Bates, Mitchell Spar Over Arms, Budget at TV Taping

Reiterating their fundamental differences over the controversial “Star Wars” program, Rep. Jim Bates (D-San Diego) argued Thursday that the Reagan Administration’s plan could complicate nuclear arms-reduction talks, while his Republican opponent, former San Diego City Councilman Bill Mitchell, described it as a valuable bargaining chip that might push the Soviets toward eventual disarmament.

In one of their few remaining confrontations before the election next Tuesday, the two major candidates in the 44th Congressional District race sparred over nuclear arms, the budget, aid to Nicaragua and other topics during the taping of a 30-minute television forum.

Three minor-party contenders--Libertarian Dennis Thompson, Peace and Freedom Party candidate Shirley Isaacson and Socialist Workers Party candidate Allan Grady, a write-in candidate--also were on the program, to be broadcast at 4 p.m. Saturday on KPBS-TV (Channel 15).

The 44th District race has been marked by frequent personal attacks and, on occasion, trivialized by the two major candidates’ well-publicized drug test and lie-detector challenges, but Mitchell and Bates confined their differences Thursday to the issues. Most of Mitchell’s answers were in philosophical harmony with the Reagan Administration’s positions, while Bates adhered to the moderate-to-liberal stance that has typified his two terms in Congress.

In his opening remarks, Bates expressed doubt that Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, the so-called “Star Wars” program, will ever be a viable defense against nuclear attack, as it is intended to be. Bates also predicted that “Star Wars” could make it more difficult to reach an arms-reduction agreement with the Soviets by adding a major new element to existing nuclear weaponry.

“ ‘Star Wars’ is just part of the overall arms race; it’s just another aspect of it,” Bates said. “Clearly, it’s not a foolproof system. . . . Its only real value appears to be in first-strike capability. It’s been shown by most scientists . . . as not being able to stop enough missiles to be effective, but really only in the event that you struck first and then would have the opportunity to stave off their attack.”

Mitchell, though, called the SDI plan “a bargaining tool” that could be used to gain arms-reduction concessions from the Soviet Union.

“I used to (side) with many scientists who said that it wouldn’t work--but (Soviet leader Mikhail) Gorbachev sure thinks it would work,” Mitchell said, alluding to the recent U.S.-Soviet arms talks in Iceland. “It interests me that Gorbachev is so afraid of it.”

Noting that 18 nations can make nuclear weapons, Mitchell said that, if the United States and Soviet Union ever approved a total ban on nuclear arms, a cooperative effort between the two superpowers could render those other nations’ weapons useless.

“I would like to see Russia and the United States get together and form an SDI together to absolutely stop all other threat of nuclear weapons from any of the other countries,” Mitchell said. “That may . . . sound idealistic, it may be far-fetched, but communication is the key. And if they continue talking, we’re going to have peace in this world.”

The two major candidates also differed on the question of whether the United States should provide financial aid to the contras, the group attempting to overthrow the Marxist government of Nicaragua. Bates called such aid ill-advised and warned that it could result in the United States “being drawn into another Vietnam,” while Mitchell said he approved of the financial assistance as a means of stopping the spread of Communism in the Western Hemisphere.

Bates and Mitchell agreed that the Congress’ reluctance to make politically unpopular spending cuts has contributed to this nation’s $2-trillion-plus federal budget deficit, but they offered different solutions to the problem.

Saying that the Gramm-Rudman Act, which sets off automatic budget cuts if congressional spending exceeds certain levels, is only a first step toward reducing the deficit, Bates argued that across-the-board cuts in all federal programs are necessary to cut the deficit significantly.

Mitchell, meanwhile, called for more selective budget cuts, comparing the process to the one he went through as a San Diego city councilman after Proposition 13 was passed.

Amid the rather restrained Mitchell-Bates debate, the three minor candidates occasionally enlivened the program with some blunt and unorthodox statements.

Libertarian Thompson, for example, said that although his party generally favors a policy of nonintervention in other nations’ affairs, he favors aid to the contras .

“We should have a slush fund to support freedom fighters (who oppose) . . . those countries that proclaim themselves enemies of our country,” said Thompson, who is president of a computer-time sharing firm. He added that he supports “Star Wars” research because the program “holds out the promise that if there is ever a nuclear conflict, it’s going to occur in space and not here on Spaceship Earth.”

Isaacson, the Peace and Freedom Party candidate, argued that Gramm-Rudman’s mandated budget cuts would be “very destructive to the people in this country who need the help the most.”

“It’s an attack on the poor, it’s an attack on people of color, it’s an attack on women and children and the aged,” said Isaacson, a Los Angeles school psychologist. (Isaacson’s comments had been taped separately earlier because of a delay in the program.)

Grady, the Socialist Workers Party member who is running as a write-in candidate, offered perhaps the most unusual suggestion on how to cut the federal budget.

“I think the Defense Department should be cut completely, to zero,” Grady said. “It is not a Defense Department. It is an offense department. The secretary of defense . . . should be called the secretary of war. They’re engaging in a war right now in Central America.”