Candidates were asked: If you are elected to Congress, how would you vote on the proposed Reagan budget, including cutbacks, and why? Democrats Stewart Bainum Jr., (D), 34, 8020 Glenside Dr., Takoma Park, is a Maryland delegate, and is chairman of the Ways and Means transportation subcommittee and a member of the Joint Budget and Audit Committee. He has a master's degree in business. Answer: The president is right on two points: federal spending is excessive and much in unnecessary. But he is wrong in saying a "fair" way to make the deep cuts needed is to hack across the board. As a businessman, I know when you review expenditures that you must evaluate each area as to what you are spending and what value it is buying. The process requires skill and patience and can't be done by a handful of persons working mind-boggling hours in the early weeks of an administration. It is a job that Congress is uniquely qualified to do. For example, I have identified several areas where taxpayers are unnecessarily subsidizing healthy industries. In three -- subsidies to corporate jets and general aviation, to commercial shipping and to owners of private pleasure boats -- the total is $14 billion over five years. That sum could help people who need help -- with school lunches, at-home care for the invalid elderly, legal aid -- all programs the administration plans to cut. Or the $14 billion could guarantee full comparability pay for federal workers for five years. This has been my approach as a delegate, and I located several areas where taxpayers are helping industries with dollars that should be helping people. This was the basis of three of my bills -- requiring trucks to pay fees covering the damage they do highways, claiming abandoned bank deposits for the state, and lifting tax advantages and liquor licenses for clubs that discriminate against women and minorities. We do need to cut the budget, but in a reasoned fashion. Robert Gali Bassette, (D), 26, 740 Benfield Rd., Severna Park, is president of the Metropolitan Private Postal Service, operating in the Washington and Baltimore areas. He has been involved in Democratic Party campaigns and causes since 1969. Answer: I find the Reagan budget to be insensitive to the needs of the American people. The proposed budget cuts affect primarily federal workers and the poor by making these groups pay the price of losses of funds in their areas of concern in the name of increased defense spending while maintaining a balanced budget. Additionally, the Reagan budget calls for the elimination of impact aid, which will cost Prince George's County residents an additional $1.3 million in property-tax increases. Under these circumstances, I would find it impossible to support the Reagan budget. Modifications could be made that would encourage my support; however, one can assume with the tone set by this administration that there will be long fights to obtain these modifications. I will not support a budget that singles out the poor and federal employes for sacrifice and at the same time lavishes huge increases on questionable exotic weapons systems wanted by the Pentagon. I will support a tax cut because I believe it to be a desirable way to strengthen our economy, but such a cut must be weighted in favor of the lower- and middle-class taxpayer instead of the wealthiest of people as has presently been proposed. I will fight to ensure that the average American is given a fair shake in my changes in the budget and tax structure. For too long that has not happened, and the indications are that it will continue to be a fight over the next four years, but it will be a fight that I won't give up on. Robert B. Bates, (D), 54, 5932 15th Ave., Hyattsville, is an attorney. He formerly worked for the U.S. Civil Service Commission. He served with the Navy during World War II and is a retired Navy Reserve lieutenant commander, Navy Intelligence. Answer: I favor a balanced budget; however, I do not believe it should be balanced on the shoulders of the poor, the working people, the retired or the disadvantaged. I fully agree that unnecessary programs, duplications, waste and fraud should be eliminated. I question whether the following programs should be cut: cost-of-living increases for civilian and military retirees, pay increases for federal employes, impact aid for public schools, Metro funding, Social Security benefits, veterans programs and benefits, school lunches, food stamps for the needy, etc. With regard to cutting cost-of-living benefits for federal civilian and military retirees, the effect would be the same as a breach of contract by the government with its former employes. I would examine very carefully all of the cuts. In any event, any savings from the cuts may be wasted if President Reagan, who is supported by some of my opponents, is successful in passing his proposed constitutional amendment and legislation that would require the prosecution of women on state murder charges for terminating a pregnancy, or using birth control pills, IUDs or certain other methods of contraception. If the millions of women who will violate the proposed amendment and legislation are prosecuted, it will take more money than the entire federal budget and the gold at Fort Knox to pay for the investigations and prosecutions and building the prisons necessary to house them all. I oppose President Reagan's decision to add this program, which could bankrupt the country. Anselmo Arturo Chavez, (D), 48, 250 Gold Kettle Dr., Gaithersburg, is an engineer in Rockville. He formerly served for 21 years in the military. He has a bachelor's degree in business and economics from the University of Nebraska. Answer: I will fight the Reagan budget and his proposed cuts. I consider the cuts cruel, unjust and discriminatory. Women, veterans, the elderly, blacks, Hispanics, Asians and other minorities would suffer most from the budget cuts. Women -- it is a shame that so many years after the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, women with four years of college still earn less than men with an eighth-grade education. The few government programs which have assisted women in their plight to get a bigger and well-deserved piece of the economic pie will now evaporate. Veterans -- our heroes, the Vietnam veterans, deserve our gratitude and assistance. Yet the cruel and unjust budget cuts will eliminate the few programs geared to assist with the many adjustment problems of the Vietnam veterans. They deserve more help, not less. The elderly -- many barely survive not. It is difficult for me to understand how anyone could be so blind and so insensitive to the needs to our elderly. Yet the Reagan cuts will have a definite adverse impact on them. Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and other minorities -- the Reagan cuts will have a devastating effect on minorities. Programs funded by the government to assist minorities will be eliminated. CETA and other excellent bootstrap programs are doomed. I find it very disturbing that the only nutritious meal many minority children now enjoy will also be a thing of the past. I believe that we, the people of this country, must raise our voices in unison against these proposed cuts. Edward T. Conroy, (D), 53, 12432 Shawmont La., Bowie, has been a state senator since 1967. He previously was a member of the House of Delegates from 1963-67. He is an attorney with a degree fromt the Georgetown Law Center. Answer: The preface of "Fat City," (a recent book written by Donald Lambro), states: "Our federal government has become a bloated, extravagant, paternalistic, remote, clutter, disorganized, inefficient, frivolous, duplicitive, archaic wasteland." Whether or not this is totally true, the American people believe the federal budget must be put under control. The debt service alone on the budget for this year is $78 billion, a figure which is almost the same as the annual Social Security obligation. We must, therefore, use our energies to balance the budget. Spending limitations are a must. As a member of the Senate of Maryland, I have sponsored any supported spending limitations bills both this year and last year. I support an increase in defense spending subject to cuts in waste, duplication and cost-effective monitoring. I will not support the cuts for federal and military retirees, nor will I vote to reduce the annual two cost-of-living increases to one. I will oppose the arbitrary cut of 7,000 medical personnel from the 1981 and 1982 fiscal budget of the Veterans Administration. We should not use "balancing the budget" to break the backs of hospitalized veterans and dependents. I would vote to restore at least some of the president's cuts for food supplements, for needy, nursing mothers, and at least some of the funds for primary and secondary education, youth job training and aid to the handicapped. I would review cuts in subsidized housing, CETA, food stamps, the National Science Foundation, trade adjustment assistance and others, and where I feld the cuts or protion thereof were necessary, I would have the courage to perform the surgery. Henri C. De. Lozier Jr., (D), 34, 6127 Nevada Ave., Chevy Chase, is an attorney who has in private practice for four years. He has a bachelor's degree in business and public administration and a law degree from the University of Maryland. Answers: If elected to Congress, I would vote against many of the proposed budget cuts. I feel that President Reagan's cuts will fall most heavily on the segment of society most in need assistance. This is not to say that I do not acknowledge the serious economic conditions which exist due to inflation; however, I take exception to the manner in which inflation is being remedied. The administration feels that an overall reduction in the size of government and a corresponding reduction in taxes will substantially improve the economy. I feel strongly that any program of cuts should be undertaken moderately and with due consideration for the individual. The present stance is really an all-or-nothing proposition looking at government spending in terms of a balance sheet instead of in terms of individuals lives. While the Reagan administration feels that a tax cut will give the average person additional money which will be saved, I feel that those persons who will bear the brunt of the cut will be the elderly, the unemployed and the federal government worker displaced from government. I oppose any prolonged freeze on government hiring or corresponding substantial reductions in the federal work force, any reduction of FHA-VA mortgage guarantees, any discontinuance of Metro funding for the Washington area and any wholesale cuts in federal assistance programs. In conclusion, I advocate a more controlled reduction of government spending to minimize the shock to the private sector and the individuals concerned. Donald Greenawalt, (D), 37, 12 Sutton Ct., Largo, is director of data processing for Northern Virginia Community College. He has a master's degree in public administration and has worked as a professor and consultant. Answer: The reagan budget is fundamentally flawed in that it is based upon three erroneous assumptions. The first error is that inflation is almost solely caused by government, whereas the major factor in our current inflation is the pricing actions of the oil cartel. There has been an actual transfer in real wealth from the West to the Arab countries. Since prices and wages are downward inflexible, inflation has been the vehicle through which market forces accomplished this transfer. I will work to have a comprehensive energy program undertaken to free us from the oil cartel. This energy program will include research and development of coal, fusion power and synthetic fuels. (But I will oppose the spread of fission-reactor plants.) The second erroneous assumption is that the president has a strong mandate to fundamentally change the nature of America. Actually, he has no such mandate. He won less than 52 percent of the vote with only about 50 percent of the eligible voters voting. He does not have a mandate to eliminate food stamps, to eliminate school lunch programs, to eliminate