AUGUSTA – The two candidates for Maine’s 2nd Congressional District seat aren’t that far apart on some issues, but take different paths in the details.

They agree on the need to restrict earmarks, and both have strong reservations about instituting a single-payer health care system. Republican John Frary and three-term Democratic Rep. Mike Michaud discuss those issues as well as international trade and health care in response to a second series of questions posed by The Associated Press.

Frary, a retired history professor from Farmington, has brought an unconventional approach to his low-budget campaign to oust Michaud, who’s seeking a fourth term.

Question: Sen. John McCain has called himself “an unapologetic supporter of NAFTA,” while Sen. Barack Obama says he wants to revisit some aspects of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Is NAFTA working or does it need overhauling? What specific changes do you support?

Frary: Trade between the U.S., Canada and Mexico has increased steadily since the conclusion of the agreement. Last year’s figures show $383.4 billion worth of American jobs and goods are dependent on this trade. Despite a total trade deficit $565.9 billion ($100 billion in payments for crude oil) economists who have worked for both Democratic and Republican administrations support NAFTA and neither presidential candidate proposes to abrogate it. Nevertheless, any agreement comprising 304 articles along with dozens of annexes and appendices requires continual overhauling. Perfection is never found in such complexity.

For me to recommend specific changes would require a comprehensive knowledge of these articles and their interrelationships as well as an understanding of the economic and legal complexities. I can’t claim this knowledge … The problem is that an agreement that may be beneficial for the national economy, may be damaging to the economy of a given state or region. There is evidence that Maine is not a beneficiary of NAFTA, but if, say, California, is then our protests will count for nothing. At the congressional level “all politics are local” and nothing will change that.

Michaud: I believe in free trade, but it must be fair. NAFTA has been a nightmare for the state of Maine. Since the enactment of NAFTA, Maine has lost 23 percent of our manufacturing base. We must fix our badly flawed trade agreements. That’s why I introduced HR 6180, the TRADE Act, which is forward-thinking legislation that outlines what a good trade model would look like. I believe we must make fundamental changes throughout the NAFTA agreement, including revising the labor and environmental portions of the agreement to strengthen enforcement and accountability. I also believe we must reopen the food and product safety and national security portions of the agreement, as well as set requirements for public services, farm policy, investment, procurement, and affordable medicines.

Question: Setting aside the merits of the $700 billion bailout of the nation’s financial industry, do you support increased government oversight and bolstered regulation of the financial services industry over the longer term? If so, should those include increased restrictions on salaries of executives whose companies share benefits of the bailout?

Frary: The government can’t possibly hand out vast sums without oversight, controls and restrictions. Since two of the principal failures, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were quasi-governmental bureaucracies under congressional oversight, we can be fairly certain that these new controls will be equally confusing, destructive and incompetent. Still they are inescapable.

All such controls mobilize legions of lobbyists, etc. working on behalf of the institutions involved, so I propose full disclosure of donations received by congressmen from the affected institutions to be published in the newspapers in their states and districts at the time they receive them.

[As to the salaries of executives whose companies share benefits of the bailout] … Same rule applies as above. They take the money, they take the restrictions.

Michaud: Because regulators turned a blind eye, bad actors on Wall Street were able to game the system and make billions of dollars. I wholeheartedly believe that we must actively pursue changes to how we regulate and oversee our financial system so that we can prevent a future crisis like the one we find ourselves in today. No CEO who participates in the bailout should be able to receive golden parachutes for driving a company into the ground. The provisions of the bailout package for CEO compensation were inadequate.

Congress is holding hearings throughout October so that we can get a head start on promoting regulation of Wall Street and the housing industry. I will continue to support efforts that promote responsible corporate governance and effective regulation of our financial markets.

Question: A Commonwealth Fund survey suggests that nine of 10 adults consider health care reform a top national campaign issue. As a way to achieve universal health care coverage, would you support a government single-payer role? Why or why not?

Frary: I would not and will not until I hear some serious discussion of the defects and failures of existing single-payer systems. If the experience of such systems is to be our guide, then we should be more attentive to their failures than their successes, so that we can avoid the former. Successive administrations have tried to contain Medicare-Medicaid costs for 30 years. All have failed. The U.S. faces a $36 trillion dollar deficit in paying for Medicare-Medicaid and nobody seems to have a clue about how the bill is to be paid. Do people believe that a government that has produced an incomprehensible legal system, a hideously tangled revenue code, uncontrollable deficits, a deformed financial system, etc. has suddenly acquired the competence to run American health care? I believe that health care reform lies in the details of the present system – it’s a[t] least possible. There is no silver bullet, and if there were we would only shoot ourselves in the foot with it.

Michaud: Making sure that every American has access to quality, affordable health care needs to be a top priority for Congress and the next administration … I am willing to work with anyone, regardless of party, that shares the goal of making sure every American has access to quality care. While all options and plans should be on the table, I do have concerns with a single-payer system. Because the notion of government-run health care has become such a political football, pushing such a plan would likely result in divisive, partisan gridlock. What Mainers want, and what all Americans want, are realistic solutions that expand access to care. With millions of Americans without coverage and millions more barely able to afford the coverage they have, our current system is unconscionable. I will not close the door to any idea because this issue is too important not to act. With that said, at this point I believe Congress and the next administration would be best served by focusing on finding solutions that build off the current employer-based system and expand access by making health care more affordable. Americans deserve pragmatic solutions to health care reform.