As you know, the Bush-era income tax cuts will expire at the end of this year. Do you support extending the cuts for all income levels, only on individual income under $200,000 (under $250,000 for families), or not at all? If you support an extension of some kind, should it be paid for?

Tax policy should be progressive: Taxes should not go up on lower-income individuals and families. Big banks and corporations have been making bigger profits than ever but avoid paying fair taxes. Meanwhile, American taxpayers have been bailing out banks, insurance companies, and other financial corporations. A decrease in federal government spending on wars and destructive military activity would increase the resources available to pay for constructive programs that help improve people's lives.


Is there any circumstance in which you would support extending a pay freeze on federal employees and/or requiring current federal employees to contribute more to their retirement plans? Please explain.

No. I support fair pay and good benefits for all workers. Even if one can imagine conceivable circumstances where it might become necessary to ask federal workers to make additional sacrifice, a current need for this has not been shown. I believe the U.S. must down-size military spending; the federal government must help retrain and reintegrate people who currently hold military jobs, into the nonmilitary economy.


The Congressional Budget Office projects spending on Medicare, Medicaid and other government health programs will more than double as a share of the nation's economy by 2037. What specific changes would you propose to reduce Medicare costs?

Health care costs have skyrocketed as for-profit companies have taken over former community hospitals. Many decades ago, health care costs were relatively low. In those days, a typical hospital was publically owned or was operated by private charity in the public interest. Despite recent health care advances (for example, new technologies) that should have made health care more affordable, the rise of profiteering has led to a health care delivery crisis and exorbitant costs. Health care should not be a for-profit industry; health care does not obey classical "market competition" principles of supply and demand. (For example, a for-profit business normally will increase profit if it can boost demand, but in the context of health care increased "demand" usually means increased sickness, injury, and disease.) To the extent that health is a fundamental need, demand for health is constant and not elastic. On the "supply" end, the availability of health care services is only vaguely related to market pressures, especially under the inflexible, complicated, and confusing regime of for-profit health care insurance, where genuine consumer choice is largely illusory.

Contributing to the cost crisis is the fact that many members of Congress are involved in dismaying conflicts of interest in that they receive huge sums of money ("campaign contributions") from for-profit insurance companies, for-profit pharmaceutical corporations, and the for-profit health care industry. (Members also receive big money from power companies, military companies, etc.) This systemic conflict of interest has undermined our nation's health care economy; it has also corroded representative democracy in the U.S. The incumbent in the Fifth District boasts of raising many millions of dollars in political money each election cycle, including millions raised by his "leadership PAC." For example, in the 2008 election cycle he reported raising about $7 million; in the 2010 election cycle he raised even more than that huge amount; his "fundraising" shows no sign of slowing down in the 2012 election cycle. The influence of money on the political system leads us away from a republic and toward what could be called "corporate plutocracy" — government by and for wealthy corporations. And the 2010 Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court has taken an already money-dominated political system even farther away from being able to represent the people.

CBO's June 2012 report itself cautions that spending has varied greatly over past decades and states that predictions of health spending growth rates "are very uncertain." The same CBO report projects that under some scenarios (e.g., if Medicare reimbursement rates to for-profit entities were subject to automatic cuts), public debt could actually become a lower percentage of GDP by 2037 than it is today.

One sensible way to reduce health care costs would be for the government to stop subsidizing companies that sell unhealthful products. Reduced sickness would yield lower spending on health care. For example, the Federal Communication Act required that licenses be granted to broadcasters who serve "the public interest," but instead the FCC has given this public resource to companies selling commercial television air time to corporate advertisers of products that lead to disease (junk foods, over-sweetened breakfast cereals and beverages, etc.), often targeting young children. Similarly, to help contain health care costs, the government should also not subsidize industries that pollute the air or befoul the water; clean air and clean water are important for human health.


Would you support increased federal spending on highways and other infrastructure as a way to boost the construction industry? If so, how would you pay for it?