the student loan program nor to issue unrestricted block grants. I will oppose what is a clear effort to undo the social progress of the last 25 years. The third flaw is a doctrinaire adherence to the new wave of supply-side economics. This concept is an outgrowth of the mercantilism of the 1700s and is the body of thought that led us into the Great Depression. However, I do support the need for tax cuts and the increased spending on defense. William J. Halterman, (D), 32, 6410 Sligo Mill Rd., Takoma Park, Prince George's, is a writer who also has a research consulting firm. He previously worked for Allied Press International. He has a journalism degree from the University of Maryland. Answer: The next congressperson from the 5th District must prioritize those programs that can be preserved and implemented and those that cannot be saved. Social Security and veterans benefits must be fully protected. I support federal impact aid and oppose budget ccuts in this area. I favor completion of the full Metro system. Nor would I vote for cuts in the Economic Development Administration, which has shown itself to be a cost-effective program. I favor the Beltsville Agricultural Center. I faovr workfave for able-bodied welfare recipients. I do not support food stamps going to students or strikers, and I do favor tightened eligibility standards. I support cuts in the Export-Import Bank and do not support the synfuels program. I do not support Amtrak nor the Clinch River Breeder Reactor. I support government-funded research in solar and other technologies. Too much federal spending had been placed in entitlement programs. Food stamps and Medicaid, for example, are programs whose size is determined by demographic and economic changes which are outside the control of the budget process. One man's needed social program is another person's pork-barrel project. The problem is that too many politicians so desperately want to be elected that we do not tell the public what they need to hear; instead we tell the public what we thing they want to hear. We cannot have tax cuts and more disposable income and all of our favorite spending programs. It is time for a new Democratic Party that will attract the bulk of those middle-class voters who elected Ronald Reagan president. Steny H. Hoyer, (D), 41, 6621 Lacona St., Berkshire, is an attorney who was a Maryland senator from 1966-79. He was president of the state Senate from 1975-79. He graduated from the Georgetown Law Center and is now in private practice. Answer: The budget initiatives of the president reflect a general mood that government spending is out of control and is a substantial contributing factor to inflation. I will support the president where cuts can be made to eliminate waste, duplication, inefficiency and fraud, and where belt-tightening is essential for a successful attack on inflation and unemployment. This effort requires practicality, sensitivity and priorities. I will support tax cuts which will be an incentive to investment, savings and economic growth. I will vigorously support the twin objectives of: 1. A strong defense to deter aggression and adventurism, and 2. Nuclear arms limitation. At the same time, I want to continue, at appropriate funding levels, programs and policies to ensure the economic well-being of those in need and equality of opportunity for all Americans. I will oppose cuts in impact aid to Prince George's and Montgomery counties, which I believe will be detrimental to quality education. I will also oppose efforts to renege on the commitment the federal government has to its workers, both active and retired. I share the president's "safety net" view, but I feel that some of his proposals neglect the nation's obligation to its senior citizens, veterans and its needy, and fall short of his expressed intention not to substantially adversely affect people. The president's initiatives are worthy of careful and thoughtful consideration by the Congress on their individual merits. The quest for solutions to inflation and unemployment and for a renewal of America's vitality and will is a nonpartisan objective toward which we must all strive. Lawrence E. Keval, (D), 12632 Millstream Dr., Bowie, is a private investigator and a Realtor associate. He worked for the federal government for eight years. He graduated from the paralegal program at the University of Maryland this year. Keval did not respond to The Post's request for information about his views on the Reagan administration's budget proposals. Richard E. Lee, (D), 6705 Baltimore Ave., College Park, founded Lee Realty Co. He also owned a weekly newspaper. The Banner, in Prince George's County. He has a bachelor's degree in political science from the University of Maryland. Answer: When I first ran for Congress some years ago, the big issue was school lunches. I was for them, my opponent was against them. Today the issue comes up again, with the rich administration trying to cut programs, including school lunches, or drastically reducing them. Legal aid to the poor, welfare, food stamps, scholarship loans, etc., all may be cut. This is the first election since the president took office, so this is a test of his policies. I will accept that challenge and be against his policies.Some of my opponents are backing Reagan's policies all the way, so let's make it a clear test. Classically, the Republican Party represents big business and the Democrats look after poor people. I suggest cutting off entirely foreign aid. The Marshall Plan is dead. The Second World War was over 35 years ago. Foreign countries have to stand on their own feet and defend themselves. The military budget is $190 billion; the president wants to add $26 billion more. I believe in strong defense, but money is wasted here and will cause unnecessary inflation. I would like to quote from a letter to the editor of The Washington Post by Sara P. Cory: "How many of us are aware of the fact that the president's proposed increase of $26 billion for the military would fund all the proposed budget cuts in the human needs area with $2 billion