This is an archive of a past election. See http://www.smartvoter.org/ca/state/ for current information. |
The questions were prepared by the League of Women Voters of California Education Fund and asked of all candidates for this office.
See below for questions on
Economy,
Budget,
Energy,
Health care,
Campaign financing
Click on a name for candidate information. See also more information about this contest.
Answer from Stacey Lawson:
I'm an educator and small business owner with real-world experience creating jobs. As cofounder and teacher at the Center for Entrepreneurship and Technology at UC Berkeley, I've helped launch dozens of small businesses, created hundreds of high-wage jobs and developed technology to keep American manufacturers competitive. Small businesses create 85% of the jobs in America + and for the last 17 years, I have been involved with creating dozens of small businesses, all of which have generated jobs in northern California.
I'm committed to serving working families like mine and yours. That's why I'm fighting to create the kind of high-wage middle-class jobs that send our kids to college and provide a secure retirement.
I've written a detailed plan called "Making More In America" (available at http://www.StaceyLawson.com) to restore our manufacturing base, develop renewable energy and protect our environment, and make college and trade schools affordable so our kids can learn the skills needed for our changing economy.
In Congress, I will fight for policies that increase investment in American small business, such as making big banks pay back their bailout funds faster and reinvesting more of the proceeds into small business loans. Answer from Mike Halliwell:
I oppose the "payroll tax holiday" President Obama insisted on in 2011 as part of any budget he is willing to sign, and paying for in with a surtax on incomes over $1 million (HR 3630). Not only does this not stimulate the economy, because of the adverse effect it has on job creation, it also undermines Social Security. There is no actual money in the Social Security Trust Fund, only a promise to find the money somehow, when the time comes to pay benefits. When benefits are not actually earned (as when workers pay only 2/3 of their normal Social Security contribution) there will be no political leverage to replace the 2.0% of earnings which workers kept to spend in 2011 and 2012. The $700 billion 2009 Stimulus Package (HR 1) paid for by "quantitative easing" (wherein we print money to buy our own bonds) failed because there were no "shovel ready" construction projects waiting in the wings for financing. Instead, the stimulus money wasted on other initiatives, like the Solyndra Project, where the government lost more than half a billion dollars, because of favors to large political contributors.
Federal housing finance programs which required a quota of loans to buyers who could never have repaid them, even if the economy grew faster than its historic average, did no favor to those whose entire net worth was wiped out when the housing "bubble" burst. I supported the 2011 termination (HR 839) of the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), which has only HAMPered home ownership. Its main function was to show that Washington politicians cared about the plight of homeowners facing foreclosure. The program mostly consisted of paper shuffling, which postponed foreclosure briefly, while temporary modifications were not made permanent. Most of the HAMP "beneficiaries" lost their homes, anyway. In fact foreclosures in the United States rose from 2.3 million in 2008 to 2.9 million in 2010. Such a large fraction of the money spent went into futile efforts that the cost per permanent success averaged out to more than the value of the homes involved. There is no way for the federal government to provide the trillions of dollars that would be needed to permanently raise the value of homes, and there is no justification for temporarily boosting home values, so that speculators can turn their losses into profits.
Most of the budgetary adjustments needed to roll back deficits must come from spending cuts, not tax increases. I support continuing the Bush-era tax cuts, which maximizes local purchasing power by avoiding the costs of collecting and sending back a diminished amount of funds (the state of California gets much less in benefits than it pays in federal taxes, and the 2nd CD pays far more than its proportionate share of taxes and gets less back than any other of our 53 congressional districts). I also favor HR 9, recently passed by the House, which provides a 20% tax cut for the sector of the economy responsible for most recent employment growth, small businesses with less than 500 employees. Unions can play a vital role in protecting employee rights, and requiring a secret ballot on issues of workplace representation is essential if intimidation is to be prevented. I supported the 2007 McKeon Substitute (HR 800) to insure that every employee has the right to vote secretly on whether a union supported by signed cards of 50% of a company's employees become his or her bargaining agent. I oppose so called "card check" legislation which would eliminate the safeguard provided by secret ballots re the selection of a bargaining agent. I agree with Justice Louis Brandeis' saying "sunlight is the best disinfectant," with respect to union representation and protecting stockholders from abuses by management. Answer from Norman Solomon:
Central to my campaign is support for H.R. 870 -- the "Humphrey-Hawkins 21st Century Full Employment and Training Act" -- introduced by Congressman John Conyers (who has endorsed me in this race), which provides for a federal policy of full employment. With a one-quarter of 1 percent transaction tax on Wall Street, the bill would generate roughly $150 billion per year in revenues, creating millions of new jobs.