Government has an important role in supporting not only the development of sustainable energy technology and other physical infrastructure, but also social infrastructure (such as public education, child care, elder care, youth programs, etc.). Government programs must not be narrow-sighted. It is unwise to spend money on environmentally destructive highways with a view to giving a short-term "stimulus" boost for the construction industry. One main principle of the Greens is environmental wisdom (also nonviolence; social justice; and grassroots democracy). Unfortunately, members of Congress who receive money from corporate interests (including big construction) are under pressure to pay attention to the short-sighted profit-seeking demands of their wealthy donors. Under the banner of supposedly "creating jobs," those members support the transfer of public money to their wealthy donors, all too often without regard for environmental or other consequences. Not all economic growth is necessarily good. For example, a boom in the nation's for-profit prison industry doesn't reflect positive changes in our society. There exist environmentally sustainable ways to encourage job creation, but those ways do not include giving federal money for highway paving contracts to boost profits for the corporate supporters of members of Congress.

Community-based programs allow for maximum participation by those who know most about local needs, which can vary from community to community. Federal support of sustainable infrastructure programs should therefore operate, wherever practical, on a model that maximizes local control and local direction of such programs. Such a decentralized and participatory approach is in keeping with the call for a "Green New Deal," proposed by Dr. Jill Stein (http://www.jillstein.org/text_psou).

The federal government must focus on bringing about a sustainable energy future. End federal subsidies for oil companies (which donate money to politicians who favor them). Instead, support initiatives to develop and implement alternative and sustainable energy sources, such as solar power. A good example is the federal incentives program enacted to promote successful small solar energy pilot projects. This program should not be allowed to "sunset" or expire before community groups have had a full opportunity to pursue this important direction, which is expected to create good jobs for a sustainable energy future.


Would you support U.S. military involvement in Iran if there were evidence that it was close to developing a nuclear weapon?

Violence is an inherently self-defeating policy. Nonviolent action aligns peaceful means with peaceful ends. Nonviolence is crucial for humanity's survival. The two big political parties receive enormous amounts of money from the "defense" industry and blindly support military force around the world, whereas nonviolence is a main principle of the Green Party.

Debate on U.S. foreign policy is hobbled by an ignorance of basic norms of international law. Politicians refer to military attack against Iran as an "option on the table," but this rhetoric ignores the fact that attacking (or threatening to attack) another country is not a lawful option. The U.S. is powerful but it is not above international law.

Among the most solemn international obligations is the duty under the U.N. Charter to settle international disputes by peaceful means — the duty "to refrain . . . from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

American political leaders seek support for military action by invoking supposed "national interest," but appeals to "national interest" or "national policy" cannot justify war from the point of view of international law. War as an instrument of national policy is expressly outlawed.

Tragically, the U.S. and Iran have been without diplomatic relations for more than 30 years. Are peaceful solutions likely between two countries that are not even on speaking terms? How preposterous and how sad it is that so many U.S. politicians adopt a saber-rattling posture calling for an illegal military attack against Iran. Politicians sometimes argue that whatever attack they are urging is the "last resort," when in fact there has not been even a "first resort" to peaceful diplomatic dialogue based on international law and mutual respect.

How irresponsible U.S. officials (including the Secretary of State) have been! They repeat public accusations (often demonstrably unfounded) and issue public threats and insults against Iran, without even talking to Iran. They mischaracterize reports by the IAEA about the Iranian nuclear energy research program in order to create fear and stir up anti-Iran sentiment. The same U.S. officials do not mention that Iranian officials have repeatedly denied that Iran has any intention or desire to develop a nuclear weapons program; in fact, the Islamic leaders of Iran denounce nuclear weapons as evil. The door for dialogue and normalized relations could be opened, but the U.S. foreign policy elite seems committed to keeping the door slammed shut. What drives the U.S. agenda seems less any concern about a possible nuclear weapons program in Iran or a threat to U.S. national security than certain geopolitical or strategic military aims, such as isolating Iran and undermining its government. The anti-Iran campaign brings to mind "yellowcake" and the fear-mongering campaign warning of nuclear weapons (later revealed to be nonexistent) that formed the pretext for the illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq. It goes against democracy for the government to misinform the people about issues of war and peace. Government deception destroys legitimacy. Crying wolf undermines government credibility at home and abroad. And under international law, it is a "crime against peace" to threaten to attack another country instead of seeking peaceful resolution of a dispute.