left over." There are more poor people than rich people. The bottom line is the voting levers at polling places. Joseph F. Meadow, (D), 50, 4804 College Ave., College Park, is an attorney who graduated from the University of Baltimore School of Law. He was served as the chairman of the Prince George's County Consumer Protection Commission. Answer: Budget cuts are very popular this year, and some of the Reagan administration proposals deserve careful consideration. At the core of the Reagan-Stockman budget, however, are cuts that threaten to deprive Americans of food, medical care and basic human services -- and I will oppose them. I support cutting government programs that amount to loan guarantees and subsidies for multinational corporations and big business. The oil industry earned 40 percent of all American business profits last year and should be able to finance their own synthetic-fuels research. The administration budget offers little support to local law enforcement and criminal justice systems, although Americans are more troubled by violent crime than ever. Mr. Reagan is using budget cuts to cripple regulatory agencies that enforce occupational safety, fair trade, pure drug and consumer protection standards. There is no substitute for the protections offered through these agencies. The administration plans to render them ineffective without seeking to repeal the laws creating them -- an abuse of the budget process. I don't think a balanced federal budget will significantly affect the fight against inflation. I prefer to see the administration and the Congress fighting for full employment and full production. As we labor to balance the budget, how about an equal effort to roll back interest rates? I oppose reducing student loan programs, although those who abuse the program should be prosecuted. There's room for the elimination of waste in government, but these cuts call for a paring knife -- not David Stockman's meat-ax approach. Sue V. Mills (D), 45, 5009 Woodland Blvd., Oxon Hill, is a member of the Prince George's County Council. She is a former teacher and was a member of the county Board of Education for eight years. She attended the University of Maryland. Answer: The question suggests that members of Congress must merely accept or reject the president's budget. As a representative in Congress, there will be ample opportunity to support, oppose or amend the component parts of the Reagan budget. My principal concern will be those sections of the budget which are in the best local and national interest of the people of the 5th District. It is obvious that many people support the president's effort to bring federal spending under control. I have some very strong opinions about how that should be accomplished. I will never support reductions in retirement benefits for people already retired. Neither can I support total abandonment of student loan programs. These are two examples of budget cutting at the expense of middle-class families who have traditionally borne the largest burden of supporting the government. I am in favor of discontinuing many programs which have become economic gold mines to that segment of our society which has developed government grant applications with a new technology. For example, the oil companies are receiving hundreds of millions of tax dollars to develop synthetic fuels which would put them out of the oil business. That's comparable to hiring a fox to take care of a flock of chickens. There's adequate opportunity to cut billions from the federal budget without creating disaster for senior citizens, students and the meaningful development of alternate energy sources. The national budget is composed of many component parts, and it's to those components that a congresswoman's attention must be directed. Thomas Patrick O'Reilly, (D), 42, 7101 Lois La., Lanham, has been a state senator since 1975. He is a University of Maryland law school graduate and was an associate judge of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. Answer: As a member of Congress, I unquestionably would support the "tax-cut" aspect of the president's budget. It is my belief, however, that the Kemp-Roth plan is the sounder approach. The president's across-the-board tax cut would tend to fuel inflation, whereas Kemp-Roth's targeted approach would work toward stimulating economic growth. The result might well be an increase in revenues. As for the so-called "budget cuts," I must first observe that the president's plan is by no means a panacea for our nation's economic ills. Certainly Americans will benefit from reduced inflation (the plan's laudable goal), but it remains to be seen if this new potion will transform the economy as predicted. In general, meat-ax approaches to the solving of the economic problems are unwise. Certain groups, such as the elderly and the "truly needy," both of whom are dependent upon government for their very survival, must not be abandoned. In keeping with my fiscally conservative philosophy, however, I do oppose wasteful government spending and favor reducing or eliminating social programs of questionable value. I refer specifically to the general welfare program, the free school-breakfast program, the much abused food-stamp program, the federally guaranteed student loan program and the justifiably criticized CETA program. In general, the interests of the 5th Congressional District are not served by the continuance of any federally subsidized social program wherein the administrative costs to the local governments are as much as the program itself provides in aid. Melvin C. Perkins, (D), 58, 1029 E. Baltimore St., Baltimore, is a retired steamship captain. Answer: I'd vote out the entire budget completely and introduce legislation of our own. The main point is that if we'd stop giving money away to Europe and other countries and keep the money in the United States and its programs, we'd save billions. Let's kill all these federal programs, including the Panama Canal. Let's cut out all the money to troops overseas. I consider that obsolete. I would vote the