Success for Honolulu: Why is it that the Democratic party in Hawaii is so controlled by the unions? Can't party members go out with a common-sense platform that is acceptable to most instead of always being beholden to the unions and their support/votes?

It is so obvious that the unions control way too many things here in Hawaii, and at the cost of the average citizen, who also has to constantly be picking up the tab with more and more taxes!

Isn't there any other solutions to raise money and stimulate the economy than to just raise taxes?

Brian Schatz: A reminder about labor unions: If it weren't for organized labor, many families would be struggling even more than they currently are — labor unions have been key to the progress that we've made as a state, and they are key to our economic recovery.

And as the economy gets rougher, people look for someone to blame — some target large corporations— others target workers and unions. I think we have to get beyond that fight and realize that we are all in this canoe together.

Everyone agrees that the status quo isn't working anymore — not for workers, not for businesses, and not for the people who need a government that works for them. Now we have to stop shifting the blame and begin the hard work of rebuilding our government.

Our system was set up 50 years ago, in a particular way for reasons that were right back then, but many things have changed and the system needs to be totally rethought. The way to begin this process is through a strong partnership with those who understand it best — our government workers.

Changing an organization as large as the state government takes strong executive leadership and the creation of a plan that describes where we want to be — we need to have a lean, effective, customer-service oriented government, and the best part is, the vast majority of workers want to be part of that change.

A Parent: Do you think the settlement with HSTA was a fair one? Children's education will suffer and parents are having major problems with basic care. What would you do differently?

Brian Schatz: It's unfair to the children who lose 17 days of school. We all know the agreement was made under pressure, but it's a disaster for the kids and we ought to fix it. Teachers desperately want to be teaching, and kids need them. We as a community ought to reject the premise that this deal is irreversible.

A possible compromise would be a combination of "buying back" teaching days by finding new money, and by recapturing some of the paid noninstructional days and using them for teaching in the classroom. This won't be easy, and it's important to point out that nobody — not the teachers, not the DOE, and certainly not the parents, wanted this situation, so we have to move beyond assigning blame and into finding solutions.

A match program could be established — in other words for every teaching day that the DOE is able to restore, the Legislature and governor find the money for one additional school day. It makes sense to consider using existing special funds when for every day you buy back, you get an additional day of teaching from within the DOE. It's two days for the price of one.

This would cost $40 million to $50 million dollars, and restore almost all of the days. Most importantly, it would ensure that this economic crisis doesn't permanently damage our next generation.

The traditional battle lines have been drawn — those who want to raise revenue no matter what and those who want to reduce government no matter what — but the solution is in between the extremes. We need a sense of urgency and shared sacrifice; this is fixable if we work together.

John: Whether you decide to run for lieutenant governor or not, what is your position on ceded lands and the bill that passed the Legislature last session allowing the state to sell any ceded lands if approval by two-thirds vote by both chambers? If you were in the executive administration, would you lobby to overturn this bill?

Brian Schatz: I think this legislation is a workable compromise between the administration and the Legislature, and supported by many Hawaiian groups, because it preserves Hawaiian rights but also conforms to the United States Supreme Court decision recently handed down.

Right now this allows our system to function without eliminating any claims that Hawaiians have to the lands, which was the problem with the position that Attorney General Mark Bennett made. He essentially argued that Hawaiians have no legal claim, only a moral one. I think that was wrong, but the legislation passed was an elegant way to preserve the potential claims and still conform to the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) decision.

Jezebel: What about renewable energy for Hawaii? What are your plans to ensure that Hawaii moves forward in this department?

Brian Schatz: There's no question we can generate our own energy, but we have to get serious right away.

First, we must have the political will. We can't waste any more time fighting old battles. The Lingle administration, the Legislature, the utility company and the community have made progress in creating a new framework to fully use energy efficiency and renewable resources and get off fossil fuels.

Second, we have to make use of federal resources and plans to create and support green energy industries. The state just received an additional $12 for energy programs under the federal recovery act, giving us a total of $25 million for innovation in renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Many renewable energy technologies, like wind and solar, are already feasible. Some need more development and market supports to ripen. Others need transmission and storage components to work. It's complex but it is doable, with political will and a cooperative spirit of the highest order.

Ken: The upcoming governor's race involves two highly respected party Democrats, (Neil) Abercrombie and (Mufi) Hannemann. Do you think a race between two Ds has the potential to split the party and cause internal dilemmas for many who have supported both candidates over the years?

Secondly, will the Democratic party stay neutral during the primary or will it be announcing their endorsement of one of the candidates?

Brian Schatz: I think we need to be wary of allowing the race to become too tough or too personal, but as long as we can stay within certain boundaries, and stick to the issues, a competitive primary will help us to win the governorship. Secretary (of State Hillary Rodham)Clinton and President Obama are a great example of a primary making our party stronger.

The party will not endorse any Democrats in any primaries — we are always neutral until we have a nominee.

Phil Robertson: According to CNN, the government takes $800 billion each year from the upper one-third of the economy and redistributes the money in the form of food stamps, rent subsidies, welfare, Medicaid, and so on, to the lowest one-third of the economic strata. Forty-seven percent of the population pay no federal income tax and often have $4,000, $5,000, or $6,000 refunds when they file. Where does it say in the U.S. Constitution to do this?

Brian Schatz: I can't vouch for your statistics, since I haven't verified them myself. For instance, does that 47 percent include children and retirees?

I know that the 16th Amendment gives the Congress the authority to levy an income tax. In the prior administration, we saw a redistribution of wealth to the highest of income brackets, and what we are seeing now on the federal side is an adjustment back to the Reagan-level income taxes. This is a recognition that on a national level our economic priorities were skewed, and now a bit of rebalancing is in order.

Spencer: I heard that a lawmaker already is set to introduce a 1 percent increase to the GET; this is a Democrat.

Brian Schatz: I think it's too early to tell whether a tax increase of that magnitude has any support in the Legislature, and I think a more practical approach, would be to utilize excess monies that are sitting in the state's special funds.

Gary: Were you in support of this recent Legislature's self-imposed pay increases at a time when everyone knew that tax revenues would not be enough to cover the budget?

Brian Schatz: No. I think the pay raise was a mistake.