I am the only candidate in this race who has publicly called for massive federal jobs programs on a scale comparable to the New Deal. Please see my Marin IJ op-ed article calling for a "New New Deal": http://www.marinij.com/opinion/ci_19108715?IADID Answer from Brooke Clarke:
Existing Bad Laws
Things were fine until 1980 when the "Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act" was passed. This allowed banks to merge into super banks, removed limits on the interest rate that can be charged.
Then in 1999 the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act" was passed by Congress opened the door for sub prime mortgages and initiated the official concept of "too big to fail".
Then Congress passed the "Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000". Prior to this the commodity market functioned to minimize the risk to farmers and ranchers caused by market price fluctuations. This law established what's come to be called the "Enron loophole". In addition it also brought about "credit default swaps" and allows banks to gamble in the futures markets raising the price commodities such as food and gasoline.
The "Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010" contains a provision that exempts the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) from the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA). This is part of the function of the regulatory agencies which now is to protect their industry from criminal prosecution. Note these agencies were established to regulate an industry, but because of regulatory capture now work to protect those industries. The SEC has been instrumental in preventing any criminal prosecution of the people on Wall Street responsible for the 2008 meltdown.
Capitalism has Failed
In the movie "A Beautiful Mind" there's a bar scene that illustrated the idea of John Nash (won Noble prize for this)that "Adam Smith" was wrong. This means that the ideas promoted by the Republicans are based on a failed idea. A better idea is Nashism which says the best outcome happens when we do what's best for us as individuals (Smith's idea) AND when we do what's best for out group.
Privatization has Problems
Income Taxes
Monetary System Answer from Jared Huffman:
Answer from John Lewallen:
Answer from Susan L. Adams:
The president's Jobs Act, which would reinvest into our failing infrastructure and would bring new jobs on board. Innovative programs like starting up the Maritime Highway with Short Sea Shipping, providing low interest loans for business incubators such as the FoodWorks in Arcata or the Venture Greenhouse in San Rafael.
One of the biggest challenges is the regulatory nightmare which makes starting new businesses near impossible and chasing established businesses away. Regulatory oversight and efficiency needs to be part of the congressional job. As an example: George Lucas pulled the plug on his studio project in Marin County because a multitude of local, regional, state and federal agencies each had their own unique and long drawn out permitting processes (water and sewer districts, water quality agency, NOAA, ACoE, Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife, etc.). Keeping good regulations that protect health and safety is important, but streamlining the process so that what should take one or two months to approve, doesn't take 1 or 2 years and cost 3 times the amount. Answer from Larry Fritzlan:
This country needs to shift from a carbon-centered energy source to green energy options and from machine-made food to farming and producing whole food using sustainable methods. These shifts will create numerous new jobs -- far more jobs than will be lost by the carbon energy-producers.
Answer from Stacey Lawson:
Revenue increases are also a critical lever for addressing our fiscal issues. While some believe that the answer to economic crisis is to shrink our government services, I believe that economic crisis is actually the most critical time to make smart government investment in economic stimulus (such as infrastructure, small business and promising new sectors such as clean energy) and to strengthen our social safety net.
