soon as is realistically possible.

Congress must hold the administration accountable, using the criteria that has been established to measure progress in Iraq and should exercise greater oversight in how our tax dollars are being spent.


McSweeney:: I believe the war in Iraq was and is justified. Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people in the past. Using oil for food funds, he was corrupting U.N. controls and sanctions and setting the stage for being able to reconstitute a WMD program. Saddam's regime was destabilizing in the region and murderous to his own people. Waiting for the threat to develop beyond conditions at the time would have been a mistake.

For the future, I do not believe we should set a firm timetable for withdrawal from IraQ. However, benchmarks to measure success would include clearly defeating the terrorists, completing transition to a democratic society, and training the Iraqi forces to battle-ready status, so they can fully step in and our forces can step down.

A long-term policy of promoting democracy in the Middle East is the best contribution we can make to peace in that region and reducing the influence of terrorist groups.


Scheurer: We should bring our troops home, and join with other countries and NGOs to help with peace building, mediation, reconciliation and eventual reconstruction. People in the Middle East will regard this as a positive first step.

There currently are several bills pending in the House that call for bringing our troops home, upon varying terms and timetables, offered from both parties. The Democratic freshman incumbent and Republican challenger support none of these bills.

I support - and will co-sponsor, work to pass and vote for - all of these bills, while personally favoring the more immediate plans. We need to bring some end to this war, and not let it go on forever. A majority of our citizens now realize this war is not working. I will work to bring our troops home, and take care of them when they get here.

We must follow this with fairness on the Israel-Palestine conflict and ending our support for corrupt and oppressive regimes elsewhere in the region. We will see America change from a hated enemy to a respected friend and influence with people across that region.


Q. Do you favor or oppose making the Bush administration's tax cuts permanent?


Bean: Since coming to Congress, I have voted for every piece of legislation to cut taxes, including reforming the alternative minimum tax to protect average families, renewing the Savers Tax Credit for eligible IRA contributions, extending lower rates on capital gains and dividends, supporting tax-deductible Medical Savings Accounts for eligible health care expenses, enhancing deductions for higher education expenses, and renewing the research and development tax credit to help businesses grow and create jobs.

I have also introduced bills to increase the mileage tax deduction for small businesses, provide tax credits for improved home energy efficiency and for adopting an older child. I will continue to support stimulative tax cuts along with sufficient cuts in wasteful spending. I am a firm advocate of reinstating pay-as-you-go budget rules that would mandate fiscal discipline from Congress.


McSweeney:: I believe President Bush's marginal tax rate reductions helped prevent the U.S. economy from entering into a recession. I support making the Bush tax relief package permanent in order to help keep the economy strong. To promote economic growth and job creation, I favor keeping marginal tax rates low and allowing citizens to keep more of what they earn.

I also support giving tax incentives to companies that create jobs in the United States. However, we need to reduce spending in order to help offset the costs of tax cuts and to reduce the size of the large federal deficits.


Scheurer: There have not been any tax cuts by the Bush administration, only tax shifts. All of our deficits are taxes, left for the next generation to pay. The only real tax cut is a spending cut, with balanced budgets.

The Bush tax shifts are unwise and unfair. They are partly responsible for our massive budget deficits. They continue the disturbing trend of favoring wealth over work in all our economic policies.

Our government is piling up an endless stream of debt on the “credit cards” of the next generation. This unconscionable “birth tax” now approaches $30,000.

Politicians always say we need tax relief to stimulate the economy. I guess they think the economy will take care of itself for the next generation?

What we need is tax relief for 2-year-olds. We owe it to our children and their children to end these deficits.

I will not vote for an unbalanced budget. No matter what. No matter which party is in power. I also support structural change to enforce balanced budgets. History has clearly shown that our Congress and presidents, and the Republican and Democratic parties, all lack the fiscal discipline and integrity to be trusted with our money.

They are too busy giving it away to their corporate sponsors in exchange for campaign contributors. It is a dirty wash cycle that never comes clean.


Q. Are U.S. strategies to defend against terrorism on the right course? If not, what changes should be made?


Bean: Since 9/11, America is safer, but not safe enough. In December, the 9/11 Commissioners' final report card gave America 5 “Fs” and 12 “Ds” in the government's efforts to protect Americans. This is unacceptable.

