YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections


October 25, 1992

Questions were sent to candidates in September. Answers have been edited to fit the space.

Tax Cut

Q. Do you support President Bush's proposal for an unspecified across-the-board tax cut and an increase in the personal exemption for individuals?

Decherd: Yes. I support anything that leaves more money in taxpayers' pockets.

Edwards: No. Raise taxes for the wealthiest 10% in this country so they begin to pay their "fair share."

Kahn: No. An across-the-board tax cut benefits the rich greatly and the middle class very little.

Moorhead: Yes. Because of the state of the economy, I believe a tax cut would stimulate the economy and help bring it out of the doldrums.

Moorman: No. Does opposition to such a foolish idea deserve explanation?

AIDS Research

Q. Do you support a proposal by the National Commission on AIDS to greatly increase the federal resources committed to combatting the disease?

Decherd: No. Better for this to be funded privately.

Edwards: Yes. Allocate 25% of current military budget as additional funding to fight the AIDS virus.

Kahn: Yes. AIDS may become the leading killer of Americans before the end of the decade.

Moorhead: Yes, where necessary. Federal spending on AIDS has steadily increased over the years. Spending on AIDS-related activities will total $17 billion by the end of fiscal 1992--$4.4 billion alone in fiscal 1992, a 170% increase over 1988.

Moorman: Yes. AIDS is one of our largest public-health problems and we should not skimp on appropriate expenditures.

Tax Increase

Q. Do you support spending more on job training, improvements to the educational system and rebuilding the nation's infrastructure by raising the taxes of individuals making more than $140,000 a year and couples earning more than $200,000 a year?

Decherd: No. I oppose any increase in anyone's taxes.

Edwards: Yes. But most particularly on the multimillionaires who in this country have tax loopholes and incentives that allow them to pay little, if any, tax at all.

Kahn: Yes. Those people who reaped massive benefits from the tax cuts of the 1980s should be willing to put some of that money to good use pulling us out of the Bush recession.

Moorhead: Taxing to death those in the upper income brackets is not the solution.

Moorman: Yes.

Capital Gains

Q. Do you favor President Bush's proposal for a capital gains tax cut as an economic stimulant?

Decherd: Yes. Taxes on capital gains should be eliminated.

Edwards: No.

Kahn: No.

Moorhead: Yes.

Moorman: No.

Balanced Budget

Q. Do you support a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget to be implemented within five years?

Decherd: No.

Edwards: No.

Kahn: No.

Moorhead: Yes. I do believe, however, that the line-item veto would be a better way of accomplishing the same goal.

Moorman: No.

Defense Reductions

Q. With the end of the Cold War, do you favor deep reductions in the $290 - billion annual defense budget? If so, how much could it be safely reduced in one year? Five years?

Decherd: No. Not deep, only moderate. It is still a very dangerous, unstable world.

Edwards: Yes. We can "safely" reduce it today if the American people are allowed to redistribute the tax dollars.

Kahn: Yes. Savings in the first year could be as great as $20 billion in uninflated dollars. Over five years, I believe $150 billion in total could be cut.

Moorhead: No. It still is not a totally safe world.

Moorman: Yes. The defense budget could be cut more than 50%. We should talk in terms of 75% as a goal in the next five years.

Medicare Benefits

Q. Should the government reduce Medicare benefits for the wealthy or ask wealthy beneficiaries to pay more premiums to help alleviate the federal budget deficit?

Decherd: Yes.

Edwards: Yes. Both.

Kahn: No. Senior citizens are not to blame for the deficit and the national debt.

Moorhead: No. It is to the benefit of everyone that the wealthy be kept in the Medicare program and contributing to its cost. Medicare was set up to give uniform care to senior citizens.

Moorman: No. Taxes or premiums might be means-tested, but I do not think that benefits should be discriminatory.

Welfare Benefits

Q. Do you support reducing welfare benefits of parents who do not go to school, attend training or find a job; do not make sure that their children attend school or get basic medical care, or who continue to have more children while on welfare?

Decherd: Yes. Federal government should not be financing the welfare state.

Edwards: No. Every person in this country has the right to a decent standard of living, regardless of whether he or she is employed.

Kahn: Americans are prepared to take responsibility for their own lives if the opportunity is offered in the form of education, job training and good available jobs.

Moorhead: Yes. It is appropriate that the government set reasonable limits on welfare recipients.

Moorman: No. Getting a healthy economy, where a welfare parent can expect to get a good job, would do more than sanctions to get people off welfare.

Los Angeles Times Articles