Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
California's 39th Congressional District election (June 5, 2018 top-two primary)
- General election: Nov. 6
- Voter registration deadline: Oct. 22
- Early voting: Oct. 8 - Nov. 5
- Absentee voting deadline: Postmark Nov. 6
- Online registration: Yes
- Same-day registration: Yes
- Voter ID: No
- Poll times: 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Former state Assemblyowman Young Kim (R), who received 21.9 percent of the vote, and Gil Cisneros (D), who received 19.4 percent, were the top finishers in the top-two primary for California's 39th Congressional District. Kim and Cisneros faced one another in the general election on November 6, 2018.
Incumbent Edward Royce, one of seven California Republicans in 2018 representing districts won by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016, announced on January 8, 2018, that he would not seek re-election in 2018.[1]
In all, six Democrats, seven Republicans, and four independent candidates ran for the seat. On the Republican side, Royce and District 45 Rep. Mimi Walters (R) endorsed former state Assemblywoman Young Kim while District 48 Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R) endorsed Orange County Supervisor Shawn Nelson.
Some in the Democratic Party of California argued that the number of Democratic challengers could split the Democratic vote and lead to two Republican candidates advancing to the general election.[2] The California Democratic Party opted not to endorse in the race, one of three U.S. House races where no candidate received sufficient support in pre-convention voting for an endorsement vote to be held at the statewide convention.[3] Gil Cisneros had the backing of nine members of the U.S. House as well as the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), which provided monetary and organizational support via its Red to Blue program.[4][5] Businessman Andy Thorburn (D), meanwhile, was backed by Our Revolution and National Nurses United. State and national groups split their endorsements, with Cisneros, Thorburn, Sam Jammal, and Mai Khanh Tran each picking up notable supporters.
Ballotpedia compiled the following resources to help voters better understand this election:
- Overviews of each of the top candidates, including policy positions and campaign themes;
- Major polls, endorsements, campaign ads, campaign finance information, and satellite spending updates;
- A timeline of major events that occur over the course of the election.
| California voter? Here's what you need to know. | |
|---|---|
| Primary Election | June 5, 2018 |
| Primary Type | Top-two |
| Candidate Filing Deadline | March 14, 2018[6][7] |
| Registration Deadline | May 21, 2018[8] |
| Absentee Application Deadline | May 29, 2018[8] |
| Early Voting Deadline | Available from May 7, 2018, to June 5, 2018[9] |
| General Election | November 6, 2018 |
| Polling locations: Go to this page to find early voting locations and your assigned precinct for election day. | |
For more on related elections, please see:
- California's 39th Congressional District election, 2018
- United States House Democratic Party primaries, 2018
- United States House Republican Party primaries, 2018
- Primaries in California, 2018
Candidates and election results
The following candidates ran in the primary for U.S. House California District 39 on June 5, 2018.
Nonpartisan primary election
Nonpartisan primary for U.S. House California District 39
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ |  | Young Kim (R) | 21.2 | 30,019 |
| ✔ |  | Gil Cisneros (D) | 19.4 | 27,469 |
 | Phil Liberatore (R) | 14.3 | 20,257 | |
 | Andy Thorburn (D) | 9.2 | 12,990 | |
 | Shawn Nelson (R) | 6.9 | 9,750 | |
 | Bob Huff (R) | 6.2 | 8,699 | |
 | Sam Jammal (D) | 5.4 | 7,613 | |
 | Mai Khanh Tran (D)  | 5.3 | 7,430 | |
 | Herbert Lee (D) | 4.2 | 5,988 | |
 | Steve Vargas (R) | 2.9 | 4,144 | |
| Suzi Park Leggett (D) | 1.5 | 2,058 | ||
 | John Cullum (R) | 1.2 | 1,747 | |
| Karen Lee Schatzle (Independent) | 0.6 | 903 | ||
 | Steve Cox (Independent) | 0.6 | 856 | |
 | Andrew Sarega (R) | 0.6 | 823 | |
 | Sophia Alexander (Independent) | 0.4 | 523 | |
 | Ted Alemayhu (Independent American Party) | 0.1 | 176 | |
| Total votes: 141,445 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Withdrawn or disqualified candidates
- Julio Castañeda (Independent)
- Phil Janowicz (D)
- Ted Rusk (D)
- Cybil Steed (D)
- Jay Chen (D)
Democratic Party factional conflict
Disputes between candidates endorsed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and candidates outside the official organs of the Democratic Party occurred in U.S. House primaries in 2018.
The DCCC, a campaign arm of the Democratic National Committee, endorsed candidates who party leaders believed had the best chance of defeating Republican incumbents.[10]
Some criticized the DCCC's choices. Ryan Grim and Lee Fang wrote in The Intercept, for example, "In district after district, the national party is throwing its weight behind candidates who are out of step with the national mood."[11]
In this primary, the DCCC endorsed Gil Cisneros.[10]
The chart below shows a scorecard for how the DCCC performed in competitive Democratic primaries that featured at least one DCCC-endorsed candidate and one other Democratic candidate.
| U.S. House Democratic factions | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Faction | Primary victories in 2018 | |||||||||||
| Endorsed by DCCC | 31 | |||||||||||
| Not endorsed by DCCC | 2 | |||||||||||
Polls
- See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls
| Top-two primary in California's 39th Congressional District | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll | Poll sponsor | Young Kim (R) | Gil Cisneros (D) | Andy Thorburn (D) | Shawn Nelson (R) | Bob Huff (R) | Mai Khanh Tran (D) | Sam Jammal (D) | Steve Vargas (R) | Karen Lee Schatzle (I) | Margin of error | Sample size | |||||||
| Tulchin Research (May 16-20, 2018) | The Cisneros campaign | 14% | 20% | 11% | 8% | 14% | 5% | 7% | 6% | 1% | +/-4.4 | 500 | |||||||
| Mellman Group (March 30, 2018 - April 7, 2018) | The Thorburn campaign | 13% | 11% | 11% | 10% | 10% | 6% | 4% | 0% | 0% | +/-4.9 | 400 | |||||||
| AVERAGES | 13.5% | 15.5% | 11% | 9% | 12% | 5.5% | 5.5% | 3% | 0.5% | +/-4.65 | 450 | ||||||||
| Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org. | |||||||||||||||||||
| Top-two primary in California's 39th Congressional District | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll | Cisneros (D) | Tran (D) | Kim (R) | Margin of Error | Sample Size | ||||||||||||||
| Remington Research Group, Cisneros vs. Kim January 10-11, 2018 | 38% | 0% | 41% | +/-3.48 | 761 likely voters | ||||||||||||||
| Remington Research Group, Tran vs. Kim January 10-11, 2018 | 0% | 33% | 42% | +/-3.48% | 761 likely voters | ||||||||||||||
| Note: A "0%" finding means the question was not a part of the poll. The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org | |||||||||||||||||||
| Top-two primary in California's 39th Congressional District | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll | Cisneros (D) | Royce (R) | Undecided | Margin of Error | Sample Size | ||||||||||||||
| Tulchin Research for the Cisneros campaign, Revote after positives November 12-19, 2017 | 50% | 46% | 4% | +/-4.4 | 500 likely voters | ||||||||||||||
| Tulchin Research for the Cisneros campaign, Initial candidate vote November 12-19, 2017 | 44% | 48% | 8% | +/-4.4% | 500 likely voters | ||||||||||||||
| Note: A "0%" finding means the question was not a part of the poll. The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org | |||||||||||||||||||
| Top-two primary in California's 39th Congressional District | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll | Royce (R) | Cisneros (D) | Jammal (D) | Janowicz (D) | Thorburn (D) | Tran (D) | Margin of Error | Sample Size | |||||||||||
| Sextant Strategies & Research poll for the Janowicz campaign, Post-profile vote September 28-October 1, 2017 | 11% | 7% | 11% | 15% | 5% | 11% | +/-5.2% | 350 non-Republican likely voters | |||||||||||
| Sextant Strategies & Research poll for the Janowicz campaign, Initial vote September 28-October 1, 2017 | 13% | 5% | 7% | 10% | 2% | 4% | +/-5.2% | 350 non-Republican likely voters | |||||||||||
| Note: A "0%" finding means the question was not a part of the poll. The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org | |||||||||||||||||||
Race ratings
- See also: Race rating definitions and methods
| Race ratings: California's 39th Congressional District election, 2018 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race tracker | Race ratings | ||||||||
| October 30, 2018 | October 23, 2018 | October 16, 2018 | October 9, 2018 | ||||||
| The Cook Political Report | Toss-up | Toss-up | Toss-up | Toss-up | |||||
| Inside Elections with Nathan L. Gonzales | Toss-up | Toss-up | Toss-up | Toss-up | |||||
| Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball | Toss-up | Toss-up | Toss-up | Toss-up | |||||
| Note: Ballotpedia updates external race ratings every two weeks throughout the election season. | |||||||||
Campaign finance
The table below contains data from FEC Quarterly April 2018 reports. It includes only candidates who have reported at least $10,000 in campaign contributions as of March 31, 2018.[12]
Satellite spending
American Future Fund
The American Future Fund is an organization which describes its mission as "to provide Americans with a conservative and free market viewpoint to have a mechanism to communicate and advocate on the issues that most interest and concern them."[13] The fund spent $316,998 in support of Young Kim (R).[14]
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
On May 7, 2018, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) announced that it was reserving $294,000 in airtime between May 8 and May 14 for ads in support of Gil Cisneros (D).[15] The organization had added Cisneros to its Red to Blue list on April 18.[16] As of May 31, 2018, the DCCC had spent $1.95 million, including spending to support Cisneros and spending to oppose Bob Huff (R) and Shawn Nelson (R). The House Majority PAC spent an additional $310,000.[17]
VoteVets.org
- See also: VoteVets.org
On May 22, 2018, Politico reported that VoteVets.org was launching a $200,000 mailing campaign in support of the candidacy of Gil Cisneros (D). The campaign, which included both English and Spanish literature, emphasized Cisneros' military service.[18]
Top-two shutouts in the 2018 California primary elections
California was one of two states, alongside Washington, to use a top-two system for primary elections in 2018. Under a top-two system, all candidates appear on the same primary ballot regardless of partisan affiliation. The top two vote-getters advance to the general election, regardless of their partisan affiliation. This can lead to a top-two shutout, also known as a top-two lockout, in which two candidates from a single party advance to the general election, meaning that the party will hold the seat regardless of the election's outcome. Such shutouts are particularly likely in districts where the electorate contains a similar number of Democrats and Republicans and in which one party was running a greater number of candidates than the other. Primary elections under a top-two system have "the feeling of one of those civil wars in the Middle Ages, where the king is fighting against barons and there’s multiple alliances that form and collapse...It’s a lot less straightforward than just you got your Democrat, you got your Republican. It’s sort of organized chaos," according to Public Policy Institute of California research fellow Eric McGhee.[19]
Democrats faced the possibility of a shutout in five battleground U.S. House races where multiple Democrats and multiple Republicans are on the ballot. The five were among the seven U.S. House districts in California represented by a Republican that Hillary Clinton (D) carried in the 2016 election.[20] Meanwhile, Republicans faced the possibility of a shutout in statewide races, including the race for governor. Republican strategists were concerned that without a Republican candidate on the gubernatorial ballot in November, turnout would decease among Republican voters, damaging the party's prospects in other elections.[21]
The three districts most identified as potential Democratic shutouts are:[19][20][22][23]
- 48th District: In the 48th district, incumbent Dana Rohrabacher (R) faced 11 challengers, including five Democrats and Scott Baugh (R), a former Orange County Republican Party chairman. Democratic strategists were concerned that Baugh would earn enough votes that would otherwise have gone to Rohrabacher to take the second place position on the ballot, shutting the Democratic challengers out of the race.