And finally + increasing economic activity by rebuilding the middle class will create new tax revenue while reducing tax expenditures on federal assistance programs. Answer from Jared Huffman:
Answer from John Lewallen:
Answer from Larry Fritzlan:
Answer from Norman Solomon:
As the only candidate in this race with significant foreign policy experience, I'm in a very strong position to challenge the excessive military spending that continues to boost the deficit and fuel endless wars. We can bring down the federal deficit responsibly (and with a prudent rather than hasty timeline) while cutting the Pentagon budget, eliminating the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy, ending tax loopholes for big corporations and imposing appropriate taxes on Wall Street speculation. At the same time, we must not blame middle-class Americans for the deficit -- and we must not try to balance the budget on the backs of working people or our senior citizens. The social compact requires that we honor our commitments to children, seniors and other vulnerable citizens. Answer from Mike Halliwell:
I support retaining permanently the 2004 (HR 4275) extension of the 10-percent tax rate bracket at the lowest income levels, to replace the bottom part of the 15% income tax bracket. I also support keeping the 2004 (HR 4181) increase in the standard deduction and broadening of the 15-percent tax rate bracket for married couples filing joint returns.
Unlike all of the Republican candidates in one of the early Presidential nominating debates, I would accept a 10-1 ratio between spending cuts and tax increases, if I could specify which spending cuts and which taxes, so long as they were phased in on parallel tracks. I would not accept tax increases now, in exchange for the promise of spending cuts later. I would permanently eliminate the ethanol tax subsidy, and phase out the 1993 (HR 2264) Clinton 4.3 cent per gallon tax hike as House Republicans tried to do in 1996 (HR 3415). I would raise the capital gains tax to 20% on the first $250,000 of hedge fund managers' "carried interest," with a 25% rate above $250,000, because the managers put none of their own money at risk. I would scale back the 85% of Social Security benefits subject to double taxation by the 1993 Clinton tax hike (when the income is first earned and again when benefits are paid out) to 80%, for those at average and above income levels, since these people already get back less in benefits than they pay in. I support protecting the Social Security Trust Fund, as the House voted in 2011 to do (HRes 501), from the effects of the payroll tax holiday, with a freeze on congressional salaries and other Federal employee pay. By expediting approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, HRes 501 would also create 20,000 jobs and reduce gasoline costs.
Military pork is no less objectionable than any other sort of make work project. After the Soviet Union ceased to exist, our need for even more of the very latest in submarine technology disappeared. Another Trident D-5 submarine would provide very good wages for its manufacturers in Groton Connecticut, but it was unneeded in 1993, and I supported elimination of this appropriation (HR 2401). One would think that a fierce critic of unnecessary military spending like Lynn Woolsey would line up with a majority of both parties in closing unnecessary bases, but she voted the other way in 1995 (on HJRes 102) to reject the recommendation of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) when some of the military waste was in her district. Thus Lynn Woolsey was more "hawkish" that Mike Halliwell (and 90% of House Republicans) on the 1995 BRAC recommendation. Answer from Susan L. Adams:
But we need to look at the defense allocation overall, especially some of the weapons systems which may be obsolete or unproven and military bases throughout the world where they may no longer be needed. But at the same time, we need to keep the promise we made to our troops and the provision of health services when they come home from the war.
We can also consider raising the tax levels on corporations and the very wealthy. When Warren Buffet and his colleagues says "tax me, more," I'm happy to oblige. Answer from Brooke Clarke:
The defense (better called war) budget should be cut at least in half and the foreign bases all closed.
Single Payer Health Care must be put in place soon.
Answer from Larry Fritzlan:
Answer from Jared Huffman:
Answer from Brooke Clarke:
Answer from Norman Solomon:
As former co-chair of the Commission on a Green New Deal for the North Bay, I am committed to developing sustainable energy sources that will move this country and the world away from the impending disasters of climate change. Fundamental changes are needed to utilize solar, appropriately sited wind and conservation -- while halting the destructive momentum of extreme overreliance on fossil fuels. I reject oxymoronic myths like "clean coal" and "safe nuclear power." It's time for our country to become a technological leader with green, clean energy. Answer from John Lewallen:
Answer from Susan L. Adams:
We must create more fuel efficient vehicles, and institute clean and renewable energy use in all public buildings and vehicles.
