Voter's Pipeline; Election Special - 34th Congressional Race

Welcome to election 80 part of the voters bylined series of special programs on channel 50 to present candidates and issues to the voters. Join us each Friday night at 7:30 p.m. to hear newsman interview Orange County candidates. Today's program presents candidates for the thirty fourth congressional district. Now here's your host Jim Cooper. Orange County has emerged as one of California's most important counties. Now waiting for congressional representatives for the past two years we've had three Republicans and one Democrat in Washington. Their job is to represent the counties 1.9 million people and 900000 registered voters. The job of Congressman involves dealing with a thousand different individual problems as well as deciding major national issues. They have the enormous task of sharing and the U.S. government functioning which envisions an upcoming national budget of six hundred and twelve billion dollars. Congressman resee the term serves a term of two years and receives a salary of sixty thousand six hundred sixty two dollars a year. Today we'll be examining the race for the third or fourth congressional district office.

34 congressional district is located in the northwestern part of Orange County. It also extends into Los Angeles County in Orange County It includes parts of Huntington Beach Westminster's Seal Beach Seal Beach Leisure World Sunset Beach Ross Moore and Surfside in Los Angeles County. It includes Lakewood and about half of the city of Long Beach. Now I will introduce the candidates and we'll have each one of them give a one minute statement on his or her candidacy after which we will be asking some questions with our special guest from the Orange County media. Joining me is Bobbie Rigol with Orange County Bureau Chief for KMW radio and an old friend. She's been a political writer for The Los Angeles Herald Examiner The women's editor of KNX Radio News and has also written for KNX TV and KABC. And now the candidates not present this Congressman Dan Lungren Republican the incumbent candidate from the third or fourth district. He serves on the House Judiciary Committee and the Select Committee on Aging and he's now completing his first two years in Congress.

My own Democrat is an administrative librarian at the Leisure World branch library in Seal Beach. She's an attorney at law and has served as an officer in the National Organization of Women and parents without partners. She's a public speaker and writer on many subjects of community interest. I even e Lynch Democrat is the president and directing business is representative of the International Association of Machinists and he's held that position for 18 years. He's worked for the McDonnell Douglas corporation and is on the board of directors of the international guiding eyes. Jim Macnab Democrat is the Director of Public Policy and Administration for the alumni association at Cal State Long Beach. He is an administrative analyst for the Long Beach Harbor department and has served as president of the Long Beach City Employees Association. David Giacomo which Democrat is a fourth grade teacher from Long Beach. He graduated from the University of California Berkeley with a B.A. in economics and holds a teaching credential which he received from UC Irvine. He studied labor taxation and banking.

John Donohue Peace and Freedom Party is a refinery worker and shop steward for oil chemical atomic Workers Union. He attended the founding convention of the Peace and Freedom Party in 1968 and graduated from Adelphi College in New York. Now we're going to ask each of the candidates to give a one minute statement on his or her candidacy after which we'll be asking him some special questions and we ask our candidates to stay as closely as possible to our one minute time limit. And let's start with Simone. Good morning. Jim. I am. Not the administrative librarian. I am an attorney. I work for a nonprofit corporation that deals exclusively with senior citizens. And that's part of the reason that I can go and I'm concerned about their problems. And of course the major problem which is inflation. Which hits people on fixed incomes and low incomes the hardest. I have said that inflation is a depression for the poor. And. To. Impose on them any further burdens.

Is. Really not fair. I'm concerned about please the use of nuclear energy. Equal Rights Amendment for women. And. I'm also concerned about educational processes. And. In general I guess. I guess those that concern people that are the least able to bear the burden of inflation. All right thank you. Are you connected with the library that my kids are going to connect with the library. No I haven't been a librarian for several months I've been an attorney. Prior to that you work and I guess I was right. Yes sir. Next I'm writing for college because I believe that I have the qualifications. To seek that office from my past experience as a labor representative representing people. I represent nine thousand people at the McDonnell Douglas corporation and also Twenty six hundred retirees. And I

know that they have problems with. The. Inflation problem because of their fixed incomes and that it is brutal. What we're doing to our senior citizens. And we devastate our lives and we have to do something about that. Inflation is caused by many reasons and we're probably going to lose before this is over. But I feel that. If elected I can sell some of these problems because I've been dealing with companies in the past know the. Problems and the problems of the people. I thank you Mr. McNabb. I seek the office primarily. Because I had become rather involved in the Democratic. Party over the last few years. And I think I am sufficiently well qualified. I know we are all concerned about inflation. And its ramifications and how serious the circumstances are regarding. How to. Make the best use of the money available. As previously mentioned you

said 612 billion dollar budget. How can it be best allocated not to dislocate or. Discourage people. From their opportunities in life. I think. You. Know what. Yeah. I'm running for Congress because. I feel. There's a great injustice to this country. And the way congressional races are financed. Dan Lungren a man with no previous political experience spent over six hundred thousand dollars in two years. Receiving his money from corporate political action committees and RTC. I believe that. If his father wasn't associated with the Nixon family that he wouldn't be able to receive these funds. And generally the Democratic Party and political analysts have written off this district that it's generally considered to be a Lundgren district and that he's going to have no problem winning reelection. And I was the last