- 39th District: In the 39th district, 17 candidates filed to succeed retiring incumbent Ed Royce (R). Former Assemblywoman Young Kim (R) was expected by strategists to take first place, setting up a battle for second among the remaining candidates.[20]
- 49th District: In the 49th district, four Democrats and eight Republicans filed for the seat held by retiring incumbent Darrell Issa (R). Assemblyman Rocky Chavez (R) was seen as the most likely candidate to finish in first place.[20]
Campaign strategies in top-two primaries
Candidates and campaign groups affiliated with both political parties adopted a variety of strategies for navigating the top-two primary structure and preventing or provoking a shutout. Among the strategies used in the 2018 elections were:
- Consolidation of candidate field: Parties risking a lockout sought to support the campaign of a particular candidate of that party in the hopes of increasing the proportion of the party's electorate backing that candidate and boosting the candidate's chances of making it onto the general election ballot. In the 48th district, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) added businessman Harley Rouda (D) to its Red to Blue list, granting Rouda access to financial and organizational support, as well as running ads promoting Rouda's campaign.[24][25]
- Consolidation of other party's candidate field: In races where one candidate was expected to finish the primary in first place, the party opposing the candidate sometimes sought to consolidate support around that candidate, decreasing the chances that another candidate from that party will take the second spot on the ballot. In the 39th district, where Young Kim (R) was expected to finish in first place, the DCCC released opposition research and attack ads targeting Kim's two top Republican opponents, Shawn Nelson (R) and Bob Huff (R).[26]
- Candidate withdrawals: Candidates seeking to boost their party's chances of making it onto the November ballot withdrew in the hopes of consolidating their party's vote. In the 48th district, three Democrats withdrew after the filing deadline. All three cited boosting their party's odds of making it past the primary as a motivating factor in their decision.[27][28][29] In the gubernatorial election, John Cox (R) called on his leading Republican opponent Travis Allen (R) to withdraw for the same reason.[30]
- Support for second-place candidate: Campaign groups seeking to increase the chances of a shutout also intervened in primaries. These groups often supported the second-place candidate of their party, hoping to boost them into the second spot on the November ballot. In the 48th district, the American Future Fund spent $100,000 to promote the campaign of Scott Baugh (R), increasing the chances that he and Rohrabacher will advance.[31]
Campaign themes and policy stances
Gil Cisneros
| “ |
Americans with Disabilities Despite the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990, a Congressional report revealed nearly a quarter of a million Americans are being unfairly segregated in nursing homes and the numbers are growing. An Economy that Works for the Middle Class Too many families in the 39th District can’t keep up with the increased costs of housing, groceries, gas, and the overall cost of living while seeing their incomes remain flat. Congress needs to stop giving handouts to Wall Street and banks, and force them to pay their fair share. While Ed Royce pushes for tax cuts for his billionaire buddies, I will fight to reduce taxes for the middle class and eliminate tax breaks for special interests and big corporations that send jobs overseas. For families to succeed, we need to support paid family leave and we need to ensure every child has access to high quality affordable early childhood education. I will fight for investments in high quality childcare and early childhood programs. And I will fight for women to receive equal pay for equal work. The backbone of a strong economy is a strong educational system. We need to help people find careers for the 21st century. We need increased investment in education, vocational training and career development, and we need a national infrastructure bill to ensure our businesses and workers can compete in a global economy. Animal Rights As a former pet owner, he understands the important role animals play in the lives of adults and children. In Congress, Gil will vote to protect pets and domesticated animals by strengthening regulations on “puppy mills” and other harmful commercial breeding facilities and supports proposed legislation to prevent animal cruelty and torture. Gil will fight to protect farm animals from inhumane treatment and work to eliminate the use of antibiotics in farm animals for non-therapeutic reasons. Gil will protect horses by ending their slaughter for human consumption and crack down on the practice of horse soring, where chemicals or other inhumane methods are applied to horses’ limbs to exaggerate their gait. The safety and security of our nation’s wildlife is also under threat with the continued auctioning off of public lands to the highest bidder. In Congress, Gil will protect wildlife by keeping public lands public and make more resources available to forest landowners, ranchers, and farmers who are taking steps to conserve our wildlife, lands, and waters. Gil supports legislation combating international wildlife trafficking and will work to shut down the U.S. market for illegal wildlife products and help put an end to international animal trafficking and poaching, which not only threatens our environment but also provides financial support for terrorist organizations. Comprehensive Immigration Reform and Protecting DREAMers Thousands of these DREAMers have attended college in the United States and serve in our nation’s military. All of them are making contributions to their communities and our country. We must pass comprehensive immigration reform, which includes the DREAM Act, in order to keep families together, provide a pathway to citizenship, and protect our borders. Defend Our Environment The Trump Administration continues to undermine enforcement of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and other regulations that protect our environment. We need to invest in developing alternative energy. We need to defend our environment and be a world leader in fighting climate change. In Congress, I will advocate for staying in the Paris Climate Agreement and continuing to work with the international community to reduce emissions. We need to keep and preserve our National Parks, not sell them off. We need to fully fund our National Park System, so that they can be maintained and enjoyed by generations to come. Ending Gun Violence This year, through the courageous efforts of Douglas High School students in Parkland, FL., the NRA has lost support among major corporations and Republican leaders in Congress have been embarrassed for taking blood money from the corporate gun lobby. As the representative of CA-39, Gil will build upon the efforts of those admirable Parkland students and he’ll fight to pass long overdue gun policy reforms. Gil believes it’s not enough to simply embrace gun violence prevention, he will fight to expand background check requirements, ban assault weapons, oppose Concealed Carry Reciprocity, repeal the Dickey Amendment, and take other measures to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals, domestic terrorists, and those with mental challenges. Get Corporate Money Out of Politics Ed Royce hasn’t held a town hall with his constituents in over 900 days, but he continues to accept millions of dollars from corporations and Washington special interests. During his time in Congress, Ed Royce has accepted over 6 million dollars in corporate special interest money and voted against major bipartisan efforts to get money out of our political system. I will co-sponsor legislation for a Constitutional amendment that overturns the disastrous Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court. I also support increasing financial disclosure requirements for political spending. Corporate money has dominated our politics for too long, and in Congress I will work to enact real campaign finance reform. Healthcare for All President Trump and Ed Royce are doing everything they can to sabotage and repeal the Affordable Care Act, with legislation that would strip healthcare from millions and increase premiums. As long as Republicans control Congress, they will continue to attack the Affordable Care Act. I will defend the ACA from their attacks and fight for increased access and more affordable care for everyone. We need to work to fix and improve the ACA, not repeal it. I will fight for the public option that was originally intended to be part of the ACA, and give people the option to buy into Medicare. We need to work to stabilize insurance markets and have the government directly negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies to bring costs down. Hold President Trump Accountable Our Constitution created three co-equal branches of Government, but Congressman Ed Royce does nothing more than rubber stamp President Trump’s dangerous agenda. I served in the United States Navy to defend the Constitution and ensure no one is above the law. I will put the people of the 39th district first. I will go to Congress to fight for the middle class and give working men and women a voice. I will fight for policies that help veterans, help small businesses, create jobs, protect our health care, and ensure every child receives a quality education. Honor Our Veterans As a former United States Naval Officer I know firsthand the sacrifices our men and women in uniform make to protect our freedom. As a son of a veteran, I know how important and crucial the services that the VA provides to our veterans are. Instead of talking about cutting veterans’ benefits, we need to talk about increasing these benefits to ensure our veterans are provided with the top quality medical care and services that they deserve. We must ensure that veterans are treated equally, regardless of sexual orientation or immigration status. Their sacrifice for our country entitles them to the opportunity to achieve the American dream when they come home. Since 2008, the Post 9/11 G.I Bill has provided returning veterans easier access to educational opportunities and job training. As a recipient of the Post 9/11 GI Bill, I know firsthand the benefits of this program and how life-changing the program can be. Unfortunately, extremists in Washington consistently attack this program which provides our heroes the opportunity to advance themselves and their families. We need to keep our promise to our men and women in uniform. That is why I pledge to defend the Post 9/11 G.I. Bill to provide our Vets the benefits they have earned. Invest in Our Childrens' Future and Make Higher Education Affordable 90% of children in America attend a public school. We need a strong public education system that gives every student the opportunities they deserve. Unfortunately, many of our schools struggle to get by financially under the current financial plans. Now, Republicans in Congress, President Trump, and Betsy Devos only want to slash education funding further. President Trump’s dangerously unqualified Education Secretary Betsy Devos even supports eliminating the Department of Education. Instead of cutting education, we should be investing in education in order to transform and modernize our educational system for the 21st century economy. My wife Jacki and I know how important our educational system is to the development of our students and future leaders. Education is an issue we are very passionate about, so passionate that I even returned to school to earn a Master’s Degree in Urban Education Policy from Brown University. We have seen first hand how schools in underserved communities are continually challenged to provide their students with top quality education as they continue to be underfunded. We have tried to fill the gaps in some of these communities by supporting a variety of programs that support student learning and development. Our goal has always been to provide opportunity where opportunity often doesn’t exist, and help kids achieve their full potential. I understands that when you provide students with the tools they need to succeed, anything is possible. I will work to insure that all students have the educational opportunities they deserve no matter where they are from or what their background is. LGBTQ Rights He is steadfast in his support for total equality, and will be a fierce defender against LGBTQ attacks at home and abroad. There is no place for discrimination based on sexual orientation, and Gil will co-sponsor the Equality Act as a member of Congress. National Security and Terrorism We need to support emerging democracies and speak out against repressive regimes. We need to recognize that we live in a global economy and interconnected world and work with nations around the world to find solutions to our common problems. We need smart and tough national security policies that will keep Americans safe. To defeat ISIS and prevent the spread of terrorism, we must continue to strengthen our international coalition and reaffirm our commitment to NATO, improve intelligence sharing with our allies, and strangle terrorist financial networks. We need to strengthen domestic intelligence sharing between local and Federal law enforcement agencies to identify threats before they strike. In Congress I’ll make sure Iran’s nuclear sites are fully inspected, and that they live up to their end of the bargain under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. I pledge to be a friend of Israel and ensure Israel maintains their full capability to defend itself against any threat. We must continue to work towards a two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict negotiated directly by the parties that guarantees Israel’s future borders and provides the Palestinians independence and the ability to govern themselves in their own state in peace and dignity. Retirement Security Social security protects many seniors from poverty, we have to keep our promise to seniors and protect the benefits they have worked for and earned. I will fight any attempts by Donald Trump and Republicans to cut or privatize Social Security or Medicare. Women's Rights Women’s ability to make their own healthcare decisions are constantly under attack by Republicans in Congress. I believe that decisions about a woman’s health are between her and her doctor.[32] |
” |
—Cisneros for CongressCite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag
| ||
Herbert Lee
| “ |
HealthCare Acts Vocational Training for Our Youth Me Too Movement/LGBT Actions Veterans/Homelessness Immigration/DACA Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) Unemployment/Affordable Housing/Homelessness • As people continue to lose wages and jobs, the price of housing remains incredibly high. We need to improve the low-income housing subsidies for affordable housing. •Homelessness takes a toll on the economy, environment, health-care and criminal justice systems and the lives of fellow human beings. These are local issues that need our attention. Infrastructure Stricter Gun Laws |
” |
| —Herbert Lee MD for Congress[33] | ||
Suzi Park Leggett
| “ |
Partisan politics is destroying our country at the cost of the poor, the sick and the children. We do not need legislation that adorns the excessive lifestyle of the one percent of the very wealthy and affluent. The people’s Congress should not cut, privatize, damage, or weaken our citizens’ Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Retirement, and Nutrition assistance. Our Social Security programs are the fundamental security for more than 58 million American seniors. Majority of Medicaid beneficiaries are children. More than 70% of Americans rely on those programs at some point in our lives, and we are NOT going to let Republican Congress mess with them. This system funded by our paychecks on top of regular taxes. It should not be linked to the deficit as an excuse to rob us of our hard-earned benefits. As a Korean immigrant American Citizen, it is my belief that these young people born or raised in our soil must be given the equal opportunity to study and live in this God-given country. In America, everyone is an immigrant or descendant of immigrants. We must strive to give opportunities to those what we have once been given. It is my mission to push the passing of DACA. My father and my late husband have ingrained in me it is our duty to always speak out for what is right. From years of experience, I know the operation of the Congress from the inside-out. I know exactly how to get things done. All I need is your support to MAKE THIS HAPPEN![32] |
” |
| —Suzi Park Leggett[34] | ||
Andy Thorburn
| “ |
Economy The American middle class has been shrinking for generations. Jobs are disappearing and purchasing power is in decline. This is no accident, but a direct result of failed policies that intentionally redistributed wealth from working families to the rich. The system is rigged. We must reverse this trend by: • Ending tax cuts and loopholes for the wealthy and use that money to invest in education, training, and infrastructure to strengthen middle-class families. • Making paid family and parental leave the law of the land. • Raising the Federal minimum wage to $15 dollars an hour. • Protecting the right of workers to organize. • Expanding and safeguarding Social Security and Medicaid. Primarily - scrap the cap on Social Security earnings. • Investing in infrastructure to repair and modernize California's roads, bridges, and transit hubs. This will also create more good paying, family sustaining jobs. Guns I am also opposed to the following legislation on firearms: • HR 367, which will roll back some restrictions and simply place a $200 fee on purchasing silencers. • HR 38, which would allow concealed-carry permit holders to travel across state lines with their guns and same concealed-carry provisions. • The February decision from the House that rolled back an Obama Administration directive allowing designated mental health providers to report names of mentally ill patients to the federal background check system. If elected to Congress you can trust that I will stand with you and fight for commonsense gun reform legislation. Healthcare • Enact Medicare for All as soon as possible. • Lower prescription drug prices and fight for prescription drug transparency. • Protect the Affordable Care Act while building the Medicare for All system. Women's Rights and Opportunity • Ending the Hyde Amendment. • Fully funding Planned Parenthood. • Preventing employers from disallowing birth control coverage in employee health plans. Exposing and combating rape, harassment and domestic violence: • Instituting a whistle-blower policy that requires every employer to contract with an independent hotline where employees can report harassment and other inappropriate behavior without fear of retribution • Ending the so-called boyfriend loophole which allows domestic abusers to continue to purchase and carry guns every after a conviction and ending loopholes that enable convicted stalkers to buy guns • Pressuring the department of education to re-implement Obama era rules protecting victims of campus sexual assault • Protecting and funding programs under the violence against women act Building an economy that works for everyone • Supporting paid family and parental leave policies so that employees of all genders don’t have to choose between advancing their careers and caring for their families • Championing the Paycheck Fairness Act and other measures to end the gender wage gap • Finally passing the equal rights amendment to constitutionally codify women’s right to equal pay under the law. Big Money out of Politics • Restore Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, making it more difficult for states to implement discriminatory voting laws. • Get big money out of politics to reduce the influence of special interests and Washington insiders by working to overturn the disastrous Citizens United decision. • Combat the myth of “voter fraud” being perpetuated by the Trump administration. • Avoid gerrymandering by encouraging states to move to a bipartisan redistricting commission like we have here in California. Environment • Move away from dirty fossil fuels and toward local clean energy sources, which will not only slow the rate of climate change and the damage it causes but also create high paying jobs right here in orange county. • Ban fracking and offshore drilling entirely • Restore and maintain the Environmental Protection Agency, which has been gutted by the current administration • Halt mining on Federal lands • Preserve open spaces within our district such as Coyote Hills • Offset the harmful effects of carbon emissions by implementing a cap and trade program or through a carbon tax • Undo Trump's efforts to shrink our previously protected National Monuments Building an Inclusive Society • Compassionate immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship • Protect young people with DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) by providing a path to citizenship • Supporting full equality for LGBTQ Americans including laws that protect transgender Americans in the workforce, our schools, and the armed forces. Education • Modernize local schools and colleges by increasing the use of technology in the classroom and making school buildings more green and energy efficient and safer for students to thrive -- all while creating good-paying jobs[32] |
” |
| —Andy Thorburn for Congress[35] | ||
Mai Khanh Tran
| “ |
The Doctor Is In: Reimagining Healthcare Over 44 million Americans currently count on the services provided by Medicare, and that number is expected to nearly double in a little over a decade. Through increased funding and enrollment, we can make sure that nobody is deprived of essential healthcare.
Reinstate the Individual Mandate. When they set their sights on the individual mandate, Republicans removed the cornerstone of Obamacare. Put simply, it’s what kept the Affordable Care Act affordable. If the ACA is ever going to do what it was designed to do — expanding access while keeping costs low — we must reinstate the individual mandate.
Strengthen Health Exchanges. The affordability of our healthcare markets hinges on Americans signing up. So why has the White House seemingly done everything in its power to keep people off the exchanges? We have to reverse course, and work to expand outreach and maximize enrollment, while making plans more affordable for those in need, with the goal of signing up every last uninsured American and strengthening our healthcare system.
Permanently Fund Reinsurance Programs. Extending healthcare to Americans with severe, life-threatening conditions was a great start. Unfortunately, doing so came with a catch: higher costs for the rest of us. Now, we must work to ensure that coverage remains affordable. Through reinsurance programs, we can push back against rising premiums and make sure that healthcare does not become an unaffordable luxury.
Expand Full-Practice Authority to Nurse Practitioners. Twenty-one states and Washington D.C have given nurse practitioners full-practice authority, a move which has been a tremendous boon for the quality, value, and accessibility of their healthcare systems. Expanding this initiative will ensure that patients throughout the nation have greater access to more robust, efficient, and cost-effective healthcare services, while keeping the costs to taxpayers at a minimum.
In Congress I Will Oppose Efforts To…
As President Trump and Republicans have led an all-out assault on the Affordable Care Act, it’s Americans who have been caught in the crossfire. The President’s decision to eliminate the ACA’s crucial cost-sharing subsidies destabilized the health care market and left policyholders facing uncertain futures as they braced for higher costs and the possibility of losing access altogether as insurers considered pulling out of the federal program. As a Congresswoman, I will fight against any efforts to cut funding to cost-sharing subsidies.
Doctor Tran’s Perspectives:
As far as access, she absolutely believes in the necessity of moving to a system in which we have universal healthcare coverage. However she thinks that we need to increase access in a way such that we can also control costs, and ensure a continued high quality of care. The best way to achieve this is to improve and build off of the Affordable Care Act. Therefore Dr. Tran believes it is imperative that we fight to reinstate the individual mandate, strengthen the healthcare exchanges, and work to institute reforms that can help cut down on costs. The best way to lower costs and increase quality is to ensure that there is competition within the healthcare system. That being said, the system needs to be regulated by the government to ensure patients and doctors are protected, a high standard of quality is being met, and that we are constantly cutting down on waste and promoting efficiency whenever possible. Dr. Tran is a strong advocate for choice. She empathizes with fellow women whose bodies are constantly under scrutiny and legal contention by unaffected men in high offices. As a physician she believes that any legislation enacted to interfere with a woman’s reproductive rights does more harm than good for the health of these women and for society as a whole. She will fight to prevent any measures that further restrict medical access to women or make limitations on a woman’s choice for herself and her family. As a physician and human-rights activist, Dr. Tran has spearheaded dozens of medical missions throughout South Asia to help build thriving communities and provide much-need medical relief. Her desire to help the members of these communities is rooted in her deep understanding that prosperous societies are powered by a healthy and happy citizenry. She believes that as Americans we have a responsibility to provide healthcare for all our citizens in order to ensure the success of our own society. Dr. Tran recognizes that quality healthcare is a necessity and an essential human right. She has the skills and expertise to lead the effort in Congress to fix our healthcare system.
