Green, Libertarian and Populist parties

Candidate name: Kevin B. Zeese

Place of residence: Takoma Park

Date of birth: Oct. 28, 1955

Place of birth: Queens, N.Y.

Current occupation: Director, Democracy Rising

Education: J.D., George Washington University Law School; B.S., State University of New York at Buffalo

Community associations, involvement: TrueVoteMD.org, VoteTrustUSA.org, Common Sense for Drug Policy

Professional associations: D.C. Bar

Family: Two adult sons, unmarried

Campaign office address and telephone: 7711 Garland Ave., Takoma Park, MD, 301-257-3109

Web sites: www.ZeeseForSenate.org and www.Zeese.US

Link to state Board of Elections campaign finance database

If elected I would be a foot in the door for the American people and would bring my 30 years of advocacy and organizing to the Senate to work for:

*A less militaristic foreign policy, e.g., Ending the Iraq occupation, preventing an attack on Iran and rethinking the one-sided support the U.S. gives Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians.

*Remake the economy for the 21st Century. The U.S. economy as in serious trouble — record international trade deficits, record budget deficits, rapidly rising debt ceiling, the highest personal debts since WWII, loss of our manufacturing base, loss of jobs overseas and a rich—poor divide that is at its largest since the 1920s. All of the issues in your question are affected by this wrong direction of the U.S. economy and if we continue on the path we are on our economy will no longer be able to function in the ways that are needed. I am proposing developing a 21st Century economy, this includes:

1. A transition from a 19th⁄20th Century economy built on fossil fuel energy. We need to break our addiction to fossil fuels and move toward a clean and sustainable energy economy. This requires a host of changes in transportation, increased availability of mass transit, more efficient homes, widespread us of solar energy so every house, business, government building because a producer — not a user of energy. The technology is available for these changes only the political will is lacking. However, if we do not act we will find ourselves in an economic and environmental catastrophe and forced to act in a desperate response rather than in a managed response.

2. A fair tax system. My proposal is for the first $100,000 of income to be federal income tax free — a 22% raise for the 90% of Americans who earn under $100,000 (and a significant raise for all Americans). This will be a tremendous spur to the economy, growth of business and living standards, especially of working Americans. This change will cost the Treasury $380 Billion in revenue. This revenue loss is made up by a tiny micro tax of .1% (1⁄10th of a percent) on the purchase of stocks, bonds, currency and derivatives. (This is a modified Tobin Tax.) This micro tax would raise 1.3 Trillion in annual new revenue. This extra revenue can be used to pay down the deficit and debt, as well as fund the transition talked about in other parts of this plan.

3. Transform corporate welfare into taxpayer investment. The U.S. currently gives over $300 Billion annually in corporate welfare primarily to national and multi-national corporations. This warps the free market and makes it impossible for entrepreneurs to compete with big business. If corporations continue to want taxpayer dollars than they need to view taxpayers as investors. The U.S. should set up a permanent trust, modeled after the very successful Alaska Permanent Trust which has shared the oil wealth in Alaska since 1978, and each year a portion of the profit of businesses that have taken taxpayer dollars is put into the trust and every American should get a check from that trust. The Alaska Permanent Trust has resulted in Alaska being the only state in the Union where the rich-poor divide did not expand in the last decade.

4. Invest in U.S. infrastructure that is decaying and in much needed assistance. The American Society of Civil Engineers in its annual report card gives the US infrastructure a D and warns of a looming economic crisis if it is not repaired. This includes failing bridges, tunnels, damns, roads, transit, sewar and septic systems and government buildings (among other areas). They estimate that $1.5 Trillion is needed over five years. This investment needs to be done consistent with the first point above — breaking addiction to fossil fuels. In addition, this investment will create jobs that cannot be moved overseas.

5. Post high school education for all. To compete in the world economy the U.S. needs to make a major investment in the education of its citizens. This means making education after high school widely available. This includes trade school, community college, college and university education available for no charge for all Americans. When it comes to education decision making needs to be at the local level, preferably at the school itself, and competition needs to be encouraged by allowing public school choice.

6. Health care for all through a national health plan. The U.S. spends more per capita than any country in the world on health care yet more and more people, now just under 50 million, do not have health insurance. The only way any country has provided health care to all it’s citizens is by a national health care plan where the government is the single payer. Right now 25% of all health care expenditures go to the wasteful, bureaucratic overhead of the private health insurance industry. The typical doctors office spends 42% of its time collecting payment from insurance companies. A national health plan will relieve business of an uncontrollable cost and allow U.S. business to compete with businesses around the world whose countries already have a national health plan. It will free consumers to change jobs or stay home and take care of their family. It will reduce doctor’s office overhead and minimize the problem of medical malpractice because people with bad medical outcomes will have health care. And, it will save money because the system we currently have is the most expensive possible 25% overhead compared to Medicare with 3% overhead.