candidate to file and I filed because there's a lot of frustrated economically frustrated homeowners and young people that can't get ahead. And I don't think that there's any qualified candidates in this race. All right sir and Mr. you. Yes. I'm running for this seat for the fourth time. And the reasons I'm running are fundamentally the same. Back in 1968. A. Group of people got together and started a new political movement movement namely the peace and freedom and the purpose then was. To try and extricate us and give give the people an opportunity to express their opposition to the Vietnam War that we didn't seem to be able to get out of. The. Nevertheless we have gone through that period and now we find ourselves again on the brink of war and also on the brink of economic

disaster. And I think that the only solution to this problem is that we change our political and economic system most radically. Do you want to tell us very briefly how you would change it. Well I would change. I would change to a democratic socialist system. From the capitalist system. We feel. That. The capitalist system is the basis for all the problems that we are facing. All right. Thank you. You all had a chance to make a statement now now I feel that one of the primary responsibilities of any candidate. In our system is to define the key issues and then to relate those to the electorate. I think it's a fair question to ask each of you now in your own words rather than our question in your own words what are the principal key issues on which you think this race should be decided and let's go back the other way and let's start with Mr. Donahue and go back to you again I think the key issue is the economic issue the fact that.

We find ourselves in it with a political economic system that either we wind up with either a war or an economic crisis. I'm 55 years old and I can never I cannot remember. Any time in my life when we were not preparing for war or about to enter an economic crisis or just getting over one. So I think we just have to have fundamental radical changes in the entire system. You think that the whatever change we have will make the world a safer place to live in. Yes I hope so. It can't be any less safe than it is now. It's incredible. Right on the brink of nuclear disaster. All right. Mr.. Yakama what. Well I believe the. Main issue is inflation. And. With my background majoring in economics from UC Berkeley I feel I understand. Inflation's not only in theory. But as a working individual in our society who won't be able to.

Buy a home at the present rate of inflation. And. I would like to go to Washington and do what I can to bring the economic chaos in this country under control and to represent the people here. I think that anyone listening Scuse me and anyone listening to this would insist that I ask you the question how. How. Well. What would you do that we're doing wrong now. Well I mean as it collectively as a United States sovereign state. I think Carter's economic policies. Are fairly bankrupt. And they hurt the middle income and lower income people than most. Rich people in our society have loopholes that need to be closed. So tax tax reform is one of the morning is essential. And. Closing loopholes such as a business deduction

instead of it being 100 percent deductible. It could be 50 percent deductible at a substantial savings to the government. And down. I don't see why the government should pay businessmen to utilize and make good money and it doesn't make sense to me that business gets the tremendous amount of depreciation allowances and deductions that they can take advantage of. And I believe it's because of the close relationship between the government and the business community and the financing that is going on currently by the corporate political action committees. And I think that people need a representative from this district who will stand up and say no to big business. Yes sir. And in this instance I suppose I would concur that yes it is the economic circumstances probably all of our programs to some extent are. Counter. Protective in the sense that you are taxed on. The interest you earn on savings but you get to take off the interest you earn. For borrowing money. This does not accrue principal in

order to increase the productivity of the country. Maybe some kind of a credit or trade off position might be desirable along these lines so that a small saver would not. Be hurt if he saves money. I do feel that peace in itself. Aid the maintenance of peace a strong nation is also very desirable and that becomes a very. Severe problem in how to trade off a balanced budget against increased expenditure. Mr. Lynch. Well Jim the. Major issue that faces us today is certainly inflation. And I believe that we can pinpoint that to a number of issues. Energy is one. Medical costs housing food and we've just experienced high interest rates which. Adds to the inflation and it feeds on itself. And we are talking about balancing the budget and. Proposing one of over 600 billion dollars. I don't

believe that a balanced budget in this country will help solve the problem inflation because what we've done we have put people out of work and unemployment. Feeds inflation for every million people that are unemployed. It cost this government 22 billion dollars in lost revenues and unemployment and welfare. What's that figure using. Twenty two billion dollars for every million people. And so if you cut $20 billion off of the budget. And. As a result you have a million people that are unemployed as a result of that you haven't gained. You've lost you. You've caused inflation just by that. So I would say that the way one of the ways is to establish full employment. Other countries do that and they don't have the problems that we have in inflation. If we would do that we could balance the budget because of the extra income to the government and they wouldn't have to be arguing in Congress about a balanced budget. We have to control.

