All five of the candidates for US Senate who responded to our issues questionnaire (Martha Coakley being the lone holdout) are skeptical of government subsidies for newspapers. Four of them like tax breaks for first-time homebuyers (Jack E. Robinson being the dissenter); and three support at least some change to marijuana laws (Scott Brown and Alan Khazei say no). Only two (Khazei and Robinson) say there’s too much filibustering on the Senate floor.
Party affiliation prevailed on questions concerning cap-and-trade legislation, the need for a new federal economic stimulus plan, and a “public option” for health insurance. (In all cases, Democrats said yes; Republicans said no.) On a “net neutrality” bill and the effectiveness of the state’s film tax credit, the same breakdown occurred — except that Capuano was less clear on his support of net neutrality and Robinson dismissed the film tax credit as a state issue.
The five candidates are running in to the special US Senate election to fill the seat of the late Ted Kennedy. (Primaries are on December 8, and the general election is on January 19.) We posed 15 questions and began posting their complete responses last week, starting with the first query — “What would be the first bill you’d like to file as a US senator?” — and continuing with questions on education and foreign policy.
The campaign of Martha Coakley, a Democrat, acknowledged receipt of the questionnaire more than two weeks ago. Despite our repeated calls to the campaign, however, it did not respond.
Today we are posting answers to our final nine questions, concentrating on economics and domestic policy.
Note: CW Unbound has put certain text in bold for emphasis.
Question: Do you support the Markey-Waxman cap-and-trade bill as a way to curb greenhouse emissions and fight climate change?
Scott Brown (R):
No. A national cap and trade will increase energy costs on businesses and families, kill jobs, and make it harder for the economy to recover. When Massachusetts joined the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the nation’s first mandatory cap and trade program, those of us who supported it were told it would lower electricity prices. Not only has that not happened, but one of our major employers, EMC Corp., recently announced they will be expanding and adding jobs outside Massachusetts because of the high cost of electricity here. We were sold a pig in a poke. Let’s not make the same mistake nationally.
Michael Capuano (D):
I was one of the 218 members of the House, the bare minimum for passage, who voted for the Waxman-Markey Bill. I wish it had attempted more, but it is an important step in the right direction. I worked hard to persuade Democrats from coal- and steel-producing states that climate change is real and a product of human actions and that the greater good requires vigorous action to curb greenhouse gases. It is important, too, to provide transitional support and retraining in green jobs for those whose jobs will be lost in older industries. It is important to consider the unintended consequences, for individuals and communities, of all legislation, even the most progressive and idealistic. I have also fought since I entered Congress in 1999 for higher CAFÉ standards, finally achieved in 2007.
Alan Khazei (D):
Yes. Passing environmental legislation along the lines proposed by Markey-Waxman is an essential part of any strategy for achieving an ambitious international agreement to combat climate change. I believe that its emissions targets are reasonable and achievable. This is an environmental issue, an energy issue, an economic issue, and a national security issue.
Steve Pagliuca (D):
Yes, I support both the Markey-Waxman bill as well as the Kerry-Boxer bill. We need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels (from which we get 84 percent of our energy in the US) and we need to quickly kick our addiction to foreign oil (which is almost 25 percent of our total energy). These two issues threaten not just our environmental future, but also our national security — as we are pulled into conflicts around the world to protect our oil interests. I’m hopeful that we can be even more ambitious than the reductions contemplated in these bills, perhaps targeting a 50 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2030.
Jack E. Robinson (R):
No, but I do support the goal of eliminating greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020. My proposal is more balanced than the Kerry-Boxer “Cap-and-Tax” bill currently pending in the Senate.
Question: Do you support Rep. Barney Franks bill to reduce federal penalties for marijuana possession?
Scott Brown (R):
No, I’m afraid it would send the wrong message to our children.
Michael Capuano (D):
Yes, and I also support Rep. [John] Conyers’s bill which would end the discriminatory disparate sentences for crack and powdered cocaine.
