Lieberman Will Keep His Seat in the Senate

My prediction for the 2006 Senate race in Connecticut is that incumbent Joe Lieberman will lose the primary race to Challenger Ned Lamont but will easily win re-election. I can predict this because the GOP doesn't have the slightest chance of winning, and what's more most Connecticut Republicans are well aware of that fact. I think that given the choice between voting for the Republican and the possibility of Lamont winning the election, a lot of Republicans will vote for Lieberman.

When I began my email interview with GOP candidate Alan Schlesinger (Part 1 Part 2) I made a commitment to the candidate that I would reproduce the questions and answers verbatim. I was going to publish his answers without commentary or analysis. When Mr. Schlesinger did not answer several of the questions in the follow-up, I gave him the benefit of the doubt as he was answering on a Friday night. Maybe he had something better to do than answer questions from a blogging resident of the district he is campaigning in.

But more than a week has passed without answer to those questions, so the straight reporting portion of my coverage of the candidate is over. It is now time to take a critical look at his answers.

Has the national focus on the contentious Democratic primary made it more difficult for your campaign to get significant exposure in the media?

Yes, but we expect that to change after the primary.

I think Schlesinger is trying to be optimistic here. He may get a little more notice once he's part of the race but the story of this election will be Joe Lieberman.

This would normally be a very difficult seat for any Republican to win. Do you see the possibility of Senator Lieberman running as an independent candidate as helping or hurting your chances in the election?

Helping. It splits the democratic vote.

Yes, a Lieberman independent run will split the Democratic vote. I don't see that helping Schlesinger - or any Republican in this district. Lieberman could peal off half of the Democratic vote and Schlesinger would still finish third. I think a lot of Republicans understand that which is why instead of voting for the party they will vote for the better Democrat.

What do you see as the role of the federal government in dealing with the problem of congestion in Connecticut - particularly along the I95 corridor?

Federal govt. can help with funding but the state is responsible for executing any plan.

I can't find much fault with this answer other than that it invokes the idea of a few million dollars earmarked for some hair-brained scheme cooked up by the state DOT.

What do you see as the biggest economic or social issue facing the people of Connecticut and what can the federal government do to help resolve that issue?

Health care costs and entitlements (Soc. Sec. & Medicare). Unfunded liability with he baby boomers approaching retirement. We must inject competition into healthcare by using HSA's (health savings accounts) etc. Schlesinger has a plan to guarantee Social Security.

He seems to understand the problems and even gives a very minor nod to the idea of a market solution to health care costs. And he has a plan for Social Security. That certainly warranted a follow-up.

Can you briefly outline your plan to guarantee Social Security?

All FICA taxes would be segregated. After current recipients are paid, all excess funds (currently $150 Billion per year would be invested in Mortgage Paper equivalent to Ginnie-Maes, etc. Real $ earning real interest for future retirees.

I think the way to segregate FICA money from the rest of the federal budget is through the use of deveice called a "Lock Box." But Schlesinger doesn't want to just put the money in a lock box and leave it there - he wants to invest it. Because investing it will provide a better return for future retirees. Am I the only one who sees the potential for massive waste fraud and abuse (i.e. government) in this idea? And if investing the money is such a great idea, why not just let future retirees keep the money and invest it themselves?

Your platform as given on your campaign website includes a Seasonal Employee Visa program that does not include a path to citizenship outside of the normal immigration process. Your statement does not include positions on border security and the disposition of the current illegal population. Do you see enforcement and border security as happening concurrently with the Seasonal Visa program or would they be a prerequisite to the Seasonal Visa program?

They [would] be a prerequisite to the Seasonal Visa program.

It seems like a fairly basic variation on the guest worker program but at least he is willing to put border security an immigration enforcement first.

Your position on tax reform focuses on tax simplification and eliminating special interest loopholes. Are you familiar with H.R. 25, the FairTax proposal and what is your opinion of the FairTax plan?

We need more of an overhaul han H. R. 25.

I'm not sure it was intention, but I think he pretty clearly answered the first part of the question. I don't think he's very familiar with the FairTax. So I included this in the follow-up questions:

In response to the question about the FairTax proposal you responded that we "need more of an overhaul than H.R. 25." Given that H.R. 25 calls for eliminating all federal taxes on personal and corporate income and replacing them with a tax on consumption, eliminating the IRS as well as FICA and Medicare withholding, what would you propose that represents more of an overhaul?

Tax Simplification: Eliminate AMT, eliminate most deductions and tax credits and passive income treatments. All income other than cap gains and dividends would be taxed at lower rates. Estate Tax eliminated and folded into Cap Gains for income that has never been taxed. Cap Gains and Dividends taxed at lowest rates that are possible. All proposals combined shall be revenue neutral.

I think I need to consult with an accountant, and maybe a tax attorney to figure some of this out. Which of course is a large part of the problem with the current tax structure. This feels a lot like rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship. Why bother. It certainly does not strike me as more of an overhaul than scrapping the entire income tax system and replacing it with something else.

What is your position on the use of the power of Eminent Domain in light of the Supreme Court Decision in the case Kelo v. New London?

Eminent Domain should be considerd on a case by case basis. I disagree with New London's use of Eminent Domain.

It is good to know that he disagrees with what New London is doing, but if we have to consider eminent domain on a case by case basis does this mean that there may be similar cases that he would not disagree with?

Do you agree that the president should sate a date certain timetable for withdrawal of U.S. armed forces in Iraq?

I recommend a 50% reduction with Iraqi replacement within 12 months.

Well he apparently does agree with the idea of a timeline for troop withdrawal from Iraq and even has a compromise idea that John Kerry might like. I challenged Schlesinger's answer in the follow-up - he chose not to answer.

You stated that you would recommend a 50% reduction of U.S. Troops in Iraq within 12 months. How do you respond to those in both government and the military who argue that troop reductions should not be based on the calendar but on conditions in Iraq?

What course of action would you recommend if there were not sufficient Iraqi forces to replace 50% of the current U.S. troops within 12 months?

These are not difficult questions for someone who has a well thought out position of the war, and certainly the kind of questions a serious candidate for the senate should be willing and able to answer.

Should the United States sign and ratify the Kyoto Protocol?

Undecided.

I confess, this was something of a trick question since the Kyoto Treaty is dead in the U.S. It is also a batting practice fastball that should have been easily hit out of the park. "Undecided." Schlesinger swung, missed, and fell down in the batters box. He also chose not to answer the follow-up to this question.

You answered that you are undecided as to the U.S. becoming a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol. Do you believe that the science surrounding Global Warming is settled and that the U.S. should be taking steps to significantly reduce production of greenhouse gasses?

It's only one of the most media driven political issues around. No reason a candidate for the Senate to want to address it though.

Do you believe that the current Israeli military actions in Gaza and Lebanon represent another front in the Global war on terror and do you believe the United States should offer it's moral and military support to the state of Israel in it's battles against terrorism?

Yes

Short and to the point with a good answer.

It is difficult to form an opinion of a candidate based on this limited interaction, and while I appreciate his taking the time to answer the questions He did not make a good first impression.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 04:47 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment