Candidates for the United States Senate and House of Representatives were asked the following questions by The Washington Post:

Freeze: Do you favor a nuclear freeze? If not, do you support other forms of control?

Services: Should additional federal funds be appropriated for social services?

Social Security: Does Social Security need to be changed, and if so, how?

Budget: Do you favor a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget?

Patricia O'Brien Aiken (D), 60, of 501 Epping Forest Rd., Annapolis, was a member of the state House of Delegates from 1975 to 1979. Since 1981, she has been active lobbying in the areas of juvenile problems, women's issues, the elder ly, prisons and welfare.

Freeze: Yes, it may not even accomplish as much as SALT II, but with such a saber-rattling administration it sends both the president and other countries the message that we do not believe that anybody can win a nuclear war.

Services: Yes, stopping programs which keep people healthy and sane and as productive as possible makes no fiscal sense. Lack of these programs will cost us dearly in the long run.

Social Security: The energy crisis caused inflation, not the so-called entitlement programs. The Social Security Fund should be taken out of the "unified" budget where it was placed in 1968 and returned to its former autonomous status so nobody can play politics with it. There are system-wide reforms which should be used to plug the temporary shortfall rather than cutting benefits. But what would solve the whole problem is a 6 percent unemployment rate.

Budget: Not at this time, when the administration has Just handed us the largest deficit of all time. It's a public relations ploy now, and for this administration, it takes a lot of gall to even propose it.

Howard Greenebaum (D), 52, of 1738 Jones Station Rd., Annapolis, is a retired businessman. He has been president of several companies, including Greenebaum's Jewelers in Baltimore, H.M.G. Inc., Chain-Lock Co. Inc. and Advertisers Consultants Inc.

Freeze: Yes. In addition, I have spoken out on "nuclear triggering"--the poor controls we have on the hundreds of fingers close to the triggers on our subs, bombers and in the missile silos.

Services: Yes. Social Services could be defined in different manners. I shall direct it toward the need for extensive job training programs so the unemployed can begin to enter the new growth industries.

Social Security: Not as Reagan proposes. They only need to be able to transfer funds between their own divisions more freely. It also should be removed from the federal budget process as it is being "used" to cut the deficit in an unrealistic manner.

Budget: No. We need flexibility in the budget process. We certainly need to inject sound business procedures and regain control of our money. The defense budget and international arms sales are two areas I would pay particular attention to. Also, the lack of discipline, coordination and direction in weapon development.

Milton W. Showell (D), 46, of 7224 East St., Camp Springs, is a retired Army major who now works as a human resource developer. He was an instructor on race relations in the Army.

Freeze: I do not favor a nuclear freeze, but I do favor a ceiling on the defense budget of $225 billion a year, plus or minus $25 billion over the next 20 years. The research and development procurement appropriation should be $175 billion, plus or minus $25 billion over the next 20 years.

Services: No. Just control the defense spending and there will always be enough funds available to meet the social service needs of this country and the Third World. The economy will be better off also.

Social Security: Yes. Social Security needs to be changed first by having all new federal, state and local workers pay into the system. The system should also receive 10 percent of the yearly gross funds collected by the federal Treasury.

Budget: I do not favor a constitutional amendment because it is not necessary if the Congress would not be so involved in meeting special interest needs instead of the needs of the greater number of American citizens. The president is going to economically destroy the country, trying to close a window of vulnerability that will only create a super-rich class in America that will leave the country destroyed by domestic enemies, not Russia.

Kent Sullivan (D), 38, of 10671 Skaggsville Rd., Laurel, a delivery truck driver, has a broad range of work experience, which includes teaching special education and high-school English. He has an advanced degree in education from Johns Hopkins University and has been a research associate in the federal government. He also has worked in a presidential campaign.

Freeze: Absolutely. We already have the capacity to destroy everything once; what can possibly be gained by having the capacity to destroy everything twice? Meanwhile, the federal government is hard at work slashing essential services. For the sake of overkill, we send increasing numbers of people to bed hungry each night. This nuclear craziness casts a dark shadow over every human activity, from the classroom to the economy: over every human being, from the oldest to the youngest. Eliminating the nuclear nightmare is the most important issue of this and every election.

Services: Absolutely. If we want to call ourselVes civilized, we must provide social services. If we want to provide social services, we must pay for them. Since the federal government is best at collecting money, let's have them do it and, through revenue sharing, provide many services through state and local governments. But who does this administration think it's fooling? By dumping the services on the states and locals without money, either we get no services, or (you guessed it) new taxes from the states and locals. It's already happened in California and in Prince George's County, and the results are disaster.

Social Security: Seems to me that the older members of our community have paid their dues. We'd better never forget that, and we'd better never neglect them. Either they present system or an alternative system assuring equal or enhanced protection must be maintained. If the system is in trouble, transfer funds to bail it out. How about from funds recently spent for developing a national plan to deliver the mail following a nuclear holocaust?

Budget: No. Why lose the flexibility Congress needs to make wise monetary decisions according to the circumstances particular times call for? This issue is nothing more than a sham to make us all think our elected officials are highly responsible. Any such amendment would necessarily be accompanied by dozens of loopholes; otherwise the federal government could not act in times of crisis, without first passing (you guessed it) another constitutional amendment.