Alan Khazei (D):
No. Drug use remains a serious problem in this country. If anything, we need to get more serious about the effects that substance abuse have on our society. Marijuana use may strike some as relatively harmless, but it often leads to the abuse of stronger drugs. Through my work with City Year, I have seen first-hand the impact that drugs have on our communities, and I am committed to preventing their spread.
Steve Pagliuca (D):
I support efforts to allow medical marijuana use for legitimate purposes. At the same time, it’s incredibly important that we don’t communicate a message to our young people that it’s OK to use marijuana recreationally. Any legislation should be conscious of the message it is sending, and we should keep our children safe above all else.
Jack E. Robinson (R):
Yes, with certain limitations.
Question: Do you support another federal economic stimulus plan? If so, what should it include (e.g., the extension of unemployment benefits, a tax credit for companies who hire new employees, direct checks to taxpayers, etc.)?
Scott Brown (R):
Sadly, the stimulus has not worked. Not one new job has been created in Massachusetts, or anywhere in the nation. The state has lost 32,000 jobs since the stimulus passed in February, and nationwide the job loss is over 2.6 million. All of my opponents in the race for U.S. Senate have said they are open to a second stimulus bill. That is the wrong approach. Let’s amend the one we have now by getting rid of the spending not tied to job creation and substituting tax incentives that will get our economy moving again. Our country can’t afford any more stimulus spending that adds to our deficit without adding to employment.
Michael Capuano (D):
I certainly support the extension of unemployment benefits. It is important, too, that another stimulus emphasizes job creation and I would support one that effectively addressed this. I think tax credits are not effective means of achieving real and lasting economic recovery.
Alan Khazei (D):
Yes, I would support another economic stimulus focused on jobs. In addition to the policies I outlined in my answer to question #1, I would also support the extension of unemployment benefits.
Steve Pagliuca (D):
First, we need an honest assessment of where our economy is at and the effectiveness of the first stimulus. I believe that it has helped significantly, and I believe that we have much work left to do. There are still 320,000 people unemployed in Massachusetts — that’s unacceptable. Any new stimulus program should focus first and foremost on job creation. It needs to provide small businesses the capital they need to grow and it needs to provide employers incentives to start hiring again. I’ve outlined a detailed jobs plan on my website, and I’d encourage you to take a look.
I can promise you this: In any future stimulus package, I won’t rest until Massachusetts gets its fair share. We in Massachusetts received $13.5 billion of the previous $791 billion federal stimulus, far less than our fair share measured either by population or contribution to our nation’s GDP. In total, we received almost $7 billion less than we should have — that’s $7 billion that could have been used to create jobs and help struggling families here in Massachusetts. That’s not acceptable, and I’ll work hard to make sure that the people of Massachusetts are fairly represented in any future stimulus.
Jack E. Robinson (R):
Absolutely not. The only thing the first stimulus plan did was stimulate the government. What we need is to create jobs and economic activity in the private sector — not add to the already bloated federal government payroll.
Question: Assuming Congress passes a federal health care reform bill without a public option insurance plan, would you work to include it in a second reform bill?
Scott Brown (R):
I support getting health insurance coverage to more people, but I am opposed to a so-called “public option,” which is really just more government involvement in our lives. I would prefer to see reforms that strengthen the private market system and promote innovation and consumer choice.
Michael Capuano (D):
Absolutely, and my vote for the current bill will be conditioned by my judgment that the public option it proposes is adequate.
Alan Khazei (D):
Yes, I would. I will put all my effort into the current fight for a public option. The present reform bill is our best chance to get the public option passed, and I will do everything possible to make that happen. If the public option is not included in final legislation and Americans continue to face high costs and lack of access, then I would push for its inclusion in a second reform bill. It is the PACs and lobbyists who have worked the hardest to defeat the public option, spending more than $380 million dollars to move their agenda. With six health care lobbyists for every member of Congress, we need to redouble our efforts to ensure that the voices of average Americans are heard in Washington.