Some of the economic. Things that cause the inflation. Energy is one we have to control that. It's been decontrol and we've seen what happened. In 78. Toby off to his congressman put a member on the floor to control oil. It was voted down. And for the reason that it would stabilize it has not stabilized in 1978. We're paying sixty seven cents a gallon for gasoline and 79 November. We were paying a dollar 8 today. We pay anywhere from. A dollar thirty two dollars 35 cents so we see it hadn't stabilized by decontrol. We decontrol natural gas which affects. The consumer. By 1985 he would be paying $7500 a year just. For the use of natural gas. These are the things we have to control and I'm not saying that we control business completely. They must make a profit. We must control across the board. We

must control wages interest rates and all the other factors that cause inflation. And then we will solve our problems. That's the way that we will have to do it. So on. I would go Mr. Lynch a little further. In being in agreement with him. That in the problem of employment. Or non employed people I would rather we had. Instead of layoffs a massive. Unified sharing of the jobs plan unemployed person. Has a greater self-esteem. It. It's getting to where it is in this country un-American to be unemployed or disabled or. Want. On any kind of welfare or assistance program. I think that we need to provide these jobs by a sort of unified within the company or within the government employment to share as a job. So if everybody took a 10 percent cut in hours that would be one more

job for someone else it might be 10 more jobs and we have to look at another way of sharing jobs just to make one job work for two people. People who could use part time income but not a full time make one job with four hours four hours a day for each person. That's correct. Twenty hours this would make it more available to women who have small children at home and need another income and it would reduce any public benefits they might get. I would also give them an opportunity to get some work experience. It would help senior citizens also who couldn't cope or wouldn't need a full time employment but they could use part time employment. And all of those that are fully employed instead of reaching for seniority and saying I have been on this job longer therefore I stay. Lay off the new person. Instead if we all agreed. That we all have a stake in full employment and. Voluntarily take a 10 percent cut in hours we might stretch out the available jobs.

Do you think do you think it's practical to think people would accept that idea. I. Rather it's it's practical but I don't think that society is ready for any kind of movement. Which is why we might have to go into a less voluntary position. As Mr. Lynch suggests. Probably you've been very patient. Well I'm just sitting here thinking that one of the reasons that the budget is. As they say in Washington a finely balanced budget is because they had to add a lot of money to that budget. To cover the unemployment insurance for the other workers who have been put out of work. Now as you look at that problem what would you see as the reason for that. Is it because we have allowed foreign car people to come into the United States. What do you see as the cause for suddenly all of our auto plants shutting down and this tremendous out of work that's come up. And I. Just a quick answer from each one of you who wants to make a quick one on that.

Right. Well. What's happened to the auto industry is that we have allowed imports of foreign automobiles. Last year we imported three million 400000 automobiles in foreign countries with correctly no tariff at all on those bills. No restrictions and restriction has been completely lifted now. On the other hand the American manufacturers exported 27000. Automobiles. And the cost of a roll of bills in a foreign country like Japan is $21000 where we buy them for six or seven thousand dollars here. So you can see that the term is a barrier to us for trade outside the country. What should we do. Should we just shut the door for them and say OK we don't want any more of this. No we should we should we should put anybody else can they. Let's mix it up here. What about you. Do you agree with that. No. But I tell you was a dumb idea. You think it's a really dumb idea.

Mr. Lynch is a business representative as his job description and he works with the labor unions and I get confused listening to him because he argues businesses point of view tariffs. The argument of tariffs is supported by business so that they can make more money and control the market. But one of the things we pride ourselves on in this country is a is a free market system with no tariffs and we allow other people to come here and sell their products. And it just so happens that the American public is saying no to the gas guzzling inefficient automobiles that this country is producing. And people are being laid off and put out of work because the companies are not selling a product that people want. The European carmakers and the Japanese carmakers for a long time have been facing high gas prices and they've been making fuel efficient and stylish automobiles. And you cannot tell the American people that we cannot have those automobiles. We have to have less. That's just totally chaotic. We need less government control. We do not need more government control. But as you say this.

All of the people who are out of work. Are going to argue with you well just because the auto companies wouldn't build the right kind of cars is that any reason to put 100000 people out of work. Well what's happened is that huge retooling the plants they're closing them down to make more fuel efficient cars. But you see that that seems to be a message that the automobile industry in America should have heard about in your two years ago. And they just don't put out cars now that get 11 miles to the gallon I don't see a lot of posturing in them in the year of nineteen hundred and eighty. And I don't think our government is it seems to me I don't think our government has subsidized Chrysler either for making fuel efficient inefficient automobiles. I think that's wrong for government to step in and bail out private industry for curb they're bankrupt. I. There were cars that could get 30 miles to the gallon 10 years ago. Why did you hear that anyway. Anybody. I don't mean to make a good system to get the issue. Again it goes back to what I'm originally saying that this is inherent in the system. The problem is. That automobiles are produced for profit as he said. I think we have to get rid of the profit system where we're never going to get the right direction and Chrysler here has moved

on. Well I actually went a. But somebody else is making the profit. The Japanese manufacturer is making the profit simply because they are making a better product that is more fuel efficient. Well now the old story of a better mousetrap the world beat a path or what all work is going to do. Do we not have other things for them to do. Can't they build houses. We need all kinds of houses we need hospitals we need schools. This is a problem inherent in the capitalist system. Anyone else for barbers question anyone else want to respond to this another part of the issue. And that is our obligations to other nations. Now. Financially if we cut them off with touts we will have to make it up to them in some other fashion. So it's not just tied up to our economic system. We have to recognize it's tied up to our international economic system. Either way it's going to cost us. The next question I'll ask you to direct to a part of your job and the one that you found yourself being a

