League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
Marin, Sonoma, Humboldt, Mendocino, Del Norte, Trinity Counties, CA June 5, 2012 Election
	Mike Halliwell Answers Questions Candidate for United States Representative; District 2

The questions were prepared by the League of Women Voters of California Education Fund and asked of all candidates for this office.
Read the answers from all candidates (who have responded).

Questions & Answers

1. In this time of high unemployment, what are the most important steps that should be taken to improve our nation’s economy?

The Standard & Poor credit rating for American bonds was downgraded recently because of the apparent unwillingness of our political leaders to stop shifting the cost of benefits for the current generation onto our children and grandchildren via deficit spending that is causing the National Debt to increase more than $1 trillion per year. This same lack of confidence about debt that will never be paid off causes many households to reduce their spending and "save for a rainy day," which cancels out efforts to boost the economy by putting more money into circulation, via various Stimulus Packages. ALL of the progress toward reducing the unemployment rate since it peaked at 10.0% in 2009, has been a result of discouraged people in their normal working years giving up looking for work. Long term unemployment (more than six months) is now higher than at any point since this statistic began being kept by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. We are now about 23 million short of the number of jobs our nation needs to reduce unemployment to the 5.0% level, where people changing jobs or entering the workforce can find employment in a reasonable amount of time.

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.

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?

I support a Balanced Budget Amendment along the lines the 1995 proposal (HJ Res 1) which came within one vote in the Senate of being sent to the states for ratification. The 1995 proposed Amendment required a 3/5 majority in each House to spend more than tax receipts bring in, and a 3/5 majority to raise the National Debt. However, where there is no political will to take necessary cost cutting measures which require only a normal majority vote, political courage cannot be expected to rise to the level of 2/3 majorities needed for a Constitutional Amendment, so we must get our fiscal affairs in order first, then amend the Constitution to prevent a return to spendthrift ways. In 2011 I supported HJ Res 77, which tried to prevent President Obama from increasing the National Debt by $1 trillion, but this measure never came to a vote in the Senate.

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.

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?

Every large scale potential energy source that is not already being fully exploited has a down side. The energy locked up in fossil fuels originally came from the sun, and once this accumulation is used up, we will have to go back to the original source. Collecting solar power is much more efficient in outer space, because the collectors can be always turned directly toward the sun, operate 24 hours a day, and make use of the high energy part of the solar spectrum which is screened out by earth's ozone layer. It may seem odd that it is easier to manufacture solar power collectors on the moon, and launch them into orbit around the earth, than it is to transport them from earth. But the moon's escape velocity is only 1/5 of earth's and energy is a function of velocity squared, so it is 22 times more cost-effective to use the moon as the raw materials source for space-based solar power collectors. Nuclear power on earth should be phased out, because the highly radioactive isotopes left from splitting uranium atoms can't be recycled, and their heat will eventually melt any containment vessel. But nuclear power is ideally suited to lunar industry, since lunar nights are two weeks long, and the moon is geologically dead, so nuclear waste buried in a deep hole stays put. Ending America's manned space program as the Obama Administration has done, is not in our nation's long term interest.

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.

4. What, if any, changes should be made to federal health care policies or programs?

There is probably no aspect of life where a "one size fits all" straight-jacket approach is more counterproductive than health care. Ted Kennedy's former Massachusetts Senate seat was considered safely Democratic until the January 19, 2010 special election became a referendum on President Obama's health care restructuring plan. The only way that what became the Affordable Care Act (ACA) got through the Senate (12/24/09 vote on HR 3590) was by means of bribes such as the "cornhusker kickback" and the "Louisiana purchase." These obnoxious features were left intact in a House vote, to do an "end run" around Senator Scott Brown's election, and then later removed (in a way that did not require 60 votes in the Senate). The 2011 bill (HR 2) to repeal the ACA would reverse the criminalizing of refusal to purchase health insurance whose coverage is dictated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. It would also end a personal mandate which forces young people pay three times the true cost of their insurance in order to subsidize the health care costs of much more affluent age groups. Until the entire ACA is repealed or ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, I support the 2011 bill (HR 358) which overturns the aspect of the ACA which requires plans to pay for abortions, not involving rape, incest or a threat to the mother's life.

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

5. What, if any, changes should be made to federal rules on campaign financing?

Before the 50% tax credit (up to $100 on a joint return) for small political contributions was repealed in 1986, I usually found a worthy Republican candidate to help with a maximum covered contribution. I believe that the antidote to excessive influence of large political spenders is the matching of small contributions with public funds. In 2008 Senator Barack Obama destroyed public financing of presidential elections, when he refused to honor his pledge to limit himself to the available equal funding of both major party nominees. Senator Obama had the most lopsided spending advantage in the history of presidential elections, including more in Wall Street contributions than Senator John McCain. The Democratic Party is MORE dependent on large contributors (such as hedged fund manager George Soros) than the Republican Party.

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.

---

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.

Read the answers from all candidates (who have responded).

Candidate Page || Feedback to Candidate || This Contest
SmartVoter Home (Ballot Lookup) || About Smart Voter

---

Created from information supplied by the candidate: May 27, 2012 19:58
Smart Voter <http://www.smartvoter.org/>
Copyright © League of Women Voters of California Education Fund   http://www.lwvc.org
The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office or political parties.