budget down. I believe in spending the money for welfare, unemployment for people in bread lines who are starving. Police should patrol the street, especially in the District of Columbia. Another thing: I want to cut out federal money for the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia should raise taxes and pay for itself. I also believe that Maryland senators should represent D.C. I think that this government should be getting more money on import and export taxes. I think there are a lot more avenues than income tax to raise money. I think there should be a law that people shouldn't pay taxes if they make under $5,000 a year. John Eugene Sellner, (D), 51, 9107 Allentown Rd., Fort Washington, is an author and investigator who works for the Police Times/Command. He is a retired Prince George's County police officer and attended local schools and the University of Miami. Answer: As a practical, conservative Democratic candidate, I agree with many of these cutbacks to meet the three major crises that we must deal with if we are to restore the prestige that we once had. The first crisis is the energy crisis couples with inflation. I would The first crisis is the energy crisis couples with inflation. I would promote using computerized programs to find energy-conserving and inflation-fighting solutions, to provide low-cost loans to industry, create special tax incentives for both consumers and industry, repeal all legislation enacted in prior years that restricts or discourages this type of energy development and modifying environmental protection laws where too restrictive. The second major issue is our military readiness or preparedness. We must maintain our military readiness at all times. I favor a draft for males, coupled with university military training. This type of program would reduce unemployment and crime, particularly among minorities. I also support a veterans tax credit system, with additional tax credits for education in lieu of the staggering cost of a GI-Bill system. The third major issue is the rising crime rate, particularly violent crime and organized crime. At the local level, particularly in Prince George's and Montgomery counties, for a number of years there has been a double standard in the criminal-justice system. I intend to eliminate this double standard with federal prosecution of officials involved and shifting federal aid to law enforcement directed to fighting street crime. Reuben Spellman, (D), 71, 9004 Golden Pass, Laurel, was an adviser to his wife, Gladys, during her 18-year political career. A mechanical engineer, he worked for the U.S. government for 30 years, as both a civilian and a military man. Answer: I cannot support the proposed Reagan budget as it has been presented to Congress with little detail, supporting data and deficient financial estimates. Administration testimony shows that the proposed reductions are unfairly distributed, with the major portion coming out of social programs, with little or no attempt to eliminate tax loopholes that favor large investors or industry. The recommended increase in defense spending seems to have been given insufficient study to justify the lump sum proposed. There are many areas where procurement savings can be achieved at no increase in expenditures. Additionally, the joint chiefs have not presented evidence of in-depth study of all defense needs to enable budget planners to prepare realistic spending needs for years to come. Waste in many programs/agencies cannot always be described as excessive government spending, but must be charged to poor administration (including corruption) at local levels as well as the federal level. Cutting out money for the needy will not cure this situation -- it will only hurt those who cannot help themselves. The effect of the budget proposals on the working poor is shortsighted, because the loss of government help that has kept them from becoming totally dependent on welfare will increase our costs in the long run. I would rather pay someone to work than pay them not to. Massive federal layoffs are cost-ineffective if contracting-out is the selected alternative. The Reagan solution is to shift the tax burden to the states and other local jurisdictions. Michael I. Sprague, (D), 7214 Hanover Pkwy., Greenbelt, did not respond to The Post's request for information. Francis W. White, (D), 59, 33 Thurston Dr., Largo, is a Maryland delegate. He served on the Prince George's County Council from 1971-78. He also has been mayor of Greenbelt. White has an engineering degree from the University of Maryland. Answer: If elected to Congress, I would support an amended proposed Reagan budget. While budget cuts never seem painless, I don't believe the cuts are as deep as some anticipate. The stated budget goals are to accomplish a true balanced budget by 1984 and thus improve the economy of the nation by putting our financial house in order. The alternative is the winding road to severe economic crisis. I believe the federal government must "get back to basis." For two decades we have funded and endured social experimentation, law enforcement apathy, a marshmallow national defense while throwing money at perceived problems and following conceptual remedies "cast in jello." I support the increased national defense budgeting. It presently takes the U.S. some 12 years to design and produce operational defense armament -- Russia can do it in three years. Revenue sharing, lost under President Carter, and educational impact aid must be restored for the 5th District. This money is our money, tax generated and frequently paid from our meager savings accounts. I support budget cuts affecting past programs of public school regulations and welfare. Forced busing has destroyed the community school concept, where parents could participate, and to the student it was inspirationally and socially a long ride going nowhere. Many aging and handicapped welfare cases are needy. However, many young, healthy, second-generation welfare cases are simply robbed of motivation and initiative and are pure fraud. Workfare as a