More Info:
Thanks to the dismantling of the ACA by Republicans, we will likely see insurance premiums across the country skyrocket over the next three years, in some cases increasing by as much as 94%. Without a doubt, the greatest single contributor to this “catastrophic” volatility has been their egregious elimination of the individual mandate via their tax bill. Requiring all Americans to obtain health coverage allowed insurers to keep the costs of their plans down. On its own, eliminating the individual mandate has been projected to create initial price increases for those who remain insured by up to 17%, followed by an additional annual increase of 10% for the following two years. This is terrible news for the segment of our society who will bear this weight most, our middle class, as they are “priced out of insurance in about a third of America.” The damage may not stop there however, especially if we cannot reverse repeals to other important cost-cutting subsidies, which would ultimately spread the financial burden to other sectors of American society, as well. For a moment, the dream of universal health coverage for all Americans finally seemed to be on its way to becoming a reality. Everyday, however, it slips further away, becoming nothing more than a brief-lived memory. It’s clear, not only to me, but to every expert on the matter, that our first step to reclaiming that lost reality is retinstating the individual mandate.
Strengthening Exchanges: From day one, the Trump Administration has been shameless in undercutting the Affordable Care Act. After Americans made clear they would not allow “repeal and replace,” the President settled for sabotaging it from within, shortening open enrollment periods, slashing funding for outreach and enrollment, and possibly even misappropriating funds meant to promote the Affordable Care Act for a fear campaign to scare away potential enrollees. To support a truly robust system, rather than the half-baked one Republicans forced on us once they discovered they couldn’t have it their way, we need to reinstate ACA outreach and enrollment with funding that furthers their mission, so Americans can be made aware of their options and sign up with ease. Unfortunately, the obstacles we must overcome to fix this system go beyond politics. Affordability remains the number one reason potential enrollees chose not to sign up for coverage. I will support legislation to expand and strengthen financial assistance programs, filling in financial assistance eligibility gaps like the so-called “family glitch,” so that a family’s budget is never a reason to forego health insurance.
Reinsurance: Perhaps the greatest achievement of the Affordable Care Act is how it has helped patients shoulder astronomical expenses, making it possible for them to undergo essential medical procedures without having to resort to bankruptcy. But basic economics tells us those costs have to go somewhere, and often times, they’ve been imposed on their fellow policyholders insurance pool, who have seen their premiums go up as a consequence. Fortunately, there’s a way to cushion this blow: reinsurance. Using state dollars, we can reimburse insurers for the particularly expensive medical needs of our most health-fraught citizens. In doing so, we will lower policyholders’ premiums which, in turn, will reduce federal spending on tax credits for these premiums. Minnesota provides a great case-study for the success of reinsurance programs. With many other states facing price increases, Minnesotans can look forward to steady, even decreasing, premiums after the state instituted a reinsurance program last year, while Alaska’s program saw premiums drop by more than 20% in 2018. While the transitional reinsurance program installed by the Affordable Care Act did experience some brief success, it eventually ran into funding issues before it finally expired in 2016. But even Republicans understand the benefits of reinsurance, which is why their flawed plan to repeal and replace the ACA included general funds for such a program. In order to stabilize the rising cost of healthcare, I will support efforts to make the ACA’s reinsurance programs like the Individual Health Insurance Marketplace Improvement Act permanent and help fund state reinsurance programs.
Cost-Sharing Subsidies: The decision to scrap “critical” cost-sharing subsidies was one of the Trump Administration’s most destructive attacks on the Affordable Care Act: it reduced consumer choice, thereby raising costs and de-stabilizing healthcare markets. What’s worse, they did so knowing full well that eliminating this key feature of the ACA would cost taxpayers $6 billion this year and $21 billion by 2020, raising the price of “silver” plans by 20% and ensuring that many Americans would “live in areas that would have no insurers” whatsoever as a result. The basic truth of the matter is that while these cuts are sold to the public as “cost-saving measures,” they do just the opposite. Fortunately, efforts are already underway to reverse the harm done by the White House with the hopes of restoring these lost payments. But proposals like the Bipartisan Health Care Stabilization Act need all the support they can get. As your representative in Congress, I pledge to lend my weight to supporting efforts to permanently fund cost-sharing subsidies and make sure that Americans receive the affordable care they were promised.
Nurse Practitioners: As the fastest growing profession in primary care, nurse practitioners offer a sensible, effective, and cost-efficient vehicle for both states and patients looking to lower costs while simultaneously improving quality and expanding access. The average patient cut their medical bills by 20% when visiting a nurse practitioner over a physician, according to the National Nursing Centers Consortium, while Massachusetts estimates practitioners save the state over $10 million every year. Early predictions from the RAND Corporation projected up to $10 billion in savings for the state by 2019. That’s because, while practitioners are trained to offer patients the same services as physicians (for three-quarters the cost of educating a doctor, no less), they do so for half the cost. And by authorizing them to practice without a physician’s supervision, we can eliminate the need for the stifling reviews and redundancies that plague our system, while freeing up physicians to tackle more pressing tasks which demand their specialized skill sets. But savings are irrelevant if they don’t lead to better experiences and outcomes for patients; fortunately, when it comes to nurse practitioners, we don’t have to sacrifice quality for value. Care managed by nurse practitioners leads to lower costs for drug care and delivery, decreases in the amount of hospitalizations and ER visits as well as the length of those stays, and reductions in time and income lost from work. In addition, nurse practitioners “routinely outscore other healthcare providers” on measures of patient satisfaction” and attentiveness, as demonstrated by the fact that 80% of patients felt listened to under practitioners, while only 50% felt the same way when their care was managed by physicians. These factors ultimately forge greater trust and stronger patient-provider bonds, which are critical for ensuring patients attend to their own health once they leave the hospital setting. And because nurse practitioners are able to spend more time with their patients, they’re better equipped to educate them, address their concerns, and provide holistic healthcare, including troubleshooting and counseling on diet and exercise. While this is great news wherever you may live, this will be especially beneficial for our underserved rural communities, as the WWAMI Rural Health Research Center found that full-practice authorization prompts more nurses to serve these regions. Onwards and Upwards: Restructuring Our Education System While Congressional Republicans were working to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, they also allowed funding for critical federal childhood programs to run out. Much has been said about how this caused Americans to lose access the Children’s Health Insurance Program, but many may not realize it also cost us the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Visiting Program—an evidence-based program that supports vulnerable, impoverished American parents and children by matching families with trained professionals to teach them essential parenting skills and help create a safe, stable, and enriching environment for their young ones. I will work to make sure funding for this program is reauthorized before tens of thousands of families lose access to this valuable service.
Increase Affordable Access to Pre-K/After School Programs. There is a great deal of research showing that access to prekindergarten and afterschool programs is strongly correlated with improved academic performance, as well as positive emotional, social, economic, health, and wellness outcomes for students. Given this, I will support legislation that increases affordable access to prekindergarten and afterschool programs. It’s crucial that we invest in aiding our children, and do everything we can to maximize their early development and prepare them to be the best students they can be.
Expand Funding for Teacher Retention and Transfer Bonuses. Within our public school system, there are a number of struggling schools where student achievement lags far behind the national average. One of the problems cited most often at these schools is the difficulty they have attracting and retaining high-performing teachers—an issue that severely hamstrings any efforts to improve student outcomes. To address this, I will support legislation to create and expand programs that incentivize teachers to relocate to underperforming schools and stay at struggling schools once they’ve arrived.
Create and Expand Teacher Mentorship Programs. Feedback loops, whereby colleagues and students provide teachers with comments and advice on effective teaching methods drawn through training and personal experience, have proven to be one of the most effective methods to improve educators’ teaching abilities. In Congress I will work to draft legislation that encourages states to explore innovative ways to improve student feedback, and implement teacher mentorship programs that allow more experienced teachers to work with newer teachers and share best practices.
In Congress I Will Oppose Efforts To…
With the appointment of Betsy Devos as education secretary, there has been much discussion recently about creating and expanding school voucher programs. I oppose such programs because school vouchers undermine our public education system by siphoning off funding from public to private schools. We must invest in new and innovative ways to improve our existing public school system, not weaken it.
Higher Education:
High levels of student debt continues to be a huge problem facing our country, with around 40 million Americans holding a combined total of $1.2 trillion in outstanding student loans. These debts impose high economic costs on many of our citizens. To improve this situation in the short term, I support the continuation of debt relief programs that help students lower their monthly interest payment and expand the period of time over which they may pay back the loan without penalty. In addition, we must increase funding for federal scholarships, student aid, and debt forgiveness programs for students who are willing to go into public service or other high need industries.
Change the Conversation about Higher Education. I believe that one of the key ways we can improve our higher education system and ameliorate the student debt crisis is by shifting the conversation about higher education towards valuing all jobs. A degree from a four-year university isn’t necessary for many respectable jobs in our economy, and the fact is, many students simply don’t want to attend college. We must encourage and support students’ ability to receive the appropriate education and training for the jobs they would like to pursue. To this end, I will work to draft legislation that creates and expands apprenticeship and vocational training programs, and provides financial support for students pursuing degrees at trade schools and community colleges.
Strengthening Our Education System:
As an immigrant who worked her way through college and medical school with the help of federal grants and student loans, Dr. Tran understands the importance of higher education and the struggles of paying off student debt. In Congress, she will fight to maintain funding for student debt relief programs and expand funding for federal scholarships such as Pell grants. But Dr. Tran believes this is only one part of the solution, and that we also must shift the national conversation about higher education towards valuing all jobs, not just the ones that require a four-year degree. Not all students need, or even want, to go to college, and many well-paying jobs exist in our economy that don’t require a college degree or the time and financial commitment it entails. Dr. Tran wants to pass legislation that supports the creation of apprenticeship and vocational programs for those who wish to follow another path, and helps shoulder the financial burden of students pursuing degrees at trade schools and community colleges. A strong education system today is key to building human capital for generations to come, and will allow the US to recapture its leading positions in the global education, production, and export markets. A better-educated youth today will ensure a healthier and wealthier nation tomorrow.
More Info:
Maternal, Infancy, and Early Childhood Visiting Programs (MIECHVS) are immensely valuable resources for impoverished and underserved families, having served more than 3 million homes in the last five years. The Brookings Institute calls it “one of the most innovative government programs you’ve probably never heard of.” During these visits, trained and qualified professionals provide knowledge and critical parenting skills to families, giving them a leg up in a wide range of factors: improving child development, bolstering the health of mothers, children, and infants, and helping families become economically self-sufficient, while also protecting children from abuse and ensuring their homes provide warm, welcoming, and safe environments. But it’s not only the families directly served whom these programs benefit; we all do. Studies show that, for every dollar our nation invests in home visiting, it reaps up to five dollars in return. Unfortunately, this program, which has been successfully serving American families since 2012, is on it’s last legs—Republicans allowed its funding to expire last year as part of their shameful failed attempt to dismantle the Affordable Care Act. Congress must re-authorize funds for this life-changing program so that we can continue to serve families who need it most.
Pre-K/After School Programs: Study after study has shown that, on nearly every metric, children who attend high-quality pre-K’s outperform students who don’t. According to a report by the Urban Child Institute, children who attend pre-K are less likely to repeat a grade or require special education, and are more likely to graduate from high school and attend a four-year college. But the benefits extend far beyond the classroom – the same report found that when compared to their non-pre-K peers, students who attend pre-kindergarten are less likely to commit a crime or require taxpayer-funded welfare support, and more likely to be employed and make more than $2000 a month. Drawing on data from three separate studies, the report found that every dollar invested into one of these pre-K programs generated on average five dollars of benefits to private citizens, local, state, and federal governments within four decades. Research into after school programs has led to similar findings – a study from the Harvard Family Research Project found that after school programs were correlated with better academic performance and positive emotional, social, health, and wellness outcomes for enrolled children. Given the overwhelming weight of the scholarship pointing to the positive economic and social benefits of pre-K and afterschool programs, we must pass legislation to make these life-changing educational tools accessible and affordable to all members of our community.
Retention and Transfer Bonuses for Teachers: We are facing a dire shortage of teachers across this country. While it’s true that there has been a significant drop off in newcomers to the field (teacher preparation program enrollments have fallen 35% nationwide in the last five years), the problem is larger than that. The vast majority of teaching vacancies (more than 95%) can be attributed to attrition and high turnover: approximately 50 percent of new teachers will leave the profession within their first five years of teaching. This forces schools to continually hire and re-train new teachers to fill the void — sometimes lowering their quality standards to do so — resulting in cost increases and less experienced teachers. This constant reshuffling also makes it far more difficult to implement long-term institutional developments, and burdens the teachers that remain with unmanageable class sizes. This problem is especially prevalent among under-resourced, high-need, hard-to-staff schools, which have great difficulty attracting teachers from other schools. To address this challenge, several school districts around the country have experimented with offering bonuses to high-performing teachers to entice them to transfer to struggling schools and remain at their position for at least two years. These programs have had success at better allocating effective teachers to low performing schools. Once high-performing teachers have been shifted to underperforming schools, it is then crucial to keep them there for as long as possible. High turnover rates impose a very real cost: the loss of just one teacher can cost schools up to $20,000; and often it is our urban schools that pay the greatest price. However, there is hope. One program saw a 25% reduction in teacher turnover after implementing a one time, $1200 retention bonus. In order to attract and keep high-performing teachers serving the students at low performing schools, we must explore the possibility of expanding federal funding so we can offer transfer and retention bonuses as a way to better allocate teaching resources to those schools that are most in need.
Creating and Expanding Teacher Mentorship Programs: Although retention bonuses have been fairly effective at reducing teacher turnover rates in the past, they still don’t solve the root of the problem. And until we address the core issues that cause teachers to leave their posts, our education system will continue to suffer from high teacher turnover. A survey of 32,000 teachers conducted by the Center for Teacher Quality found that support from colleagues and administrators is one of the most significant factors in a teacher’s decision to stay in, or leave the profession, and several studies have found that policies designed to improve teachers’ work environments and professional development are the most cost-effective and influential tools when it comes to improving teacher retention. Indeed, a study of California schools found that schools offering an induction and mentoring program for teachers reduced turnover by 26% in just two years. Beyond improving teacher retention rates, mentorship programs that encourage teachers to collaborate and share best practices with colleagues lead to better academic outcomes for their students. Given the huge benefits that mentorship programs provide to educators and the education system as a whole, it is essential that we work with teachers and education experts to craft national legislation that encourages the creation and expansion of these programs. In Congress I will spearhead efforts to do just this.
School Vouchers: The recent push to dramatically shift federal education efforts towards school vouchers by President Trump and his Secretary of Education Betsy Devos poses a major threat to our public education system. By tying government funding to individual students rather than schools, and allowing them to use that money to attend schools outside of the public education system, school voucher programs siphon off desperately needed funding into private and charter schools at the expense of our public school system. I strongly believe that we must invest in our children’s future by strengthening the public school education system through additional funding. The last thing we should do is create more ways to redirect funding away from the public school system. In Congress I will oppose any efforts to expand voucher programs that harm our public schools.
