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?
James S. Ansell (R), 58, of 3002 Ramblewood Rd., Ellicott City, is a lawyer. Previously, he was an inspector at Bethlehem Steel, plumber's helper, cab driver, partner in a service station and insurance adjuster. He was president of the Howard County Republican Club.
Freeze: Yes. Yesterday.
Services: I have no problem with social services to the needy. But I would like to see the whole system dismantled and the funds, in a constitutional manner, turned over to the proper management, religious bodies, who are more in touch with the truly needy.
Social Security: Yes. It is my impression that S.S. was never in tended to be a retirement plan. For one thing, as one now lives longer, the age requirement should be higher than the present 62-65, unless one should be required to stop work for health reasons (and this is covered already). Sooner or later, this country will have to agree that "I got mine, how did you make out" and "me-tooism" will turn full circle.
Budget: Yes. Most of us will agree that there are only three basic necessary items we all need -- food, clothing and shelter; and, most of us have a problem balancing these without losing at least one. Let's ask the unemployed about balancing the budgets.
Roscoe Bartlett (R), 56, of 4317 Buckeystown Pike, Frederick, is a college teacher, homebuilder and dairy farmer. He has headed development groups at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory and IBM Corp. and has established an engineering research and development firm.
Freeze: No. The U.S.S.R. understands only strength. They will not negotiate any nuclear arms reduction so long as they hold an advantage. The best way to ensure eventual nuclear arms reduction is to ensure that we negotiate from a position of strength.
Services: No. Social services are not a proper function of the federal government. The Constitution clearly delimits the powers of the federal government, and the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights reaffirms this intent. Social services are a proper function of churches, service organizations and individuals. Only if there is a demonstrable failure of these groups, should government be involved and then not at the federal level. I am confident that the goodness of Americans will ensure adequate support of social services through private organizations.
Social Security: Certainly. If it is not changed, it will collapse. Each day it goes $17 million further in the red. Too many programs have been included under this umbrella, and the ratio of contributors has changed from 40-to-1, at its inception to 3-to-1 now (soon to be 2-to-1). Younger workers should be "weaned" from the program and encouraged to provide individual security. Older workers and retirees must be continued. Clearly, the program cannot continue as it is now structured. To continue all benefits would require unbearable taxes.
Budget: Yes. But only as a first step. The growth of government must stop and reverse to a proper constitutional role. Much of what the federal government now does should be returned to lower levels of government or not done at all by government. A return to constitutional government will result in much lower taxes, a balanced budget with payment of the national debt, lower interest rates and no inflation.
Samuel E. Eastman (R), 59, of 602 Alleghany Dr., Mt. Lake Park,.is president and treasurer of Economic Sciences Corp. He is a former director of the Office of Policy Review for the U.S. Department of Transportation and also has worked as a military analyst in government and the private sector. He holds graduate degreees in law and economics.
Freeze: To promote peace and secure the safety of future generations, I favor negotiations with the Soviet Union to achieve a nuclear freeze.
Services: I support further reductions in federal funds for some existing social services which I believe are not working or are counter-productive, but I certainly would not rule out federal funds for new social service programs which are demonstrably productive.
Social Security: Social Security should be made more secure and more credible by guaranteeing the future financial soundness of the system. Several ways to do this have been advanced. I do not believe existing benefits should be reduced; however, I await the recommendation of the Bipartisan National Commission on Social Security Reform, due in Jan. 1983, for further comment.
Budget: I favor a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.