program gets my budget support. Republicans George W. Benns, (R), 70, 8715 Leonard Dr., Silver Spring, is a retired carpenter and musician. During his career he worked on construction projects in the D.C. area. He published his own book, "Primer for a Peaceful Revolution," in 1970. Answer: Most budgets since 1932 relied on deficit spending, which gives some help to the poor but benefits the rich. Reagan's budget moves the poor into more poverty. Social cuts should not be made until jobs are created in the private sector. Three million could work building affordable housing with 5 percent mortgages. Five million could return to farming, stopping soil erosion, irrigation, reforestation, mass transportation, schooling, trade schools (barber colleges and dental clinics) to provide cheaper auto, construction and other repairs that are out of control price-wise. Take the hard-core unemployed, welfare people and criminals away from their turf into the above fields of endeavor. No work. No eat. Sacred cows -- defense and tax shelters -- should be lowered or eliminated. Cheap guided missiles can destroy the most expensive ships, subs, tanks, planes, etc. We can be just as safe with a $100 billion defense budget with less reliance on ground warfare. The $282 billion tax expenditures can be eliminated by making all government, business, industries, banks, etc., pay-as-you-go out of profits or taxes. Social Security can be funded for over $300-plus billions. Workers who pay half will have $50 billion more take-home pay. The trillion-dollar federal debt can be retired by three different methods, saving $40 billion in debt service. Conglomerates that are exporting jobs, supporting cheap foreign labor by acquisitions, mergers, etc., should be denied tax benefits they receive for creating inferior short supplies. U.S. money and guns cannot buy foreign countries' respect. Robert Byron Brickell, (R), 30, 7201 Thomas Branch Dr., Bethesda, is a computer operator. He graduated from the University of Tennessee in political science and psychology. Last year he worked in President Reagan's campaign. Answer: Our economy is 1981 has to be redirected and stabilized to where it is beneficial and not a burden to people. I agree with the cuts of the Reagan administration, but they should be done on a gradual basis. This would give the various organizations in the 5th District time to finance themselves through private funding, local or state grants, industrial and business incentives. It is the federal government who brought us to our knees and dependency on them. Therefore, it is up to the federal government to arrive at a solution which will provide information for the poor and elderly as to how they shall receive further help. The state and local governments should now assist the people by creating volunteer programs. Bringing back to life the talents of the elderly, for example. In this reasoning, I present to you my three-point plan: safety, prosperity and dignity of peace. We will not prosper by involving ourselves in a conflict with a foreign nation over matters that do not affect the United States. We will, however, protect the interest of U.S. democracy and preserve the rights of every country that has been pledged to NATO and the Western allies. This we will not do at the expense of human lives, but through the use of sound negotiation and strong military. support. I see no reason to implement a draft of any kind except to defend the people of the 5th District's new three-point plan. Also, all tax cuts will be firmly accepted. I will, however, support a strong military budget as provided by the Reagan administration. From strength we have prospered, so in strength we shall remain. David H. Elliott, (R), 62, 8800 23rd Ave., Adelphi, is a civil engineer and land surveyor. He is a former chairman of the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission. He has a degree in military engineering from the British Military Academy. Answer: I believe that President Reagan has clearly stated our monetary problems and made his recommendations to Congress as to the cuts necessary to get the ship of state back on an even keel. Congress now has the onerous task of implementing those cuts so they will fall fairly on those segments of society that can best carry the load. There must be compassion for the aged, handicapped and poor, and we must do our best for those who cannot help themselves. The federal employes' pension rights must be protected, and funding not comingled with Social Security. While I am for a strong military position and the spending of necessary funds for equipment and manpower, I am also convinced that there is a lot of waste that needs attention. The United States funding to the United Nations should not escape the pruning fork. It has shown the same impotency as the League of Nations. I am reasonably certain that the ultimate changes in the budget will look very different when they finally emerge in adopted form. The medicine that President Reagan is prescribing may not be palatable, but the alternative is that the United States will go down the same path England took, and that is unthinkable. I will, therefore, support the president's fiscal policy, because it may well be our last chance to pull back from the edge of economic disaster. Irvin H. Henson Jr., (R), 46, 4734 Wakefield Rd., Baltimore, has worked with the Department of Labor and Employment Security in Pensacola, Fla. He has a bachelor's degree in criminology from Florida State University. Answer: I agree with the president that we must reduce the rate of inflation, reduce taxes and reduce the high interest rates and balance the budget in principle. But before I would vote for the total program, I would have to examine it thoroughly to ascertain if the priorities are correct, as I feel they should be. Also, if they are going to be shared equally across the board. I would vote for the cuts in the budget because we can no longer tolerate double-digit, punishing inflation, which tends to hurt all Americans, but especially those on fixed incomes. If we whip