THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, September 11, 1994 TAG: 9409100251
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY KEITH MONROE, STAFF WRITER
LENGTH: Medium: 96 lines
Four candidates are running for a Virginia Senate seat - Chuck Robb who's got it and Oliver North, Doug Wilder and Marshall Coleman who want it.
Most voters already know all they need to know about the soap opera aspects of the race: the candidates' charisma or lack of it, their fondness for one another or lack of it, their character or lack of it. Indeed, the race threatens to turn into a cross between The Colbys and Geraldo.
I have a modest proposal: Perhaps what the voters should concern themselves with is what the candidates and media have largely ignored, not these men's previous lives or private lives but their future intentions. If elected, how would each vote as Senator for six years?
Senators have several duties, including speechifying, advising and consenting, and providing constituent service. But there are only two really essential functions: They decide what the federal government should do and how much it should spend doing it. And they decide how to raise the money to pay for all that federal activity. That is, they decide how and how much we are going to be taxed.
Yet surprisingly little attention has been devoted to these subjects. It's far easier for candidates to run on glittering generalities, to spout platitudes favoring family values and opposing crime. It's harder to specify how much they'd spend on defense or upgrading air traffic control or protecting the environment and how they'd charge you to pay for it.
But those are the questions voters ought to be asking and candidates ought to be answering. Here are 10 topics that could be considered crucial between now and the 21st century. Where do Coleman, North, Robb and Wilder stand on them?
Defense. In a post-Cold War era, how much is enough? Is $250 billion a year too much? Not enough? How many carriers do we need? How many armored divisions? How many troops should we keep in Europe? In the Far East? Is building unneeded ships and planes in order to keep contractors in business a defensible act or a boondoggle? Should we spend more on sealift and airlift? Should defense against attacking missiles be pursued or abandoned? Answers ought to be specific.
Nuclear proliferation. Have any of the candidates any idea how to keep nuclear material out of the hands of dangerous regimes? What happens when a Saddam or a Gadafi gets a bomb? Is this issue worth going to war over?
Global competition. Where do the candidates stand on trade? Should we trade freely even if we lose jobs overseas? What is the government's role in helping the displaced worker? Is our education system up to the challenge of providing a competitive work force?
Population/immigration. What should U.S. policy be regarding global population control? How much should we spend on the issue? At home, how much immigration should we permit? How should those admitted be chosen? What measures should be taken to prevent illegal immigration?
Entitlements. Due to an aging population and escalating health care costs, entitlements threaten to keep federal budgets, taxes and deficits on the rise. Generational conflict over who gets how much and who pays how much is a serious possibility. Should Social Security and Medicare be means-tested? Should the retirement age be raised? Should more of Social Security income be taxed? Do candidates have any other ideas to stop the hemorrhaging?
The deficit. We already face red ink of $200 billion annually. The only solutions are to spend less or tax more - either by increasing rates or increasing the tax base. Let's see each candidate's proposal for $200 billion in tax increases, spending cuts or a combination. Or, do they favor doing nothing and watching the national debt grow another $6 trillion?
Taxation. Are the candidates satisfied with the present tax system? Should it be more progressive or flatter? Should exemptions be increased or eliminated? How about replacing the income tax with a value-added tax or some other alternative?
Environment. Is enough being done to prevent pollution of the air, the earth and the water? When industrial production and environmental protection clash, who should win? Who should decide?
Unfunded mandates. Short of cash, the federal government has increasingly crafted legislation that provides benefits to citizens without providing the money to pay for them. State and municipal governments or private enterprise are left holding the bag. When is such highhandedness justified? And if such unfunded mandates are rarely legitimate, will the candidates pledge to vote `no' on all unfunded mandates?
Spending cuts. How about a serious list of spending that can be cut, programs that have outlived their usefulness? And not just nickel and dime stuff, either.. Is there any need for agricultural subsidies that are largely a holdover from the Great Depression? How about rural electrification? Does NASA still have a plausible mission? How about the CIA?
Candidates can, of course, finesse such questions with pat answers. They are all for a strong defense and against nuclear proliferation. They want to lower taxes and lower the deficit, while giving senior citizens all the help they're entitled to.
But that's just so much artful dodging. It ought to be regarded as evidence of unsuitability for the office of senator. If these gentlemen want six years in Washington, spending our money and affecting our destiny, they owe us straight answers and thoughtful assessments not sound bites and oversimplifications.
KEYWORDS: U.S. SENATE RACE VIRGINIA CANDIDATES by CNB