Recent weeks have brought a new concern. National newspapers report that the U.S. has been launching malicious computer virus attacks against Iran's nuclear energy research facilities, including a computer virus designed to make Iranian uranium centrifuges spin out of control. Nuclear energy is no toy. Weaponization of software is extremely risky. Sabotage by malware hackers, including U.S.-sponsored sabotage, poses a danger to information security and computer systems worldwide, including our own. Secret cyber-warfare programs (like other covert operations) are at odds with the public's right to know what our government is doing. The unleashing (as in the so-called "Operation Olympic Games") of a secret and highly destructive internet virus such as Stuxnet or Flame threatens to inflame an international crisis of cyberattack run rampant. The U.S. program to wage international cyberattacks is likely to backfire against Americans, damaging the U.S. economy and information resources, which depend heavily on the internet.

What happens to a nation when its government operates in secret and as if it were above the law? Is it lawful for our federal government to be involved in assassinating research scientists in Iran? Of course not. Under international law, Iran and the U.S. are both signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which recognizes the "inalienable right of all Parties to the treaty to develop research, production, and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes." Rather than killing scientists and issuing public threats of military attack and instead of whipping up fear in order to gain support for military attacks, the U.S. should engage in genuine diplomacy. The founders declared the independence of the United States of America not in order to dominate the world. To the contrary: this country was born in opposition to Empire, against the tyranny of standing armies, and against military occupations by a distant imperial power without the consent of the local people. The U.S. military presence today extends to more than 150 countries around the globe. It is folly to imagine that such vast occupying armies (especially when unwelcomed by the people whose lands are occupied) make Americans safer. Our Constitution does not allow a secretive "national security state" that spreads Empire abroad and erodes civil liberties at home.


Describe a specific policy you would pursue in Congress that would have support from members of the opposite party.

The words "the opposite party" in this question presuppose that there are only two political parties (the "duopoly" of blue and red). As a Green candidate, I invite people to become actively involved with alternatives, such as the Green Party. I'm glad to receive votes from people in the Fifth District, but even more important is for people all over Maryland who support Green values (nonviolence, environmental wisdom, social justice, and grassroots democracy) to volunteer to help build local Green organizations.

Grassroots democracy as practiced and promoted by the Green Party differs from the money-dominated system of the two big parties, which enact self-serving laws to reinforce their own entrenched but undeserved stranglehold on power. They do not represent the people but instead curtail opportunities to participate. They pass laws that prevent the political process from being genuinely open, which results in elections that are "rigged" in important ways. Examples include restrictive ballot access laws; public subsidies to incumbents and to the two established parties; winner-take-all election schemes of which the Electoral College is the most famous example; gerrymandering to maximize partisan power and decrease competition in elections; the overwhelming role of political money as a barrier to participation and as an influential factor—conflict of interest—in the policy decisions and fiscal decisions of public officials; candidate "debates" and media coverage that often exclude alternative candidates; and so on. (In this regard, I thank The Baltimore Sun for including Green candidates in its Voters Guide.)

Green Party policies deserve serious consideration by everyone, including Democrats and Republicans. As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in Sweezy v. New Hampshire, "All political ideas cannot and should not be channeled into the programs of our two major parties. History has amply proved the virtue of political activity by minority, dissident groups, which innumerable times have been in the vanguard of democratic thought and whose programs were ultimately accepted. . . . The absence of such voices would be a symptom of grave illness in our society."