inflation, there would be more funds available for those programs for the needy. The high interest rates must be reduced; they have reached a level of intolerable 20 percent at times. These high interest rates have killed the dreams of many Americans of ever owning a home. It has left vacant many newly built homes. And finally, we can no longer hope things will get better. We must act now. I believe the president's program of a balanced budget through cuts is a step in the right direction. But once again I must say, before I would vote for it, I want to have all the facts in hand. Lawrence J. Hogan Jr., (R), 24, 13221 Greenmount Ave., Beltsville, was an administrative assistant to the Prince George's county executive. He has a degree in government and political science from Florida State University. Answer: I favor the Reagan administration program of spending cuts and cutbacks in most cases. There is no way we are going to get a handle on inflation, economic stagnation and crippling interest rates without taking strong measures to get our economy under control. That is not to say I would uncritically accept the line-item cuts proposed in all cases. The job of a U.S. representative is to represent the people and the interests of his or her district, and I am pledged to do this. The budget reductions required must not unfairly affect government employes. The poor, the elderly, veterans and the helpless must be protected. e In areas in which I did differ with the administration proposal, I would feel compelled to initiate or support alternative savings to preserve the effectiveness of the president's proposal. I think it is absolutely necessary to support the president, and I view this special election as a referendum on the need to take strong action to reverse the recent trends in our economy. I am the one candidate firmly committed to this view, and I am asking the voters to support me on the basis that it is imperative that we change our direction. The trouble with not supporting the administration program is that the alternative is more of the same, and the country cannot afford that. The people in November resoundingly supported the need for a change, and I will carry out that mandate. John Lillard, (R), 33, 3304 Enterprise Rd., Mitchellville, is an attorney in private practice in Washington and College Park. He graduated from Washington and Lee Law School in 1971 and attended the Hague Academy of International Law. Answer: In general, I favor the president's plan for economic recovery. However, in the budget process, a member of Congress never has an opportunity to cast a single vote on the entire budget. The budget is split up and sent to the various committees and then voted on in pieces. I would examine each item that comes out of committee before I voted. For example, the president has assured us that the truly needy and the elderly will not be harmed by his proposed cutbacks. I would like to see a clearer definition of truly needy. Another example of concern is retirement benefits of federal employes. There is a proposal in the budget to compute the cost-of-living increases on an annual basis instead of the current twice-yearly method. This will cost many retired people in the District money. With approximately 38 percent of the District consisting of federal employes, any budget items that affect this large part of the constituency would merit special study. On the positive side of the president's budget, I am convinced that we need a stronger defense and that we must trim the fat in many areas that have grown out of proportion. Wasteful federal spending has played a large role in our chaotic economic situation, and I believe that thrift is the only solution. Jack Price, (R), 1029 E. Baltimore St., Baltimore, did not respond to The Post's request for information. Jon William Robinson, (R), 35, 9927 Good Luck Rd., #201, Seabrook, is an analyst with Computer Sciences Corp. He has a doctorate in biology from the University of Kansas and formerly worked for the Smithsonian Institution. Answer: If I were elected to Congress, I could not support the Reagan budget in its present form. The cuts in funds for research will hamper our ability to compete with Europeans and the Japanese in the world marketplace, thus making our inflation worse. Funding cuts in research in solar energy and energy conservation will leave us more dependent on foreign oil and nuclear energy, with its radioactive wastes. Cuts in funds for the Environmental Protection Agency will endanger our families and threaten our livelihoods. Deletion of science education and student loans will lead to shortages of the trained personnel we need to get America working again. Cuts in welfare will lead to higher crime rates. The poor will not sit quietly by and starve for the convenience of David Stockman. What we need in welfare is programs that work, not no program at all. I believe we can work toward a balanced budget if we delete tax subsidies to corporations, delete pork-barrel water projects and similar public works. We need to reduce waste in the military; a large, expensive military is not necessarily the best military, as the French found out in World War II. Reagan's proposed tax cut will cause more inflation and will not encourage savings. The way to encourage savings is to allow higher interest rates for savers. Rather than the proposed flat increase in the depreciation allowance, the allowance should be based on the life expectancy of the investment, making allowance for technological obsolescence. Audrey Scott, (R), 45, 12109 Long Ridge La., Bowie, has been mayor of Bowie since 1976. She is also a member of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments' Board of Directors. She has an English degree from Tufts University. Answer: I support the Reagan administration's economic policies because they should help curb inflation, encourage savings, create jobs and provide affordable housing for the 5th District. However, I believe that Metro funding obligations should be met, twice yearly cost-of-living allowances for the