Repbublican U.S. Senate candidates focus on jobs, politics

Three Republicans are running in the GOP primary for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Richard Durbin of Springfield. Candidates are Andy Martin and Mike Psak of Chicago and Steve Sauerberg, of Willowbrook.

The winner of Tuesday's primary will take on Durbin in November's general election.

Candidates were required to keep their answers to 150 words for each question. Answers that came in longer were trimmed from the bottom.

Q. Why are you running for this office? Is there a particular issue that motivates you? What will be your main priority?

Martin: I am running for U.S. Senator because I am the most qualified Republican to challenge incumbent Dick Durbin. I would work to restore Illinois' role as an important state in Washington; in recent years Illinois has declined in national influence. I would work to avoid hyper-partisanship. In my opinion Dick Durbin is an incompetent and ineffective windbag (we worked together in the same office 41 years ago). I would get things done for Illinois, and for America, in the Everett Dirksen tradition.

Psak: Representation in government is about people. Currently, our representation in Washington seems to ignore the desires of the majority of citizens. This is obvious when you look at the percentage of registered voters who either don't vote for the elected candidate, or don't vote at all. I believe that my views and beliefs embody that vast majority. The motivating factor in my candidacy has been unfairness in our society due to legislation that has been good for a handful of people, at the expense of the masses. I seek to change some of that, and inspire others to follow the same path.

Sauerberg: On 9/11 I was working in my office, treating patients, when I saw two planes fly into the World Trade Center. I realized our lives had forever changed. Post 9/11, I became acutely aware of how important our elected leaders in Washington were to the safety and security of our families. I began to look closer at our elected officials and it became clear to me that the senior Senator from Illinois had become completely and totally out of touch. Sadly, after 37 years on the government payroll, Dick Durbin has forgotten who he is supposed to represent. Instead of working for his constituents Senator Durbin has joined forces with the most liberal of liberal special interest groups to dole out legislative favors to left wing interests. My main priority in office would be to reverse the course Dick Durbin has set in D.C. by returning our Illinois values to Washington.

Q. Tell us what contributions you would make.

Martin: For over 40 years I have been a corruption fighter and consumer advocate in Illinois. My accomplishments have been extensive, and I have remained true to serving the public interest, not special interests. I am totally free of the Republicrat "combine" that corrupts and controls the State of Illinois. I have not been afraid to be attacked in order to fight corruption. It has not been an easy task. Please see andymartin.com for details.

Psak: As government continues to grow, manufacturing jobs continue to be out-sourced. We need to reverse these trends, and create private-sector jobs for American workers. I will sponsor legislation to reduce the size and cost of government, vote "No" on pork projects, and also work to make labor laws fair for everyone.

Sauerberg: Dick Durbin and the professional politicians in Washington have failed us. They have failed us on immigration, they have failed us on health care, they have failed us on taxes, and they have failed us on controlling runaway spending. When I am representing Illinois in the U.S. Senate, I will fight for an immigration policy that secures our borders and one that will not reward law breakers with amnesty. I will work to pass meaningful health care reform that gives individuals more control over their own health care, a system that eliminates fraud and waste, and a system that ends frivolous lawsuits. I will also sponsor what I call "Glass Dome" legislation, which will require openness and transparency in all Congressional proceedings and legislation. No longer will the professional politicians be able to hide their actions from taxpayers. I believe that our government should work for us.

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?

Martin: I served in Baghdad in 2003. I was an early critic of the war and opposed the invasion way back in 2002. Living in Baghdad, my reports presaged the collapses to come, and received worldwide attention for their prescience and accuracy. I have 38 years of experience in the Middle East. I would listen carefully and closely to our military leaders in formulating Middle East policy. Certainly by 2009 we will be well on the way to withdrawing. My foreign policy expertise is respected around the world. I can make an important contribution to solving our problems, not demagoguing them.

Psak: The mission in Iraq is to achieve political stability where a) the Iraqi government is able to maintain a reasonable level of security for its citizens on its own, and b) the people have an equitable stake in their own natural resources. We will know when we have achieved these goals when either we are asked to leave by the Iraqi government and we agree that they have adequate control, or we see that they have adequate control and decide to withdraw on our own. I am going to presuppose that when I take office in 2009, our troops will still be deployed in Iraq. The only desired outcome is victory, and the Congress ought to provide whatever is necessary in order to achieve it. After all, if we wish to depend on our troops, then we ought to make certain that they know that they can depend on us.

Sauerberg: I believe in a system of economic, political and military benchmarks to hold the Iraqi government accountable and to make it clear that Americans are neither giving Iraqi politicians a blank check nor approving of the status quo. Giving our enemies in Iraq a withdrawal timeline will lead to the loss of more American lives and destabilize a region that needs stability. We need an exit strategy which will stabilize the economy and ensure the safety of Iraq and America.

Q. With baby boomers starting to retire, do you favor changes to ensure long-term Social Security solvency? If so, what changes? If not, why?

