Running from the Right: Meet Brad Schneider

Back to the IVI-IPO endorsements. Up right after IL-2, was IL-10. We decided to throw a little more money into the privatized parking meter and meet who showed up. First, came Brad Schneider. I exchanged brief pleasantries with Brad and his campaign worker.

I asked Brad if he was willing to discuss Bob Dold's lobbying work with the National Pest Management Association should he win the primary. He didn't sound all that enthusiastic. I reminded him that's what Dan Seals said.

Brad sat down to his interview and we were given copies of his answers to IVI-IPO's candidate questionnaire. There was a little bit of confusion on his answers as some questions had the dots filled in for his answer and others had the pipe symbol. Brad attributed that to a staffer who apparently used different software to complete the form. I have to admit that I am not a fan of the IVI-IPO candidate questionnaire because it contains over 100 questions. While most of them are yes or no questions, sometimes yes or no is not a good answer, so it can conceivably take a candidate a long time to complete it.

Brad introduced himself as a businessman, a consultant. Since consulting can mean a lot of things, he was asked  to be more specific. It appears his area of consulting is in insurance and the financial sector. His background appears to be in life insurance and family and business wealth plans. To me that means, working with wealthy families owning family businesses on their investment and estate plans, avoiding estate taxes and getting higher yields. Brad can correct me if I'm incorrect.

I didn't ask any questions because I'm not a member of IVI-IPO and was there as a guest. Carl asked Brad about his donations to various Mark Kirk campaigns from 2004 to 2009. I've heard several answers to that question from the Brad camp over the past few months, and his answer to IVI-IPO was an amalgam of those answers. Brad said he contributed to Kirk as a supporter of Israel. He added that Kirk was endorsed by Sierra Club and was on the important Armed Services Committee where he could, presumably, help Israel obtain more military support.

Brad then claimed Kirk lost his support due to two changes in 2005 to 2009. He was disappointed in 2005 when Kirk left the Armed Services Committee. He was disappointed again when Kirk changed his cap and trade vote to set up his run for the Senate. I think Brad hasn't been all that careful with the facts here. Kirk was only on the House Armed Services Committee until 2004 Brad's donations to Kirk's campaigns were farily consistent from 2004-2009. I think the answer is either that Brad's interest in Kirk's plans for Israel trumped all other interests or Brad pretty much agreed with Kirk on economic and other issues. Or maybe, both are true.

In any event, Brad is running to the right of all the other IL-10 Democratic candidates. I was a little surprised how much to the right. The areas on his questionnaire that lead me to that conclusion are:

1. He does not want to close the WHISC (formerly known as the Army School of the Americas and famous for graduating many people unconcerned about human rights and training Latin American dictators and their armies how to "deal with" dissidents).
2. He favors continuation of the Patriot Act, with perhaps some revision, and the Military Commissions Act .
3. He is happy to continue the cold war against Cuba (not interested in repealing the Helms-Burton Act), but states that he wishes to help the Cuban people with human rights, although he did not describe how that would work while Cuba remains isolated by the US and it's population impoverished by embargos
4.He is in favor of the increased production and use of nuclear energy while the Union of Concerned Scientists has taught us here on this blog that not only is it a bad idea for the environment, but it is not even cost efficient.
5. He is not in favor of repeal of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. I really would like to know what parts of that law are worth saving as it de-regulated derivatives and set the stage for the 2008 economic crash.
6. He does not support the "corporations are not people" constitutional amendment. Brad told IVI-IPO when questioned about this position that he believes there are legislative ways to work around Citizens' United. I feel that it is not a bad idea to work it from both angles as the Supreme Court may just continue to strike down legislation based on corporate personhood. I wonder if Brad thinks, like Mitt Romney, that corporations are people.
7. He does not support single payer or extending Medicare, even as an ultimate goal or even a dream. He does not think we should focus on the payer, but on preventative care without describing how people who cannot afford that will get it. Perhaps that attitude comes from representing people in the insurance industry. He further feels that people use too much care, a comment frequently given by Republicans to blame the uninsured when they go to the emergency room for care no one else will provide to them.
8. He does not support DC statehood.
9. He does not support repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act.
10. Brad's economic/jobs plans is to create public/private partnerships to rebuild the infrastructure. That sound to me like he wants to privatize the infrastructure. I'd like to hear more details about how he sees this working.
11. Brad agrees with Obama's timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan, but believes we should continue to maintain a major role in that country. After discussing some "mission creep" in Afghanistan, he said in his questionnaire essay answer:

That said, I also believe that we must stay engaged with Afghanistan, supporting the government and the Afghan people as the(y) (sic) build their own nation in their own way. We must also work with Afghanistan and surrounding nations, (sic) to create economic opportunity to replace the attraction of opium trade to Afghan citizens. And we must work to reduce global demand at the same time. And we must work with the world to address the challenges in Pakistan, both in the sort an long term.

12. He appears to be a supply-sider as his jobs program involves giving more tax cuts to businesses rather than direct investment in jobs. I disagree with Brad that corporations are job creators. I believe working people spending their money are the job creators.

13. When asked if he favored taxing dividends at the same rate as earned income, he said he would consider allowing a lower tax rate on dividends if the result was a more fair effective corporate rate. I'd like to hear him explain exactly what he's thinking about here.

On the bright side, Brad is against oil drilling in Alaska and other protected wilderness, for high-speed rail, and is pro-choice. He feels the President's authority to negotiate trade agreements be limited so treaties may foster fair trade, reflect the rights of workers and protect the environment. He supports Head Start, supplemental food programs for women, infants and children and TANF and appears to support Medicare and Social Security. He does not favor school voucher or tax-credit programs providing public support for private and parochial schools and feels we should support teachers.

Brad's strategy appear to be that of running from the right. He has a fair bit of money, some of it his own, causing opponent Ilya Sheyman to refer to him as the "self-funded" candidate during his telephone interview with IVI-IPO. I think it's a stretch to call Brad Schneider "self-funded", but Sheyman may get up close and personal with Schneider's larger war chest. I've had two 4 page glossy mailers from Schneider this month wherein he touts his endorsement from and admiration of Melissa Bean, the banker's Democrat. I think that may say a lot about what a Schneider representation may be all about. Schneider may do better running under the radar for a while.

Speaking of under the radar, Vivek Bavda came to IVI-IPO for his interview next. I'll discuss that later.