Where they stand: Cantwell vs. McGavick on the issues

Whoever wins the U.S. Senate race in Washington state will face some daunting challenges in the next six years: a war overseas, unstable gas prices, large federal spending deficits, pressures to exploit the nation's remaining natural resources.

Elected in 2000, Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell boasts a voting record, while Republican Mike McGavick, a former insurance executive, has held dozens of events across the state, speaking to supporters and detractors alike.

Through their words and deeds, similarities and distinctions emerge. Neither comes from the far reaches of a political party. But each represents a different way of solving the problems ahead.

The Iraq War

Cantwell voted to approve the use of force against Iraq in 2002 and has supported subsequent military-funding measures. Bedeviled by anti-war activists early in the campaign, Cantwell refused to characterize her Iraq vote as a mistake until August, after McGavick said he would have voted against going to war had he known Iraq did not possess nuclear or biological weapons. Since then, the Democratic Party has further coalesced around the incumbent, and she walked away with 90 percent in the primary.

Saying the Iraqi government must take charge of its own security, Cantwell supported a failed Democrat-sponsored resolution in the Senate that called for beginning a phased troop redeployment by the end of the year.

She wants to enlist more Arab support for Iraq, convene a summit to resolve divisions between rival ethnic groups, and hold the Bush administration accountable for progress. She also proposed calling on former presidents Clinton and George H.W. Bush to collect $13 billion of foreign aid pledged to Iraq but never awarded.

"I do want to change the course," she said during a debate in Spokane. "I don't think it's good enough to say that we are going to stay there indefinitely."

McGavick says he would have voted to go to war with the intelligence lawmakers had at the time, but he puts greater emphasis than Cantwell does on Iraq as the central battlefield against terrorism.

Iraq must become a peaceful nation, McGavick said, though he said he doesn't care if it has a democratic government.

He rejects a timeline for withdrawal and said an unstable Iraq without American protection would encourage international terrorists and provide them safe haven.

McGavick suggests forming a bipartisan congressional committee to study options in Iraq, an idea coolly received by Republican leaders. He says Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ought to resign.

McGavick said Congress should be more engaged in overseeing foreign policy and in the future should formally declare war before committing troops. "As your senator, I will never vote for a war that I'm not willing to see through to victory," he said in Spokane. "I want the troops home as fast as anyone in this room. But the mission must be achieved."

Analysis: Neither Cantwell nor McGavick has said what they would propose if the Iraqi government can't quell the bloodshed. While Cantwell's idea for a summit may hold promise, it's unlikely that $13 billion of foreign aid would change the course of the war in Iraq, which, along with Afghanistan, has cost taxpayers about $400 billion so far. It is unclear how she would hold the Bush administration accountable if conditions worsen.

McGavick's call to dump Rumsfeld appears largely symbolic.

Immigration

Cantwell was one of 62 senators to approve an immigration-reform bill last May. Among other provisions, the bill would tighten U.S. borders, establish a guest-worker program, designate English as the national language and create a road to citizenship for about 90 percent of the estimated 12 million illegal U.S. residents.

Differences with a House version have deadlocked the measure.

Cantwell does not support building a fence on the southern border of the U.S., opting instead for aerial and ground surveillance.

"I don't think a fence sends the right message," she said.

McGavick also supports the Senate immigration bill, but, unlike Cantwell, he would build a southern fence.

In several TV and radio ads, McGavick has insisted that Cantwell approved awarding Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants. "I'd have said no way," he said in a TV ad.

Analysis: Both candidates support the Senate-passed immigration-reform bill. But Cantwell's campaign lashed out at McGavick's charge that she wanted to give Social Security to illegal immigrants.

In fact, Cantwell joined a slim majority of senators to defeat an effort to deny now-legal residents the benefits they had earned while in the country illegally.

McGavick has since moved off his original charge, but still criticizes Cantwell for allowing illegal immigrants to accrue Social Security benefits.

Social Security

McGavick has spent considerable energy countering Democratic charges that he supports privatizing Social Security, which experts say will run out of money by 2017.

While protecting benefits for older Americans, McGavick says he would allow younger workers to select from a limited number of choices to invest in various stocks or government securities. If the higher-risk investments don't pan out, the retiree would receive a smaller check.

"I don't trust Wall Street to manage this money, I don't trust individuals to manage this money. It should be a government program," McGavick said during a debate in Seattle.

He also wants to ask wealthy recipients to voluntarily return their Social Security checks as a way to attack the looming shortfall. If that doesn't raise enough money, McGavick said he would consider reducing benefits to the rich.

Cantwell has been clearer about what she opposes than what she supports when it comes to Social Security. Rejecting any tinkering with the current system, Cantwell says she supports the creation of a bipartisan commission to come up with solutions, as long as privatization is off the table.

In the early 1980s, a similar commission recommended several changes to the entitlement program, including accelerating the payroll tax, raising the retirement age and making some benefits taxable. Many of the proposals were later signed into law by President Reagan.

"Let's get to the tough questions that have to be asked. In the 1980s when we had this [commission], we had to look at a whole variety of things," Cantwell told The Seattle Times editorial board.