congress member of Congress you certainly had to deal with international issues. Right now we're going through a terribly tense period with the problems in Iran. The problems in Afghanistan the problem of our. Declaration the carders the so-called Carter Doctrine that we're going to defend the Persian Gulf. A rather unclear policy because it doesn't define exactly at what point we begin defending. But that's that the Carter Doctrine. So lumping those together this international situation that it finds itself centered in the Mideast is Carter doing a good job or is he doing a bad job. Who wants to take that one with him. I don't think. He's doing a reasonably good job. You know when you really only have a choice you don't really want to go to war. Even you don't quite have all the players in your game. You kind of tread a very. Narrow fence between among the players in your game. What players should we be having. We know that they do we do what we have a mandate from the people they go to war with they really say yes go to war

in Iran. Nobody really wants that. Yes we like to have the hostages home. There have been attempts. It isn't something simple like in the. London where they were able to storm the embassy. I mean that's on your own real estate. But the whole posture of our Middle East is it's very hard. You don't have all the yeah you don't have all the players you don't know where your allies are going to be. I do agree with General Carter's doing a fairly good job or a reasonably good job. I was that bad. Yes absolutely. I don't think Carter's done a good job in handling. Foreign affairs at all. And. He's. Bungled through several international crises. And the source of the problem seems to be with his lack of experience in dealing with international affairs and his lack of professionalism. And dealing with other countries. You know I agree. I think. President Carter is one of the worst presidents we've had in recent history and that's saying a lot.

I think I agree that he has had no experience any president that tells us that. 1954 is ancient history is going to get us into a lot of trouble. That's why the people do not understand what happened in Iraq. And that is why he got us into this problem by allowing the Shaw to come in here. He did not understand the Iranian revolution at all and what an ongoing process that happened to be. It's all very oversimplified. Everything happened the day before yesterday and we are the only party that is that is being heard in Iran while the Iranian people have been sold down the river from 1954 on and we're responsible for it. And Carter is responsible and all the people who are advising him. But if you say he done a bad job I ask you a fair question and that is what should he do to do it better. What he should do in it. In the case of Iran he should just sit down say I recognize the fact that the United States has been interfering in this country for a number of years and a number of people have been suffering for this fact. And now you have our people.

What can we we have to sit down on an equal basis and decide how we are going to solve this problem. But he's not doing that. He's saying that they are totally wrong and we're totally right and they'll never be able to solve this problem. This side of war with that kind of an attitude. Anyone else want to respond to this before we go to the next question. Yes I think that. We have a. Basic misunderstanding in Washington about the. Nature of the people in Iran. And I. I'm really worried about the motives for our contact. As. Mr. Donohue said. That. We have. Our. Financial and economic motivation to our foreign policy. And not as Mr. Carter first said that he was interested in human rights. I think our foreign policy is motivated by multinational corporations. And. Not throw up the aisle to conservatives with say we have this big Russian threat. And from my. Understanding. We're really worried about our oil interests and not about the

people interests. Are you outraged about the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Or does that bother you. It doesn't bother me when I realized that it was somewhat provoked by other actions in that area. And we played this. Checkerboard game of I take the square and you take that one and we're really not. Not really talking peace at the level where. Individuals in the countries we're really talking about an economic peace. And that disturbs me. What do you say to a checkerboard action in which the Russians have taken Afghan. I wonder where the U.S. is rather than where. I think we've been in Pakistan. And kind of cowpoke that. Afghans I certainly haven't had in the military on the aggression in Pakistan. Now we're down to zero dollars our aggression my national economic recession. But there is military aggression the Russians when they roll tanks across the border and roll them in Afghanistan and we scream because they took advantage while we were looking elsewhere.

All right Barbara. Well I'd like to get down to some specifics we typing in great generalities and I have a feeling that the man who is here would probably say most of what you have said but there are some particular issues on which you would be voting if you go to Congress first of all. How would you vote. On. Taxes on personal bank accounts. This is a piece of legislation that is in Washington D.C. A second piece of legislation is to eliminate the taxes inheritance taxes which many people say is double taxation. I pay tax on it when I earned it. I give it to my child when I die and the child pays income tax on that money a second time. The third issue that you'll be voting on and it's also a California issue is the indexing of your income so that every time you get eight hours overtime pay you don't pay nine hours of income to the to the IRS for working that extra eight hours or you get a raise. And of course then because it's a state issue. But also I think