Certain incumbent members of Congress can probably be expected to support Green legislative proposals to promote equality, civil liberties, sustainable energy, environmental protection, community-based economics, and nonviolence. And members whose professed love for democracy is sincere should support legislation designed to open up the political process itself, to make elections in the U.S. less unfair and more inclusive.

As you know, the Bush-era income tax cuts will expire at the end of this year. Do you support extending the cuts for all income levels, only on individual income under $200,000 (under $250,000 for families), or not at all? If you support an extension of some kind, should it be paid for?

I support extending the Bush-era income tax cuts for individuals with income under $200,000 and families under $250,000, and I believe that we should be asking the wealthiest among us to contribute their fair share to help reduce the deficit. Unfortunately, Republicans won't ask millionaires and billionaires to do their part, and instead are asking the middle class to shoulder the burden of deficit reduction. In order to reach a comprehensive deficit reduction agreement, both parties must be willing to accept a mix of spending cuts and revenues and I will continue urging Congress to work together on a balanced plan that asks the wealthiest among us to contribute their fair share.


Is there any circumstance in which you would support extending a pay freeze on federal employees and/or requiring current federal employees to contribute more to their retirement plans? Please explain.

Federal employees have been singled out multiple times by the Republican Congress to contribute to deficit reduction. Our public servants have already contributed $75 billion toward deficit reduction — they have contributed $60 billion through a two-year pay freeze, and an additional $15 billion in pension benefits. Meanwhile, no other group has been singled out to contribute — including millionaires and billionaires. We should not continue to ask these middle class Americans to contribute while not asking others to also pay their fair share.


The Congressional Budget Office projects spending on Medicare, Medicaid and other government health programs will more than double as a share of the nation's economy by 2037. What specific changes would you propose to reduce Medicare costs?

I am committed to preserving the guarantee of Medicare, Medicaid, and health security for America's seniors, the disabled, and the most vulnerable among us. The Affordable Care Act provides deficit savings of more than $1 trillion over the next two decades. It extends the solvency of Medicare by eight years, and is already having a significant impact on slowing the growth of Medicare spending, without ending the Medicare guarantee and shifting costs onto seniors.

This year, I opposed the Republican budget, which ends the Medicare guarantee, raises health care costs for seniors, and turns Medicaid into a block grant that jeopardizes access to affordable health and nursing home care for seniors and the disabled. The Republican budget attempts to balance the budget on the backs of seniors, the disabled, middle class families, and the most vulnerable, while giving tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires.

Their budget has the wrong priorities, and I will continue to call on both parties to work together on a big, bold, balanced deficit reduction plan that asks all Americans to pay their fair share. In order to take meaningful action to address the deficit, we must be willing to put all options on the table, including spending cuts, revenues, and entitlements while protecting the Medicare guarantee and most vulnerable among us.


Would you support increased federal spending on highways and other infrastructure as a way to boost the construction industry? If so, how would you pay for it?

I support federal spending on highways and other infrastructure, which is why I have been urging Congress to pass a long-term reauthorization of a surface transportation bill. By passing a long-term reauthorization in June, we were able to give businesses certainty, support job creation, and improve the safety and reliability of our transit system.

I will continue to make investments in infrastructure a high priority. The Make It In America plan, an initiative I am leading in Congress to create jobs and grow the economy, focuses on making investments in our nation's infrastructure so that we can help businesses grow and move products quickly and cheaply.


Would you support U.S. military involvement in Iran if there were evidence that it was close to developing a nuclear weapon?

A nuclear Iran would be dangerous to the United States, to Israel, and to our European allies, and it would result in a nuclear arms race in the Persian Gulf. The global oil supply would be threatened as well. A nuclear Iran also would carry the risk of nuclear weapons technology potentially reaching terrorist groups seeking to employ them against American targets. For these reasons, a nuclear Iran would be a grave threat to our national security, and I believe we must use every tool available to prevent it.


Describe a specific policy you would pursue in Congress that would have support from members of the opposite party.

