|
|
|
Issues The No Child Left Behind Act that President Bush signed with great fanfare is being ignored by the Administration. The very least that should be done for education at the federal level is to ensure full funding of this important new legislation. I would work hard to ensure full funding of the No Child Left Behind Act if elected to Congress. Click here to read about a teacher's job.
(Back to Issues)
Immigration is a complex problem that,
unfortunately, has been sensationalized to the point that
it is difficult to have a thoughtful discussion in today’s polarized
environment. The
discussion of immigration goes to the core of our values as a nation, or at
least it should. America is the “land of the free and the home of the brave.”
Coloradans value family, hard work, community, and fair play.
We want to do the right thing. Most
immigrants are the ambitious, hard-working kind of people with strong family
values who would be an asset to any country.
These values and beliefs are virtuous.
Individuals holding them should be rewarded, their ambition celebrated. America
needs an immigration policy that is compassionate and fair and that reflects
these American values. We need a
policy that works. Laws
are developed to provide for the orderly conduct of society’s activities and
their establishment or enforcement should not be taken lightly.
Congress should always strive to establish just laws that treat all
people fairly, clearly defining an individual’s responsibilities and the
penalties for violating those responsibilities.
While
the legislative branch of government has a solemn duty to try to craft fair and
just laws, the administrative branch has the duty to enforce the law in an
even-handed and consistent manner. If
injustices arise, or questions are raised about the appropriateness of a law or
its administration, the courts decide what constitutes justice or fairness based
on the circumstances of the particular case and the applicable law. Today
we have reached a point where we need to review the whole area of immigration
policy and decide anew what is fair and just and what is needed to accomplish
our goals as a people, as Americans. I
pledge that I will work with the various factions of the immigration issue –
not to accuse or divide, but to try to craft a coherent policy that respects
everyone’s perspective. A
coherent immigration policy would: -Make
America’s borders more secure. -Decide
the population goals we want to attain. -Determine
America’s labor needs and fashion a program that assists the domestic labor
force in meeting those needs. -Define
and protect the rights of guests, while clarifying their duties and
responsibilities. -Develop
a fair and humane approach to the question of amnesty. -Address
the driving forces behind immigration by cooperating with our neighbors to the
south to improve economic conditions in Mexico and Central America. -Establish
effective penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants or exploit legal
guests. Revamping
America’s immigration policy will not be easy.
Business, civic, political, social, and cultural leaders will all have to
work together in a respectful and collaborative manner to develop a policy that
is fair to all Americans and those here as our guests. (Back to Issues)
I am an environmentalist. I have a college degree in Forest Ecology. I understand a fair amount of the science involved in environmental politics. What I sometimes do not understand is the politics involved in environmental politics! Some "environmental advocates" are motivated by emotion rather than reason, while some "multiple use proponents" are short-sighted, and some "commodity extractors" are simply greedy. No one side has a lock on the truth. What we should strive for is easily stated as, "The greatest good, for the greatest number, over the long run." Exactly what should be done to achieve that goal in any given situation is sometimes difficult to determine. We need to be aware of the short-term costs and the real harm that can be done to real people by environmental policies that effect our current economy, but we need to account for the long-term health and productivity of our environment in every decision we make. As your Congressman, just as I have as a Councilman for the Town of Parker, I will continue to weigh the benefits and costs for today's citizens against the benefits and costs for the future citizens who will have to live with our actions or inactions. Oftentimes environmental issues are similar to that old Aamco commercial where the automobile repair technician said, "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later." The implication was that proper maintenance would prevent costly repair bills later. Environmental protection is a lot like that. It is our responsibility, as the people living in the present, to preserve the future of our children.
(Back to Issues)
Retirement security is not a luxury to be taken lightly - it is a necessity
of life that is a measure of the fairness of our society. Since 1935
Social Security has done its job and, today, is responsible for keeping almost
half of all seniors above the poverty line. It does, however, face a tough challenge over the next few
years as the oldest baby boomers approach retirement age.