a national issue eventually Proposition 9 proposal for federal indexing to. Right. There are but there are proposals. Those are three issues. And then the proposition 9 the whole theory of cutting income tax. So there are there are four things on which you can vote. And if you could just. You start where where do you want to start in the middle or at least in order to take some specifics. Do you want to take this specific you don't have to you know give a speech on the budget tell us read it back again. Number one taxes on bank accounts when you save your little money at four and a half or six percent in your bank account. If you earn two or three hundred dollars at the end of entity you have to pay taxes on it. Number two on an unearned income yes. Right. That does seem like a penalty. But when you get to vote when you get to while you're out because it's because it's a rather long questions about it I guess I can answer a couple of those questions. I do feel that we have to protect the low income people. I would probably look at any any. Taxation. Below. About a

certain minimum income level. And specifically on bank account you mean you think we getting do dividend here on the dividends from your bank account on the interest earned on your bank account. Would you eliminate taxes on that. Might not entirely because it's very difficult to say today and what it or I say do you do it or you don't do it it's one or the other you say you can you as you get it and I don't get it. You can put a minimum. Total income on it. But I think you could support what I maybe the first $10000. Dividend money they would get free of that. Is that what you're saying. OK so let's go to the other one of the a little Let's go around and let's find out about bank account Talca. It is a specific thing that we save and when we also get people to putting more money in the bank right now they're not going to put money in the bank. Let's just say let's stay with the dividends on your savings on your bank account. That would eliminate or eliminate it and taxes on your bank account do it with a limitation just as smooth with the limitation.

Yes the way I understand it in income produced from savings and savings is already taxable with what they're talking about is putting a withholding tax on it and requiring the banks to do more paperwork and having having it you get a W-2 or W for an on your on your income dividends. Right now it's already count as earned income. And if you're following your tax forms properly you should report. I don't think that the government should require banks to withhold that's not what we're talking about we're talking about whether or not you should even pay taxes on it it already do. I know what you're talking about is that new legislation that would stop it and no longer permit. The government to extract taxes from you on why would not think that I would probably vote against them because. You should you should reward positive behavior in our society wants people to say and it doesn't make sense for the government to say go out and save money so we can tax you on it. So I would say you would vote in favor of changing the law. Right. OK.

OK. And generally I would be against changing law because I feel the same way as the moon does. I think what we need to make a more equitable tax system so that the people that earn the most money are the ones that are paying the majority of the taxes. I think everybody agrees that that's the way it is. So with know perhaps to allow incentive to industries people who were able to save a little money but we have to remember that you know there were 24 million people living in this country below the poverty level who had no money in the bank. Those people people on my. What about inheritance taxes. We now pay taxes on inheritance. OK let's start with you in favor of taxing that too because you want 24 million people don't have any inherent right. I would vote against. An inheritance tax. I think that is currently the law. You would vote to change it. Going to do away with it. Right. I would want to do away with taxes. Here and. I would do the

same thing. About how I would vote to. Get rid of it. Yes. I would not. Go. Right. The right to inherit. And this this is historical only since the king wielded everything went to the king. When a person died. And it's a creature of law which gives you the right to inherit. And. I. I and I know the state in this shit. Movement to change inheritance tax because there are enough exemptions for spouses and. Children. And anything over that is taxed at a very low rate. I don't see that it really is a problem that those who have. Inherited something they did not earn to be taxed in process they still get the bulk of the taxes and not you are exorbitant. So you would not tamper with that. I wouldn't. Know. John Wayne family I think that is a 60 percent tax bracket. They sold two houses to pay their back. Obviously I am not going to weep about.

An inheritance that was so large to get itself into the 60 percent bracket. What do you think the 16 percent bracket is usury is. Not that size of an inheritance now. All right then what about indexing. We have that in California now now it's going out. It's a matter of fact there's talk in Sacramento of Prop 9 is passed that they're going to kill at indexing before it ever takes hold. Now that's one of the things that's Marion Ferguson the bill all but it is going national. All right. Now what do you think of that. I don't think that that's really unfair. It gives a little extra boost to them when you're in there. So you get a pay raise that doesn't kick in for another bracket. And then in some cases it almost negates the whole pay rate. I think that could really be solved by a simpler tax. On. Regulation. What about you. That accounts for inflation. I believe it should be indexed but I don't think that's the only problem with the income taxes.

But you're just talking about the index and they're all separate little bills and we don't get a chance to cast a yes or no vote when you go to Washington. Who wants it. I would be in favor of index the index index. They believe it would add incentive right to earn more money. How many people do you say. No I don't want to work overtime or I don't want to do that is going to make more money. Know I think indexing is a really good idea because what the problem of inflation and pushing people into higher tax brackets oftentimes people end up with less. I think it's a good piece of legislation. Mr. Donohue just so I'm in favor of that I have directly seen this in action in the refinery where there there's an incredible bill out of all the time that is demanded and many many workers are refusing it because. We're getting the last thing they had because they were working for nothing. I mean one of the very dangerous job. Yeah. All right let's get an early arms around her last one more Prop 9 9. That's a state issue but. I think it is a solid outlook. We all know Prop 9 is the Jarvis's