The Make It In America plan, which I am working to advance, aims to strengthen manufacturing so that American companies can grow and create jobs here in the U.S. It is an agenda that Democrats, Republicans, and everyone from labor to business can support. The manufacturing sector has been leading our economic recovery, and the Make It In America plan aims to build on that momentum through bipartisan proposals to strengthen the industry and boost the middle class. The plan includes bills that enjoy strong bipartisan support, such as the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act, which requires the development of a national strategy to revitalize American manufacturing. Several Make It In America bills have already been signed into law, but we must do more to grow our economy and support job creation. I will continue to pursue the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act and other bipartisan proposals so we can help businesses innovate, grow, and keep and create good jobs in the U.S.

As you know, the Bush-era income tax cuts will expire at the end of this year. Do you support extending the cuts for all income levels, only on individual income under $200,000 (under $250,000 for families), or not at all? If you support an extension of some kind, should it be paid for?

The existing federal income tax rates have been the existing rates for over 10 years and should not be increased. We now must focus on deleting 21-plus new taxes imposed on working class Americans under the Affordable Care Act passed by President Obama and Congress. We should not be raising taxes on American families and small businesses when everybody is struggling to make ends meet and our economy flounders badly in the worst situation since the 1930's. We need to create an environment to reduce unemployment by a confident private sector being willing to invest to hire more people onto their payrolls. The unemployment rate is understated and is particularly higher in minority communities than the national averages might indicate. Raising taxes will not help us create the environment for economic recovery and the subsequent creation of good paying private sector jobs.


Is there any circumstance in which you would support extending a pay freeze on federal employees and/or requiring current federal employees to contribute more to their retirement plans? Please explain.

If we make small sacrifices now we will be able to maintain a good and fair pay structure for federal employees. The current projections for national debt may put many federal workers and defense industry contractors at risk to even maintain their jobs unless we make some corrections to close our annual spending deficit and reduce our national debt. This is a particular danger here in Maryland. If this is my choice, reducing spending or have people lose their jobs, I would choose to keep people employed by reigning in the rate of growth in federal spending in many other areas, including entitlement program reform.


The Congressional Budget Office projects spending on Medicare, Medicaid and other government health programs will more than double as a share of the nation's economy by 2037. What specific changes would you propose to reduce Medicare costs?

Our government can ensure the most access to optimal health care coverage by fully repealing the recently passed health care takeover. This will allow the quality of our care to not only remain first-class but it will prevent the government bureaucracies from having an invisible hold on more facets of our lives. America's future healthcare needs can be secured only if we reform and make solvent the long-term programs like Medicare and Social Security. We must deliver our health care in a system that is free-market based and sustainable. We must also enact commonsense reforms by enacting malpractice tort reform, the continuation of no bar for pre-existing conditions, the availability to purchase healthcare across state lines and overall improving the portability of coverage.

We also need to implement full cost recovery audits at the federal and state levels to allow recovery of fraud, waste and abuse which is rampant in these massive entitlement programs and cost taxpayers billions of $ annually.


Would you support increased federal spending on highways and other infrastructure as a way to boost the construction industry? If so, how would you pay for it?

The federal government must pass a budget before we can begin discussing increasing spending on anything. Congress just passed a transportation reauthorization which would stabilize our system for at least the immediate future. We need Congress to address our long term spending by passing a budget which gives us a roadmap to affordable national priorities. Recently, Steny Hoyer was quoted as saying we don't really need to pass a federal budget and that we could continue to get by on piecemeal appropriations. I disagree and believe Congress should actually do what we pay them to do, pass a national budget. Families have a budget, businesses have a budget, state and local governments pass a budget every year, but it has been over three years since Congress has passed a budget. It's time to pass a budget. Only then can we understand the role that transportation funding plays among many important and competing national budget priorities.


Would you support U.S. military involvement in Iran if there were evidence that it was close to developing a nuclear weapon?

Yes, if our military leaders, the president, and a majority in Congress thought it was necessary to protect our vital national interests. The option should not be taken off the table. Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, at all costs. The leaders of Iran continue to call for the destruction of our ally, Israel. The future of Israel and the peace of the world could be jeopardized if Iran becomes a nuclear power.