*Restoring the US Constitutional Framework and re-invigorating democracy: The checks and balances of government have been shattered by an imperial presidency and a Congress that is complicit, our democracy has become a charade with redistricting that ensures re-election, voting that cannot be verified, roadblocks to anyone not running in the two party system.

How would you rate the performance of the U.S. Senate excellent, good, fair or poor? Why?

Poor. They fail to fulfill their most important responsibilities, e.g. the power to declare war, the responsibility for advice and consent especially on Supreme Court nominees. In addition, the legalized corruption of campaign donations is evident in their priorities and the pork barrel legislation they pass to waste tax payer dollars on unnecessary projects. They fail to address the basic needs of Americans, e.g. the failure to put in place health care for all, the failure to develop a living wage for full-time workers, and they have allowed the rich-poor divide to expand to obscene levels. Finally, they have allowed for the development of corporate government rather than a government of, by and for the people.

Do you have a timeline on when the U.S. should pull out of Iraq?

I favor announcing immediate withdrawal and completing the withdrawal within six months. The U.S. presence is increasing violence and instability. Indeed, we cannot bring stability to Iraq because we invaded on false reasons, and have gotten caught in a variety of scandals like Abu Gharib, Haditha, rapes, as well as daily abusive checkpoint and home searches.

Essentially, by announcing a dual military and corporate withdrawal, Iraqis will know they are getting their country back. This will stop main street Iraqis from joining the resistance. In addition, we should acknowledge the damage we have done and pay for the Iraqis to fix it. They rebuilt their country after the first Gulf War and could do so again. Finally, we should encourage countries in the region to talk with the Iraqi government and offer peace keeping assistance. It is in the region’s interests to have a stable Iraq.

However, I do not think the U.S. has any intention of leaving. The evidence clearly indicates an intent to stay for multiple generations. We are building the largest embassy in the world in Baghdad (10 times the size of the usual embassy — the size of 80 football fields) and we are building 14 long-term bases (that will be for all intent and purposes permanent bases).

How should the government pay for the war on terror?

We would be doing a much more effective job of protecting the US from terrorism if we had not been diverted to Iraq. Former CIA director Porter Goss has testified that Iraq is a magnate and training ground for terrorists who will come out of Iraq and use their experience to attack America and our allies. (His view has been confirmed in CIA, and State Department reports.) So, the first step to getting more safety and security is getting out of Iraq.

Many of the expenditures in the war on terror have dual purposes. For example, expanding out public health system will leave us prepared for an attack but will also allow us to respond to health emergencies like the bird flu or viruses. Similarly, increasing security around utilities serves dual purposes and should be funded. Sadly, much of the money spent by Homeland Security has been wasted, e.g. tv cameras in small Vermont towns. But, the budget for defending America should come out of our general budget as it is a priority to keep America safe.

Would you make any changes to the way the Department of Homeland Security is run?

First, we need to keep the risks of terrorism in reality. Terrorism works when the population is terrorized — and Homeland Security with its alerts and fear-based statements is doing more to help with increasing terror than any act of terrorism is doing. Of course, 9⁄11 was a horrible day and needs to be prevented in the future, but we need to realize that this criminal gang took three years to pull this off. It was not easy for them even before the increased security. Let’s keep them and their power in perspective, not exaggerate it. The American Scientist estimated that it would take one 9⁄11 per month to make flying as dangerous as driving. Further, the fear of biological or chemical weapons is not consistent with the reality of their manufacture or deployment. They have never shown themselves to be very effective, nor easy to manufacture, nor easy to deploy.

As Bart Kosko wrote in a Los Angeles Times: ‘‘the comparative absence of terrorism could just as easily (and I believe more reasonably) support the very different conclusion that we have overestimated — grossly overestimated — the terrorist threat. We may be winning a war against terrorism simply because there are few terrorists out there posing a serious threat to the U.S.”

Second, rather than spurring a biological or chemical weapons arms race by greatly increasing US expenditures on the development and deployment of such weapons, we should be strengthening international treaties that control such weapons. The US blocked a addition to the treaty that would have required international inspections. We probably did so because we did not want our facilities, which are the most advanced in the world and are being greatly expanded. In this regard, I oppose the massive expansion of the bioweapons facility at Ft. Detrick, MD. It makes no sense to put the largest bioweapons facility in the world in the middle of a population of 200,000 people and only 40 miles from Washington, DC. It is an invitation to serious problems.

Third, Overemphasis on the bureaucracy of Homeland Security, and the many wasteful programs it has produced, and not enough spending on the public health system and emergency health services that will be the first responders. And, the misplaced priorities of giving more money outside of the DC region than makes any sense. It is obvious that the heart of government will always be the number one target of people who oppose US policy.

Fourth, develop measures of success so that the U.S. taxpayer does not keep throwing money at a problem whether the expenditures are working or not.

What should be done to save Social Security?