or jaw's to amendment that proposes to cut the state income tax in half. You like that philosophical approach and who ought to take that one. Let's start with some on the yes or no. You see no. You don't. Prop 9. No because they they cut the social programs and. They put it. They really ask more of those that have less. And I don't care. That. They the people that are in I think it's our duty as citizens it's our dues we pay for being a citizen. Call it tithing as well but to protect these people from whom so much has been taken away or so little has been given. To him to be opposed to Proposition 9. Why. I don't believe that that's going to benefit the people of California. It's going to affect the school system is going to affect some of programs and those type of programs and I. Don't think it's going to give a deduction for

the general public that they're expecting it probably give them about 17 to $25 a week maybe and that would give Mr. job is probably quite a few thousand. So those are the plans and what bracket earning you're in. Who benefits. I don't believe that the average person is going to benefit from it. Proposition 13 was another one. I can't see the difference. What I don't pay in property taxes I pay the federal income tax and state income tax so I pay the same amount of money. Who else. Mr. MacNab. I would be against it. Yes I do not think you have to be three no vote for him not nine. What about me. I'm David. I'm against it. Because as a schoolteacher I recognize the need in our public schools for more funding. Every year they keep saying less and less and the pendulum has swung so far that the dollars are real tight and the situation is real tough in our public schools. And I think the foundation of our society rests on a strong public school system and also on the

rich do stand to gain more and in our country the rich have the money for the advertising and they can they can. Spread the word that. We're all going to gain from it if this passes. And that's not the case. Most people end up with just a marginal amount of money and the rich people will get most of it back and it will hurt. A large segment of society. You know this is amazing. It's going to be unanimous opinion on that fine. I think that better love when we're here. And I'm sure you're right. I wish them well. Yes for the reasons already mentioned it obviously helps the rich people it's that's the wrong approach to tax reform. Totally on the other hand if you get $3 or $25 back in your pocket you know $110 buy a pair of shoes and a dollar buy a loaf of bread in fact I think you might even get four for a dollar if you going to the second hand store. We're half an hour ago I met an employee who is growing by leaps and bounds. You know mom brought up an interesting thing she said you have to look at it as tithing and there have been

suggestions that perhaps they to eliminate all of the income tax laws and simply everybody pay 10 percent and they'd take in more money and they could also eliminate the IRS because then they would have to pay all these people. What do you think about that kind of tax change I mean a real radical change. Yes I know. I came across that idea and I haven't had time to study it. It has an interesting aspect to it that it would eliminate the paperwork that goes into collecting the bureaucracy that goes into finding out income tax forms. I'd have to give it a lot of study before anyone else want to. I like the title radical change. I would tell you that's right. Yes I think that would be a more reasonable one policy. I'm an elder of my church. We used to have to ask the people of all kinds. You know what about that. What about it. Not by others it could be strictly a voluntary thing or you'd find that

people wouldn't volunteer. You'd have to have some laws that would do it. And I don't know how that would work. Try to check on those who tithes and who those who don't. I'd also have to study the proposal sounds somewhat farfetched at this point but I do believe the tax codes need a major reforming due to the unique relationship with business. And what they tax that many rich people pay little or no taxes due to the variety of loopholes and tax shelters that are available. So we do need to look into another approach whether this one is feasible. I'm I'm not quite certain I'm hearing about it. This program is done in Washington throughout the year we go back one time we talk to whoever may be our congressional representatives you know we have one Democrat and Republican. And during this past year among the many issues we talked about one of the ones that stirs raging controversy. Is the idea that congressional races like you're in right now should be funded by some sort of public subsidy. Common Core for example that group ardently wants to see

that because they argue that the A C that you know the political action committees. In many cases have made Congressman almost a captive of for example the oil industry the maritime industry the automobile industry the. Medical. Powers and profession. So is that a good idea or a terribly dumb idea to have elections in this country like you're in right now financed by some sort of federal election subsidy like we have for example in the presidential races that you see right now is a good idea or a bad idea and I should say that when we debate this in Washington on our program it seems to split right down the line between Democrats and Republicans. But why I like the idea. I would be in favor of a major change in our whole election system that would cause them accepting money from any outside source whether it be labor union or business or. Professions or whatever. The reason for that is currently it makes it possible. The current situation for the rich and powerful to find that Congress

person suits the more money you have to spend on a campaign the better your chances of winning. But this is not who our congressmen would argue. I'll play devil's advocate. They would say oh yes I can accept money from for example the shipping industry but that doesn't make me their lackey. That doesn't put me in their pocket. I keep my integrity. That's the argument they always back. We're not questioning integrity. I certainly wouldn't start that battle. But what we're questioning is whether this expresses the sovereignty of the people whether the people actually have an opportunity to state their choice. Those who cannot afford to make a donation there are many people running. It. For instance some of us campaign chests are not very large but we're worried and people we need to be brought before the public. And. This is a very rare occasion for candidates to have an opportunity to do this. And I congratulate see if. We get. The mass of people do not contribute. They have no

