Candidate for
State Senator; District 39

Too often, we are presented with candidates that do not appear to be guided by any sense of personal philosophy. This may not be surprising in our era of image politics, power hierarchies, and deal-making. However, I believe it is very problematic when electing a legislative representative. Since there is no reasonable way to foresee the issues that will be considered for vote in a given term, the citizens should have an understanding of how their representatives will vote in a variety of situations. That said, I would like to discuss a few areas that, together, will give you an idea of how I will behave in the role of State Senator.

Naturally, the majority of work performed by a State Senator is legislative. Many candidates attempt to sell a package of legislative promises to voters, and as we know, those promises are always non-binding. Instead of selling such a package to you, I prefer to take the opposite approach. I do not come into this race with any pet projects, major legislation to pass, or any notion of what I plan to do for you or any subset of society. I personally believe that the amount of legislation in California is overwhelming, and as such risks becoming contrary to the ideals of freedom. Yet, as Senator, I will be required to vote. As such, my promise is to vote according to a personal philosophy that will allow you to assess how I will behave in that capacity.

My first legislative goal is to ensure the preservation of freedom. Of course the term freedom is used too variedly to have a universal meaning, so let me elaborate. I consider a "free action" one that does not directly infringe on the ability of another to express a free action. An infringement in this case would mean a physical barring of another expression of freedom or the direct imposition of an inconvenience as a result of that action. As such, actions that cause such an infringement should not, in my opinion, be made legal. To further elaborate, I would emphasize that direct infringements are my issue. This is starting to sound to bookish so let's consider a real life example.

Many states, including our own, have recently dealt with the issue of the legalization of gay marriage. If a piece of legislation were to attempt to ban such marriages, it would fail this test. A gay marriage should be a free action because its occurrence does not directly infringe on the ability of another to express a free action. All individuals are able to exist in exactly the same manner whether gay marriages exist or not. Here is where the concept of direct infringement must be explained. A proponent of such a law may argue against gay marriage on the basis of their personal feelings toward that action. They may feel that marriage has lost meaning if gay marriage were permitted. An example outcome of such feelings may take the form of the individual not feeling comfortable eating in a favorite restaurant under the assumption the individual would encounter a married gay couple. This would be an indirect infringement of freedom (to eat at a restaurant of one's choosing), as it is self-imposed, and would not be considered a valid argument against gay marriage.

The preservation of freedom does not stop here, though. The aforementioned thought process is the foundation, but I would build on that by considering intent of action as well. If the intent is demonstrably negative, then the action would likely should not be considered a free action. To cite another issue that at least one state has dealt with recently, consider the act of bullying. One may argue that acts such as verbal bullying cause only an indirect infringement of free action, as the victim's resultant actions may be self-imposed. Further, the bullying itself may be explained as an expression of one's firmly held views, and as such should be a protected freedom. I would argue against this logic, taking into account the intent of the action. Bullying, while a form of expression, is crafted in a way that intends to inflict harm. An individual with strong views against another can easily express those views in a manner that would not be considered bullying by a reasonable observer.

In sum, the preservation of freedom is always at the forefront, but not at the expense of furthering a cooperative society. This should in no way be interpreted to mean that I am opposed to any personal opinions. On the contrary, I hope all individuals in society are permitted the opportunity to think as they please. I only hope that the legislative process will do its part to protect that freedom while encouraging a positivity in society.

Looking at a different side of legislation, we are all acutely aware that many bills have a financial aspect, and it is typically cast against the provision of some service to the citizens. Thus, we have the long-standing argument over entitlement programs, as well as a variety of governmental expenditures. I am split on this issue. In my view, I believe governmental expenditures should first go toward basic protection and care for the citizens. This would be manifested in public safety, infrastructure, education, health care, assistance programs, and the like (including the environment). I like the idea of a society that has a shared interest in preservation, and looks after those that need assistance. That said, I would like to present the hypothesis that California's budget is sufficient for these purposes right now.

I am by trade an auditor and a Certified Public Accountant (an inactive one, meaning I do not submit continuing professional education to the Board of Accountancy). I am interested in conducting a thorough examination of the state's expenditures, to the extent that I would be able in my capacity as Senator, and sharing those results with the citizens of California. I am not opposed to taxes, but I do not believe that our current plan of constant tax increases is beneficial, as such increases do not tend to translate into a tangible benefit for all.

Of course, there are many aspects of decision making on legislation, but I hope this message provides the voter with some idea of how I would behave on the senate floor. I want to err first on the side of freedom, but tempered with a sense of positivity in society. I am against tax increases, based solely on the idea that we can achieve our goals in the current budget. I am not in opposition in any way to caring for those who need it. In fact, I see the argument against assistance programs as wholly ignorant of our system of society. Without getting into a dissertation on society at large, poverty is a matter of course, and the human response is to provide care. I would be embarrassed to live in a society that did not care for its most needy.

To close this out, I would add that a fundamental part of my philosophy is open communication. To that end, should I be granted the honor of serving the 39th Senate district, I would like to report the daily or weekly activities of the state legislature to all interested parties from Sacramento by way of podcast or video. I want us to all know what is happening, what thought processes are driving the bills, and what we can expect to see in the future. Having that information in a timely manner is crucial to ensure that our voices are heard in a meaningful way. In addition to that form of communication, time spent in District is always the time of the citizens. I have no interest in off-topic media events or public appearances. I would rather spend the day with any of you talking politics and the future of society.

If you feel that positivity for your fellow man; if you are comfortable assuming the personal responsibilities that come with expanded freedom; if you feel that the state seems to take more and give less; and if you are comfortable with a state representative that is not cut from the same cloth as the typical ones, then I may be the candidate for you.