The questions were prepared by the League of Women Voters of California and asked of all candidates for this office.

See below for questions on Federal Resources, Foreign Policy, Federal Budget

Click on a name for other candidate information.   See also more information about this contest.

Answer from Tom Lantos:

The major problem is that the federal funding provided to all states for homeland security, education, environment, transportation, care of our seniors, healthcare, and other critical programs is declining because of this Administration's massive tax cuts benefitting the super-rich and favored corporate special interests. The solution is to assure that big corporations and wealthy Americans contribute their fair share toward the costs of government.

Answer from Ro Khanna:

In 2002, California received only $.76 in federal spending for every dollar of federal taxes. This was substantially worse than a decade before, and California has the sixth worst ratio of any state. The simplest way for California to get its fair share is to fight for more California spending in the budgetary process, including spending for transportation, housing assistance, and environmental protection in San Mateo County and San Francisco. On a more long-term basis, the federal government needs to ensure that the programs benefitting residents of some states are complemented by programs that benefit residents of states such as California. San Mateo County and San Francisco residents may not benefit much from agricultural subsidies, but they would benefit tremendous from increased funding for public education and assistance for affordable housing.

Answer from Maad Abu-Ghazalah:

California provides the largest Federal tax base and deserves a proportionate re-investment in federal resources. The best way to ensure this is for the California representatives in the House to work together to identify and prioritize the needs in the State and lobby for them accordingly. The State's common needs are the protection of the environment, job protection, education and natural resource distribution.

Answer from Ro Khanna:

I was strongly opposed to the unilateral rush to war in Iraq. But now that we are in Iraq, we cannot simply abandon the country, or we risk leaving it as a breeding ground for terrorism. We need to involve our allies as equal partners in the administration and reconstruction of Iraq, so that the burden does not fall solely on the United States. We need to involve the United Nations in the transition to Iraqi self-rule and to involve NATO in the maintenance of security. We need to rebuild the credibility that we have lost due to the Iraq engagement. I will oppose the doctrine of preventive war, which is untenable without solid intelligence of the threats we face.

Answer from Tom Lantos:

The events of September 11 demonstrated that our country is linked with events and actions of people far beyond our frontiers. Therefore, we must remain actively and productively engaged in shaping the international environment. Most important, we must work together with our allies and international organizations like the United Nations in shaping world conditions. We should maintain a strong military force, but using force must be the last resort, only after diplomacy and joint action with our allies have been exhausted.

In our fight against terrorism, it is critical to work with our allies and international organizations to eliminate the funding for terrorism. One of the most serious threats to our security are weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the hands of rogue regimes and terrorist organizations. We must work through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and other organziations to eliminate WMDs.

Answer from Maad Abu-Ghazalah:

We must bring the troops home from Iraq as soon as possible. We should establish a free election in Iraq within 6 months and immediately internationalize the policing of the nation. Our priority should be to use diplomacy over war and abandon the Bush's administration's "pre-emptive" war policy. We need to live within the international community, not to constantly oppose and threaten it.

Answer from Ro Khanna:

I believe fiscal responsibility is essential for long-term economic stability. We cannot sustain the massive deficits our government now runs. I believe balancing our budget requires at least three changes in policy:
--No more costly unilateral engagements abroad. We spend billions of dollars every week in Iraq, whose reconstruction should be the world's responsibility. We cannot afford to undertake any more similar endeavors.
--No corporate giveaways. The $87 billion Iraq "reconstruction" package was largely handouts to corporations such as Halliburton and Bechtel, and billions of dollars of domestic spending is devoted to corporate welfare.
--Smarter tax reform. Certain elements of the recent tax cuts, including the increase in the child tax credit and tax relief for the middle class, should be kept. But this country cannot afford massive tax cuts for the wealthy without cutting essential social programs. Future tax relief should be targeted toward payroll taxes, the most regressive part of our taxation scheme.

Answer from Tom Lantos:

President Bush's proposed budget for 2005, which was delivered to Congress in February 2004 is simply irresponsible. In all my experience as an economist and a member of Congress, I have never witnessed such utter disregard for this country's fiscal reality. It makes the massive Reagan-era deficits look like pocket change.

It is wrong to slash taxes for the wealthy while we're spending less on the real and urgent needs and priorities of the American people, and pushing our ever-mounting debts onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.

The Congressional Budget Office predicts that spiraling budget deficits will rise to a staggering $521 billion next year and increase the national debt by $3.65 trillion over the next ten years. The Administration in its budget projection revealed that the cost of its so-called Medicare reform program is one-third higher than projected just two months ago when it was passed largely along partisan lines. The new budget continues to under-fund key education programs and veterans' programs. It protects spending on defense and homeland security but will require reductions in health research, housing, and law enforcement, and actually reduces funding for transportation and environmental protection. It does not do enough to address some of our country's most pressing problems including the millions of Americans who are unemployed.

Answer from Maad Abu-Ghazalah:

We must make balancing the budget a top priority. We cannot continue to spend beyond our means and expect future generations to pay for it. For this reason, I oppose the tax cut implemented by George Bush last year. One of the top areas that could be cut is the construction of weapons of mass destruction. With the fall of the Soviet Union, stockpiling these weapons makes little strategic sense. Our military industrial complex is bankrupting our nation.

The order of the candidates is random and changes daily.