Decision ’94 / SPECIAL GUIDE TO CALIFORNIA’S ELECTIONS : U.S. Senate : The Issues

A look at the key issues in the race for the U.S. Senate:

Economy

One of the major issues of contention between the Senate candidates is the 1993 Clinton economic package that was narrowly passed over Huffington’s objection and with Feinstein’s support.

Feinstein believes the package of spending cuts and tax increases is responsible for a reduction in the federal budget deficit and, she said, it is a major factor in recent improvements in the economy.

Huffington has described the vote as a tax hike and a typical Democratic solution to budget problems. The GOP candidate voted against Clinton’s economic package as well as the Republican alternative, which he said did not cut enough from government spending. He has also called for a repeal of all tax increases in the Clinton package.

The Clinton package included an increase in the gasoline tax and a higher income tax for upper-income payers. Defending her vote, Feinstein’s office has calculated that only 163,000 California taxpayers received an income tax increase-- representing the state’s wealthiest 1.5%--while more than 12 million people saw no increase or a reduction.

Both candidates have supported a number of incentives for businesses, including a reduction in the capital gains tax and tax credits for research. Feinstein authored provisions for both, as well as funding for urban enterprise zones, in a bill that was passed last year.

*

Huffington has voted against most of the major appropriations bills to come before Congress, underscoring his point that government spending should be reduced. He has rarely been specific, however, about his objections or offered alternatives.

Huffington said he supports a reduction in federal regulations as a means to improve the economy. He supported a plan to require that future federal regulations include an economic impact report assessing their effect on private property values. Another measure would allow businesses adversely affected by federal regulations to apply for a waiver. Another sought to improve available credit by reducing the regulatory burden on financial institutions that are considered safe.

On trade, Feinstein opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement, but she is a supporter of the upcoming General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs. Huffington supported NAFTA, but he is undecided about GATT.

Health Care

Neither candidate has embraced a specific health care plan. Feinstein was originally a co-sponsor of the Clinton plan, but she withdrew her name in May. Since then, she has worked with moderate lawmakers in Washington to craft a plan that has a more limited government role in the health care system. Huffington opposed the Clinton plan and the subsequent compromises that have been offered. He also ruled out any employer mandates or tax increases.

Welfare

In a statement outlining “the central theme of my campaign,” Huffington unveiled a plan during the summer to end government welfare and replace it with charitable giving. Huffington said the welfare state is a root cause of many growing social problems such as crime, homelessness, poverty and declining moral values. He endorsed three steps to reduce government’s welfare role--a bill to expand tax breaks for charitable giving; a proposal to prohibit cash grants to parents who have children while they are on welfare, and a plan to provide federal welfare money to states in block grants, allowing for more experimentation.

Huffington was not specific about how government would transfer its duties to private and community groups except to say that he believes the nation is becoming more spiritually aware and generous. Critics of Huffington’s plan, including Feinstein, said they do not believe charitable groups have the capacity to assume the responsibilities now handled by government.

Feinstein also has been critical of the welfare system. She has supported Clinton’s plan to stop welfare benefits after two years for those who have not found work.

Environment

One of Feinstein’s major landmarks in the Senate was passage of the California Desert Protection Act, dubbed by supporters as the most significant environmental legislation in more than a decade. The bill was introduced by former Sen. Alan Cranston and stalled in Congress until Feinstein made it a priority of her first term. The legislation elevates Death Valley and Joshua Tree national monuments to national parks--affording greater protection--and adds 4 million acres of wilderness to their territories as well as a new national preserve in the east Mojave Desert.

Huffington opposed the desert bill, saying it is a federal land grab that government cannot afford. He also said it will cost jobs by adversely affecting some of the state’s interests including ranchers, miners and recreation advocates.

*

On other issues, both candidates have told farmers they support modifications to the Endangered Species Act.

Feinstein and Huffington have said they would require an economic impact report about the costs related to protection of any species on the endangered list. They also agree that there are some cases--notably the kangaroo rat--in which the economic cost of saving a species is too great.

Big Green, the 1990 environmental initiative, has also been an issue in the Senate race. Huffington, who was living in Texas at the time but said he nonetheless opposed the idea, has criticized Feinstein’s support for the measure. But Democratic officials contend that Huffington was being hypocritical because, at the time, he served on the board of directors of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a major proponent of Big Green. Huffington said he does not remember discussing the issue while he served at the organization.

