Here’s Senate President, Colleen Hanabusa’s responses to our survey:
REGARDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENT
What steps do you think Congress should take to rebuild our economy on a more sustainable, yet economically viable basis?
My first priority in Congress will be to put people back to work and to get our economy moving again.
I support increasing our investments in America’s people and infrastructure, including aggressively expanding education and training initiatives, preparing America’s students to compete with the best and brightest around the world. Our students can only do this if we provide them with the tools that will let them excel.
I’ll also work to strengthen America’s technology sector, energy policy, educational systems, and transportation infrastructure so that our students and America remain at the cutting edge. These investments will lead to fostering and sustaining America’s economic strength.
While the rising national debt continues to remain a concern, I do know that the more prosperous America is, the faster we can pay off the debt incurred.
REGARDING HEALTHCARE
What are your thoughts on the healthcare reform bills that both houses of Congress have been debating for the past several months? How, if at all, would you suggest improving them?
As a general policy, I support health care reform that will make health care available to every citizen who needs it. The question is both humanitarian and economic: if an uninsured person gets sick, we all end up paying the bill in the end. Our guiding principle must be lowering the cost of health care and making it both affordable and accessible to American families.
In Hawaii, we have long held an enviable position among states as having one of the highest percentages of citizens with health care because of our Prepaid Health Care Act (PHCA). Thanks to our Congressional Delegation, Hawaii has maintained PHCA benefits by operating under a waiver of a federal law that established uniform standards for employee health and retirement benefits.
Right now, but the U.S. Senate and House have their own versions of health care reform. Whatever the outcome, it is vital that we maintain Hawaii’s existing waiver.
However, 35 years is too long to leave Hawaii’s health care law unexamined. Times changes, and so have the ways health care is provided and the needs of consumers. Our Congressional delegation supports both an exemption from any federal legislation that may impact Hawaii’s existing health care law, and also a change to the federal waiver that will allow Hawaii to make some adjustments to our law and address present conditions. The goal is not to lessen health care benefits, but to make them more sensitive to the current needs of the recipients of health care, the providers, and related businesses as well.
Please share your thoughts on the “public options,” “single-payer” and “triggers.”
I have always been a supporter of universal care delivered through a single-payer health care financing plan.
Do you anticipate meaningful cuts in costs for medical services and drugs as a result of the bills?
No, not initially. I think initially costs will stabilize – in other words, not rise as fast. But over time, as all sectors adjust to the new structure, significant cost savings should be realized, particularly in the area of subsidizing health care for the uninsured.
REGARDING EQUAL RIGHTS
Do you support Civil Unions for same-sex couples as a step to full marriage equality? Why or why not?
Civil Unions should not be viewed as a step toward marriage. I believe the union of two committed individuals should be a civil matter, with the role of government limited to the recognition and granting of certain rights, benefits, protections and responsibilities to the union. Marriage should be the religious component left to each church to determine if it would participate in and sanction.
Do you support the repeal of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell?
Yes.
Are you willing to commit being a strong advocate in Congress for equal rights for gay and lesbian couples?
Yes.
REGARDING ECONOMY
What do you think cause the current economic crisis gripping the U.S. and world economies?
In my opinion, the loosening of regulations that restricted investment practices of financial institutions and the reckless behavior of those institutions in trying to obtain more and more profits led to the financial crisis that destabilized the global economy.
What are your thoughts on the bailouts of financial institutions that were supported by both the Bush and Obama administrations?
As much as I don’t like the fact that the federal government and the American people had to come to the rescue of several large financial institutions after they engaged in speculative investment practices, I think the bailouts were necessary in order to avoid further economic calamity.
Have adequate reforms been instituted to reduce the chances of a similar crash in the future? What more, if anything, should be done?
Adequate? Only time will tell if the reforms are adequate. The way I see it, because at the very heart of capitalism is the need to innovate in order to succeed, corporations will always find ways to work around obstacles, whether it be obstacles that thwart business growth, or obstacles like government regulation. It will be the responsibility of policy makers to be ever vigilant and mindful of the adverse financial and social consequences if they fail to heed what has occurred over the past two years.
What other steps, if any, should be taken to stimulate the economy through public spending?
At this critical juncture, the most important thing the federal government can do is to create jobs, whether by initiating public works projects, as Franklin Roosevelt did in response to the Great Depression, or making money available to the private sector to provide capital and stimulate spending and economic growth.
I think we should invest in America’s people and infrastructure, including aggressively expanding education and training initiatives, preparing America’s students to compete with the best and brightest around the world. Our students can only do this if we provide them with the tools that will let them excel.
We should strengthen America’s technology sector, energy policy, educational systems, and transportation infrastructure so that our students and America will remain at the cutting edge. These investments will lead to fostering and sustaining America’s economic strength.
