Congressional candidates set priorities
U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Evanston is facing John Nocita of Chicago in the Democratic primary for the 9th congressional district. The winner will face Republican Michael Benjamin Younan of Niles and the Green Party candidate, Morris Shanfield of Chicago, in November.
Candidates had to limit their responses to 200 words or fewer or their answers were trimmed from the bottom up.
Q. Why are you running for re-election? Is there a particular issue that motivates you, and if so, what? What will be your main priority in office?
Nocita: To end divisive-polarized politics, which results in ineffective government. To get Congress to work with all members to achieve legislation that is necessary for Americans' well being.
Schakowsky: I am running for re-election because my desire to help people still burns as bright as it did when I first entered politics. My political career began, almost by accident, in 1969 when I led a small group of housewives in the fight to put freshness dates on products sold in supermarkets. As a 25-year-old stay-at-home mom this was an exhilarating and empowering experience, transforming me from an ordinary housewife to an ordinary housewife who could make a difference in the world. That life-altering experience led me to other organizing and advocacy efforts and eventually to jobs such as executive director of the Illinois State Council of Senior Citizens, fighting for affordable health care, and finally running for office myself. I realized I could continue to stand up and fight for ordinary Americans as an elected public official. Fortunately, I have been able to continue my work as a lifelong consumer advocate as the vice-chair of the subcommittee on commerce, trade and consumer protection. Most recently, the House passed the Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act, which included several of my initiatives to eliminate dangerous products from store shelves and to set mandatory testing and safety standards for children's products like cribs and high chairs.
Q. How, if at all, would you alter the U.S. course in Iraq? What objectives, if any, must the U.S. still meet before it begins to withdraw troops?
Nocita: Stabilizing the society, making the Iraqis take responsibility for their own security, and using Iraqis' oil revenues to pay for the costs of the war. No time line. We must balance ours, the Iraqis' and our allies' interests.
Schakowsky: The United States must immediately begin the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. As a founding member of the Out of Iraq caucus, I opposed the war from the beginning and 4½ years of bloodshed have only made it clearer that there is no military solution in Iraq. Instead of sending our troops and resources to referee a civil war we should use them to fight terrorism where it really exists -- places like Afghanistan and Pakistan. The withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq should be coupled with a serious diplomatic effort involving as many states in the region as possible. Only with regional support will Iraq be able to become a safe, stable and prosperous country.
When we withdraw, we must not leave a large long-term U.S. presence in Iraq. A long-term presence would serve to increase the sense, shared by many Iraqis, that the United States is an occupier. That belief in turn exacerbates violence and puts both the U.S. armed forces and Iraqi civilians at risk. A very small American force should be left in Iraq to guard diplomats and military assets, but our best strategy is to allow the Iraqi government and population to rule and protect Iraq.
Q. Do you favor or oppose a larger federal role in health care coverage? What, if anything, should be done about rising health care costs and Americans who do not have health coverage?
Nocita: The government must afford coverage for all Americans, especially children, the incapacitated and the poor. A comprehensive plan and effort can achieve this without mandating socialized federal government medicine.
Schakowsky: The federal government has the responsibility to assure every person has access to affordable, comprehensive and high-quality medical care. While we often focus on those without any coverage, it is not just 47 million uninsured Americans who are unable to obtain the services they need. A recent Commonwealth Fund report found that 37 percent of Americans under 65 (42 percent living with a chronic condition) didn't see a doctor or skipped recommended treatments because they couldn't afford it. Nearly 1 in 5 who did get care had trouble paying their bills. Solving this problem is not just a moral issue but an economic one. U.S. businesses that bear the costs of providing health care to workers find it harder to compete in a global economy with foreign companies (and domestic companies) that do not. State and local governments are faced with rising health care costs for their active and retired workers, impeding their ability to meet other critical needs. With a government-financed but privately-delivered health care system, we can lower costs to businesses and families by getting more value for our health care dollars. Financing that system will required shared responsibility, with public and private employers and consumers contributing through either premiums or payroll taxes based on ability to pay.
Q. What would you do to advance immigrant reform in a divided Congress, and what are the key elements in your own immigration policy?
Nocita: The key to any comprehensive legislation is compromise. We must halt any further influx of illegal immigrants. Those who are here with specific ties, and employment, education, or military service; not criminal records, should be afforded an opportunity to stay.
Schakowsky: Fifty-two percent of my constituents are either immigrants or children of immigrants. Thirty-eight percent speak languages other than English and come from all over the world. Comprehensive immigration reform must be a high priority for this Congress. Over 20 years enforcement-only policies have failed. We need to advance comprehensive reform that includes workable border enforcement, employer sanctions and a requirement that currently undocumented immigrants come out of the shadows, go through a criminal background check, learn English, pay any taxes owed and become citizens. Earlier this year Congress was unable to reach an agreement on comprehensive reform. While I am very disappointed, I continue to work to improve the quality of life for all Americans and to pass comprehensive reform. I am an original sponsor of H.R. 1645, the Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act, which strikes the right balance between securing our borders and providing a sensible response to the estimated 12 million undocumented persons in our country, nearly all of whom simply want better lives for their families. This legislation is far from a blanket amnesty. To qualify for citizenship, an individual must pay a fine of $500 per person, have no criminal background, learn English, have paid taxes, and go to the back of the line of those waiting to be naturalized.