opportunity or no substance with which to do so. So you think that the body politic would be better off if they were absolutely right. Perhaps we need to change a two year term to four year terms and we need to do more individual returning the sovereignty to the people so they can make this right. And we're not. Competing against big donations and big dollars. As I stated in my introduction that's one of the reasons I was upset about this particular congressional race is the fact that Mr. Longdon received most of his money from these corporate political action committees outside the district. And the alternative is. That has been discussed as public funding. Does that bind you that he's getting this corporate assistance through here because a man with no previous political experience has to owe a lot of political favors for over a half million dollars worth of cash. And I'm a man with no previous political experience and there's no way in the world I could raise that kind of money. And it's only through his connections that he was able to do so. But that's not my point. My point is on public financing. I've discussed that with

many people in the district and. They're somewhat upset by that idea too because they don't want to see the government pay money for every Tom Dick and Harry that wants to run for office. I mean everybody will run. We can get our money we can all. How would you go in the presidential race that you might raise a certain amount if you don't for example in Jerry Brown. Yeah right. Governor Romney failed to raise his own money. He's out. He might not qualify anymore at all. I think the the media in programs such as these could play a more important important role in sharing and ideas that the different candidates have. And I think there should be some kind of a limit a real reasonable limit to be a representative in Congress and to speak for the people of this area. It shouldn't be tied to money. How much you have how how good you can beg for it and how quickly you can run around it and hustle up some bucks and I think that's a real problem and that's your word for it. Did that make you uncomfortable and when you say would you give me some money. I don't know who David Beckham or which I quit doing the money. I quit. I quit raising funds. It makes you very irritable.

How do you feel about that. My name is Donny you and I need some bucks you know. I feel exactly the same way. I had a hard time asking people in these times to spend money on something so frivolous as a campaign almost in the who really in the manner that they usually run. And we had a whole industry a whole new industry has sprung up in this country. These are the you know selling straw. You know it ended well I mean it's an old industry which is called a political PR business and we have a friend in Orange County have gotten rich being in both the political arbiters now campaign and the affair. Question to you is that the price tag. The price tag is among these PR experts to get somebody elected for example to a supervisor in Orange County or to a congressman in Orange County is about two hundred thousand dollars. No I don't think any of you sitting at this table has anything like $200000. So my question is how do you expect to even be in this ballgame. Well there's a real problem in and out of the of the campaign consulting firms that one must supposedly delays themselves with to

get elected. It's supported by the media if you're not if you don't have a campaign consulting firm The media is not going to take you seriously when you issue a press release on your own station that you're here. We're taking you seriously David. You're here today. Yeah but I sent press releases off to other people and I called them up and they said we don't deal with unknown candidates. But if a campaign consulting firm had sent them a letter in a briefing they would tend to take it more seriously. OK so you are if I understand what you're saying you're in a racist pragmatically kind of tough to even make a score and not having the Bucks of the dollars that we need. I'd like to talk to you a subject matter. All right. I don't know that the American people would agree. To finance political campaigns. It becomes very difficult to finance a political campaign. And when you talk about PACs there's 800 some corporate patchin United States and there's. 500 professional PACs and I believe there's 240 some union PACs so that's a loophole.

I'm sure that the international machinists association must have a pact there that it's not against the law is perfectly legal. Long as all but. The people were overwhelmed by money. The last election between Hanaford money that one can cost those two gentlemen a total of three dollars and 60 percent of the vote. I think it was something in the neighborhood of about two hundred and fifty thousand dollars worth you know that is about 300000 300000 about 350 400. Now here's $700000 in the race that you are in the very last race that we use that you are in in which Lungren upset Hanaford. I presume none of you are anywhere near in that ballgame. So what how do you confront that dilemma. That's the problem. We shouldn't have to be in that banking. That's what I think we should. Be available to voters through the media. And we should be able to have. I get very offended when you have a political action committee is going to make recommendations and everybody that's within that sphere of influence is supposed to fall in line and vote for that candidate because they said so and it is true that I think many groups are

able to deliver votes. I think everything that we do in that fashion takes away from the individual person's sovereignty I think people should. Pay more attention to their individual vote. For instance this race between us will be decided by one vote. All I need is one vote more than anybody else here. Yes. And if we could get there how do you get a process that would be the problem. You know bottom of page ads in paper that you're going to have singing commercials on the radio. How are you going to do that. That is a major problem. I mean at this point in time it would be hopefully enough to take a nap. All right let me ask you this. Do you feel that you're getting fair publicity do you feel that you're getting an opportunity to talk. I found that a lot of organizations were willing to allow their own members to speak. But if you weren't a member of that particular group and they said oh we're not political or we can't have you way it makes it a lot of our doors that are open to US citizens

are close to you as politicians. Have you found have found that true. I called up the AFL CIO and asked about their Koepp meeting and I was curious to find out how they interview the candidates to make an endorsement. And I knew Mr. Lynch was a representative of the business union but I would my own particular association the teachers association long beach took the time to invite everybody to the. Pac meeting. And they didn't invite Simone because she was registered in Orange County and I told them about her and they tried to at the very last month to get a hold of her. It didn't work out. But getting back to the story over there. You know they weren't interested in interviewing any of the candidates. The door was closed. Mr. Lynch was there man. He's put in a lot of faithful service to them and they weren't interested in hearing anybody else's ideas. And I was tremendously offended by that kind of thing. Who else has been left out of I thought. I understand that in some meetings that which. I don't know the others have been invited. The veterans organization had a. Campaign