federal retirement system should be retained, and the safety net for the handicapped, poor and the elderly must be kept in place. I am a fiscal conservative with a commitment to a strong defense and would oppose federal government intervention in local government. The people of this nation sent a very important message to Washington in last November's election. The message was short and simple -- 'Let's get America moving again' -- not just for some, but for all. Our party and President Reagan can and will restore the dream of greatness, opportunity and prosperity to all of the American people. With economic growth, there will be room for everyone to get ahead. Without it, the country will tear itself apart competing for pieces of a smaller and smaller pie. All of us must be willing to accept cuts in federal programs we are participating in, in order to help President Reagan bring federal spending and inflation under control. We are truly at the beginning of a new beginning. The war against our economic woes will be long, battles must be fought one by one. I have an excellent record of constituent service and will continue to be a strong spokesman for the economic concerns of the 5th District. Jean Speicher, (R), 55, 12209 Shadetree La., Laurel, is a civic activist who has served on numerous government and citizens boards and commissions and has been active in restoration projects. She previously ran for the House of Delegates. Answer: With such a poor economic state and inflation so high, a drastic program is necessary. However, in order to keep the trust of the citizens, Social Security, federal and military retirees benefits must be continued as is. Welfare programs dealing with families with dependent children and the aged have met with some abuses. Recipients of these funds truly in need must be continued so that suffering will not be felt. School lunch programs for needy children can be administered so as not to bring focus on certain children. The Department of Energy as a separate department is too costly, as it has not proven effective and productive. The grant program is poorly designed, not as helpful to individuals as to large firms and corporations. More emphasis must be placed on synthetic fuels and geothermal and solar energy. The energy crisis in our future might be more crucial than military strength. The defense budget increases are necessary, although any waste must be eliminated. No one should be deceived that the United States is not strong and prepared to defend itself from its enemies. A strong Navy is desirable. Consideration should be given to aircraft and smaller, faster ships. Tax reductions for individuals and as an incentive for business to expand is healthy. Restraint in giving business tax credits should be used -- assess the results of tax credits every two years. With the Environmental Protection Agency, a reduction is possible, I feel, because of personal experience with projects funded that were too experimental, such as sludge incineration. Frederick C. Taylor, (R), 73, 6015 Belwood St., District Heights, is a retired federal employe who worked for the armed services and the General Services Administration. In 1970, he organized United Republicans of Prince George's County. Answer: I would support Reagan's budget one hundred percent. He has mellowed in some areas -- such as cutting the two increases per year to one for retired federal employes -- and will allow the two increases to continue. He also will allow the Social Security increase to become effective on July 1 instead of Oct. 1, as first recommended. The U.S. Senate and House are both controlled by conservatives, with a conservative president and Supreme Court, so it is very doubtful that anything that is going to cost the government a lot of money will be given any consideration. I am a moderate conservative. There has been a lot of fat in previous budgets. We have gone overboard in many areas. We need a tax cut in all areas, as business is fighting to stay alive, and because business provides jobs, we must make it easier for both big operations and small business to survive without forcing them to fill out a multitude of forms and expecting them to supply the cost of labor to fill out these forms. We must make it easier for business to continue to do what they were created for without outside interference. An honest person who is in need of help would agree to work for welfare on a workfare, welfare basis. I think this should be accomplished where the jobs are, in industry with the U.S. government's cost being sent direct to the business doing the hiring. This is where the jobs are. Woodworth A. Watrous, (R), 13501 Vandalia Dr., Rockville, is a weapons system researcher. He is a Vietnam veteran and former employe of the Treasury Department. He was a volunteer during President Reagan's campaign. Answer: I would vote for the Reagan tax cut and budget proposals. The reduction in federal tax rates holds the promise of boosting the economy and creating jobs in private sector. The increase in the military spending is necessary and overdue and is being forced upon us by Russian expansionism. While some will be hurt by the budget cuts, the country will gain and would gain more by cutting deeper and eliminating more of these federal middleman functions. I also support a military draft -- a people's representative force, not a mercenary or class-oriented military. I reject SALTs I and II. I support aid to El Salvador and Pakistan. I believe the U.S. government should aid the Afghani and anti-Castro Cuban freedom fighters. I support tax reimbursement to parents who wish to send their children to private or religious schools. I support mandatory quotas or high tariffs on foreign cars and computers when imported to this country. I favor a constitutional amendment to abolish the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. For too long the liberal judges have played the game of applying this 14th Amendment to the states on such issues as abortion, school prayer and busing. Let Congress make the laws, not the courts!