Student Debt Relief: As of 2018, around 44 million Americans collectively owe over $1.38 trillion in student debt. This extremely high debt burden weighs heavily on American society and our fellow citizens, preventing many people from making the kind of large purchases of goods, such as houses and cars, that help drive economic growth. Indeed, just two weeks ago the new Fed Chairman Jeremy Powell specifically identified student debt as a factor that could slow down our country’s economic growth. Clearly Congress must do more. In Congress, addressing the student debt crisis will be one of my highest priorities. I believe that we must take a two-pronged approach to resolving the student debt crisis. First we need to invest in debt relief programs that help Americans who already have student loans pay back their debt. To this end, we must expand access to repayment plans such as the Income-Based Repayment Plan and Income Contingent Payment Plan, and other plans that extend the period of time over which individuals can pay back their loans without additional penalties, and lower their monthly payments. In addition we need to expand funding for debt forgiveness programs such as the Teacher Loan Forgiveness and Public Service Loan Forgiveness programs, which not only help relieve students of their debt, but also incentivizes them to choose public service and/or teaching as their career, thus serving the broader American community with an influx of new, dedicated civil servants and educators. We also need to take a long-term approach to resolve the student debt crisis. For students who choose to attend college, we must expand access and increase funding for need-based federal scholarships such as Pell grants, which help to reduce the amount that students have to take out in loans. However, the most important way we can reduce student debt in the long term is by changing the conversation over higher education so that we are valuing all jobs.
Value All Jobs: For many years, the national conversation about higher education has focused almost exclusively on college and university four-year degree programs. But the simple fact is that not every student wants to go to college, and there are many well-paying jobs in our economy that don’t require an intensive and expensive 4-year college degree. According to statistics from the US Department of Labor, the demand for high skilled workers is projected to increase at much higher rates going forward than for most other jobs. For example, demand for electricians is projected to increase by 14% between 2014 and 2024 – that’s double the overall job growth projected for the same period. With a median national salary of over $52,000 a year, and 10% of electricians making more than $90,000 a year, this field is just one example of many where students can find professional and financial opportunity and success without a college degree. Most electricians learn their trade either through 4 to 5 year apprenticeships or trade school programs. Indeed apprenticeships, trade schools, and vocational programs are effective alternatives to college for students to gain the skills and knowledge they need to find good paying jobs in the economy. One study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that vocational training led to an average salary increase of 5 to 10%, with some fields such as healthcare garnering participants salary increases of up to 65%. The same study found that the average return on investment for Career Technical Education certificates and degrees through community colleges ranges from 12 to 23%. A separate study analyzing the differences between US and German manufacturing pointed to the relative superiority of the German vocational and trade school educational system as a key factor when it came to the strength of Germany’s manufacturing sector, as well as its lower levels of income inequality relative to the United States. The study went on to argue that improving access to higher-quality vocational training programs in the US would increase the wages of manufacturing workers and reduce income inequality. We must increase the availability of opportunities for American workers to gain the skills and knowledge they need to join and thrive in the workforce of the future. Investing in community colleges is one of the best ways we can achieve this, and in Congress I will support legislation to make community college debt free, while also expanding access to trade schools and apprenticeship/vocational programs. Protecting Our Homes and Families: Preventing Gun Violence In order to keep our communities safe, I believe it is imperative for anyone wishing to purchase a gun in any manner to be required to pass a background check. For that reason I support passing federal legislation that would enforce universal background checks.
Reinstate the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and Ban Bump Stocks. We need to balance Americans’ Second Amendment right to bear arms with safety and security, and be conscientious of the danger those rights pose to our lives when they are stretched to the extreme. By allowing access to military-grade assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, we are leaving the door wide open for the mass killings that have become a tragic staple of modern American life.
Improve the Efficacy of Mental Health Checks. It is absolutely crucial that we as a nation keep guns out of the hands of individuals who are experiencing mental health crises or who have been deemed to be a danger to themself or others. To achieve this, we need to improve the rate at which states report information identifying these people to the federal and state agencies who run background checks. Therefore, I will support legislation to create incentives for states to improve the rate at which they report such information.
Repeal the Dickey Amendment. As a doctor, I appreciate the value of science, and I believe the best way to find a solution to any problem is to have solid research to work off of. Yet for over two decades, research into gun violence prevention has been hamstrung by the Dickey Amendment, which has largely prevented the Center for Disease Control and Prevention from funding research associated with gun-control. In Congress, I will work to repeal the Dickey amendment so that we can finally begin to fund the research that will lead to effective gun violence prevention policies.
Categorize Gun Violence as a Public Health Crisis. Every year around 60,000 Americans are injured, and more than 30,000 are killed by guns. Given the seriously deleterious effects gun violence has on our society, I believe that we need to approach gun violence as we would any other public health crisis, and provide funding for gun violence prevention research so that we can create policies to increase gun safety without infringing on the Second Amendment rights of our citizens.
Pass Federal Red Flag Legislation Oftentimes, individuals who commit mass shootings show warning signs of violence before committing these atrocities. In order to protect our communities and citizens, it is vital that we give law enforcement the ability to temporarily restrict a person’s access to guns when they are showing these telltale signs. Therefore, I support passing a federal red flag law that empowers family members, educators, and healthcare professionals to request that a judge issue these temporary restrictions.
In Congress I Will Oppose Efforts To…
The passage of federal legislation that allows concealed carry reciprocity will undermine the ability of local governments to maintain sensible gun standards, because it will allow individuals who have a concealed carry permit from a state with less strict permitting standards to bring their weapon into localities with higher standards. This will result in the entry of more firearms into cities and states with stricter concealed carry policies. Increasing the presence of guns in communities is not the way to prevent gun violence, so I will oppose any efforts at passing legislation that includes concealed carry reciprocity.
Protecting Our Community:
More Info:
Currently in the United States, federal law only requires that licensed gun dealers perform background checks for individuals purchasing guns, but not private dealers selling weapons at gun shows and over the internet. Less than 20 states have legislation that close off these loopholes. These dangerous loopholes make our communities less safe, and help to put weapons in the hands of criminals. According to the Gifford’s Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence: “A survey of state prison inmates in 13 states who were convicted of gun offenses found that only 13% obtained the gun from a gun store or pawnshop where background checks are required. Nearly all (96%) of those inmates who were already prohibited from possessing a gun at the time of their crime obtained the firearm through an unlicensed private seller.” Universal background checks make communities safer. Again according to the Gifford’s Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence: “Researchers have… found that, after adjusting for population, states that require background checks on all handgun sales experience less than half as many mass shooting incidents (52% fewer) as states without that background check requirement. States with background checks have 63% fewer mass shootings by individuals who are prohibited from possessing guns and 64% fewer mass shootings involving domestic violence. States with comprehensive background check laws also experience 48% less gun trafficking, 38% fewer deaths of women shot by intimate partners, and 17% fewer firearms involved in aggravated assaults, per capita.” What’s more, according to the latest Quinnipiac University Survey, 95% of Americans support universal background checks. Despite this, the intransigence of Republican politicians continues to stand in the way of common sense gun violence prevention laws. The best place to start is by enforcing universal background checks. For more information about universal background checks please visit Gifford’s Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
Reinstate the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and Ban Bump Stocks: We already successfully passed this common-sense ban once back in 1994. Unfortunately, Congress allowed it to expire ten years later. Notably, this law explicitly permitted the continued use of many firearms which served legitimate uses so as to avoid infringing on American’s constitutional rights. But this isn’t a warzone. There is no sane defense for citizen’s having access to high-capacity magazines, bump stocks, automatic fire options, or grenade launcher attachments under the name of hunting, competition, or self-defense. It seems obvious that military-grade assault weapons that give users the power to wreak widespread destruction have no place in a society that values the lives of its citizens. Of course, there are always trade-offs in these debates. I believe the tragedies we could avert by these measures – the lives that could be saved, and the friends and family who would no longer have to be haunted by senseless acts of mass murder – are well worth the price of banning these deadly weapons.
Mental Health checks: Currently, the background checks licensed gun dealers are required to run include a check for any mental health issues that would disqualify the purchaser from buying a gun. All background checks are run through the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), and if an individual has a mental health issue that precludes them from purchasing a weapon, and the system has that information, the system will notify the gun dealer, and the sale will be rejected. However the NICS only works if it has the information about which individuals are prohibited from purchasing guns due to mental health issues. And this information has to be provided to the NICS by states, some of which have repeatedly failed to provide the relevant records. Therefore I believe that the federal government should create programs that incentivize states to provide the necessary records to the NICS. This is what Congress tried to do when it passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, but unfortunately improvements in the provision of these records was only seen in a small number of states. In Congress I will work with fellow lawmakers and state officials to come up with innovative solutions to improve and expand the incentives created by the NCIS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007.
Repealing the Dickey Amendment: In 1996 a Republican controlled Congress passed the Dickey amendment, which states that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” The same year, Congress reallocated the $2.6 million the CDC had been using to fund firearm injury research to research into the prevention of traumatic brain injuries. The passage of the Dickey amendment has had a remarkably chilling effect on research about gun violence prevention. A 2013 report issued by Mayors Against Illegal Guns found that the CDC’s funding for firearm injury prevention had fallen by 96% since 1996, and as of 2013, made up just $100,000 of its $5.6 billion annual budget. The CDC is one of the main government organizations responsible for addressing problems that affect the health and well-being of Americans, and plays a huge role in funding research across the country. In order to create effective policy responses to the prevalence of gun violence in our society, we need to begin funding research into gun violence prevention. The first step to achieving meaningful change is to repeal the Dickey amendment.
Categorizing Gun Violence as Public Health Crisis: A 2017 study by David Stark and Nigham Shah at the Institute for Next Generation Healthcare found that gun violence “was the least-researched cause of death and the second-least funded cause of death after falls” in relation to mortality rates. At the same time, many health groups such as the American Medical Association and the American Public Health Association consider gun violence to be a public health problem. Gun violence is one of the leading causes of premature death in the United States, killing over 30,000, and injuring more than 60,000 people a year. In addition, estimates of the annual cost of gun violence to the US economy range from $100 billion to over $229 billion. Given the severity of gun violence in this country and the effects it has on society, it is time for US politicians to wake up and acknowledge it as the public health crisis that it is.
Pass Federal Red Flag Legislation: After a 2014 school shooting at the University of California, Santa Barbara, California became the first state to allow family members to request that a judge issue a gun violence restraining order (GRVO) against a relative displaying warning signs of violence. GRVO’s allow law enforcement officers to temporarily remove firearms from individuals that are believed to be a threat to themselves and/or others. Known colloquially as red flag legislation, GRVO policies will make our communities safer by empowering citizens to take proactive action to help prevent individuals within their community from having the ability to commit acts of violence. However, these policies currently exist in just five states, and only allow family members to request a GRVO. I believe that we need to go a step further, and expand the ability to request GRVO’s to educators and healthcare professionals. In Congress I will push for the passage of federal red flag legislation to this effect. It’s time to empower our citizens by giving them the tools they need to prevent gun violence.
Concealed Carry Reciprocity: Every state in America allows citizens to carry concealed weapons, with 39 states requiring a permit to do so in public. The remaining 11 states allow individuals to carry concealed weapons even if they don’t have a permit. Currently states are allowed to set their own standards for the permitting process and decide whether a permit from a different state is valid within their borders. States with the strongest laws prevent out-of-state residents from carrying concealed weapons within their borders, while those states with the most lenient laws allow individuals with a permit from any state to carry a concealed weapon. The concealed carry reciprocity bills currently being touted by congressional Republicans would make concealed carry permits more like driver’s licenses, and force all states to allow anyone with a permit from any state to carry within their borders. The passage of such legislation would undermine the ability of state and local governments to craft gun safety laws that are appropriate for their locality, and would allow gun owners with permits from the least restrictive states to bring weapons into areas with stricter gun control laws. Increasing the ease with which individuals are allowed to bring weapons into our communities will make us less safe. In Congress, I will oppose any effort to pass national concealed carry reciprocity legislation. Remembering Our Heroes: Honoring Our Veterans As a child, Dr. Tran was airlifted out of Vietnam and taken to the United States by a marine. This man’s courage profoundly impacted her life and inspired her to make aiding our veterans a personal mission. From listening to their heartbreaking stories, to participating in charity work and allowing a former wounded Marine to live in her own home – Dr. Tran understands the debt we owe to our heroes must be paid in full. Our active service members fight on behalf of our great nation and for our values. At the same time, they often face an even more difficult fight upon returning home. In congress, Dr. Tran will fight to provide our veterans with the tools they need to make the transition back to civilian life. She will partner with employers, healthcare providers, veteran organization, colleges, and community centers to ensure that our brave service members are taken care of. It is imperative to her that we serve our heroes as diligently as they have served us. Challenging The Normative: Fighting For Women's Rights The battle for women’s equality is critical for Dr. Tran. As a progressive state, California will only continue to thrive when woman are no longer limited by the glass ceiling or by fears for their professional, physical, and mental safety in the workplace. As a leader in Congress, she will not only push for women’s rights by legislative efforts; as one of the hundreds of women running for office in the 2018 cycle, she also hopes to inspire women to rise up in all professional and political fields. Welcome Home: Fostering Immigration Reform Dr. Tran understands the issues facing immigrants today all too well. As a member of the Vietnamese diaspora, her daring escape from communist Vietnam and early childhood experiences have shaped her life and career. Dr. Tran appreciates immigrants as part of what makes America great. She supports comprehensive immigration reform, providing pathways to citizenship, and believes in family based immigration. She believes California must remain a sanctuary state and will oppose any federal deportation efforts thrusted upon state and local agencies against their will. In addition, she believes the fight for tuition and DACA recipients is crucial for cultivating the leaders of tomorrow. Many of our greatest innovators, leaders, scientists, and doctors have immigrant backgrounds, and yet we proudly count them as vital threads that hold together our red, white, and blue American quilt. Naturalized Americans are some of the proudest Americans, as they have had to work hard to convince their communities and immigration officials of their dedication to our nation. Dr. Tran’s devotion to immigration reform will ensure that America continues to accept the most brilliant minds the world has to offer, while keeping alive the possibility of achieving the American dream for those seeking a better life.[32] |
” |
| —Dr. Tran for Congress[36] | ||
John Cullum
| “ |
Strengthen the Economy
Immigration
Health Care
Defense/National Security
Education
Reduce Government Spending
|
” |
| —John Cullum for Congress[37] | ||
Bob Huff
| “ |