Martin: My mind is open to changes in Social Security. Some unpleasant choices may have to be made. The program as originally conceived is not sustainable into the future. But, ultimately, I would tread carefully and seek bipartisan consensus as we vote to make improvements in Social Security. Retirees must be protected. I'm one of them!

Psak: I do favor changes to ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security. In fact, I am a proponent of President Bush's plan towards privatization of individual accounts

Sauerberg: Keeping the promise of Social Security safe and secure for older Americans as they retire is a sacred trust. This can be accomplished through job creation -- job creation that adds workers to the system whose Social Security taxes will work to protect current and future retirees. Social Security in its current form -- with no changes -- will extend several more decades. During this time the Social Security issue must be addressed in a bipartisan fashion. Politicians should not attempt to score cheap political points during election years by using the politics of fear around this issue to prevent a real discussion of the solvency of this critically important program. I am against any attempt to privatize Social Security and fully support the Social Security program in its current forms. Dick Durbin has been in Washington since 1983. He has had his chance to fix this problem, and Durbin failed.

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?

Martin: Unlike most people, I feel our health care system works well for 250 million Americans who have coverage. We need to focus on providing care for those that do not have access to adequate attention. No American should be dying or severely ill because of inability to pay. Nevertheless, we need to be cautious when tinkering with 14 percent of the economy. Change is not easy and quality care is not cheap. There are no easy or simple answers. I will keep an open mind and avoid the demagoguing on both sides of the controversy.

Psak: I oppose allowing the federal government a larger role in providing health-care coverage. Quite frankly, in my opinion it already has too big of a role. The reason I say that is because government programs always entail high administrative costs that increase the overall cost of services provided. In my opinion, the ultimate solution to the high cost of health-care is to re-establish the patient as the customer of the health-care providers. Currently, with both government and employers as payers, they have become the customers. Patients, then, view health-care as an entitlement. While that may be a long-term objective, in the short term, we have to work to reduce both direct and indirect health-care administrative costs.

Sauerberg: Yes, the federal government should be involved in making affordable, quality health insurance available to all citizens. Socialized medicine, however, is not the answer. As a doctor, I deal with this issue every day and I know the system, while working for some, is broke. That is why I have created "Your Healthcare -- Your Choice" to make sure all have access to at least basic health care coverage. First, to promote coverage for every man, woman and child in the U.S. through the private sector, the government needs to encourage portability, competition, accessibility and individual ownership of quality medical insurance. Second, to protect patients and providers and to dramatically reduce costs we need to end frivolous lawsuits. Third, we must encourage innovation and promote best-practices at all levels of our health care system. Finally, without ending fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid we cannot fundamentally reform our health care system.

Q. Do you favor maintaining or scaling back federal tax cuts made during the past eight years? What specific strategy, if any, would you apply toward reducing federal budget deficits and the national debt?

Martin: Americans are spending too much and borrowing too much and the politicians in both parties have bankrupted and betrayed our very productive economy. We owe billions of dollars in foreign debts. That is a disgrace. I will work to restore balanced budgets and fiscal reality in Washington.

Psak: I would maintain the tax cuts. The historical economic reaction to tax cuts has been an increase in revenue to government. There doesn't seem to be a need to raise taxes, and, I'm sure that any taxpayer would agree that they already pay enough, if not too much, in taxes. The federal budget deficit and national debt should be attacked in two ways: 1) Reduce spending, and 2) Reduce dependence on foreign goods. One proposal that I would support would require all federal government procurement to be from domestic manufacturers/suppliers. Regarding spending decreases, there have been plenty of proposals, such as privatizing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Apparently, we need a Congress that is committed to achieving spending cuts. In addition, the "pork" projects, or "earmarks" (as they are now called), need to stop.

Sauerberg: Illinoisans deserve real tax relief. To provide it, our tax system needs a dramatic overhaul to become fairer, flatter and substantially simpler. The first step in any discussion of reforming our tax code is protecting the tax relief that Illinoisans enjoy today. We should make permanent the cuts of 2001 and 2003. We should eliminate the alternative minimum tax and encourage investment and savings by continuing to tax capital gains and dividends at lower rates. Congress and the President should look closely at the flat tax, fair tax, or any proposals that will create a fairer, flatter and substantially simpler tax code. Dramatic overhaul of the code, however, is a long term goal that is going to require a tremendous amount of public pressure on Washington. Additionally, we must reduce the need for higher taxes by reducing the federal budget and ending the era of special interest pork barrel spending.

Q. What would you do to advance reform in a divided Congress, and what would the key elements be in your own immigration policy?

Martin: First, I will not attack any of the participants in the controversy. I favor immigration reform but I do not support demonizing either immigrants or people who want safer borders. I grew up in an immigrant family and I appreciate the contributions that immigrants make. But our laws must be obeyed and our borders must be respected. Americans expect to comply with the law; so should immigrants.