Steve Pagliuca (D):
Absolutely. We need a strong public option to ensure competitiveness and keep costs in line. I’ll continue to fight for that.
Jack E. Robinson (R):
No.
Question: Would you extend or strengthen tax incentives for first-time homebuyers?
Scott Brown (R):
Yes, as long as the program is properly monitored with verification that the recipients actually closed on the property.
Michael Capuano (D):
I support a reasonable extension of the tax credit, and I would support the action taken by the Senate, November 2, adding a provision to the unemployment bill to extend the $8,000 credit for first-time homebuyers until the end of April 2010. It also makes more people eligible for the credit by increasing the income cap to individuals with $125K or couples with $250K. Further, it gives a $6,500 credit to existing homeowners who have consecutively lived in their homes for five of the past eight years. It is paid for by a multi-year delay in allowing multinational corporations more flexibility in the way they allocate their interest expenses.
Alan Khazei (D):
Yes. I supported the $8,000 new homebuyer tax credit and would support an extension of that credit and similar credit proposals in order to strengthen the housing market.
Steve Pagliuca (D):
I support the goal of making home ownership and, more generally, the American Dream, accessible to all. At the same time, we need to make sure that we don’t repeat the financial crisis from which we’re only now beginning to recover. This means we need to educate consumers about the loans they’re taking on, and we need to hold lenders accountable for the loans they’re making. You can read about my plans to strengthen the financial system at [my website].
Jack E. Robinson (R):
No.
Question: Do you think the state is benefiting enough economically by offering a 25 percent tax credit to filmmakers who shoot movies in Massachusetts?
Scott Brown (R):
I generally support lower taxes, but I have a hard time continuing to justify this one. This is not a credit but a “refund” that obligates the state to pay for 25 percent of the cost of film production. The evidence that has come in since its passage indicates that we spend more on the tax refund than we receive back, that the jobs are temporary, and that much of the benefit goes to out-of-state companies and actors.
Michael Capuano (D):
Yes, the movie industry is good for jobs and good for tourism. Boston and all of Massachusetts are already favorite destinations for visitors from Europe and Asia, as well as our fellow Americans. The film industry heightens our glamour and calls attention to our cultural and historic attractions.
Alan Khazei (D):
I think the state is benefiting from the filmmaking tax credit, but there is room for growth. The Department of Revenue records that filmmakers spent $676 million in Massachusetts between 2006 and 2008. While the state’s movie industry is still small, the tax credit will encourage its growth and bring us to a point where the revenue the industry generates will far exceed the state’s initial investment.
In general, I believe that we should be providing incentives for the creation of jobs with good wages and benefits. At the federal level, I will work for a new jobs tax credit that will reward employers for the additional payroll they create. I also support expanding education and job training programs, which are a good way to target public support to specific industries with high-growth, high-wage potential.
Steve Pagliuca (D):
I think there are benefits to this plan – it’s helping fuel our tourism industry and creating jobs in Massachusetts.
Jack E. Robinson (R):
Not a federal issue.
Question: Would you support tax credits or some form of federal subsidy for newspapers and other local journalism outlets that are in financial trouble?
Scott Brown (R):
As a newspaper reader, I’m sympathetic to the downsizing that’s taking place in the industry. I feel badly for the people who have lost their jobs or taken pay cuts. Newspapers in Massachusetts already receive a sales tax exemption for the purchase of paper. The problem is not that government doesn’t extend a helping hand. The problem is that newspapers are not a growth industry.
Michael Capuano (D):
I see First Amendment issues in a federally subsidized press.
Alan Khazei (D):
No. Government funding of journalism can be quite problematic. I realize that the newspaper and journalism world is undergoing great change at this point in history and there are dire predictions about its future. As much of American news-gathering and news-receiving migrates online, traditional newspapers are struggling, and it is clear that many will not survive. I think it is too early — as well as inappropriate — for the government to try to shape the future direction of the news business in this country.