In 2001, Congress and the Administration abandoned the lockbox in favor of deficit spending that increases the national debt. This is unfortunate, because under almost any plausible economic projection for the future, there will not be enough income coming in from Social Security taxes and interest on the Trust Fund to avoid either an increase in taxes or a slower rate of increase in the promised benefits at some point. The purpose of the "lock box" is to pay down the publicly held debt so that the payment on that debt will not be so large a portion of the future budget. (Interest on the debt in 2001 was $206 billion, 12.5% of the budget!) This will make it easier to redeem the Trust Fund bonds. The lock box is a way to protect a guaranteed benefit. Privatization is an effort to gain a higher return by gambling on the stock market. Any carve-out privatization plan (one that does not raise taxes) will only take money away from the lock box. Trying to capture a possible higher rate of return by privatizing Social Security will mean cutting more of your guaranteed benefits and putting part of your retirement nest egg in the definitely not-guaranteed stock market. Considering the recent record of the stock market, I do not think it prudent to reduce the guaranteed part of our nation's retirement portfolio and I will oppose any carve-out privatization effort as just too risky. I would consider supporting an add-on privatization plan, but would prefer to support voluntary personal retirement savings programs outside of Social Security that:
Social Security is not broke, but it has problems
that have significant ramifications for the federal budget in the not too
distant future. Congress should decrease the rhetoric and seriously
and thoughtfully address the long-term problems of retirement security for
all.
(Back to Issues)
We are currently experiencing a relatively severe economic downturn. I
believe this was brought on in large part by speculative investment in all
things Internet, and this was spurred on by corruption on Wall Street. The
Boards of Directors of many major companies simply took their investors, their
employees and their entire company on a one-way trip to financial ruin.
These people must be made to pay for their crimes, but now we have to figure out
how to restore confidence in our economy and put our people back to work.
(Back to Issues)
The ability to obtain affordable health care cannot be left solely to the whims of the market place. It is a moral imperative that all people have access to a reasonable level of health care. The Federal Government is currently involved in the world of health care and that involvement should be re-structured to insure that all Americans receive a reasonable level of basic care. It is obvious that "managed care" has not lived up to its promises. We must find a way to return control of medical decisions to doctors and patients. We must find a direct way to pay for the care of the 41 million Americans who are uninsured, rather than paying for their emergency room care through increased insurance premiums on those who are insured. We must find a way to make prescription drugs affordable to all who need them. How we actually do this no one knows. America has been debating health care for decades, but we have now reached crisis conditions and will have to find some solutions. Personally I think some form of universal coverage (like most every other major industrialized country has!) is the most obvious answer. However, that approach has been fiercely resisted by the major players in the health care industry and it is unreasonable to assume that we will be able to overcome that resistance any time soon. I think the quickest way to achieve some success is to try expanding coverage under Medicare and Medicaid and to allow expansion of Medical Saving Accounts. We should also work to craft programs to utilize the buying power of the government to negotiate lower drug prices wherever we can, however we can. I think we can make progress
if we are willing to
acknowledge that the medical industry needs to make a profit and that there are
people, lots of them, who are not being served by that industry now who must be
served in the immediate future. It is simply not acceptable that wealthy
people, or those who are employed by large companies, are the only people who
are confident that their medical needs will be met We must do better.
(Back to Issues)
If you have deeply held religious beliefs that lead you to believe that life begins at conception, then you will obviously work to prevent abortions. I respect people with principled moral positions provided they abstain from violence when expressing those positions. It is important for societies to strive to find principles that unite and uplift and enlighten, rather than focus on things that divide. If we truly want to reduce the number of abortions performed in the world, then we have to find ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Society, through every means possible, including moral instruction and medical advances in birth control, should strive to make abortion a rarely used last resort. I support easy access to family planning services because I believe that family planning reduces unwanted pregnancies. Efforts to improve the availability and range of safe and effective contraceptive technologies should be increased. All forms of safe contraception should be available throughout the U. S. I also believe that we should strive to make family planning services accessible to all women, regardless of income or education level, by more fully funding Title X of the Public Health Services Act and by covering family planning services under Medicaid. I agree with those who think that an abortion is a tragedy, but I believe
that there may well be circumstances where it is the lesser evil. Because
many among us are opposed to abortions I will not vote to use government funds
to pay for abortions, but I will work to ensure that privately funded abortion
services remain legal, safe, and available.