REGARDING WAR
What lessons should we draw from the U.S. war on Iraq? What mistakes did Congress make? Should we disengage from Iraq and, if so, how?
First of all, I think Congress should have done more independent research on Iraq rather than listening to the Bush Administration. They also should have been able to see what the war was really about – control of Iraq’s huge petroleum resources – not terrorism or the stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction.
As for whether we should “disengage” from Iraq, I don’t think we have that option. The country is still in an extremely fragile economic and volatile political state. The one saving grace for the people of Iraq is that it sits on one of the largest oil deposits on earth, so it does have a means of rebuilding its economic prosperity once its political structure has stabilized. The only thing we can do now is help the Iraqi people expedite the process of stabilizing their political structure and economic recovery.
Our continued involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan sadly reduces the resources available to spend here at home. For the near future, our nation must focus on completing our military involvement in the Middle East with an outcome that is in the world’s best interest, so that America can turn its attention to being the vanguard of the global economic recovery.
How can we apply those lessons to our growing involvement in Afghanistan, Pakistan?
I think the Bush Administration’s unwillingness to use diplomacy as a viable means of resolving international differences is something that has changed dramatically under the Obama Administration.
Having said that, we also need to understand that our nation’s public policy focus in Afghanistan and Pakistan is very different from that of Iraq.
Iraq has resources upon which they may build their future economy: one of the largest reserves of crude oil left in any nation, estimated at approximately 400 billion barrels. Afghanistan possesses no legitimate natural resources upon which to build an economy; the country is currently dependent upon the cultivation of poppy used to produce opium, heroin, and other opiates. However, Afghanistan has proven to be a training ground and refuge for terrorists, rendering it a more direct threat to our national security than Iraq. In addition, the “border” between Afghanistan and Pakistan is not really a border that is recognized by the tribes that live in the area. The region’s inhabitants cross as they please and see themselves as a member of their tribe or religion first, and citizens of a nation a distant second.
I support President Obama’s decision to send over 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan to assist existing forces in stabilizing the region. While I have always had grave concerns about our military involvement, especially when lacking a clear purpose or clear exit plan, I recognize that for us to be able to accomplish our goals in the Middle East we need to provide our men and women of the Armed Forces with the resources and numbers they need.
The sobering reality is that 9/11 did occur, and it could very well happen again. We need to take all responsible actions necessary to ensure that it doesn’t happen again. Any solution to bringing about peace to Afghanistan and the reduction of terrorist activity is a regional one. It’s not just about “fixing” Afghanistan. If we want a real solution, America will first have to establish its credibility as a true humanitarian state instead of an imperialist one. I think the Obama Administration is on the right track.
Do you see similar dynamics leading us into conflict with Iran?
Not necessarily. I believe that President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton will use diplomacy as their weapon of choice and find a peaceful resolution to our difference with Iran.
If you are elected, what other issues will be major priorities for you?
Never in our history has a college education been more central to preparing our citizens to compete and excel in the global market, or more vital to maintaining America’s position as the vanguard of the world’s economy. The federal government can do a number of things to help ameliorate the high cost of a college education and help ensure that we are prepared to lead.
I’ll support a number of efforts and ideas to bring a college education within reach of our students, including:
- Adopting more aggressive incentives and tax breaks for college savings programs, whether by providing preferential interest rates or greater tax breaks for college savings accounts.
- Devoting more resources to providing college scholarships and loan programs, particularly in specialty areas that America needs to focus on, such as health care industries, alternative energy, education, and science.
- Directing more resources toward the GI Bill to assist veterans with college and post-secondary education expenses.
- Expanding programs such as AmeriCorps to allow young people the opportunity to work of their college expenses, which will not only provide educational opportunities for more aspiring college students, but also teach them the value of civic service.
- Strengthening and expanding our nation’s community college systems and their linkages to four-year colleges across America, so that entry into post-secondary education is more affordable.
- Supporting the expansion of Internet-based learning, to provide access to all students to the best teachers while minimizing relocation costs.
I don’t like the change that Hanabusa put in the bill. It seemed like a kind of poison pill in that the bill does give straight couples the alternative of CUs. It can lead to an attack on the institution of marriage. OTOH what a good way to protest the unfairness if straight couples do CUs rather than marriage if the bill does pass. I don’t think that the press or opponents of CU picked up on this point.
I also don’t like her comments about financial regulatory reform to fix the system. It looks like she doesn’t have a clue. But maybe that’s because she is a lawyer.
