League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
	Alameda, Contra Costa County, CA June 5, 2012 Election
	Candidates Answer Questions on the Issues United States Representative; District 15

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. 1. In this time of high unemployment, what are the most important steps that should be taken to improve our nation’s economy? Answer from Eric Swalwell: America's comeback starts with new energy and a strong resurgence in American innovation and manufacturing. This includes rewarding companies that create jobs in America and penalizing companies, in the form of higher taxes, for moving jobs overseas; provide research and development loans, grants, tax credits, and incentives to facilitate the successful development, manufacturing and exporting of clearn energy systems; support small business owners by ensuring the self-employer's tax contribution is no higher than an employee's and defer all federal government taxes for the first year of any new small business -- deferred taxes will be collected over a four-year payback period; create a fairer tax code to make big corporations and the rich pay their fair share. Answer from Christopher J. "Chris" Pareja: I am running for office because I believe we need to strengthen small and mid-sized businesses to grow the economy and create jobs. We want Congress to create an environment for a strong economy and healthy job creation. We should expect our Representatives to understand how the legislation they approve will impact the business community. I have spent the last 20 years in a number of sales, marketing and management positions. I understand the needs of people from the boardroom to the loading dock; from the job seeker to the retiree. One of the first steps we must take to stimulate the economy and create jobs is to elect more people with current business experience to office. Only 8% of the current administration has private sector experience. That means the majority will not have direct experience to draw upon when contemplating how new regulations may negatively impact the private sector, the economy and job growth. I will bring my business experience to Washington, DC to fight on behalf of small and mid-sized businesses. Business needs some regulation, but we need to make sure that regulation is balanced to protect consumers while ensuring companies have the flexibility to grow and employ more workers. 2. How should the federal budget deficit be addressed, now and into the future? How should budget priorities for defense and domestic programs be adjusted? Answer from Eric Swalwell: If we are to stabilize the economy we must stop wasteful government spending and reduce our national debt. Debt reduction must be balanced with the need for government spending on programs that care for our elderly and neediest citizens and programs that protect and defend our nation. The Pentagon is currently working on a budget that will reduce military and defense spending, which I agree with, for the most part. I do not agree with cutting already-promised health care and benefits to our Veterans and current active duty military personnel. We must also look at shoring up Social Security for the long term, including raising the cap on wages and raising the retirement age gradually to index to life expectancy rates. Answer from Christopher J. "Chris" Pareja: There is a combination of waste, fraud and abuse and/or duplication in most federal agencies. We need to combine, streamline or eliminate redundancies when possible. We also need to determine whether agencies are meeting their stated objectives. Our levels of deficit and debt are no longer sustainable. We need more tax revenue but, statistically, tax revenue only increases as a percentage of GDP. Over the last several decades, we only average 17-19% of GDP whether the maximum tax rate is 33% or 90%. That leaves us only one option for more revenue: strengthen the economy. Increasing revenue is only one part of the issue. We also need to prioritize and streamline spending as needed. Money alone doesn't fix problems. It has to be used wisely. For example, we are putting billions of dollars in "infrastructure" investments into the Bay Area right now. Part of that money is being spent on the Bay Bridge, which is being built with foreign steel and major spans are being built in foreign countries. That doesn't stimulate our local or national economies as it would if we were using local resources. I support cutting costs when possible, but there has to be a balance between acceptable cost, quality and supporting our local workers and companies. We have to be creative when prioritizing our spending. We will need to be smarter about how taxpayer money is spent on all programs, and no program can be "off the table" when it comes to auditing effectiveness. 