(Back to Issues)
Government should always resist the urge to limit citizen's freedoms based on the idea that it knows what is best. Government should only restrict personal freedom when it is absolutely necessary to do so for the greater good of other citizens. Government should help provide the framework for a society that enables a person to live with dignity and strive for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". It should not butt in and tell someone how they have to live, or die. I support individual states' efforts to establish laws similar to Oregon's
"Death With Dignity" law and will work to make sure that the federal
government does not interfere with any state's laws on this subject. (Back to Issues)
Gun Control The Constitution guarantees the right to own firearms, but I do not believe that right is unlimited. I own several firearms and I know how to use them, however none of them are military-style assault weapons. As a member of a Town Council, I also believe that the Constitution allows local government to regulate where a firearm can be carried. I can not believe that society is better off with private firearms in schools, churches, courthouses, stadiums, libraries, corporate offices, and post offices. There are legitimate reasons for private citizens to own some types of firearms and I will defend that right, but I will continue to support common sense regulations on the type of weapons appropriate for private ownership. What
that means is that I will defend your right to own sporting type firearms while
I am in Congress, but I consider military-style assault weapons with large
capacity clips to be weapons of mass destruction and will vote to outlaw them. (Back to Issues)
This is an issue that can only divide us. I want to concentrate on the
issues that can bring us together. Let's make the schools places where
children of goodwill are accepted for who they are and helped to develop their
full potential. Let's not look for ways to separate the Christians from
the non-Christians, believers from the non-believers. Instead, let's look
for the principles that unite us, such as the freedoms and responsibilities of
citizenship and the need for respect for diversity in a democracy. (Back to Issues)
School Vouchers When someone can convince me that taking money and interested, involved parents out of the Public Schools will make the Public Schools better, then I will support vouchers. Choice, within the Public School system, is a good thing, but I am very leery of the idea of the Federal Government micro-managing the local school districts. See Education in the section above. (Back to Issues)
Death Penalty I can understand society's desire to "exact justice" on the bad
guys and I will support the death penalty as a Representative following the will
of the citizens. While I do not personally believe that the death penalty
is a deterrent, I understand that many others do. It is a moral issue and
I can see both sides clearly. As long as a clear majority of the citizens in my district want the death penalty imposed for heinous crimes I will support
it. I will also support efforts to protect your right to a fair trial if
you are ever accused of a capital offense!
(Back to Issues)
As a
result of my Declaration, the official election ballot will contain a notation
by my name that says, "Chose not to sign declaration to limit service to no
more than 3 terms". I knew that this might confuse some people, but I wanted
to follow the wishes of the citizens who passed the Constitutional Amendment in
1998 and declare my position rather than hide it.
Time has proven that my suspicion that Mr. Tancredo would not be faithful to his
professed belief in term limits was well founded. He has now declared his
intentions concerning term limits: There is too much cynicism and
disappointment in today's culture. We need leaders who are willing to
stick to their principles. We need leaders who are strong in character and
whose solemn promise is a guarantee - we do not need politicians who are more interested in
power and attention than they are in honor. Term Limit Statement (released to the public on August 28, 2002) In November of 1998 the citizens of Colorado narrowly passed Amendment 18, an amendment to the Colorado State Constitution that allowed candidates for federal office to declare their position on term limits "on every election ballot and in all government sponsored voter education material in which" their name appears as a candidate for federal office. I understand that many citizens are frustrated with the difficultly in dislodging an entrenched incumbent official, but the fact remains that the voters have the authority to limit any official's term at each and every election. I have always opposed term limits as being a counter -productive limitation on the sovereignty of the people. As an elected
official, familiar with the pros and cons of the debate, I opposed Amendment 18
back in 1998 and voiced my opposition to all who inquired. Amendment 18
was controversial because the concept of mandatory term limits is controversial.
Amendment 18, however, was strictly voluntary (it merely allowed candidates to
use the authority of the government to publicize their position on the concept
of arbitrary term limits) and was thus viewed by some voters as not being too
bad an idea. Even though the amendment was voluntary and could be ignored
entirely by any candidate, it still passed by only a 50.4% majority. When
he ran for reelection in 2000, Representative Tancredo failed to publicize his
previous support for term limits by signing the Voluntary Term Limits
Declaration and has since been quoted in the news media as questioning the
wisdom of arbitrary term limits. I am doing this because I am the kind of elected official whose word is his bond and I believe that the people of the Sixth Congressional District expect no less from their Representative. If the citizens of the District see fit to elect me as their new Representative, I pledge to continue to honor each and every one of my campaign promises to the best of my ability.
|