meeting for candidates. Some time over a week ago and. Other organizations are either just waiting for the primaries to be over because they. Don't want to make a stand at this time. I also understand you're getting a lot of mail when you have things to feel out of where you stand and I don't mean these are small ones if they're anything like what I've seen there four or five pages you get two or three hours worth of work to take a stance from almost on their own organizations are you all getting those and what do you feel about that. I get it I'm getting a lot of emphasis on things. But. It's quite a busy schedule. You have difficulty in answering. Questionnaires and their mail every day. There is something in the mail or some questionnaires from some group that I try to identify the group which is sometimes difficult to do. There are not even in the state. Most of it is from out of state and from that town. It is evident they're very ultra conservative organizations with some right to work kind of committee it says right to work and you think well that would be a labor type

movement and it isn't they're anti-union. And anti labor organization and we get things like the pro-life people and the gun control. How would you vote on this. I like that question one of the debates has certainly come up again because of the cooling off right now and the salt talks. It further talks with Russia about the salt treaty. Is bound to come up again in the Congress. It's now on the back burner because of the. Administration's policy against the Russians because of Afghanistan. But when and if that does come up again. Would you support executing this treaty or do you think we should. Dump it. I think we should all be treated yes. I think dumping the soul treaty was one of the major factors that caused the invasion into the incursion into Afghanistan. Russians said that they had nothing to lose. They saw us planting nuclear missiles all over Europe aimed at them. And we dropped the psalteries. And we had no more chips to play with them to give them anything. So we dropped the saw treaty after they

did the you know no problem. Well no I don't believe so. We can almost do it with almost no chance of passing or sort of put it down. And. Then. That was being pushed out of the right wing and left wing to the right wing then took control and they pushed him in was going into Afghanistan saying they had nothing left. OK. Is my understanding on the psalteries. That salt to this whole two years that both President Nixon and President Ford President Carter their secretary of state's their military advisers all are unanimous that this is a good thing for this country and there's a lot of debate in this country about whether it is or whether it isn't. But the people that know and the people that are formed really think it's important that we sign the treaty with them and we pull back though because of the tension over the right. But the point is if we're talking about analyzing missiles and numbers and things like this. But our country's real strength is not just with those things we have a lot of undeveloped technology laser technology and our presidents know the strength of our country and if they feel

that they can contain Russia by agreeing to this kind of numbers limitation we have a lot of things that haven't even been discussed. And I think that's thought to be signed and probably should be signed I'd like to review some worthy issues. I wouldn't be in favor of saying so too I think possibly going away of Propp now one two three. Anything to keep the lid on the world. Quite possibly something we ought to add to our foreign policy is don't apologize just say so. You support a dictator. So. So. What. You know decide what is best for this country and pursue it. In a diligent straightforward manner. All right. Well we we should sign anything that puts this country at a disadvantage. And so to certainly does the last report that it was put out shows the difference between the arms that we had with the arms the Russians had. And I don't believe that we should sign anything that puts us in jeopardy. We should have a strong country first of all. And as far as

Afghanistan is concerned that was a satellite of the Russian empire a long time before they invaded. They had got an argument who's going to run it which Congress is going to be in charge of that country that arguments about. And we're saying we're going to fund the world. I don't think the young men of this country is ready to do that. This country is in jeopardy. I think they will be patriotic and will come forth and defend this country but they will defend. Some composition that has nothing to do with it in a foreign country they don't want us to be unwilling to say no I don't believe the young woman will either. I don't think so. I think the mothers want to sacrifice their sons a purpose that does not benefit this country and a lot that I had in my life. That's all we have about a minute left let's give someone a chance for her. I would support you on the thing that would work toward world peace. One of the terrorists of today is that we may end a third world war to find out how we should behave as human beings. And I think. Mr. Lynch. That young men and young

women and older men and older women would rally to the support of the country. I don't think we should single out any group. To defend our country if necessary. If you were sitting in Congress and you had to cast a vote as has had to be done in this session of the Congress as to whether if we go into a draft whether we should draft women exactly the same way we draft men what would be a vote. I have been probably in for a very long time. And as a mother of two sons I find my sons are just as precious to me as anybody's daughters I am and I would certainly insist that the party must go all out equally male and female. I don't want to fight against all ages. I would vote against the war for everyone draft everyone. Had what I say if we did have one. I feel happy I would vote for women be included equally with me. Our time is up. Right now it's been a very stimulating discussion and I. Know that you will all be out there fighting with limited funds as you already indicated and that's a

decision that the voters in the final analysis will have to make as. And they will never know exactly how many dollars spent for what. That's a matter of subjective opinion by the voters. Please join us next Friday night at the same time when we have one of the hottest races going in the entire political campaign which is the fight in the third group of his oil district. I'm Jim Cooper. Thanks for being with us. In. One. Town. In