3. What are your priorities with respect to our nation’s energy policy? Should there be an emphasis on clean energy and reducing carbon emissions, and/or on reducing our dependence on foreign sources? Answer from Eric Swalwell: Clean energy innovation is a top priority for me. I believe the US must adopt a sensible national renewable energy policy with clear goals for reducing pollution and our dependence on dirty and outdated energy systems. We should facilitate the successful development, manufacturing and exporting of clean energy systems. This includes research and development loans and grants and tax credits and incentives. Not only will these new, clean energy systems reduce carbon emissions and help clean our environment, this could be the biggest engine of next-generation technology and manufacturing -- and the US should be reaping the economic benefits of the clean energy industry. We must also do more to develop alternative energy sources to reduce our dependence on oil. Answer from Christopher J. "Chris" Pareja: Our energy policy will require a hybrid approach to balance costs and environmental priorities. I support using free markets to solve our ongoing energy problems. We have natural resources that can be safely harvested within our country and we need to develop them. We need to keep fuel prices as low as possible while developing alternative technologies and fuel sources. High fuel prices drive up the costs of food, clothing and other goods that we need to live on a daily basis. All of these items as well as transportation costs to get to and from work disproportionately affect the poor and vulnerable in our society. I support looking at all forms of energy as ways to drive down costs. Those include petroleum, clean coal, natural gas, hydro-electric, geothermal, wind, solar, hydrogen, nuclear and bio fuels, but I am hesitant to subsidize any of them. If they are viable, the free markets will adopt them. 4. What, if any, changes should be made to federal health care policies or programs? Answer from Eric Swalwell: I support the recently enacted Federal Health Care Reform legislation which is already providing relief to millions of American families in the form on continued health care insurance coverage for children until the age of 26. However, there is much more we can do to hold down health care costs. As a member of the Alameda County Fire Commission, we have created a pilot project that provides drop-in preventative health care services to the public at our firestations. We need to look at more creative ways to reach those without health insurance and provide low-cost preventative services to avoid higher cost care later. Answer from Christopher J. "Chris" Pareja: I am not a fan of single-payer. I believe citizens should be able to choose and purchase healthcare plans that meet their needs. This may mean they purchase the appropriate plan directly, through an employer or another mechanism. They should be able to choose which options and coverage they want and be able to exclude coverage they don't want. This will help them reduce costs and tailor plans. I also believe insurance companies should be able to operate across state lines. Not everyone wants or needs health insurance. They should not be mandated to buy it. That being said, I believe that people who do want and/or need insurance should have access to it. I would support programs that allow people who need access but are unable to afford or obtain private insurance to purchase it through governmental means or vouchers. A mix of private solutions and government "safety nets" are the best solution to cover the majority of people in the country. We simply can't afford to have government to pick up the entire tab, and the good news is that employers that want to remain competitive are very happy to provide ample benefits for their employees. Insurance reform is necessary. We can't allow insurance companies to cut off subscribers when they get expensive. Some parents want to keep children on their policies longer. But after reading 500 pages of one of the drafts of the so-called "Affordable Health Care Act" I realized that piece of legislation will do more harm to the quality and access of health care than it would do good. Plus, additional costs have been discovered ($1.7 Trillion found by the CBO in March) that prove the bill is simply unaffordable. I support its repeal and bringing back pieces that will truly improve access and care. 5. What, if any, changes should be made to federal rules on campaign financing? Answer from Christopher J. "Chris" Pareja: In an ideal world, only individual humans would be able to contribute to campaigns. Corporations, unions, lobbyists and political action committees should be able to make recommendations to their members and those individuals should be able to make their own decisions to support specific candidates or initiatives. Unfortunately, that is not our current reality. I believe people do have a right to freedom of speech through campaign contributions. While I would prefer that non-human entities did not have that same protection of freedom of speech, I feel that if we give it to one non-human entity (i.e., a union) that we also need to provide it to other non-human entities (i.e., a corporation). I have made the decision not to take money from corporations or unions. There is a lot of hostility toward one of those non-human entities or the other based on ideological lines. It should be remembered, however, that politicians always have the ability to say no to offers of money. I do not support federal funding of political campaigns. Answer from Eric Swalwell: I am opposed to the Citizens United decision by the US Supreme Court that ruled corporations have a right to free speech and can provide unlimited funding to campaigns in the form of Super PACS. Responses to questions asked of each candidate are reproduced as submitted to the League.  Candidates' statements are presented as submitted. 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.