Analysis: Budget experts laud McGavick for talking about Social Security reform, but note that his plan raises some questions.

When it comes to voluntary refunds, people already can return their checks, but Kia Green, a spokeswoman for the Social Security Administration, said such donations are "very rare."

The problem with personal accounts, said Keith Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a budget watchdog group in Washington, D.C., comes when people don't invest wisely and are left with reduced benefits. "Our biggest concern is we would end up paying those costs when they retire," Ashdown said. "We wouldn't let them sleep in the gutter eating dog food."

Cantwell's position on Social Security reform is harder to discern. Her campaign Web site cites her support for the program, but offers no details on how to improve its solvency.

Federal budget

McGavick is scornful of Congress's handling of fiscal matters, telling a group of Eastside builders in March that "the deficit is just a horrible mistake ... it's an IOU on your kids."

In 2000, the government posted a $236 billion surplus. It now has a $247 billion deficit.

Appearing to hew tightly to Republican orthodoxy when it comes to taxes, McGavick said he would permanently renew tax cuts set to expire in 2008 and 2010, which includes a repeal of the estate tax. The Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan group advocating fiscal responsibility based in Arlington, Va., estimates that the cost to the federal treasury would be $1.3 trillion from 2011 to 2015.

On the spending side, McGavick said he would look for savings in the defense budget, and reform Social Security and Medicare. He also would outlaw last-minute insertions of special projects into spending bills.

In television and radio ads, McGavick has repeatedly called Cantwell the No. 1 spender in Congress, based on a survey conducted by the National Taxpayers Union, an Alexandria, Va.,-based group that supports limited government and low taxes.

Cantwell opposed the tax cuts advocated by President Bush, stating on the Senate floor in 2001 that "this tax cut doesn't even go proportionally to every American."

She has, however, pushed a provision that enabled Washingtonians to deduct sales tax from their federal income tax. The change handed a roughly $500 annual benefit to an estimated 940,000 people who itemize deductions.

The measure was passed in 2004 but expired last year.

Cantwell has repeatedly called for a renewal of Senate rules that once mandated balancing spending increases and tax cuts. McGavick agrees with the proposal.

"I know the Bush administration and Republican-controlled Congress would like to make you believe we can have it all. We can't have it all, and now we've gone from record surpluses to record deficits," she told the Spokesman-Review editorial board in Spokane.

Analysis: It is unclear whether McGavick could wring enough savings out of Social Security, Medicare and defense to pay for extended tax cuts. Again, Cantwell seems to offer fewer specifics for future fiscal policy.

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, said restoring meaningful budget controls in the Senate is a start, but it's not enough to ensure accuracy in the government's balance sheet.

McGavick's claim that Cantwell is the biggest spender in the Senate is suspect.

The National Taxpayers Union tracks all spending votes, many of which fail, and it does not include earmarks inserted into legislation by powerful lawmakers. Moreover, McGavick cites rankings from the 108th Congress, which ended in 2004. Current rankings for 2005 place Cantwell ninth on the list.

Energy and the environment

McGavick talks about "bringing a better balance" to environmental protection. He opposes the Kyoto treaty, which sought to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions for signatory nations, but he faults the Bush administration for not promoting an alternative. In a letter to the editor printed in The Seattle Times, McGavick says: "I am certain that climate change and global warming are happening and I am certain that science has proven that humans play a role."

He supports oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and, if elected, said no Eastern Washington dam would be removed on his watch. And McGavick wants to use incentives for landowners to protect threatened wildlife.

Cantwell has made energy and the environment a major focus in office and took the lead in defeating an effort to open ANWR to oil exploration. Cantwell, too, opposes breaching the Lower Snake River dams.

She was the main congressional booster of the Snohomish County Public Utility District in its fight to cancel roughly $125 million worth of contracts with bankrupt energy giant Enron. "I'm not the most talented person, but I know when somebody's been wronged in this state," she said of her battle with Enron.

In the Senate, she introduced a comprehensive bill aimed at reducing U.S. petroleum consumption by almost 6 million barrels a day by 2020 by encouraging innovation and alternative fuels.

Analysis: Early in the campaign, McGavick predicted that energy and the environment would provide most of the sparks between him and Cantwell. It hasn't worked out that way, but their approaches to stewardship of the nation's natural resources are among the biggest differences between them.

Social Issues

Cantwell, a staunch defender of abortion rights, voted against a ban on a type of late-term abortion that opponents call partial-birth abortion. She also voted against directing 33 percent of global AIDS funding to abstinence education.

She opposes the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy that excludes known homosexuals from serving, and voted against a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. She says she supports civil unions.

McGavick claims to take a more nuanced, middle-of-the-road approach to abortion. During the Seattle debate, McGavick said "choice should exist," but he rejected partial-birth abortions and federal money for abortion, and approved of requiring parental notification for minors seeking abortion.

If states continue to allow gay marriage, McGavick says he would support a constitutional amendment saying only heterosexuals can marry. He supports the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Analysis: There are significant differences between the two candidates, but so far, social issues have not been flashpoints in the campaign.

Alex Fryer: 206-464-8124 or afryer@seattletimes.com