Social Security is not in immediate jeopardy — won’t be for decades. So, it is not in urgent need of saving. The most sensible way to save it is to tax all income, not just that of working Americans. The current $92,500 cap means that someone who makes $92,500 is paying the same social security tax as someone making $10 million — that makes no sense. If we were to tax all income equally we would have a massive social security surplus and could develop a plan where every American retired with $1 million dollar annuity (as suggested by Secretary Snow of the Bush Administration).

The real issue is retirement security. We used to have a three-legged stool for retirement — savings, pensions and Social Security. Two of those legs are gone — all are weaker. Social Security on its own results in poverty- level retirement. It is not sufficient. We need to remake the economy with these knew retirement realities considered.

What should be done to save Medicare?

We need an overhaul of our health care system. The U.S. spends more per person on health care than any country in the world, yet tens of millions go without. The US can provide health care for everyone without financial barriers. It can be affordable, comprehensive, for your lifetime and allow consumers with choice of health care. And, it can be done for less money then the current system.

Twenty-five percent — one out of four health care dollars — goes to insurance bureaucracy, unnecessary (often padded⁄fraudulent) billing, huge profits and bloated executive salaries — while Medicare has single digit overhead. We must substitute private health insurance with efficient publicly-financed single payer and no-fault insurance for malpractice. However, health care delivery should remain private so patients are free to choose the type of health care they want and the professional who provides it.

A single payer system is best for businesses and workers. Businesses are relieved of the burden of health care – an uncontrollable cost that threatens business and makes hiring employees risky. Workers benefit because they can change jobs, return to school, or take care of their families without worrying about health care. Further, single payer ensures comprehensive benefits throughout an individual’s life.

Physicians benefit because administrative bureaucracy is reduced, every patient encounter is covered, patients visit their doctor’s more often and quality care is rewarded. Additionally, the bureaucracy of pre-authorization for procedures and medicine, paperwork for multiple payers, fighting for payment in a complex system often designed to prevent payment is reduced allowing physicians to deliver quick and efficient care.

Malpractice is greatly reduced because patients with poor medical outcomes are provided with health care. No-fault assures patients needs will be met and litigation reduced. Vigilant oversight of malpractice insurance and of doctors involved in repeated malpractice, further reduces the malpractice insurance burden on doctors. Malpractice will not be needed to enforce quality care as single payer can create positive incentives.

The U.S. is the only industrialized country that does not provide universal health care. It is long past time to make health care available to all. It will serve patients, health care providers, business and public budgets more effectively.

What is your position on the death penalty?

The State’s use of the power to kill another human should be seriously reconsidered. Do we want to be a nation of executioners? Do we want to participate in killing people through a very flawed justice system? Do we want to continue to continue the cycle of violence? I don’t and therefore oppose the death penalty — we can strongly punish violent criminals in other ways.

There are many questions about the death penalty generally, and how it is applied in Maryland. There is no question that the U.S. justice system is imperfect. I know from having been a practicing criminal lawyer that mistakes are made, biases exist and wealth makes a difference in US courts. The questions about the death penalty are so significant that 106 nations, most civilized countries, have abolished it. The United States, Iran and China are the most prolific executioners in the world.

The Maryland court system has a record of false convictions in death penalty cases. For example, in 1993 Kirk Bloodsworth was freed after DNA testing proved his innocence. Yet, he had been convicted twice by Maryland courts. In the past 30 years, 122 inmates were found to be innocent and released from death row.

In 2003 the U.S. Supreme Court — often hostile to death penalty defendants — overturned a death sentence of Kevin Wiggins in Maryland because of ineffective assistance of counsel. Ineffective counsel in death cases is all too common, As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has said: ‘‘I have yet to see a death case among the dozens coming to the Supreme Court on eve-of-execution stay application in which the defendant was well represented at trial.” A death sentence seems to have more to do with the defense lawyer than the defendant.

A 2003 study conducted by the University of Maryland found that racial bias impacts capital punishment in Maryland. A defendant is twice as likely to receive the death penalty if the victim is white. And if the defendant is black and the victim is white the odds are even greater. Further, geography matters in Maryland, Baltimore County is 13 times more likely to institute a death sentence then across the border in Baltimore City.

All of these weaknesses — racial bias, poor defense lawyering, geographic bias — show up in Maryland capital cases.

The death penalty is akin to be struck by lightening in the criminal justice system. The odds increase based on the color of the victim, the color of the accused and geography and most importantly the quality of legal representation. But only 2% of known murderers are sentenced to death. Some of the most heinous murders do not result in death sentences, while less heinous crimes are punished by death. The National Law Journal concluded that capital trials are ‘‘more like a random flip of the coin than a delicate balancing of scales” of justice.

What is your position on abortion?

The issue of abortion is mixed up in religion and science about when life begins. As a result, this is not a decision the government should make for all women. The difficult question of abortion should be left to each woman to decide and should be kept away from politicians who want to play politics with it.