Comment by Al — February 19, 2010 @ 5:04 pm
Admittedly there was some pressure on advocates to include opposite-sex couples in the civil unions bill, but ultimately supporters of the bill were also supportive of the opposite-sex amendment. The language was actually drafted by Family Equality Coalition, advocates, and key legislators. The amendment actually strengthened ACLU’s support of the bill, as it made the bill equitable; they had issue with the same-sex only civil unions bill and might have filed suit had the bill passed in that form. Other amendments, or non-amendments, like inserting every statute in the HRS that confers rights and responsibilities to married couples or leaving the effective date retroactive were ‘poison pills,’ but not the opposite-sex amendment.
Plus, in the same way that civil unions for same-sex couples isn’t an attack on traditional marriage, neither is the amended version. To be clear, marriage as you seem to frame it here, is a religious institution, not a governmental institution. To say that any form of a civil unions bill is an attack on marriage is ridiculous and only lends credibility to the bill’s opponents. In my opinion, government should get out of the business of marriage altogether, and only confer rights, responsibilities, and privileges on civil unions; leave marriage to the churches.
As for your comment on Colleen’s response to financial regulatory reform, I agree on some level that her answer is weak and maybe even cryptically anti-regulation. And although Ed does a better job answering this question, I believe they both could do better to expand their thoughts and ideas on what more can be done.
Comment by frosty — February 19, 2010 @ 5:46 pm
Thanx… I didn’t know that the language was put in by supporters. What are they thinking? It’s like putting the cart before the horse.
Of course it leaves out the straight couples. That’s what marriage does to gay couples. The solution is not to accept one or the other institution but to change marriage. Marriage is already defined for same sex couples as well in our laws. The solution is to repeal the constitutional amendment which allows the legislature to define marriage.
Even if the bill were passed last year as amended, opponents can always insist that the legislature rescind it this year. It will come up every year just like gambling bills. Hopefully, opponents will observe that the sky is not falling in a year or two after the bill, and our gay tourist trade will pick up and business will support the bill.
When and if straight couples reject marriage and take up CU’s, the CU bill will be rescinded. And we will be back to where we started from.
I would prefer to have the bill amended later to include straight couples– rather than have it before it’s time. But by then, I would think that a direct assault on the constitutional amendment on marriage would be appropriate. Ie about 3 years from now.
Comment by Al — February 20, 2010 @ 12:17 pm
I’m not sure why you say including opposite-sex couples in civil unions ‘puts the cart before the horse?’ One of the initial arguments, valid or not, made by the opposition, was that gay rights activists were working to create a special class for themselves. And on this point, as I said, the ACLU agreed. Opening civil unions to opposite-sex couples strengthens the bill, it doesn’t weaken it. Our argument for civil unions is that currently same-sex couples cannot get ‘married.’ Civil unions is a compromised position to be sure, but it doesn’t help our cause and public image if civil unions supporters say to opposite-sex couples, “you can’t have a civil union, because you can get married.” How does that make us any better than those who don’t want same-sex couples to get married?
Opening up civil unions to opposite-sex couples does have its benefits given the current position the Fed takes on this. The best example is an elderly couple that wants to formalize their relationship in the state, but don’t want to loose federal social security benefits they receive on behalf of a deceased spouse. In the same way same-sex couples should be able to get married, so should an opposite-sex couple be able to have a civil union, should they chose to do so.
There’s of course the potential that opponents to same-sex marriage and civil unions might try to get such a law rescinded, but it is highly unlikely they would succeed, in my opinion. However, if they did decide to put up such a fight, I think the supporters of gay rights would have the tactical advantage, which we don’t have now. Put another way, they tables would be turned.
As to your statements about opposite-sex couples rejecting ultimately marriage in favor of civil unions, I don’t think its ever going to happen. It’ll be much easier to get marriage for same-sex couples than it will be to abolish marriage in the law.
Comment by frosty — February 20, 2010 @ 2:02 pm
Of course, it’s unlikely out of preference, but as a matter of social conscience, they may decide on a CU instead. At that point, their parents may become extremely upset and blame the institution of CU as the cause of the destruction of marriage. Picture the kids telling the parents they can’t get married now because they already have a CU.
I don’t have a strong opinion of this, but I want to ask the question of why reject a tactical advantage of a vote last year for a theoretical legal and political concept for the bill. It’s the same kind of reasoning (it seems to me)that the marriage supporters rejected Cayetano’s offer of a CU instead of marriage. It could have been a done deal over ten years ago.
The opposition to CU know that CUs and marriage are different– even if their rhetoric says otherwise. They know that CUs lead to marriage in other areas where CUs have been passed. But they should be made to realize that means that CUs are good because it means that the majority can learn that society wont collapse with the new law and the decision of majorities must be for the good– not the bad.
Comment by Al — March 2, 2010 @ 6:59 pm