Social Issues

Both Huffington and Feinstein support abortion rights, although the issue has still proven contentious. The California Abortion Rights Action League has criticized Huffington for voting against federal funding of abortions for indigent women. He has said he supports the Freedom of Choice Act, but he was criticized by the California group for not being a co-sponsor of the measure. Huffington also said he supported a bill restricting protesters at abortion clinics, but he was criticized for opposing amendments to the plan that the abortion rights group considered crucial.

On the issue of federal judicial confirmations, Feinstein said support for abortion rights would be a prerequisite for her vote. Huffington said he would not make such a requirement.

The two candidates supported Clinton’s plan to allow gays in the military. And they backed his Family Leave Act, providing time off for employees with family emergencies.

Immigration

Immigration is another issue where Feinstein and Huffington have battled frequently in speeches and on television.

On Proposition 187, the November ballot initiative to cut off benefits to illegal immigrants, the candidates have split. Feinstein opposes the measure on grounds that it is unconstitutional and will be extremely costly to the state. Huffington supports the initiative because he believes granting benefits is tantamount to a reward for lawbreakers.

Both candidates have called for a significant increase in the border guard deployment in California, for more federal money to reimburse the state for immigration costs and for tamper-proof identification cards.

Feinstein has introduced legislation that covers a comprehensive list of immigration reforms including more equipment and staff for border enforcement, fewer benefits to immigrants, tamper-proof identification cards and increased penalties for violations. Funding for the improvements would come from a $1 border-crossing fee, which Huffington opposes.

*

Huffington, meanwhile, has voted for a bill that would add 6,000 new guards to the border over the next five years.

Huffington supported the North American Free Trade Agreement, in part, because he said it would reduce illegal immigration by improving the economy in Mexico. Feinstein opposed NAFTA. Unlike Feinstein, Huffington also supports a constitutional amendment that would prevent babies born in America to illegal immigrant parents from automatically becoming U.S. citizens.

In their campaign, both candidates have criticized the other’s record on immigration.

Feinstein charged in a television commercial that her opponent opposed more guards at the border because he voted against an appropriations bill that included funding for them. Huffington said, however, that he voted to increase the guard, but opposed the appropriations bill because it included unnecessary spending.

Huffington has criticized Feinstein’s support while she was mayor of San Francisco for a resolution calling on local officials not to enforce federal immigration laws on refugees fleeing a bloody period in El Salvador.

Crime

Crime has been a major issue of confrontation between Feinstein and Huffington, but on many of the major votes or proposals, they have similar positions.

Both candidates support the death penalty, an assault weapons ban, the Brady bill waiting period for handgun purchases, the federal crime bill and the “three-strikes” initiative on the November ballot. Their conflicts have largely focused on the subjective question of who is the tougher crime fighter.

Feinstein has claimed to be the champion on the issue, in part because she authored the provision in the federal crime bill that bans the sale or manufacture of 19 different styles of assault weapons. Huffington supported the crime bill and the assault weapons ban. But he has been criticized by Feinstein and others for joining other Republicans in a procedural vote that threatened to kill the crime bill. Huffington said his vote against a procedural rule on the crime bill succeeded in stripping the $30-billion measure of inappropriate social spending programs. But Huffington’s action angered many police groups that had been lobbying for the bill.

The difference between the candidates on the crime bill was a major reason more than a dozen of California’s biggest law enforcement organizations--including Los Angeles County’s Republican Sheriff Sherman Block--have endorsed Feinstein’s reelection.

*

Huffington, in turn, has noted that he is a co-sponsor of the “three-strikes” initiative, not just a supporter like Feinstein. In television commercials, he has also called Feinstein a flip-flopper on the death penalty. Feinstein acknowledges that she opposed the death penalty during the 1960s before she became an elected official. She has supported capital punishment for more than 20 years.

Still, Huffington has tried to question Feinstein’s commitment to the death penalty. In one of his television commercials, he criticized her vote in the Senate for Florida Judge Rosemary Barkett, saying the jurist has opposed the death penalty in more than 100 cases including a grisly teen-age murder. But even legal analysts speaking for Huffington’s campaign acknowledged that Barkett has supported more death penalty convictions than she has opposed.

In voting to confirm judges to the federal bench, both candidates said they would oppose any candidate who did not support the death penalty.