Describe a specific policy you would pursue in Congress that would have support from members of the opposite party.

An example is an authority that President Obama recently requested. A bill to allow for line item veto authority and the bill was co-authored in a bipartisan fashion by Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md, and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc. The bill passed the House on February 8, 2012 with bipartisan support, but Congressman Hoyer voted 'no.' I would have voted 'yes.' This type of partisanship by congressional leaders must stop. I will support ideas supported by the other party, and by President Obama, if they make sense for solving America's intractable problems.

We need to stop the strident political gamesmanship and start demanding statesmanship out of our congressman. Read the press releases put out regularly by Congressman Hoyer and he frequently slams the Republicans in Congress. It is tiring and this type of political vitriol in Congress must stop. Once a level of mutual desire to solve America's problems becomes more important than gaining political advantage at all cost by both sides will we be on the right track. It is then that this country will make progress on getting our country back on the path of bipartisan problem solving.

As you know, the Bush-era income tax cuts will expire at the end of this year. Do you support extending the cuts for all income levels, only on individual income under $200,000 (under $250,000 for families), or not at all? If you support an extension of some kind, should it be paid for?

I believe in far larger tax cuts, across the board. These should be financed by reducing the size and scope of government. That includes ending the wasteful and costly War on Drugs, ceasing to use the military for nation building and policing the world, ending agriculture subsidies, and ending the backwards incentives that drive up the cost of education and healthcare.


Is there any circumstance in which you would support extending a pay freeze on federal employees and/or requiring current federal employees to contribute more to their retirement plans? Please explain.

Yes, and I also would end several federal agencies. As an educator, I have seen the large scale damage to education that the Department of Education has done. America is No. 2 in education spending, and No. 25 in math. I would put ending the Department of Education at the top of my list.

But the list certainly continues from there. I would work to end most federal agencies, as well as to audit and eventually phase out the Federal Reserve.


The Congressional Budget Office projects spending on Medicare, Medicaid and other government health programs will more than double as a share of the nation's economy by 2037. What specific changes would you propose to reduce Medicare costs?

Healthcare in America is overpriced for one reason: There are no incentives to lower costs. Patients don't see the bill and doctors get no extra business by being more cost-competitive. When there are incentives to lower costs, like the ones created by HSAs [health savings accounts] and catastrophic care insurances, the costs go down.

Medicare is a disastrous boondoggle that needs to be phased out. I would repeal the prescription drug subsidy, and gradually phase out Medicare. In the first phase, I would have Medicare means tested. At the same time, I would make Medicare unavailable to recent immigrants. If you haven't paid into social security and Medicare, it seems a bit absurd that you can receive it.

To continue to lower costs, I would end the bans on pharmaceutical reimportation, and other protections and subsidies given to large pharmaceutical companies.


Would you support increased federal spending on highways and other infrastructure as a way to boost the construction industry? If so, how would you pay for it?

I oppose all bailouts, subsidies, and corporate welfare. The only reason the government should undertake a task is if the people need the product. It should never undertake a task just to "create jobs." Any job "created" by the government has to be created with funds from the private sector. Those funds should be left with the private sector, so that they can create private sector jobs.

Thus, if we had an absolute national need for more roads, then we should build them. But we should never build roads just to subsidize an industry — no matter how many lobbyists they have.


Would you support U.S. military involvement in Iran if there were evidence that it was close to developing a nuclear weapon?

No, and I would end sanctions against Iran. Creating enmity with foreign nations is not in our economic interests.

I believe that an unnecessary war with Iran is essentially a bailout for defense contractors. No one else profits form war.

In a larger sense, I believe our military policy should focus on missile defense, not on interfering with other nations.


Describe a specific policy you would pursue in Congress that would have support from members of the opposite party.

I would repeal the Patriot Act. I believe a large number of Democrats and Republicans would support that.