League of Women Voters of the Cincinnati Area Education Fund
	Ohio State Government March 6, 2012 Election
	Candidates Answer Questions on the Issues United States Senate; Republican Party

The questions were prepared by the League of Women Voters of Ohio and asked of all candidates for this office.     See below for questions on Poverty, Tax, Medicare, Environment Click on a name for candidate information.   See also more information about this contest. 1. According to the U.S. Census, median income has declined and the number in poverty has increased. What steps should be taken to strengthen the U.S. economy and address unemployment? Answer from Michael L. Pryce: We must convince everyone that businesses do not pay taxes, the public does. Change to a cash register tax and eliminate all federal taxes. That brings the cost of our products down so people can afford them both in the United States as well as abroad. When people buy things jobs increase. Our balance of trade will improve and dollars will begin to flow back into the US, strengthening the dollar monumentally. Alan Greenspan testified before Congress that we will not lose one dime of revenue, but it will improve as everyone pays taxes instead of just half of us. Investments will flourish, jobs will be plentiful, foreign governments will invest in America. It will stop the fighting between Democrats and Republicans as taxes are cut to satisfy Republicans and revenue will increase to satisfy the Democrats. It is simple, easy to administer and saves the federal government trillions. Answer from Josh Mandel: As they continue to borrow and spend like there`s no tomorrow, Washington politicians want us regular Americans to be satisfied with 8% unemployment. To strengthen the U.S. economy and address unemployment, we need to shake up Washington. That`s why creating a business-friendly, pro-growth environment to foster job creation in Ohio and America is the highest priority of our campaign. I strongly believe that common sense tax reforms, the repeal of Obamacare and the elimination of over burdensome agency regulations on small businesses are crucial to the recovery of our state and national economies. I will also work to bring more bi-partisan leadership to Washington. Answer from Eric LaMont Gregory: Short answer: Congressional oversight of our financial institutions. The stock market ‗boom` of the 1920`s increased the income of a small fraction of the American people, while the earnings of most workers fell. Although it represented lower production costs, it also limited the ability of workers to purchase new goods. The fall in consumer demand existed as speculation in the investment sector inflated stock prices. Banks allowed invertors to use stocks as collateral. When stocks dropped in value investors could not repay their loans, the banks were left holding worthless collateral. The banks failed and brought productive businesses down with them. Banks foreclosed mortgages in a desperate attempt to stay solvent. As it was in the crash of the 1920`s, so it was in the first decade of the 21st Century. We must never allow speculation (gambling) to destroy jobs and the productive capacity of this country, ever again. Answer from Donna K. Glisman: I am a firm believer that our country`s strength goes hand in hand with that of our economic mite and dedication to the free market system which has afforded us all of our success. We must strive to tighten the trade deficit and allow manufacturing to flourish here in America once again, that alone would boost the jobs and cut poverty in this country. Further, cutting through red tape and liberal agendas such as over regulation, is the only clear path to business growth. By shrinking the size and imposition of government we will in turn 7 see business and the economy restored. As a long time small business owner myself, I know the value of American entrepreneurship and the jobs it can bring. I will support any legislation or measures that will help grow business and in turn bring new jobs and careers to our workforce. 2. How would you reform the tax code? Answer from Michael L. Pryce: The Tax code is the most burdensome problem in our country. NO ONE can figure it out. Even the Secretary of the Treasury failed to get his taxes right. There is no need for this. Changing to a consumption tax, which some people refer to the fair tax, is the cheapest and easiest way to eliminate this problem. The elimination of all federal taxes and the IRS saves the American taxpayer trillions. Confusing tax schemes only make the problem worse as there is still a tax in place and Democrats constantly want to raise it and 11 Republicans want to cut it. By making it require a 3/4`s vote of the public to change the rate stops the fighting forever. An emergency tax of 5% could be put in place for wars or natural disasters, but needs the 3/4`s vote as well. It`s secure and easy to implement. Answer from Eric LaMont Gregory: Short answer: Simplify the tax code. There are two proposed tax restructuring systems that have a reasonable chance of reforming our tax code; the flat-tax, and the fair-tax. I would favor a family-friendly flat-tax for individuals, and a fair-tax for businesses. We spend billions of unproductive dollars collecting taxes, and arguing tax disputes in our courts. The IRS as it now exists needs to be abolished. The flat-tax for families would be set at a rate of 11% for a family of three on all income in excess of $35,000. A simple postcard like tax form would be filed annually. The fair tax for businesses would be set at 17.5%. The fair tax is designed to tax purchases. The more one purchases, for example, the more the roads on which the delivery of goods depends deteriorate. Taxing consumption, purchases, is a straightforward and fair means of collecting tax revenue. Answer from Josh Mandel: The current tax code is overly burdensome, confusing and costly. It is patently unfair. I support common sense tax reform that will address the inherent defaults of the current system and encourage economic growth and the creation of jobs. Answer from Donna K. Glisman: Taxes, the necessary evil in our society, but it doesnt mean they have to be overly complex, striking fear in the very citizens who pay them. First off, we should all agree that the tax code needs to be restructured in a manner that is easy and free of loopholes that allow those in the know to avoid payment. That goes both ways, meaning there are both rich and poor, businesses and individuals using the tax code to get out of paying a fair share. I would like to see us move towards a flat tax program that not only brings in the tax dollars we need, but is a fair and balanced system so that we are all involved in paying for our government