Questionnaires were distributed to candidates in March. Answers have been edited to fit the available space.
Democrat James H. (Gil) Gilmartin, Green candidate Charles Wilken, Libertarian Peggy Christensen and Peace and Freedom candidate Nancy Lawrence are unopposed in the June 2 primary. Their answers to Times questionnaires will be published before the November general election, along with those of the winner of the Republican primary.
For the Record
Los Angeles Times Tuesday May 5, 1992 Valley Edition Metro Part B Page 5 Column 1 Zones Desk 2 inches; 44 words Type of Material: Correction
Photo captions--The captions of pictures published Sunday of two candidates in the 25th Congressional District were reversed. John J. Lynch was Los Angeles County assessor from 1986 to 1990. Howard (Buck) McKeon is a former mayor of Santa Clarita and helps run a family-owned chain of Western clothing stores.
Tax Cut / Federal Deficit
Q.\o7 Do you support, in principle, reducing the federal deficit or spending more on social programs by raising the taxes of upper-income Americans, defined as individuals making about $100,000 and couples earning about $150,000?\f7
Logsdon: Neither at this time. I do not support reducing the federal deficit or spending more on social programs in this period of recession.
McKeon: No. I'm against any tax increase. Since World War II, every time the Congress has raised taxes, they have increased spending $1.58 for $1 of increased taxes.
McVarish: To get the economy going, we need to cut mandatory entitlements and discretionary funding now.
Rousselot: I favor reducing the federal deficit by reduced spending and immediately establishing a balanced budget in which expenditures are slightly less than income.
Wyman: Taxing the "rich" feels good, but raises little revenue and always falls on the middle class. The real problem lies in too much spending. We have enough taxes.
Q. \o7 Do you favor President Bush's proposal for a capital gains tax cut as an economic stimulant?\f7
Logsdon: Yes. As our economy represents a prolonged drought, the President's proposal represents much-needed rain. The rain brings immediate relief to the valleys and the deserts; the mountain rain turns to snow and is stored, much like the President's proposal will bring immediate relief to a struggling economy and allow for planned investment opportunities.
McKeon: Yes. Historically, when capital gains taxes have been lowered, there has been a jump in the amount of money coming into the federal treasury from capital gains. It encourages economic growth and new job creation.
McVarish: No. The proposal will trigger the alternative minimum tax for those whose gains will exceed their yearly income. Instead of a 15% tax, they will get a 24% surprise. Capital gains tax can be more effective and have more impact on stimulating the economy if the alternative minimum tax is adjusted downward.
Rousselot: Yes. I have always supported this proposal and so voted in 1978 while in the Congress. When the cut in the capital gains tax was implemented in 1978, revenue went up.
Wyman: Capital investment creates all new technologies, 70%-90% of all new jobs and a competitive economy with a hopeful future for our children and grandchildren.
Q. \o7 Do you support a constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget?\f7
Logsdon: No, not at this time, but later when the economy is functioning well I think it should be considered.
Lynch: No. It's not practical in an emergency.
McKeon: Yes. We need to get our spending under control.
McVarish: Yes. If it includes a safety valve against using taxation to initially balance the budget. It should also include line-item veto and budgeting for a period of two or more fiscal years at a time.
Rousselot: Yes. While in Congress, I voted for same and introduced same.
Wyman: Yes, and I also support a line-item veto since Congress is incapable of cutting spending. Congress handles the federal budget just like it does the house bank--the taxpayer picks up the penalties.
Q. \o7 With the end of the Cold War, do you favor deep reductions in the $290\f7 -\o7 billion annual defense budget? If so, how much could it be safely reduced in one year? Five years?\f7
Logsdon: Yes. It is difficult to pinpoint a finite time-tabled figure. However, as a Russian historian, the threat which created our superior military forces does not now exist. The myth of a rebirth of communism is not as threatening as the emergence of a radical Russian national movement.
Lynch: No. Five years.
McKeon: I support President Bush's approach on this. Cuts must be gradual and tied to America's true defense needs in a rapidly changing world. The impact on jobs should be one of the criteria used in making cuts.
McVarish: Yes--a 25% cut over five years with major cuts being made in the $160 billion dollars for salaries and health care of military and $900,000 Pentagon personnel. Closing overseas bases and bringing troops home would save $25 billion.
Rousselot: No. I support proportionate reductions along with all other major categories.
Wyman: World Wars I and II, Korea and Vietnam proved that a cheap defense is always paid back in blood and treasures far greater than our short-term savings. In addition, defense and aerospace create new technologies, new jobs and a competitive economy.