Jobs For his efforts, he earned 100% ratings from the California Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Independent Business, and the California Manufacturers Association. As a Principal of Huff Strategies, Senator Huff is still focused on creating and keeping good jobs. Neighborhoods He co-authored Jessica’s Law to keep sex offenders from living within 2000 feet of a school or park to keep our children safe from sexual predators. Supported SB 105 to help keep 10,000 dangerous felons in prison and out of our neighborhoods. Supported Chelsea’s Law (AB 1844-2010) to increase penalties for those who commit sexual crimes against minors. Chelsea’s law increases monitoring of parolees including GPS monitoring for life. Supported SB 838 (2014) to crack down on minors who rape an unconscious or developmentally disabled victim. Authored SB 1136 so that government organizations could share information on the criminal history of potential foster care providers. Asian Communities Lunar New Year Introduced SCR 10 naming February 19, 2015 as the Asian Lunar New Year – Year of the Ram. Asian and Pacific Islander American Heritage Month Introduced SCR 52 naming May 2015 as Asian and Pacific Islander American Heritage Month. Asian American Students Equality in Higher Education Introduced SR 28 by calling upon Harvard University to end its focus on a student applicant’s race in its student enrollment process and to instead consider the overall individual contribution of each student candidate in a manner that does not have the practical effect of capping the number of Asian American students enrolled in its institution. Philippine Independence Day Introduced SCR 74 to recognize June 12th as Philippine Independence Traffic Helped obtain millions of federal transportation dollars for grade separations in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. Worked with Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to obtain Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration funding to relieve congestion in Southern California. Government Supported SCA 8 to outlaw pay increases for state politicians during times when the state is running a deficit. Supported AB 309 to remove local government officials who have been indicted or convicted from commissions that assign government contracts for public works. Authored ACA 1 to prevent legislation from being passed without sufficient scrutiny by ensuring the public has at least three days to review proposed legislation. Supported welfare reform (AB X 4 8) to help save billions of dollars while protecting programs for children, elderly and the disabled. Helped enact AB X4 20 to save millions of tax dollars by eliminating boards and commissions. Education Authored SB 279 to require the California Teachers Commission to produce a teacher evaluation plan. Lead author for the Open Enrollment Act (SBX5 4). Bob’s groundbreaking legislation included the nationally recognized “Parent Trigger Act,” which empowers parents to organize and force major governance changes at local schools. Signed into law. Authored SB 597 to extend the 22-year running School District of Choice program, which fosters public school choice by allowing parents to transfer their children to participating school districts without a transfer agreement. Signed into law in 2015. Bob is a strong advocate for merit based education policies for college admission, as exemplified in his work to defeat Senate Constitutional Amendment 5 (SCA 5). Health Care Authored SB 151 (2011) that authorizes trained, non-medical school personnel to administer Diastat in an emergency situation to a student with epilepsy when suffering a severe, possibly life-threatening, seizure. Signed into law. Helped ensure confidential medical information is protected. Authored SB 1266 in 2014 requiring schools to store a supply of epinephrine for allergic reactions. Authored SB 738 in 2015 as clean-up to SB 1266 because some physicians had been unwilling to write the standing order for this prescription to schools without liability protections. This caused schools and school nurses trouble in complying with the law. SB 738 provides limited liability for physicians writing these prescriptions. Both bills signed into law. Veterans Authored SB 689 to improve mental health services for homeless veterans. Backed bipartisan efforts (AB 508) to help disabled veterans to care for their families. Co-authored AB 2466 to eliminate the reduce taxes on veterans who open small business. Taxes During his watch, Senator Huff helped stop a 76 cent a gallon tax hike. For his work, Bob Huff has earned a 100% or A rating from: California Taxpayers Association Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association[32] |
” |
| —Bob Huff for Congress[38] | ||
Young Kim
| “ |
Fighting to Create Jobs and Strengthen the Economy Young believes that the hard working men and women of Southern California are taxed and regulated enough. She will fight to keep taxes low so that individuals and families can keep more of their hard earned dollars because they know how best to spend their money, not Washington politicians. Young will fight to help create and keep good paying jobs right here in Southern California. She will work to reduce unnecessary regulations, increase trade, and work with state and local leaders to create an environment where business can prosper and create good paying jobs. Keeping America Safe At home, Young knows we must make sure that our first responders have the equipment that they need to deal with new and evolving threats to our security. Abroad, Young believes that America should be a leader in the world by standing up for the values that have made our country great and given so many hope. We should work to build consensus in the international community to improve our world while showing resolve in the face of rogue nations and terrorism. Honoring Our Veterans Immigration Empowering Teachers and Investing In Our Schools |
” |
| —Young Kim for Congress[39] | ||
Phil Liberatore
| “ |
I'll Stand Up for America I strongly support President Trump and I will fight to clean house in Washington DC. I will put America first. Build the wall; stop the gas tax; drain the swamp! I would be honored to have your support. Supercharge the Economy Oppose Higher Taxes End Illegal Immigration Defend the Second Amendment Build and Respect Our Military Protect Religious Freedom End Political Correctness Strengthen Foreign Policy Fix the Budget and Spending Process Rebuild America's Infrastructure Limit the Runaway Medicaid System Reform Welfare Protect Private Property |
” |
| —Liberatore for Congress[40] | ||
Shawn Nelson
| “ |
Secure Our Borders and Fix Our Immigration System In 2016, drug overdoses killed almost as many Americans as the Vietnam War. Today, we face an opioid epidemic that is killing our children. By securing our southern border we will prevent the massive inundation of drugs and gang violence into the United States. I continue to support an America of immigrants but we cannot have lawlessness. As a U.S. Representative, it will be my duty to protect the law-abiding citizens of this great nation. It will be my highest priority to secure our southern border and reform our broken immigration system. End Sanctuary Cities Strengthen Our Military After 15 years of war our military is stretched thin, American families are worn out by endless deployments, and our training budgets are depleted. America has a unique role in contributing to international order on the world stage. That’s why I supported President Trump’s increase in defense spending to rebuild our military and return its focus to maintaining a competitive advantage over foreign adversaries, including North Korea, Russia and China who are dead set on flanking us with better technology. We are not the world’s police force and we must be reluctant to engage in foreign wars without an exit strategy. In Congress, I’ll counter our enemies’ rapidly expanding nuclear programs by supporting military innovation. I believe with strong and engaged U.S. leadership abroad we can keep our country safe. End Veteran Homelessness As County Supervisor, I pushed for Veterans Village in the City of Placentia to house forty-nine homeless United States veterans and I have led the search for additional sites in the county. In Congress, I want to expand veteran mental health care services and I will support a shift to private sector alternatives to accommodate the demand. Accountability at the VA must be improved and the barriers to veteran mental health services removed. I will not rest until veteran homelessness ends. Our heroes who fight for our freedom shouldn’t have to fight homegrown bureaucracy to get the care they have earned. Stop Out of Control Spending and Put America First The majority of states have a balance budget amendment in their state constitution. I support a constitutional balanced budget amendment that requires Congress to balance the budget, too. The U.S. foreign assistance budget – often a hidden gift as part of a major budget –must be scrutinized and voted for separately. I believe we need to consider eliminating foreign support with borrowed funds. Lower Taxes and Create Good Jobs President Trump’s historic tax cuts made it through Congress. With provisions based on growth, under the new GOP plan companies have already started posting record profits. Tax reform is not just about helping job creators but families and hardworking men and women, too. People will see bigger paychecks, small business owners will have more money to reinvest and companies will move back to our country. Americans will be hired and put into higher paying jobs. The bill is a step in the right direction however it still axes the current deduction for state and local income taxes hurting high tax states disproportionately including California. In Congress, I’ll work to amend the bill to change the state and local provisions to protect every Californian. Most graduates will still be paying off student loans well into their 30s. Millennials are saddled with enormous debt and middle class parents are overwhelmed with the costs of helping their children obtain a four-year degree. I propose expanding tax benefits for students including a tuition and books tax deductible up to the level of the State University system for full time students. Cut Burdensome Regulations As a former small business owner, I know the unique responsibility that exists to bring jobs and economic growth to our community. In Congress, I will oppose unreasonable government regulations that cause small businesses to fail or discourage innovation. We need to ensure that we continue to have a robust economy here in the 39th District, and as your next Congressman, I will lead the fight against overreach from the federal government. Protect Our Rights The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government and I believe it applies to all searches of our personal communication including emails. Government should be denied rights to scan our documents and review our emails without a warrant. I believe the government should not seize one’s assets unless they are related to a crime the individual is convicted of. We have experienced countless cases of government authorities seizing citizen’s property, only to require the citizen to shoulder the burden of proving the property was obtained legally. Citizens have no such responsibility under the constitution. I will fight for citizen’s fourth amendment rights and I will support the repeal of onerous asset seizure laws. Fix Our Crippled Infrastructure and Transportation Systems Rebuilding and maintaining local infrastructure has been a focal point during my time as Orange County Supervisor. I fought to save millions of local dollars by securing a massive federal, low interest loan towards the $1.9 billion expansion of the 405 freeway as Chairman of the Orange County Transportation Authority and I’ve led other major projects including the $610 million rail grade separation projects in north Orange County and the complete rejuvenation of the OC Civic Center. Serving as Chairman of Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink) I led the rebuilding of the organization starting with a complete reshaping of the management team from CEO down, completely replacing the fleet of locomotives with the cleanest new fleet in the USA called “Tier 4” locomotives, implemented a mobile app for easier ticketing and brought in an entire new ticketing system to replace the broken and unreliable predecessor. I know how to secure permits and find funding for infrastructure projects by slashing through red tape. As a U.S. Representative, I won’t waste anytime putting America’s infrastructure plan into action.[32] |
” |
| —Shawn Nelson for Congress[41] | ||
Andrew Sarega
| “ |
Economic Reform
Despite irresponsible management in California, we continue to see growth in the rest of the country. However, true economic reform requires a second aspect and that is the reduction of overbearing regulations that hinder our economic growth putting us at a distinct global disadvantage. My goal is to give every American the opportunity to succeed and live their American dream. Without job opportunities and a strong economy, many will be unable to live out the American dream of independence, financial security, and overall prosperity. Washington Corruption
As a city councilman in La Mirada, I fought against these special interests. I took the side of residents over big developers, big government, and special interests. The result was backlash from these individuals and my fellow council members. However, I was never bothered by it and even though I suffered politically, being passed over for the position of Mayor Pro-Tem and Mayor three times, I did it for my residents who I promised to represent. That is exactly what I will do if elected to serve you in Washington. I do not care what broom closet they will attempt to throw me in to silence what I have to say, I will continue to serve you in exactly the manner that I have promised. Washington needs new blood; our nation needs new young leaders willing to stand up to the forces entrenched in our nation’s capital. If we continue electing the same politicians, we can never expect a different result. If we are to take control of our nation again, it must begin by clearing out the rhinos. Term Limits
I truly believe members of Congress should be limited to the same amount of time. Eight years is more than enough to fulfill promises made to constituents. One of my biggest objectives in Congress would be to begin to the process of obtaining a constitutional amendment to limit the number of terms an individual can serve in Congress. For the House of Representatives four 2-year terms and for Senate two 6-year terms. This will allow for new generations of leaders to grow, develop, and implement the ideas of their time. The hardest part of growing old is often times letting go, but if we have done our jobs right and raised the next generation to cherish and value the principles of this great nation, then the future is truly secure in our posterity. Healthcare
Instead of following bad examples, we as Americans need to get back to the foundation of this great nation: competition. By limiting the power pharmaceutical companies and insurance providers have over our elected representatives we can begin implementing a strong system of healthy competition among these firms. By allowing healthcare providers to cross state lines, limiting the monopoly of pharma companies, and ensuring Americans are not priced out of necessary medication we can begin to fix a system that is collapsing under its own weight. Obamacare put the burden on the backs of millions of Americans which is completely contrary to everything this nation stands for. Instead the burden should be placed on these companies that have exploited Americans for decades all in the name of money, greed, and power. The fix is not complicated, it just takes leaders with enough courage to challenge the corrupt, cartel like system in Washington D.C. and stand for the American People.[32] |
” |
| —Sarega for Congress[42] | ||
Steve Vargas
| “ |
Budget, Spending & Debt George H. W. Bush added $1.55 trillion. Bill Clinton added $1.40 trillion. George W. Bush added $5.85 trillion fighting wars and recovering from terrorist actions. Barack Obama added $8.59 trillion. Donald Trump (as projected in FY 2019 budget) plans to add $8.28 trillion, a 41% increase from the $20.25 trillion debt at the end of Obama’s last budget, FY 2017 (Kimberly Amadeo, 2/2018). What do we have to show for these past three decades of excessive spending? Our infrastructure is crumbling and our military is at its lowest level of readiness since WWII. Today the gross national debt is $20.2 trillion, up from $9 trillion a decade ago. Over the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office projects the gross national debt will rise to roughly $31 trillion, $11 trillion more than today unless we change the course of spending. We are now on track to spend slightly over $2 million per minute. This unsustainable rate is what will destroy America. We must immediately and significantly reduce our spending by cutting duplicative programs already carried out by state and local governments. We must redouble our efforts to cut wasteful spending, fraud and abuse in government programs. Let’s focus on rebuilding the American economy. We can start by auditing the Federal Reserve. A few years after the 2008 financial collapse, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) got a rare opportunity to peek behind the curtain at the Federal Reserve. This restricted audit found conflicts of interest and no-bid contracts. It also revealed that the Fed authorized $16 trillion in bailouts to businesses and banks without so much as a whisper in the Capitol hallway to Congress (The Hill, J. Kennedy, 2017) That is four times what Congress spends each year. This out of control spending by bureaucrats without taxpayer oversight or authorization is putting America at risk and must be brought to the forefront and curbed. We as taxpayers should have a say in the obligations elected officials make. We will be getting the bill, let’s see what we are buying. Tax Reform With the national debt standing at $20.2 trillion, we needed the tax cut to spur the economic engine of America back to life. We need a new attitude from our elected leaders, we need new blood – not the same old fat cats going in telling us what to be happy with. President Trump and this 114th Congress are on track to increase the national debt by 11 trillion over the next decade (CBO Projection, 2017). If we are going to put the debt in check we must continue to bolster the US economy. We should be working to simplify the Tax Code so we can unleash an economic boom that creates jobs, boosts wages and expands opportunity for all. There are too many inefficiencies in government. We must seize opportunities for the private sector to step in to lower costs. By privatizing correctional facilities, millions have been saved. At the local level, communities have turned to private operators to run their vehicle fleets, manage sports and recreation facilities, and provide transit service. Privatizing the FAA could shrink the Federal Government by 35,000 employees, reducing taxes and wasteful spending. President Trumps Infrastructure Plan relies on private investment and efficiency. To continue these efforts, we need additional regulatory reform, such as revising the Davis-Bacon Act, which increases costs by 20% in federal contracting and needs to be revisited and updated to protect workers without stopping progress. As your Congressman I will fight to reduce regulations that are holding back our economy so we can rebuild America and reshape our future to one of prosperity not debt. Healthcare Reform Government intervention in health care has driven up the cost of coverage and decreased competition within markets. Citizens need more freedom to choose and insurers need to innovate to make sure our health care system remains the best in the world. Any effective solution must involve the creation of a true free market in health coverage — one that drives efficiency through competition, and places health-care decisions in the hands of consumers where they belong (Capretta & Moffit, 2012). Rapidly rising costs are at the heart of our health care crisis; Insurance costs due to litigious patients and dishonest lawyers, medical device manufacturers who become millionaires at the expense of the frail and elderly are killing more Americans than ISIS. Pharmaceutical company’s who sell the same drugs to Mexico and Canada, while taking advantage of our broken system by increasing pricing on Americans is dishonorable. Hospital waste, fraud and abuse, Medi-Cal scammers, predatory medical billing companies, and malfeasant doctors all drive up costs and part of the problem, not participants needing reimbursement. We are going to have to work together on the solution, simply adding everyone to Medicare is not the answer that will just bankrupt this unsustainable system sooner. Neither can we just add a bunch of patients to the VA system, the reality of privatization is long overdue, and a full service Single Payer system will surely be the final stroke to a failed system. Congress lacks motivation on this issue; we can help them get motivated, Let’s start with putting every elected official and staffer in Washington on the same insurance program you and I are expected to live with. Additional options for comprehensive reforms include: Open Interstate Insurance Markets. Pay providers based on care not the volume of patience. Consider single payer for prescription drugs only. Hold doctors liable for over-prescription of Opioid drugs. Allow for varying levels of coverage from emergency care to premium plans. Eliminate mandates, such as prenatal coverage for senior citizens. Triple the budget for fraud prevention and prosecution of fake doctors or unauthorized health clinics. We also need to come to the realization that medical marijuana must be taken off the list of Schedule 1 drugs to allow for testing and use by our military veterans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The cost benefit would surely bolster our failing health care system until reforms are enacted. If we can get past the infighting, I am sure we can get past the problems to fix this broken system that is failing all citizens. Foreign Policy & National Defense As a member of Congress, my most solemn duty is to ensure the safety and security of Americans and our allies abroad. To do this effectively we must rebuild our military, modernize our nuclear arsenal, and continually update our intelligence and cyber-security capabilities. Our ability to build closer diplomatic relations with our allies, to protect American interests, is dependent on our ability to project influence. In order to promote Peace, we must be Strong. The facts of our current situation cannot be denied: From 2011 to 2016, the U.S. defense budget was cut by 25 percent. While the U.S. has reduced its number of nuclear weapons by approximately 80 percent since the end of the Cold War, Russia and China have increased the size of their nuclear arsenals. In the time since ISIS declared its caliphate in June 2014 to February 2017, ISIS has conducted or inspired more than 140 terrorist attacks in 29 countries other than Iraq and Syria. The attacks have killed at least 2,043 people. So many are quick to criticize military spending as a waste of taxpayer dollars as if we dump billions of dollars into a hole in the sands