I have worked to protect American passengers from the thousands of anti-aircraft missiles in terrorists' hands. We must increase the number of inspected cargo containers entering U.S. ports, our porous borders must be secured. Our first responders need better training, equipment and communications systems, and I helped to secure $1.5 million in grants for several in our district.

DHS must manage its resources - and taxpayer dollars - more efficiently. We must also be more aggressive in the war on terror. Bin Laden remains at large while our military is stretched to its limit in IraQ. We need more skilled analysts and agents in our intelligence services; and I support legal, aggressive, programs to obtain domestic and international intelligence.


McSweeney:: I believe we are generally on target when it comes to fighting the War on Terror to win. However, more needs to be done. I would focus Department of Homeland Security funding on where it is needed most, with respect to security. We can not afford to allow our tax dollars to be wasted on programs within DHS that do not improve our security.

We need to improve communications systems between first responders, including law enforcement, fire and rescue, as well as emergency management agencies.

Finally, border defenses must be improved to make sure that terrorists do not have easy entry into the United States in order to commit acts of aggression against innocent citizens.


Scheurer: No. Failure to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations after five years is criminal negligence that calls for removal of the entire administration and Congress. We need to take a different course in response to the new risks of terrorism. Our focus on military aggression against other countries is a mistake and only increases the threat.

Most other democracies properly recognize that terrorism is primarily a law enforcement, intelligence and foreign relations problem. These are the tools that offer the best protection, with limited military action in key situations.

Our military capabilities and doctrines need to be retooled to focus on national defense within our borders and emergency intervention outside them.

This involves taking total control of our own airspace and areas surrounding takeoff and landing. Proposals to arm commercial aircraft are absurd.

We already have the best protection in the world - our Air Force, Army, Navy, Coast Guard, National Guard, and Marines. We just need to put them to work.


Q. Do you favor any changes in Social Security?


Bean: Social Security is facing solvency challenges due to aging demographics and Congress must consider how to modernize the program. However, creating personal Social Security accounts would result in a massive funding shortfall caused by simultaneously paying current retirees their benefits while also removing money from the system.

These transitional costs have been estimated at over one trillion dollars. I believe any effort to address Social Security will require fair and creative strategies to ensure its long-term solvency for the Baby Boom generation, and I am committed to finding a workable solution that balances the interests of current retirees and future generations of Americans.


McSweeney:: We need to stop allowing the government to use the current Social Security surplus to pay for other government programs. I also favor allowing personal accounts to let younger workers build retirement assets.

There are several personal account alternative proposals worth considering as part of the legislative process. For any alternative, I support protecting the benefits for those over 55 years old.


Scheurer: We need to return Social Security to sound insurance principles. It serves us best if we limit it to the original intent of supplemental retirement insurance.

Social Security is best viewed as the pooling together of collective resources against the individual risks of reaching retirement without adequate financial means to support a life with dignity, at or above the poverty line.

To strengthen the financial soundness and fairness of the Social Security system, we need to lift caps on earnings subject to premiums.

We also should limit increases in benefits to those insureds who actually need them, while granting a partial return of premiums to others, based on the amount left over after covering all present and projected future benefits.

I strongly oppose all efforts to undermine the shared risk basis of this crucial safety net by any so-called privatization scheme that would eliminate the last vestiges of insurance principles from the system. We must never shift from a defined benefits to a defined contributions plan. That would be the end of this grand and noble commitment to face life together as one nation.

I also oppose the continued raiding of this pension fund by a corrupt federal government that refuses to put its house in order and balance the budget.


Q. What changes, if any, do you advocate in U.S. energy policy?


Bean: With over half our nation's oil imported from overseas, we must change our long term energy policy to reduce our dependence on foreign sources - placing a greater emphasis on fuel efficiency, energy conservation, and renewable/alternative energy sources.

Toward that end, I successfully offered an amendment to develop realistic ways to increase vehicle efficiency (CAFÉ) standards, introduced legislation to provide tax incentives to make homes more energy efficient and I voted to expand the infrastructure for E85/Ethanol flexible fuel vehicles.

However, these innovative technologies alone will not bring us to energy independence, which is why I believe we need to look within our own borders to increase domestic energy production in an environmentally-friendly way.

I support additional safe drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve (which has more oil than ANWR and can be more rapidly developed) and voted to safely increase refining capacity and natural gas exploration in the outer-continental shelf.