Psak: Assuming that the divided Congress is the major roadblock to affecting meaningful and desired reform, then it follows that more change is needed in the makeup of the Congress. I would work to get more like-minded people elected to office so that it was less divided. That way, the roadblock would be removed. As for my own policy on immigration, the key elements would include securing the borders, building the fence which has been authorized, deporting illegal aliens, and prosecuting employers who knowingly employ illegal aliens. In short, the federal government needs to enforce existing laws, rather than providing amnesty for illegal aliens at the expense of American citizens.

Sauerberg: In stark contrast to Senator Durbin's radical left-wing approach to our immigration crisis, I offer common-sense principles that would guide my approach to this issue. I will not offer the same failed answers that Dick Durbin and the Washington crowd offers. Instead, I will fight: 1. to secure our borders, 2. to oppose any effort to provide amnesty or incentives to illegals and, 3. to immediately deport illegal immigrants upon completion of serving prison time for breaking our laws. Additionally, Congress has funded building a fence, and they, including Senator Durbin, have failed to ensure it was built. I will work to build the fence and ensure current immigration laws are enforced.

Q. Given rising oil prices and Middle East turmoil, what steps do you favor to accelerate research into and application of alternative energy sources? Which alternative sources do you think hold the most potential for producing large amounts of affordable energy?

Martin: I strongly support both alternative fuels and a "Manhattan Project"-style program to encourage new fuels. The current situation is utterly ridiculous. We are spending ourselves into bankruptcy buying oil from dictatorships, and financing our terrorist opposition at the same time. Enough already! We have the technology to make changes. We must. We can and we will.

Psak: If the alternative energy industries can produce energy at affordable prices, then the demand for those energy sources will increase. For instance, I have seen a dramatic increase in the use of wind power and biofuels over the past several years. In addition, rising oil prices ought to dictate that we allow development of more domestic sources of oil. With regards to the alternative sources of energy, my favorites include nuclear power and geothermal energy. Government should not push to accelerate research in the areas of alternative energy, but it should make certain that the oil and coal industries are not working to thwart the efforts to develop the alternative industries.

Sauerberg: Sadly, our addiction to oil has created a situation where we are literally underwriting our enemies. First and foremost we must recognize that energy independence isn't just an environmental issue -- it's a national security issue. We should encourage new technologies and alternative energy sources by expanding tax credits. We should encourage the expansion of nuclear power and expand domestic traditional oil production and refinement.

Q. In what ways is the U.S. government successfully defending citizens against terrorism, and in what ways is the U.S. failing in that regard?

Martin: Generally, the "war against terrorism" is working well. Although no system perfect or fail-safe, we are doing much better than before 9/11. We have dedicated public servants working across the world to protect us from terrorism. But we need more imaginative approaches to solving the problems of religious extremism. We need to recalibrate our policies in the Middle East to reflect our interests and not the interests of special interest lobbies. The world is open to us; we must be open to the world. Having lived around the world, I have unique experiences and perspectives than can help other senators make wise decisions and adopt sound foreign policies.

Psak: Given that terrorists are quick to take credit for their activities, the government can be proud of the fact that there have been no attacks on our homeland since 9/11/2001. Also, we hear of terrorists who have been caught both at home and abroad prior to carrying out their plots. So, the government's intelligence activities have been very effective Personally, I wish we could have heard more about our success rate against the terrorists. In my opinion, the continued lack of attention to border security is the single biggest threat of future attacks on our citizens. My personal experiences on both of our borders have led me to believe that our border agencies need to be more vigilant.

Sauerberg: The fact that we have not been the victim of a domestic terrorist attack since 9/11 is a testament to the government's vigilance in protecting American citizens. The Patriot Act has been, and continues to be, an effective tool in protecting us against terrorist threats. We still, however, need to do more. We need to secure our borders to insure that terrorists do not sneak across our porous southern border. We need to continue to stay on the offensive fighting the global war on terrorism - working to root out extremists in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Q. Are you concerned about the number of former U.S. jobs being out-sourced?What policy changes would you favor in that regard?

Martin: I am very concerned about the outsourcing and exporting of jobs. There is no such thing as a "dead end" job. Every job is a training base and stepping stone to higher and better employment. Entry level jobs are avenues of opportunity to advancement and success. I have an open mind to how we change our policies, but I want to keep work at home, not send it abroad.

Psak: This is a major concern of mine. The outsourcing of jobs into foreign countries, while enhancing the profitability of private companies, causes problems elsewhere in the economy. We have to remember that labor isn't as fluid as capital, and that the time it takes for our citizens to recover from the loss of their jobs costs all of us. Additionally, many of the outsourced jobs require access to personal information, such as Social Security numbers, of American citizens. This information should be considered private, and protected by our government.

Sauerberg: Yes, I am concerned about any loss of American jobs. To protect American jobs we need to foster a business friendly environment. We should work to cut taxes, eliminate bureaucratic red tape, and reward those who are willing to take a risk to build businesses that create good paying jobs.