of Iraq and Afghanistan. The reality is, we have spent billions since 9/11 rebuilding bases across America in every Congressional District, which all fell into disrepair after the cold war. That is why so many Congress members (D’s and R’s) supported going to war. America has realigned its war fighting capabilities since then but now the US is at a breaking point due to over-commitment and the drastic cut in defense spending over the past seven years. We must support our military to maintain our global influence. These are the current hot spots around the world we need to continually prepare for and confront, but we need more than bullets and band-aids we need strong leadership: China – The recent Chinese resolution to allow for the lifetime appointment of President Xi is the first step toward totalitarian rule that has led the world into two World Wars this past century. It should trouble any freedom loving people, yet we hear nothing from our Congress or the current Administration, this is of great concern and will become the single greatest threat to world peace in our time if not addressed. Iran – President Obama’s Iran Nuclear Deal will be judged by history as his most significant failure as an American President. More stringent sanctions against Iran must be continued until they abandon their nuclear program and support for terrorist regimes. Israel – The most significant accomplishment of the Trump Administration has been the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. For forty years, presidential candidates have betrayed this key ally with the false promise, but finally, President Trump kept his word and did what he said he would as he promised on the campaign trail. Our stand on this relationship will be the key to world peace and must be maintained. Kurdistan – An Independent Kurdistan is in the best interest of stability in Iraq & Syria, and will keep our obligation to the Peshmerga fighters who have helped the US defeat ISIS in the region. These brave warriors have stood by us during the decade’s long conflict and deserve our loyalty. They will hold Turkey accountable for the first time since WWI for the genocide of Armenia, as we stand with the Peshmerga; we stand with the souls of millions abandoned by politics. Russia – President Trumps new Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, will be on equal footing with the Russian spymaster Vladimir Putin, whose ambition to restore Russia as a global power by alignment with rogue regimes of North Korea and Iran will be put in check. Our resolve must be firm. Pompeo will be a great champion to free us of Russian interference. Syria – UN Ambassador Nikki Haley’s declaration in March 2017 stating that the United States, would no longer prioritize the removal of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from office is a great lesson learned from the disaster of our intervention in Libya which led to the rise of ISIS when a leadership vacuum occurred with the execution of Saddam Hussein. We need to withdraw from this conflict and focus on our complete defeat of ISIS and Islamic terrorist in the region. Ukraine – Continued Russian interference in Ukraine is destabilizing the region and the rule of law. The US failure to support the Ukrainian government showed a lack of loyalty that will affect relations for years to come. President Trump made an error as a candidate in not supporting the Ukraine. We must stand with the Ukrainian people to help them free themselves from further Russian interference. Energy Independence The day of reckoning for OPEC arrogance is near. We must work with our neighbors, Canada and Mexico, for the best chance of success for our energy revival. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has played a key role supporting North American energy interdependence and helped free us from the yoke of OPEC and quagmire of the Middle East. By eliminating tariffs for crude oil, gasoline, kerosene-type jet fuel and other refined products, NAFTA has liberalized energy trade and opened markets for US investment and growth. Thanks to free trade, Mexico is the No 1 export market for US natural gas and refined products and the No 4 export market for upstream oil and gas equipment. NAFTA has helped open markets for U.S. direct oil and natural gas investment in Canada, totaling $4.5 billion (2015) for extraction and $8.8 billion (2016) in petroleum refining (source: American Petroleum Institute). It is not time to mess with NAFTA when gas prices in California $1+ more than neighboring states. Rash decisions will be our downfall. Slow and steady wins the race! As your Representative in Congress, I will champion the importance of free trade in regard to energy production and use. NAFTA also helps us stem the use of Fracking, or “well stimulation”, is not economical if the cost of crude oil is below $40 per barrel. If we continue to work together to support the Keystone pipeline which is adding thousands of high paying jobs across the Midwest, we can keep the need for fracking at bay. President Trump’s announcement earlier this year regarding solar panel tariffs of 30% is not something I support. Installation of more solar panels should be encouraged, not taxed. This is an example of government picking winners and losers. As I said back in February, if they must, impose tariffs on imported steel which will result in the same type of rhetorical “win” against China without hurting middle class homeowners and small businesses who wish to install environmentally friendly solar panels. Washington’s regulations and corporate subsidies make it more difficult to access cheap and clean energy. I support an Energy Free Market. Allowing businesses to compete in a free market will produce the most efficient forms of energy while passing along the cost savings to the consumer. A robust economy depends on low-cost energy. I will work to educate my colleagues in Washington and hope California does not tax away the savings. Terrorism Since 9/11 there have been 397+ domestic terrorists arrested in the US, 218 of whom are US-born citizens. An April 2017 report from the Government Accountability Office defines “violent extremism” as supporting or committing violent acts to achieve political, ideological, religious or social goals. The report found 85 deadly attacks in the United States by violent extremists resulting in 225 deaths. 106 individuals were killed by mostly white, native-born extremists in 62 incidents. 119 individuals were killed by radical Islamist extremists in 23 incidents. We have done our duty fighting ISIS in Syria and Iraq, but the fight is far from over. It is time to turn our attention to home and stop domestic terrorism from destroying us from within. We must address the hate at home from radical Islamic and native-born extremists, and we can start by stopping the hate in our political discourse. Immigration Reform For the past 30 years, since Ronald Reagan’s gracious amnesty gambit, Congress has failed to fix our broken immigration system. Republicans and Democrats share equal blame and must come together to solve this humanitarian problem. First, we need to stop using derogatory name calling to describe 1.8 million residents President Trump is talking about. Second, we should know who they are: It is not only the 800,000 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients who are at risk, there are approximately 300,000 immigrants granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS), some since 1991. TPS recipients are legally allowed to stay due to ongoing armed conflicts, such as the civil war in El Salvador (195,000) or natural disasters such as an earthquake in Haiti (50,000) (National Immigration Forum, 2018). Because of the lack of Congressional action on Immigration Reform, these TPS immigrants are granted extensions year after year. Imagine, living here in California since 1991; legally working, going to school, perhaps getting married and having a family. It is now 2018, 27 years have passed…two generations of children born here. They went through 9/11 with us; they joined our military and defended this great country of ours. 88.5% are working and contributing to your social security system and paying taxes because of their temporary legal status. I support the Four Pillar proposal put forward by President Trump and have aligned them with the Four Pillars of Success; Discipline, Accountability, Standards and Systems. The first Pillar requires Discipline. To provide a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million Dreamers, TPS recipients, and other asylum seekers must have the discipline to work hard, study hard and succeed as the Americans they profess to want to be. MS-13, lawbreakers and felons have given up their right for the privilege of citizenship. They need not apply. Those that show good moral character and discipline must be allowed to become citizens of the United States. The second pillar requires Accountability. By ending the arcane visa lottery program so that we can move towards a merit-based immigration system — one that admits people who are skilled, who want to work, who will be accountable in contributing to our society. The third pillar sets a Standard. End chain migration, where a lucky lottery winner can bring aunts and uncles generations deep. We should protect the nuclear family by setting a standard of limiting sponsorships to spouses and minor children. Finally, the Fourth Pillar employs a System. A system of border security including hiring more Homeland Security, ICE and Border Security Agents to provide a three-pronged approach to border enforcement that includes a border wall and methods to secure the southern border. These four pillars represent a down-the-middle compromise, one that will provide a successful immigration system and the security we need. Transportation & Infrastructure I serve on the State League of California Cities Transportation, Communications & Public Works Policy Committee and understand the very poor conditions of our tri-county area roads. The 39th Congressional District is bounded by the 91, 71 and 60 freeways with the 57 cutting right through the middle. Our interest in the investments available at the federal level is critical, especially considering the ballot initiative being circulated to repeal SB-1, the $50 billion Gas Tax. I am currently working to reactivate the dormant Four Corners Group that was instrumental in bringing $1.2 billion for the 91 Freeway expansion through Corona. Coordinating efforts across 4 counties will help to position us for a seat at the table when it comes to project planning. When Governor Brown’s “Bullet Train to Nowhere” is finally exposed for the political boondoggle it is, the billions of dollars already accumulated in Cap & Trade funding will be reprogrammed for realistic projects that are shovel ready. I will champion the new Orange Line from the Anaheim Regional Intermodal Transportation Center (ARTIC) to connect to the already approved Gold Line expansion to Claremont. The new Orange Line will represent $2.92 billion in new construction, most of it in the 39th District, to build an elevated monorail system following the 57 to the 210 freeway Gold Line. In addition to roads, bridges and tunnels, infrastructure funding next year should include funding for hardening schools to make them safe for our children. It should include strict match requirements so that States cannot pull money earmarked for local projects because the federal government is coming to the rescue. We need collaborative funding from all sources. I will work closely with our California Assembly Members and State Senators to prioritize projects we can get funded by Trump Administration and be your advocate so we are not left behind in infrastructure spending. As a current Civil Engineering Corps Officer, I have the skill set, experience and knowledge to sit at the table to champion projects benefiting the 39th District. NSA & Corporate Spying There is a tipping point when security concerns become out of balance with basic freedoms our Founders clearly enumerated. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (Fourth Amendment). If the government has probable cause that an individual is a criminal or suspected terrorist, then they must first go to a judge and obtain a warrant as required by the Fourth Amendment. Even then, we have become so used to giving up our rights we now have the FISA court allowing domestic spying on American citizens. It is simply not acceptable in a free society. Our government does it so it has now become common practice for our corporations to do it as well. When you leave for work, your car can automatically set your destination based on your routine route taken Monday thru Friday. What else can be seen by your computer camera or overheard by Alexa? Where does it stop? Who authorized AT&T, Microsoft and Google to be able to invade our homes and private spaces? We are giving up our liberties for amenities we never asked for, suffering a slow death by a thousand cuts. The Fourth Amendment constitutionally guarantees our right to privacy which must be protected. We need to stop the spying in all quarters.[32] |
” |
| —Vargas for Congress[43] | ||
Ted Alemayhu
| “ |
Healthcare
Our efforts in healthcare therefore have to begin with the realization that one of the most important ways we can bring down the cost of healthcare – and increase coverage for every American -- is by getting people to live healthier lifestyles and decrease the preventable, chronic diseases that drive the majority of these costs. As your representative in Congress, I promise to: Lead a comprehensive healthcare reform where prevention, lifestyle medicine and health literacy become the foundation of patient centered care and on which all of healthcare is based, ensuring that incentives and the necessary structures, policies and laws that strengthen these are in place so that we can first and foremost work to bring down the cost of healthcare for everyone
Provide greater investment in community health centers, women’s health, primary care, screening programs and support for community and employer level programs to help address social determinants of health and the epidemic of overweight and obesity so that we have the opportunity to invest the enormous savings from reducing preventable chronic diseases into developing such initiatives as free healthcare for all U.S. children especially those impacted by diseases such as cancer and many others
Fulfill our duty to our children by ensuring their future health through curbs on junk food ads and sales, our duty to our elderly through support for Medicare, our duty to the less fortunate through support for programs that help meet our goals to reduce healthcare disparities and our duty to you, the taxpayer, through the development of Healthcare 2.0 where we create incentives which help individuals live healthier lifestyles so the spiraling healthcare costs associated with chronic, preventable diseases aren't paid for by increased taxes on hard working Americans
Provide support for reasonable and fair provisions such as allowing young adults to stay on their parent’s plan until they are 26 and preventing insurance companies from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions, and develop policies that allow people to purchase insurance across state lines and policies that allow states to have the choice to harness market forces to bring down the cost of healthcare, including through such things as cost transparency, the promotion of personal responsibility and discounts for healthier lifestyles
Work to create an efficient healthcare system that is based on the foundations of integrated care, where care is safe, evidence based, effective, patient-centered, timely, and equitable such that every American finds navigation easy and costs manageable Education
As your representative in Congress, I promise to: Support increased funding for K-12 education, including programs for special education, ensuring quality education is made available to every child in our district and beyond, with an increased emphasis on early childhood education
Work to create a strong public school system that promotes pluralism, rigor, and success for all children, while addressing achievement gaps and ensuring schools have the tools they need to thrive and teachers likewise have what they need to succeed
Support efforts to encourage high schools to coordinate vocational training with the needs of local employers, providing skills certifications that are known to lead to employment, while at the same time supporting efforts to incentivize high school dropouts to take and pass the GED
Ensure we offer affordable higher education that prepares our students for the jobs of the 21st century so they have an opportunity to have a fulfilling career that provides economic security for them and their families, while helping them avoid debt
Increase the accountability of all stakeholders, including parents, teachers and administrators such that the success of the children is paramount and everyone works together to ensure this, which includes working to get parents more involved and elevating the teaching profession through such investments as increased salaries and regular formal teacher training Veterans As your representative in Congress, I promise to: Work to reform the Veterans Administration (VA) so it meets the needs of service members, ensuring veterans are at the front of the line for health services and if timely care is not possible at a certain place, having the necessary structures in place such that veterans have the choice to seek care through private providers of their own choice
Increase funding for PTSD, traumatic brain injury and suicide prevention services, as well as increase the number of mental health care professionals and telehealth services while at the same time allowing veteran's to be able to seek mental health care outside of the VA
Guarantee our veterans and active service men and women the resources and training necessary to not only be effective on the frontlines, but in civilian life as well, which includes providing funding for job training and placement services, educational support and business loans, as well as giving incentives to businesses to provide income opportunities veterans
Provide better support for military families, including healthcare, employment and career development opportunities for them, as well as other support services around the challenges the military spouse and their children face, and additionally work to ensure we do not have homeless veterans by creating the infrastructure necessary provides the requisite safeguards so each veteran can live a life of dignity after finishing his or her service to the nation Work diligently with my colleagues to ensure that we all remind ourselves on a regular basis that the best way we can serve our veterans is to not send them into conflicts, especially ones that we shouldn’t be entangled in in the first place such as long drawn out wars in far off lands which don’t really serve our country in the long run Immigration As your representative in Congress, I promise to: Establish an expedited route to legal residency and citizenship for those highly educated, especially graduates from U.S. universities with advanced degrees in science and technology, and others with talents and skills that can advance the U.S. and its economy
Support a comprehensive family oriented immigration policy that provides DREAMers legal status and provisional legal status with a reasonable pathway to Green Card and Citizenship to the millions of law abiding undocumented immigrant adults who are working hard as part of our labor force and moving this country forward
Support a formal guest worker program where opportunities are made available for transitional workers while at the same time setting up the necessary checks and balances in place to end continued illegal immigration and hold employers accountable for hiring illegal immigrants
Reaffirm United States standing in the world as a beacon for freedom, welcoming refugees and providing political asylum to those facing persecution, while at the same time ensuring that we work sincerely to help stabilize the nations from which these individuals are fleeing
Support a strengthened national border and the establishment of strong, valid and timely screening procedures such that terrorists are kept out of the United States while law abiding peaceful individuals are allowed in Environment As your representative in Congress, I promise to: Help create a sustainable planet by working towards clean, renewable energy, that not only reduces our carbon footprint and makes America energy independent but also creates millions of new jobs
Provide tax incentives for developing green and alternative energy and for creating and using environmentally friendly products Support partnerships for sustainable communities Support sustainable agriculture
Support the EPA in their mission, balancing regulation with the need to hold polluters and others accountable Other
Similarly, I plan to work on your behalf to boost businesses in our district and bring in additional economic opportunities so that we can tackle the 11.9% unemployment here and create more jobs. Similarly, civil liberties are an important topic and I plan to uphold personal liberty while at the same time encouraging personal responsibility. Our country is strong because of our diversity and I plan to work hard to protect religious freedom and ensure that all Americans are treated fairly such that no religious group is targeted and maligned. On your behalf I also plan to work on well thought-out criminal justice policies that are based on true justice rather than the current punitive “tough-on-crime” responses; policies that don't lead to mass incarcerations but rehabilitation of our youth and others so they become productive members of our society.