The increased implementation of solar panels alone can save millions in cost, and provide energy to fuel much of our electrical needs. Answer from Mike Halliwell:
Along with Peter Behr, Bill Filante and Diane Feinstein, I supported the 1990 Big Green Initiative (Prop 128) to phase out carcinogenic pesticides, ban coastal drilling for oil and preserve redwood forests. I agreed with the 1990 efforts of Senators John McCain and Pete Wilson to raise CAFÉ mileage standards (S1224) and reduce noxious tailpipe emissions (S1630). In inflation-adjusted dollars, the 1990 Gulf War pushed oil prices to $30 per barrel; last year's oil shock sent prices to $120 per barrel. Every gallon of gas we could have saved in 1990, is now four times as valuable. Conservation is the heart and soul of fiscal conservatism. In 2005 I supported protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) from oil drilling (Markey Amendment to HR 6). Petroleum reserves in environmentally fragile locations should be saved until last, when its price pays for safe extraction. I support HR 3408 (being blocked by President Obama) to bring Canadian oil sands to American refineries via the Keystone XL pipeline, making us less dependent on overseas sources for our energy. The refinery waste product is carbon dioxide, which will be absorbed by rain and become carbonic acid. This very dilute acid flows into our oceans, where it combines with dissolved minerals to make carbonite rock.
Bio-based fuels (except ethanol which drives up the cost of corn for human consumption) are another useful means of lessening dependence on foreign energy sources. In 2007 I supported the Dent Amendment to HR 547 to promote production of bio-based fuels to reduce our environmental footprint, improve air quality and lower greenhouse gas emissions. In 2011 I supported HR 2354, which provided $6 billion for energy efficiency programs, renewable energy development and environmental clean-up efforts. It would also strengthen levees where a confluence of rivers poses the greatest danger of flooding. Flood control projects help to preserve topsoil necessary for a renewable timber industry and to protect tourist attractions. Answer from Stacey Lawson:
As we pursue a policy to restore the strategically imperative high-wage manufacturing sector to the American economy, there is one vital raw material that we can start making more of in America -- and that is renewable energy.
There are many reasons to make our own energy. Transitioning from our dependence on fossil fuels to more sustainable, low-impact energy sources is simultaneously an environmental imperative, a national security issue and an urgent economic necessity:
By making more renewable energy we lower the greenhouse gas levels contributing to global warming and environmental degradation.
By making more of our own energy, we lower the "oil subsidy" we now pay to many nations that would do us harm. Ultimately that means a safer America and billions of dollars each year in savings from money we now spend to keep oil shipment routes secure.
By making our own energy, we stimulate our long-term economic recovery -- and stop the flow of high-wage jobs that inevitably follows the billions of dollars we currently send overseas to buy energy we could make right here at home.
My main energy policy priorities include reducing energy consumption and spurring green-collar jobs through building retrofits, creating the next-generation smart electric grid, setting national renewable energy and consumption standards, and making our military and the federal government energy independent.
Answer from Norman Solomon:
I strongly support single-payer health care (enhanced Medicare for all), and have done so for many years. I am co-chair of the Healthcare Not Warfare campaign along with Donna Smith of the California Nurses Association and Congressman John Conyers. This campaign advocates for ending the wars and redirecting the funds to pay for a national single-payer health care system. While the Affordable Care Act (ACA) brought expanded coverage to portions America's uninsured, it also brought a humongous transfer of power and wealth to the private insurance industry. Instead, single-payer health care would provide quality health care at a significantly reduced cost.
In lieu of a federal single-payer system, however, I would support legislation to make it easier for states to adopt a single-payer system. Such a system would create equitable coverage for people of all ages. In the meantime, federal legislation should curb the excessive profits of the insurance, pharmaceutical and hospital industries as well as protect the rights of all patients to treatment without price gouging of any kind. Answer from Jared Huffman:
Answer from Larry Fritzlan:
Answer from Susan L. Adams:
Obama's health care plan is a start. But we need to do so much more. As a County Supervisor I have seen first hand how locally run preventative care-oriented clinics can help those in need, keep people healthier, including the elderly and children and add to overall wellness and well-being of he community.
This is an economic issues and even a National Security issue, in preparing to met demands of the 21st century. Answer from Mike Halliwell:
I support the 2005 bill (HR 5) which would extend California's $250,000 limit on subjective "pain and suffering" malpractice awards to the nation (to reduce the need for the "defensive medicine" that protects doctors rather than patients). I would use the $46 billion savings (per decade) from this reform to help replace the ACA with a fairer allocation of health care subsidies across the income spectrum. I would cut back the tax benefits for "Cadillac" health care plans (up to $8,000) to the $2,500 benefit for an average ($10,000) family health care policy for an average family income. I would provide the same coverage for the working poor, with cost reduced on a sliding income scale. I would allow health insurance purchase across state lines, so that the subsidy could be used for a plan best suited to individual needs, which provides the coverage required by at least half of states, with a combined population of 50% of the whole nation.