McSweeney:: We need a long-term energy policy in this country that is centered around developing new sources of energy and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Specifically, I favor safely developing nuclear power, encouraging wind and solar power by offering permanent tax credits and doubling the tax credit for hybrid cars and lifting the artificially low number of hybrid cars eligible for the tax credit.

Also, we should pursue a joint private-public Apollo type of mission to quickly develop hydrogen cars so that we can dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil. In the short-term, we need to take additional steps to bring down gasoline prices. For example, I favor replacing the archaic system of regional refined gasoline standards with one national standard.

I also support legislation that would streamline the process for building new refineries and allow safe drilling in specific areas, such as the Gulf of Mexico.


Scheurer: Our dependency on foreign oil and other dirty fuels is wreaking havoc with our security, our economy and the environment. It is funding terrorism, and leading us into unwise war. We simply cannot continue on this course.

I support an aggressive development program for alternative energy technologies, similar to the space program that went to the moon. In doing so, we must be vigilant to not let it become a form of corporate welfare for political favoritism, or let it get tied up in a bureaucracy.

We have some experiences to learn from - the NASA program, the NIH and others - both, for what has worked, and what has not. We also have a rich history of venture capital and university labs development and licensing programs.

The core technologies that come from this project will be owned by the people of the United States, for licensing to businesses on a royalty basis. This will be our oil, our national wealth.

During the interim, we must recognize that we do not have a true market in energy. Supply is artificially controlled by OPEC. Under our own antitrust laws protecting our markets, this would be illegal.

The oil companies that distribute gasoline in this country are little more than the exclusive domestic agents of this monopoly. That is why we do not see increased supply in response to rising prices. There is no real market at work.

Therefore, we should start treating the oil companies more like public utilities, instead of continuing to pretend that they represent genuine market competition. We certainly should not be giving them taxpayer subsidies as we do now.


Q. Has No Child Left Behind improved education? Explain.


Bean: While I support performance measurement and accountability, NCLB is flawed legislation, imposing an unfunded mandate while failing to accurately evaluate our schools. For example, if only one small subgroup in a school is failing, instead of providing some remedy to improve performance, NCLB punishes the entire school by removing resources, which is counterproductive.

NCLB measures student performance against grade level, which does not accurately reflect individual school progress. We should, instead, test individual student progress year over year to more effectively monitor individual school achievement.

Finally, the federal government's failure to sufficiently fund NCLB's requirements has burdened local school districts, which are often forced to cut enrichment classes like music, art, theater and gym to comply with this unfunded mandate. I support modifying NCLB to address its many flaws, so we can support our public schools, retain local control and ensure the responsible use of our tax dollars.


McSweeney:: While the No Child Left Behind Act is well intentioned, it has not performed as promised and I support its repeal. It has essentially encouraged teaching in the classroom to be centered on improved test scores, rather than meeting real educational goals for our children. This is an unfunded mandate which burdens our local school districts by punishing school districts for not meeting standards set by the bill, while at the same time, not giving the funding necessary to meet these goals.

In addition, state and local education decisions should be left up to parents, teachers, and other local officials, rather than being dictated to the states by bureaucrats in Washington.


Scheurer: The “No Child Left Behind” Act is another in a long line of un-funded federal mandates, and I will vote for its repeal. The federal government is moving toward a takeover of public education. In my view, its role should be limited to helping low and middle-income students and school districts with financial aid and enforcing equal protection of the law in funding.

I support full and equal public funding of education. Fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, we still have a dual system of “separate but (un)equal:” public education funding in this country.

Why should children in Lake Forest and New Trier have greater public educational resources than the same students in Zion-Benton or Round Lake? This violates equal protection of the law.


Q. List the three or four most important elements of your preferred immigration reform and explain what objectives they would achieve.


Bean: First, and foremost, I believe it is imperative that we secure our nation's borders, which is in the interests of our national security and essential to protecting our communities. I voted in favor of the House immigration bill to build border fences, increase patrol agents, and toughen penalties on those who break the law. I also voted to strengthen requirements for employers to confirm the work status of their employees and toughen penalties against companies that hire illegal workers.

In addition, I voted to end the flawed practice of “catch and release” by increasing funding for detention capacity. It is unacceptable to release individuals who have violated immigration law simply because we lack the space to keep them while they await processing for removal.


McSweeney:: We are a nation of immigrants. As such, we should continue to welcome legal immigrants to this country. However, illegal immigration needs to be addressed. I support the enforcement of existing immigration laws and H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005, which passed the House last December.