Steve Pagliuca (D):
I’ve studied the situation of newspapers and local journalism outlets in great depth and believe that there is a workable, viable business model there. This model, which I call the “private trust model,” works to build partnerships between private capital and key stakeholders in the paper, so that public support is not necessary. The success of such papers is also rooted in changes in communication strategy, focusing more on online and in deeper local content. We should help these businesses make it on their own.
In general, I believe that federal government should be the lender of last resort. If at all avoidable, the taxpayer should not be in the business of bailing-out businesses big or small. This is why I want to enact a comprehensive set of financial regulations designed to make sure that the taxpayer is never again called upon to support “too big to fail” institutions.
Jack E. Robinson (R):
No.
Question: Do you support the imposition of net neutrality rules on Internet service providers?
Scott Brown (R):
I want to keep the Internet accessible for everyone. Instead of imposing burdensome new government rules, I’d like to see Internet service providers and stakeholders create an independent, private body to monitor neutrality issues rather than having Washington manage competition by deciding which business models are appropriate.
Michael Capuano (D):
I voted for H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), in which net neutrality was briefly addressed. The stimulus package included measures requiring broadband grant participants to meet nondiscrimination and network interconnection obligations. As our telecommunication technology progresses, I believe we must have a coherent national policy that balances continued growth and innovation with maintaining consumer choice and fair access to the Internet
Alan Khazei (D):
Absolutely. The entire premise of the Internet – and its astounding success – has been that it is equally available to all. As with prior decisions our country made to make electrification and telephone wires available to all, access to the Internet must be available to all customers and all carriers. Allowing private companies to control and limit access will eventually downgrade the value of the service – and the phenomenal economic growth that has come with it.
Steve Pagliuca (D):
Yes. The internet belongs to everyone and should be an equal opportunity resource for learning and exploration. We can not allow those who control access to control content.
Jack E. Robinson (R):
No.
Question: Is the threat of a filibuster used too often in the US Senate to block legislation (and presidential nominees) that have majority support? Would you vote for cloture on a bill you don’t necessarily support?
Scott Brown (R):
Each vote I cast and every action I’d take on a bill would be based on the merits and what is best for my constituents. I am not going to Washington to represent the unions, or the special interests, or any one political party. I am going to be a voice for the people of Massachusetts.
Michael Capuano (D):
I would prefer to become a member of the Senate before I begin to pronounce on its rules and customs. The possibility for “reconciliation” votes already exists. Our Constitution has served a federal republic well for more than 200 years.
Alan Khazei (D):
Yes it is, and yes I would. We believe in democracy and our democratic institutions ought to function democratically themselves. Of course, our system sometimes — and wisely — imposes additional hurdles to make sure that we are taking considered action, ranging from bicameralism to non-population-based representation in the Senate itself to supermajority requirements to amend the Constitution. On major issues facing the country, we ought to decide them on a vote — not a filibuster.
Right now, the biggest problem in the Senate is not whether I will feel the need to allow legislation I oppose to come to a vote, but whether I will be able to vote for legislation I support. Lobbyists and PACs are blocking attempts to resolve virtually every major issue. We’ve heard a lot of talk for a long time about changing the tone in Washington, but I am uniquely qualified to do that. I have a record of reaching across the aisle, building coalitions, and creating breakthroughs. Most recently, I played a central role in the passage of the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, helping to build the largest bipartisan vote — where the Republican leadership was opposed — since Obama took office. I will continue this approach as a member of the U.S. Senate.
Steve Pagliuca (D):
This is an impossible question to answer in the abstract. I believe in the democratic process and generally believe that issues should be allowed to come up for a vote. There are some values I hold too dear, however. Values like equality, fairness and a woman’s right to choose. In these cases, I would use any means necessary to fight for what I believe is right and would not hesitate to block legislation that threatened these core values.
Jack E. Robinson (R):
Yes [and] yes.