as citizen. Perhaps then we as a nation will have greater intrest in the decisions that our legislation makes, and more people will get out.... 3. How would you change Medicare to make it sustainable? Answer from Michael L. Pryce: I am a doctor and I have lived with Medicare and I am the only expert on this in the Senate Race. I am the only candidate for high office in the country that has actually written a book about health care reform. Its title is Anathema! America's War on Medicine. It raised me to recognition as a health reform expert. I create a health care plan that is a 3 step process: 1) by creating a common digital medical record that only health professionals can use, 2) reforming liability which I have done without interfering with anyone`s Constitutional Right to Sue, 3) bring the entitlements in so initially, the federal government only has to raise enough taxes to pay the premiums on the policies creating the largest actuarial table possible, over 300 million. This plan brings everyone`s cost down to $100 a month on the average. No other plan approaches this. Answer from Josh Mandel: Those who refuse to reform Medicare are condemning the program to the ash heap of history. In order to save Medicare, we must change it. Saving Medicare will be a top priority of mine, as this important program represents a promise made by the government to the American people. We can reform it in a way that does not impact current recipients or those approaching Medicare-eligible age. Answer from Donna K. Glisman: We have spiraled out of control on Medicare, and now its become so massive in terms of people and dollars that its become such a ―tricky‖ issue. Clearly, we cannot cut the benefits now, as far too many people depend on it, but its not a sustainable program. First thing I would want to do, is take a proactive stance on healthy living, that is the best thing we can do, at nearly zero cost, to help us save money down the road. Through early education about the benefits of proper diet, exercise and preventative care, we can significantly reduce the cases of heart and lung disease, high blood pressure and other ailments that ultimately bombard our healthcare facilities and drive up costs for everyone. With this approach we can begin a trend in Americans that will take root and show positive change and savings down the road. Answer from Eric LaMont Gregory: Short answer: Stop borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund The Social Security Trust Fund is running out of money, not because there has not been enough money paid into the system to sustain it, but because various administrations have been borrowing money from the Trust Fund that has not been paid back into the fund. The legality of this practice has not been challenged, because it has been convenient for various administrations to use these funds for their pet projects or wars without having to raise taxes. Perhaps, the word trust is not clearly understood. 4. Do you believe it is possible to protect the environment while preserving American jobs? What are examples of how this can be done? Answer from Donna K. Glisman: There is no reason that we cant have both, the first thing we must understand is that the environment is not just a national issue, its one that involves the globe. When viewed in that perspective we must realize that America is outnumbered, whatever major steps we may take to protect our lakes, and air, do very little when massive nations like China, and India, combined have ten times our population, and environmentally they are where we were in the early 1900`s. So the question is, how do we combat their pollution, while saving American jobs. Easy, stop funding their growth! We can MAKE things here in the U.S., cleaner and ebtter than foreign markets, so lets cut out their only advantage, cheap labor, we can do this through import tariffs. That will restore American jobs, our manufacturing base, and the economy, while lowering global pollution. Answer from Eric LaMont Gregory: Short answer: We have no choice but to preserve both jobs and the environment It is our responsibility, our opportunity, to conquer the blights on the human condition; hunger, ignorance, and disease. It will be of little consequence, however, if we so foul our air, water and soil that the environment can no longer sustain us. The Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act are examples of federal environmental protection measures. The problem arises when regulations, such as those concerning coal power plants threaten jobs. Federal agency regulations are developed over several years, and it is the responsibility of our elected officials to exercise oversight of federal agencies. It is peculiar that our elected officials do not hold hearings to ask federal agencies as to the likely impact on jobs of a regulation while it is being proposed, but complain about them after they are in force. Answer from Michael L. Pryce: Certainly! We take advantage of everything that is free from Mother Nature; Wind, Ocean Currents, Hydroelectric, Solar, Nuclear. We must be aware that we cannot buy our way out of economic doldrums with green energy, but if it is free energy, why not take it? I grew up in Northeast Ohio and was alive when the Cuyahoga River caught fire. There is no reason to poison our environment. We must respect the fact that until our natural American ingenuity can come up with alternate sources we will have to rely on fossil fuels. Plant millions of trees. Increasing the fuel mileage will help. Creating better mass transit will help. The carbon footprint in our Revolutionary War was 4 times higher than it is right now. Our problem is not America, but China and other third world countries that do not care. That does not free us of vigilance. Answer from Josh Mandel: It is not only ―possible‖ to protect the environment while preserving American jobs, it is imperative that we do so. One example is the oil and gas exploration that has significant economic potential for the citizens of Ohio. While Ohio stands to gain tens of thousands of jobs in both direct and indirect fields, the safety and security of our natural environment, and the families and senior citizens that benefit from it, must come first. While ensuring safety, I remain a strong advocate for responsible energy exploration because of the impact it will have on job opportunities and the lowering of utility bills for Ohioans. Responses to questions asked of each candidate are reproduced as submitted to the League.  Candidates' statements are presented as submitted. Word limits apply. Direct references to opponents are not permitted. The order of the candidates is random and changes daily. Candidates who did not respond are not listed on this page.