This bill provides more resources for Border Security, provides for penalties on those who engage in immigration fraud and deploys nuclear and biological monitors to screen inbound individuals and cargo at border checkpoints. It is essential that we secure our borders and have a better system in place to know who is entering the United States.


Scheurer: The federal government has a responsibility to secure our borders. This means all of our borders: Canada; Mexico; and thousands of miles of coastline.

We should bring our troops home from around the world and deploy them to protect our borders. This is what other countries do with their military forces.

Once we secure our borders, we can have an honest discussion on what to do about the people who came into this country under the old, broken system.

Immigration is primarily an economic, social, and cultural issue. How many new people can we absorb in our country, and under what circumstances? Therefore, the most important voices on immigration should be employers, organized labor and the state and local communities most affected by this influx of people. Families and kindred ethnic groups already here are also important voices in this discussion.

I do not accept the argument that illegal immigrants are doing work Americans do not want to do. If you pay enough money, offer decent benefits, and treat people well - anyone will want these jobs. What we do with illegal immigration is to distort the balance of “supply and demand” in favor of employers. This ends up lowering wages and benefits for all workers.

I oppose discriminatory laws like the Real ID act and the Sensenbrenner bill, and attempts to build a wall around our nation. Walls make bad neighbors.

I also oppose laws that would make people criminals who entered this country looking for jobs, or people who provide them with humanitarian services. But, I do support laws that would make it a felony for employers to knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

We should enforce our workplace laws, such as minimum wage, health and safety, and the right to organize on behalf of all workers, including guests and immigrants. Industries with high illegal immigrant work forces should come under special scrutiny.

In fixing the special problem we now have with illegal immigration from Mexico, we should always remember that none of the 9/11 hijackers came through Mexico. Neither did Timothy McVeigh. We face many risks.

We need to keep this in perspective. We are talking about good people here - working families, friends, and neighbors. They have become part of our lives.


Q. Please explain your views on current federal spending.


Bean: Congress has not demonstrated the fiscal restraint that taxpayers expect and deserve. With our national debt at a record-breaking $9 trillion, Congress must do a better job of forcing itself to set priorities and make tough choices. That is why I am a firm advocate of reinstating pay-as you-go budget enforcement rules. This proven method would restore fiscal discipline toward balancing our budget by preventing deficit spending.

I am proud of my votes to cut more than $200 billion from the federal budget. In addition, to reduce wasteful spending, I have cosponsored legislation to reform the “earmark” process and to audit government agencies to hold them accountable for their performance and how they're spending our tax dollars.


McSweeney:: The federal government must get control of spending. Sending the bill to our children and future generations is unacceptable. That is why I propose a three year freeze on total spending, excluding national defense, homeland security and Social Security, while allowing increases and decreases within the total freeze.

This will force government to set priorities for itself. At the same time, Congress should set an example by reducing its $3.8 billion annual operational budget by 25 percent and implement a reduction in the operating and administrative budgets of each department by 10%, excluding Defense and Homeland Security.

I also support zero-base budgeting for all government programs, as is done in business, while sun setting federal programs, so the government is forced to re-examine programs on a regular basis.


Scheurer: Federal spending is out of control and more importantly, out of balance with federal revenues.

I support banning earmarks. I also support a line-item veto, but only as part of a law requiring balanced budgets. A line-item veto, by itself, only disrupts the balance of power, which already has shifted almost beyond recognition in the past six years.

We should eliminate all tax credits and other subsidies to corporations and other businesses. Let the markets decide where capital should go, not the politicians.

We need to end our support for excessive, irrelevant and damaging spending on obsolete Cold War weapons systems that enrich campaign contributors. Our military spending should be focused on our military personnel - the training and equipment they need to serve in the new world of risks and opportunities we face as a nation.

We should eliminate the wasteful so-called “war on drugs.” We should limit our so-called highway bills to highways. We should abolish the practice of omnibus legislation, and have each bill pertain to only one law.

We should cancel federal funding on wonderful programs like NASA until we are willing to pay for them with balanced budgets. We should do more with other countries to share the costs of bigger missions.

We should be prepared to cut or eliminate every spending program - no matter how popular, that does not directly pertain to baseline health and human services needs - until we bring our federal budget into balance.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

dailyherald.com