When the ACA is gone, the advocates of centralized health care control will demand that a "single payer" system (such as Congressman John Conyers' HR 676 proposal in 2007) of health care financing be adopted. This would be the death of freedom of choice, since "he who pays the piper always calls the tune." This "Medicare for All" approach would destroy this program for senior citizens, since there would be no "prepayment" aspect and most doctors are willing to see Medicare patients only because they shift ten or twenty percent of the inadequate Medicare reimbursement to their private patients. If we halt the $250 billion (per decade) diversion of Medicare funds to the ACA, and use the new revenue sources tapped by the ACA to eliminate the scheduled 27% Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) cut in physician reimbursement, Medicare will be able to pay for adding the "baby boom" seniors Answer from Stacey Lawson:
That's why we must continue to support health care measures such as President Obama's Affordable Care Act - to not only protect Americans' health but to also aid small businesses. Answer from John Lewallen:
Answer from Brooke Clarke:
Answer from Stacey Lawson:
Answer from Norman Solomon:
As a member of Congress, one of my top priorities will be to push legislation and a constitutional amendment aimed at removing money from politics. Among my plans: I will promote a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood, and to affirm that campaign-related spending can be strictly regulated, thereby overturning the Citizens United decision.
I will immediately cosponsor the "Fair Elections Now Act" -- which would establish public financing of elections (sometimes called "clean money") and enable federal candidates to avoid large donations, big money bundlers and donations from lobbyists.
I will also cosponsor legislation banning elected officials from working as lobbyists after they leave office. Polls show that public financing and lobbying bans are popular with the U.S. public -- whether Democrat, Republican, some other party or independent. I pledge to go to Washington to fight to fulfill the public's desire to take money and corruption out of politics. Answer from Brooke Clarke:
Term limits need to be put in place.
Corporations are not people. The Citizens United case needs to be reversed or a Constitutional amendment enacted to reverse that decision. Answer from John Lewallen:
Answer from Jared Huffman:
Answer from Susan L. Adams:
Small changes are made at the local level, but major systemic changes at the Federal level codified by strong laws and enforcement are needed. Answer from Mike Halliwell:
I do not support ANY amendments to the Bill of Rights, but there is room within the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision to keep large "independent" election information spenders from buying influence with candidates to a) crack down on a candidate's top supporters who cannot meet the "lack of co-ordination" requirement for exceeding limits on direct contributions (upheld in the Buckley v Vallejo decision), and b) require instantaneous filings via the internet, identifying the source of contributions to so called "Super PAC's", and c) include source of funds statements in all political ads. When voters realize that an attempt to "buy" an election is underway, candidates beholden to unpopular special interests are hurt, not helped, by this linkage.
I also favor other measures to preserve and enhance integrity and accountability in the political process. I supported the 2006 decision by Republican House leaders to renew the Voting Rights Act (HR 9) a year early, to protect the voting power of ethnic minorities from dilution by procedures used to conduct elections. I opposed the 2001 congressional gerrymander (AB 632) facilitated by Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey and her Democrat colleagues. The lack of political evenhandedness in this plan made it the antithesis of the prior court-ordered plan, which had reflected criteria set forth in S 7 (1993). I supported a 1998 measure (HR 1428) to provide a voluntary pilot program to test the use of federal data on citizenship by states seeking this assistance. After the bitterly close presidential election in 2000, I feel that the 2006 Federal Election Integrity Act (HR 1428) is needed to maintain confidence in the legitimacy of our political processes. This measure would require presentation of a government-issued photo ID to vote in federal elections (after a two-year period to facilitate issuance of free ID's to citizens who could not afford them), to reduce the participation of illegal aliens in elections. Answer from Larry Fritzlan:
The order of the candidates is random and changes daily. Candidates who did not respond are not listed on this page. |