I also plan to take a stand against the unending money that seems to flow into politics and ensure that a select few wealthy individuals and organizations don't buy the political process at the cost of our democracy and our republic. There is an urgent need for real campaign finance reform and in the interest of our country, this needs to be one of the most important issues we tackle as it surely determines our success on all the others. [32] |
” |
—Ted Alemayhu for CongressCite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag
| ||
Steve Cox
| “ |
Congressional Pay Based on Ours With all of the “gridlock” we hear about in Washington, DC, where both of these behemoth parties are constantly at each other’s throats over stuff that has little to no bearing on any of our day-to-day lives, they always seem to come to a bipartisan consensus that they deserve more money. Isn’t that remarkable? Actually, there are a lot of things the two parties get along splendidly about, and it almost always has to do with money. Your money, usually. Our money. I think there’s one surefire way to force them to be accountable to us again: Base their pay on ours. If they want a raise, they simply have to make sure their constituents get one first. The starting salary for a member of congress is $174,000 per year. If you didn’t know that, you do now. It only goes up from there. I want to base their pay on the median household income in their district instead, and do similar for the senate and the executive branch. I even have a plan to effectively “trickle down” this pay structure to every elected official at the state and local levels as well. And I’m no hypocrite, so until this bill gets picked up, passed, and signed into law, I will donate all of my congressional salary above my district’s median wage back to my district. That will come close to $100,000 per year that I’ll donate back to you; so when there’s a park that needs new grass, or a school that needs new computers, I will happily hand that money over. In addition to the exorbitant pay, congress gets, on average, over $300,000 per year to cover living and working spaces in DC, travel between DC and their district, and other expenses, and then another $944,671 per year to hire staff. (A complete breakdown of this pay and benefits package can be found here.) I plan to hire all of my staff from my district, which will bring even more money back home from DC. Once I win this election, my campaign volunteers will be first in line to be hired, and then I will put out a hiring list on my website and hire the most qualified applicants to come with me to DC and partner with me to take on the establishment. I’m not better than any of you. And I want better for all of you. With your help, and the help of others around the nation putting more people like me into their service, we can realign our government with its people. Cut Waste in Government For example, California’s gasoline and fuel taxes are already among the highest in the nation. Those taxes were intended to fund the maintenance of our roads and highways, but the state government keeps borrowing from them to pay other expenses, and our roads are consistently ranked nearly dead-last among the 50 states. I’m sure most of you agree that we’d be much happier paying what we pay in fuel taxes if our roads were great as a result, right? Where’s that money going? And to add insult to injury, our fuel taxes are going up again in November of 2017, thanks to the California state government. And here’s the worst part: When fuel taxes go up, who does that effect the most? The middle class and the poor. The most expensive places to live typically are near major business centers. The wealthy folks who own and run those businesses usually live relatively close by. It’s the middle class and the poor who end up being faced with commuting to and from work every day, which means not only do they have to miss out on a couple hours per day with their loved ones while they commute, but fuel taxes unduly burden them as well, making it even harder for them to make ends meet. It’s unfair on just about every level. And the federal government is just as bad if not worse. According to the US Government Accountability Office (GAO), the federal government has paid out over $1.2 trillion in “improper payments” alone between 2003 and 2016. “Improper payments” are defined as “payments that should not have been made, were made in the incorrect amount, or were not supported by sufficient documentation.” Remember, that’s our money. And it just keeps growing. The 2015 fiscal year hit an all-time high of $136.7 billion in improper payments, only to be trounced a year later, when they reached $144.3 billion. It’ll very likely be over $150 billion for the 2017 fiscal year. This is absolutely unacceptable. And this is only one category of government waste out of many. How much do you think is wasted by the federal government on unnecessary or overpriced items in general? We have a new, next-generation F-35 fighter plane, which some estimate will end up costing $1.5 trillion by the time it’s fully implemented. Not only is it unnecessary for a military that already has F-22s for air-to-air combat, and plenty of other very capable and stealthy aircraft for ground attack, but it’s riddled with problems while absolutely destroying its original budget. And that’s just one airplane. In fact, according to the GAO, this jet has already cost us upward of $400 billion, and it’s still under development. Sometimes numbers that large are hard for me to truly grasp, so I like to break those numbers down to help me understand how much money that really is. It is estimated that we have about 564,000 homeless people in our country. Just what the F-35 has cost us to this point is enough to buy every single homeless person their own $700,000 house and still have $5.2 billion left. To be clear, I’m not advocating buying every homeless person a $700,000 home, this is just to illustrate our government’s spending priorities. We also have hundreds of millions of dollars put aside every year for nearly a decade to build Abrams tanks for the US Army that the Pentagon said they didn’t want or need. The reason congress keeps including that money in the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) every year is simply to make sure people stay employed in tank-related manufacturing jobs, but it’s a waste, and the end result of their labor ends up in storage, just rusting out in the desert. And while it’s understandable to want to keep Americans at work, couldn’t we be putting them to work just the same by building things that benefit us all here as a country instead? Like solar panels? Or rebuilding our roads, bridges and other infrastructure? I think so. Then there’s the new Zumwalt-class Navy Destroyer. In 1999, the Navy estimated each ship would cost $1.34 billion, and that the entire program’s construction of 32 ships would come in at $46.47 billion while revolutionizing the Navy; adding Naval Surface Fire Support capabilities missing from the Navy’s arsenal since the retirement of the last of the battleships 25 years ago. Instead, as costs skyrocketed, the Navy’s order has dwindled from 32, to 7, and now to 3, and each one is going to end up costing $7 billion. (The last Nimitz-class aircraft carrier we built, the USS George HW Bush, cost taxpayers “only” $6.2 billion upon its completion in 2009.) And here’s another true example: I have a friend (who will remain anonymous) who works in sales at a lumberyard. We were having drinks one night and he told me how, every August or September (the fiscal year for the federal government is October 1st through September 30th), his company gets a massive order of lumber from a nearby military base. After over many years of this happening – sometimes even receiving multiple orders of lumber – he decided one day to go with one of the delivery drivers to check out what the base was doing with all this wood. When they got to the base, they were instructed to drop the lumber on a graded dirt pad, and when they got to the pad, he noticed another nearly identical stack of lumber. Except that stack was weathered and rotten. Come to find out, the base buys lumber every year to use up their excess budget and not get their budget cut for the next fiscal year! The wood just rots in a pile until eventually they burn it. They’re almost literally burning our tax money. The Washington Post even exposed massive waste at the Pentagon in December of 2016, which the Pentagon attempted to cover up. It showed that there our active-duty troop levels are the lowest they've been since before World War II (1.3 million), but the Pentagon is paying nearly that same number of people (1,014,000) in back-office jobs! Funny how, after that story went out, it was basically never spoken of again, huh? It's not a coincidence. I describe my view of patriotism here by saying that patriotism is like being a parent, where we are the parent and the government is our child. I see this issue very much the same way. This wasteful, careless spending, to me, is just like if your teenage child asks you for $100, and you give them the $100, and then they lose it and ask for another $100. You’re not going to want to give them the second $100, right? It doesn’t matter whether you have the money to give or not, you don’t want to see your money wasted. This is how I am in life, too. I’m a generous person. If someone needs money, and I have the money to give to them, I’ll give them the money they need. But if they turn around and spend it frivolously, or lose it altogether, you won’t find me giving them money a second time. I think we can all identify with this. In Congress, I will do everything I possibly can to rein in these types of government waste so that the savings can be applied to programs that actually help you, and the nation as a whole. This will mean changing how budgeting is handled so that government departments and facilities aren’t forced to needlessly spend unused money in order to avoid budget cuts. Instead, I’ll make it so that they would be rewarded for returning unused money back to the federal government. I will also push for heavy penalties for “improper payments” of any kind, and cutting wasteful programs across the board, while reallocating that money to help our nation’s children, our veterans, our elderly, and our poor. In order for the federal government to ask for a single cent more in tax money from us, the federal government needs to prove that it can be responsible with the tax money it already gets. Healthcare is a Human Right As I pointed out elsewhere, the healthcare industry is not a free-market industry, and it’s not because of regulation or Obamacare; it’s because healthcare as an industry serves a captive market. We, the people, are “the market” and in order for a market to be considered a “free market” the first thing that it requires is that we, the people who make up the market, are free to enter or leave the market as we please. The words “free” and “captive” mean exactly the same things in economic terms as they do anywhere else. (Note: The term “free market” is commonly, incorrectly used instead of “laissez-faire,” where the latter term is actually the correct term. The two are not the same.) The market for televisions is a free market, for example. We don’t have to buy a TV, and that means TV manufacturers and retailers are both competing not only against each other, but against whether or not we buy a television at all. And this competition drives prices down and quality up as manufacturers and retailers attempt to earn our money for their products. Healthcare, on the other hand, is not and cannot be a “free market.” We don’t get to choose anything about it. We don’t get to choose when we get sick or have an accident; we don’t get to choose the price of the procedures that will be needed to heal us; and we don’t get to choose which hospital we go to when we are picked up in an ambulance, either! For that matter, we don’t even get to pick the ambulance company or anything related to our ride to the hospital! This is the definition of a captive market, and captive markets drive prices up and quality down; the opposite of free markets. Actually, it’s worse than a captive market, because in a captive market, you can still say no. You can’t really say no when you have a broken leg, or cancer. For an example of a captive market in action, have you ever gone to a professional sporting event? At a Major League Baseball game, for example, a beer and a hot dog can set you back more than $10! The exact same products at a convenience store would cost as little as $2.50. But if you’re at a baseball game, it’s not like you can leave and go to 7-Eleven for your refreshments, right? That makes you a captive market. That’s why they can quadruple the price on you. You have no other options. Now, to further this analogy, imagine how much they could charge for a beer and a hot dog if you might die without them! That is why we spend, by far, the most on healthcare of any country on the planet (over 18% of our country’s GDP every year and rising), and are still ranked behind 36 other nations in terms of quality of care. (It should be noted that all 36 of those nations ahead of ours have some form of universal healthcare.) None of those countries have to worry about "pre-existing conditions" either. Do you know what they call a "pre-existing condition" everywhere else in the world? Your medical history! "Pre-existing condition" is a legal term made up by insurance companies in order to justify not paying for your medical care. It's not a real thing anywhere in the world but here. Every country ranked higher than ours in terms of quality of care spends under 12% of its GDP on universal healthcare, and everybody is covered. And again, they rank higher than we do in quality of care. Bloomberg even does a study every year where they create an index that combines quality of care and spending, and among the 55 nations included in the rankings, our country ranked 50th! I believe we need to move our country away from profit-driven, captive-market healthcare and institute a universal healthcare system that will bring our costs down to the ballpark (so to speak) of 12% of our GDP. That would save our entire economy over $1 trillion per year. If you divide that into the number of Americans with jobs, that $1 trillion per year comes to over $900 per working American, every month. To achieve this, I don’t believe we need to reinvent the wheel. All we need to do is look at the countries who are doing it right and adapt their programs to the USA. You might be thinking, “Yeah, but, Steve, if you do this, all of our good doctors are going to leave the country!” That’s not going to happen. The highest-paid doctors in the world are actually in the Netherlands. They have universal healthcare that costs them only 10.9% of GDP as of 2014, and their nation’s healthcare is ranked fifth in the world. Again, we’re 37th and spend over 18%. Another common objection to universal healthcare, or a ploy to lower costs for our current system, revolves around the issue of medical malpractice in our country. People will often say that a big part of the reason medical costs are so high is because of malpractice. It’s not true. It accounts for only 2.4% of our total healthcare expenditures ($55.6 billion as of 2010), according to a Harvard study published in Health Affairs. If that number of 2.4% surprises you, this next number is going to floor you: Of the $55.6 billion that is spent on malpractice, $45.6 billion of it is actually spent on “defensive medicine” practiced by physicians to stay clear of lawsuits. That means the actual number malpractice suits cost our system is less than 0.5 percent of our current healthcare costs. In my opinion, adopting a system like they use in the Netherlands, for example, wouldn’t just end our healthcare crisis for good, but it could actually be a key to really boosting our economy as a whole. Freeing up over $1 trillion to spend in our country’s true free markets would be a boon to industry and potentially lead to the creation of millions of jobs. And obviously it would also ensure that people who get sick will be given the care they need, decided by doctors rather than insurance companies, without risking losing everything they've worked for their entire lives. Take Care of Our Veterans Now! I want to end that. War veterans who answer the call of duty and go to battle for their country have already paid more than most ever will, so I propose that we exempt their first $100,000 of taxable income from federal income taxes, every year, for life. And the spouses of any Soldiers, Marines, Airmen or Sailors who lose their lives in service of their country – in battle or not – should receive the same exemption. Not only do I feel this is the right thing to do in general, given all that these veterans have done for our country, I also hope it will serve as an additional disincentive for our government to send Americans into war in the first place, knowing that the government will forever lose the tax revenue from any Americans deployed to battle. In addition, I will make sure there are safeguards in this proposed bill to prevent the government from repeatedly deploying the same people in order to avoid additional losses in revenue. Along with my push for universal healthcare, which will obviously cover veterans as well (effectively cutting the inept VA out of the loop for veteran medical care), I want to increase oversight at the VA and have the agency move to just handling disability for veterans, and fund the VA well enough to make it happen. At the same time, I will make sure there is a system of accountability in place to remove those who get in the way of us taking care of our veterans in a timely manner. With these changes, we will start showing that we care for our veterans instead of just talking about it, as our elected representatives love to do. Department of Defense The thing is, we now know that the CIA has lied us into at least two of the most costly wars in the history of our country. This is something many claimed for a long time, but it has been verified. Even former president George W Bush now admits that Iraq was not manufacturing any WMDs. The CIA’s intelligence assessment on Iraq is actually available for reading, in un-redacted form, here. The CIA was either wrong, or they lied. While either conclusion is possible, we actually have proof of them lying us into a war previously. In 2005, the Gulf of Tonkin incident (which led to the escalation of the war in Vietnam) was actually declassified, and it never happened. If you’re unaware of this, please read about it here from the US Naval Institute, or here directly from the NSA. Until the War on Terror, the Vietnam War was the longest and most expensive war we as a nation had ever fought. We lost nearly 60,000 Americans in that fight. In the end, we got nothing out of it. All it did was make some people in the military industrial complex rich. And it was based on lies. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have turned nearly the entire region into a war zone, have been estimated to have cost the American taxpayer over $5 trillion now, while also costing us thousands of dead Americans, many more wounded, and who knows how many dead civilians in the region. And it also started based on a probable lie about Iraqi WMDs, using the tragedy of 9/11 as the excuse. Here’s the thing: I was a Republican in 2001. As someone who believed in (and still does, in principle) keeping government as small as possible, and as much out of our lives as possible, I ended up leaving the Republican Party after a Republican majority in both houses of congress pushed the Iraq War through (and passed the highly unconstitutional USA PATRIOT Act) following the tragic events of 9/11. I would’ve supported an immediate and sustained retaliation to kill Osama bin Laden and whoever else we needed to get rid of in the region, within reason, but that’s it. We obviously need to retaliate if attacked, but Iraq quite literally had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact, according to other declassified US Intelligence documents, the people behind 9/11 were actually within the Saudi Arabian government. Yet, after that report was written, we still saw Presidents Bush, Obama and Trump all bowing to the Saudis. The reason I’m pointing all of this out is that I want you, the voter, to know that I will not vote for our country’s participation in any wars that are not in direct defense of the USA, not only because our intelligence agencies have given us little reason to trust their conclusions, but also because a direct defense of the USA is the only reason that I believe is good enough to put our brave military men and women in harm’s way. Education is Key There are many reasons for this, but none of them are a good reason for it. This massive increase in costs is damaging our country in three major ways: 1) Most of our nation’s poorest residents can’t afford to go to college whether they are capable of doing well in higher education or not. This results in less upward mobility for our nation’s poor. Social mobility is a major key to any properly functioning society. 2) Most of the people who do end up going to college either are born to families who can afford to send them, or are strapped with massive student-loan debt. Those strapped with debt are less able to participate in the economy. Those born to fortunate families are representing a smaller and smaller slice of the American public as the middle class continues to be wiped out. 3) When furthering someone’s education is decided by their (or their parents’) finances, rather than their ability, we end up with less-able people in our country as a whole. To understand the concept of why this hurts our country as a whole, think about it like this: If only 17% of the public can afford to become college-educated, what about the other 83%? It’s easy to say, “Well, they don’t go to college. The nation needs ditch-diggers and maids, too.” While it’s true that we need people willing and able to do all kinds of jobs, what would’ve happened if Jonus Salk – the discoverer and creator of the world’s first Polio Vaccine – was digging ditches? His parents were poor Russian immigrants. If not for his schooling costing next to nothing, he wouldn’t have been able to go, and the Polio Vaccine would’ve come along much later, if at all. Today, our world is still fighting to cure or prevent more diseases and ailments than one could possibly count, and we’re now faced with fighting climate change as well. Under these conditions, what good does it do us for only 17% of our people to be able to go to college? Just looking at the odds, we greatly increase our odds of defeating these threats to our society by making college equally available to everybody. College should be based on individual ability, not income. Making public college tuition-free is not only the right thing to do for capable, impoverished individuals, but in the end, it will improve all of our lives, and it’ll make our country better able to compete in the global marketplace as well. Our Country is Like a Bicycle I’ll define a few concepts on a politically “left or right” basis now, rather than “Democrat or Republican,” just to make sure I don’t confuse anybody. In common speak, Democrats are often referred to as “the left” and Republicans as “the right,” but that’s inaccurate. Much of what many members of the Democratic Party supports today are actually right-wing ideals, and some of what some members of the Republican Party supports today are actually left-wing ideals. Left: Tends to be on the government side of the constant “government vs. private industry” struggle. Tends to care more about the rights of the people at large over the enforcement of laws or the rights of private industry. Tends to be anti-war. Tends to support higher taxes for the wealthy. Right: Tends to be on private industry’s side of the constant “government vs. private industry” struggle. Tends to care more about the enforcement of laws and the rights of businesses and business owners over the rights of the people at large. Tends to be quicker to support warfare, although to say they’re “pro-war” isn’t really fair. Tends to support lower taxes for the wealthy. Understand that I’m a truly non-partisan person. I just call it like I see it, and I have no more love for one major political party over the other. That said, here’s an example of my bicycle concept: If you ask Democrats (not the people in office, but the voting public) how to fix most economic problems, their answers almost always include some combination of “more regulation,” “higher taxes,” “higher minimum wage,” and “more labor unions,” just to name a few things. If you ask Republicans (again, the voting public) how to fix most economic problems, their answer almost always includes some combination of “free market,” “less regulation,” “cutting taxes,” and those kinds of things. What I’m saying is that neither of them are right all the time. In reality, both of them are right occasionally, and there are times when both are wrong. There is no single set of answers to every problem. I think we all know this intuitively, but partisanship has a way of making us choose a “side” or a “team” that will ultimately determine for us what the answers to these questions should be. That’s dogma, and I’m not a dogmatic person. Now, check out these political compasses on the right. (You can take your own test here and find out where you land.) On the Political Compass, the more Authoritarian someone is ("the government is the boss, the people are the subjects") the farther up their dot lands, and the more Libertarian someone is ("the people are the boss, the government is employed to do as we ask") the farther down their dot lands. Left and Right are determined by a combination of things such as economics and warfare/foreign policy. Economically, the more a person would like the government to manage/control economics/industry, the farther left their dot lands, and with warfare/foreign policy, the more aggressive the person wants the military to be, the farther right their dot lands. There's going to be a lot of skepticism about this bottom political compass because of what we've been taught for so long, but on the whole, it's accurate. It's possible any name is one square off left/right and/or up/down, but it's very close. For Donald Trump, since he didn't have a government record of voting and support, I went off of his campaign promises/rhetoric and his past comments on subjects not covered in his campaign. Now, take a look at Bernie Sanders. He's barely left of center. He's about where the Democratic Party was when he was a child. Now take a look at how Hillary Clinton and Ronald Reagan line up. Or, for that matter, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. So, here's the thing: I do believe, using the concepts as outlined above, that our country as a whole has shifted too far to the top-right; we have far too many people in prison for victimless crimes, our rights are violated far too often and without reason, we have now been involved in an ever-expanding war for over 15 years, and the billionaire class has taken far too much of the economy for themselves. If we don’t correct for this rightward shift we’ve experienced, we’re doomed to continue going in circles, like we have for most of the last few decades. So, I support a significant shift to the left on many issues. That does not, however, mean I will continue to support shifts even farther to the left once we get back to moving the country forward. I won’t. And if I’m in office long enough to see the country begin to lean too far to the left, I will be the first one to start leaning back to the right. You can count on it. The Parties Are the Problem I grew up in a Republican household. My parents were Republicans, most of my family outside of my immediate family were Republicans, and most people I was around back when I was racing motocross were also Republicans. Because of this, I had a certain set of ideals instilled in me, such as a desire for a small, less-intrusive government that stays out of our personal lives. And, to be clear, I actually still believe this is ideal, but I just now know that sometimes the alternative is worse. I’m no longer dogmatic about it. But even as a teenager, I couldn’t quite reconcile the idea that we (Republicans) said we wanted government out of our personal lives, yet we were for the Drug War and against equal rights for gays, as two prominent examples. It all came to a head for me after 9/11. I was only 24 years old at the time and had been working as a proofreader/writer/journalist at a weekly motorcycle newspaper called Cycle News. Right after 9/11, within a couple of months, I remember the Republican-majority House and Senate pushing through the USA PATRIOT Act, and then Republican president George W Bush – whom I voted for in 2000, mind you – signing it into law. Deep down, I knew it was a bad idea. I knew this was George Orwell’s “Big Brother” being moved from Fiction to Non-Fiction. But I defended it anyway. My leftist/liberal friends, chief among them my buddy Steve Bruhn (who passed away a few years ago), were all over me about it. “How can you support something like this when you believe in small government and keeping government out of our lives?!” I was doing mental gymnastics to justify it. And I was doing the same thing to justify the Iraq War, knowing full-well that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Why? There’s only one reason why: Partisanship. I was rooting for my team, rather than standing by my ideals and principles. So, in late 2002, I went through the (rather bothersome) process of excising myself from the Republican Party. After that, it still took me years of constant effort to kill off my prejudices, for example, against Democrats, and there was even a point where I swung too far the other way and ended up with a prejudice against Republicans and in favor of Democrats! But eventually I made it out of the forest of partisan biases, and I have to tell you, once you really get out of that forest, it becomes much easier to see what’s going on around you. Because the truth is that the parties rely on our partisanship almost entirely in order to continue running this country however they want to run it. What I’ve come to realize over the last 15 years of soul-searching is that, overall, neither party really gives a crap about any of us unless they need our money or our votes. They don’t care if we live or die, much less whether we’re truly able to enjoy the “pursuit of happiness” that our forefathers promised us. They do not care. At all. The Republican Party and the Democratic Party care about one thing, and one thing only: Getting and maintaining power. That’s it. They don’t care about any of us. Once you begin to understand this, you’ll start to see that they don’t even care about their party’s pet issues. For example, the only reason that Democrats said they wanted to fix healthcare prior to their passage of the Affordable Care Act (AKA: Obamacare) is because that’s what they knew voters wanted, and that helped to put them into power. But the power was the point, not the healthcare, because the kicker to this is that they would’ve rather not fixed healthcare if at all possible. The problem with actually following through and fixing something like healthcare is that, politically, it removes one of their bargaining chips. When they fix a problem that they promised they would fix, they have to find another pet problem to fix in order to justify voting for them in the next election. And that, at its core, is why Obamacare is such a poorly written, poorly executed healthcare bill. It wasn’t just that both parties are bought and paid for by the healthcare and pharmaceutical lobbies, it’s that not enough of the Democrats truly wanted to fix the problem. I believe the same can be said in regard to both parties about abortion, gay rights, and guns. The Democrats controlled both houses of congress from 2007 until 2011 and they didn’t even attempt to pass any gun legislation (which, as a pro-gun guy, I’m thankful for). But they sure have talked about guns a lot before they took power, and after they lost it, haven’t they? And the same can be said for Republicans, who have done nothing to shore up gun rights in this country whenever they’ve been in control. It boils down to self-interest, and to explain it another way, let’s forget about Democrats and Republicans for a minute, and since now we’re talking about guns, let’s talk about the NRA (National Rifle Association): The head of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, makes about a million bucks per year to be the CEO, and there are a lot of other people employed at all levels of the NRA as well. That money comes largely from individual NRA memberships as well as money from manufacturers and other folks in the gun industry. That money is donated to the NRA in order for the NRA to fight anti-gun legislation in Washington, DC, and around the country. So, imagine that somehow, magically, all of the gun rights the NRA says we should have became permanently enshrined in law here in the USA. Imagine the NRA got its way completely and permanently. The NRA would go extinct overnight. Mr. LaPierre would lose his job along with everyone else at the NRA. That’s why the NRA doesn’t actually want to “fix” the issue of guns for its members. The NRA relies on the strength of their opposition. The worse the threat against our gun rights is (or the worse they can make it seem), the more money the NRA makes. The parties also rely on the strength of their opposition in order to gain or maintain support and power. If the Republicans and Democrats couldn’t fight over guns, or the rights of minorities (or gays, or women), or anything like that, they’d actually have to come up with real policy solutions to our actual problems here in the real world. As it is, they don’t have to do that. All they have to do is keep us fighting amongst ourselves and they can continue to reap the rewards while we suffer. Being an independent isn’t a party affiliation; it’s a way of thinking. And I hope to help change your way of thinking during this election cycle so we can take on these partisan hacks together come 2019. Morals Should Guide Policy I’m running for congress, and I’m doing it from a position of wanting to do the right thing, not the popular thing, or the “affordable” thing. We need to figure out what’s right, and then do that. Period. No exceptions. It shouldn’t matter if doing the right thing costs more money. If it’s the moral thing to do, and we can agree to that, then the question isn’t “can we afford it?” but rather “how do we pay for it?” Whether we do what’s right or we do what’s wrong should never be determined by how much money it costs. It shouldn’t matter if doing the right thing is more difficult, either. Doing the right thing usually is more difficult, isn’t it? But if it’s the moral thing to do, and we can agree to that, then the question isn’t “is it easy enough?” but rather “how will we do it?” Whether we do what’s right or we do what’s wrong should never be determined by the level of difficulty. We can do anything we put our minds to if we work together. And if we don’t have what it takes to stick it out, we will fail. I’m not here to be a politician who tells you what you want to hear. They all seem to want to tell you, “Elect me, and I’ll fix everything!” That’s not how it works. That actually might be why it’s not working. If you elect me to represent you in congress, I will still need your support after Election Day. I will need you to follow what I’m doing, inform me about when I’m doing something you like, or don’t, and read what I’ll be posting on my congressional website. My entire mission as the representative for the 39th district will be to do right by you, and the last thing I’ll ever ask you to do is “just trust me.” Don’t “just trust me.” None of us should trust anybody we elect into any position of power. I think our current representatives have proven how dangerous trust can be. Our government is not designed to be “set it and forget it” like a Crock-Pot or a rotisserie. It’s a government of, by, and for the people. That’s you. That’s me. And my goal is to move us back to that. We all need to maintain a healthy level of skepticism when it comes to anybody who is trusted with any amount of power in our society. Trust should be hard to earn and easy to lose. I expect you to question me, and I’m not afraid of that. No honest person should ever be afraid of being questioned, because if you’re an honest person, you should have honest answers; and honest answers are the easiest answers to give. Even though it will ultimately be my job to deliver, and the buck will stop with me if anything goes wrong, I want this to be a partnership. In fact, I believe it has to be a partnership. I will expect you to hold up your end of the deal, and I will hold up mine. Address Income & Wealth Inequality For decades now, congress has been writing and repealing laws with a primary goal of enriching their donors, not helping us. This isn’t my opinion. This has been proven. Back in 2014, Princeton University’s Professors Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page published a study entitled “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens.” The two professors studied and reviewed answers to 1,779 survey questions regarding public policy between 1981 and 2002, then broke the responses down by income level and determined how often certain income levels and special-interest groups got what they wanted from our elected government. Here’s a brief summary of what they discovered: Between 1981 and 2002, proposed policy changes with low (20%) support among the very wealthy was adopted only 18% of the time. If the policy change had high (80%) support, it was adopted 45% of the time. But here’s the kicker: When a majority of the people (us) disagreed with the economic elites and/or special-interest groups, the people generally lost. On top of that, even if the elites didn’t get their way, the people usually didn’t either, even when a fairly large majority of the people supported a particular policy change. They concluded: “Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.” In other words, this isn’t a representative democracy anymore. It’s an oligarchy, which is defined as: A form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few. As I said, that study spanned 1981-2002. Do you think it’s gotten better or worse in the last 15 years? I’d bet everything I have – which, admittedly, isn’t that much – that it’s gotten much worse. After all, we didn’t get the disastrous “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission” ruling until 2010. That ruling essentially declared corporations to have the same constitutional rights as people, which is asinine at face value since we can’t put corporations in prison, and they can live forever, among other things. This decision led to truly unlimited corporate political donations through Super PACs (Political Action Committees), with the caveat being that the PACs cannot communicate or coordinate with the campaigns or candidates they’re supporting in any way. Problem is, that part of the ruling is almost impossible to enforce. In the Podesta Wikileaks that came out in 2016, the emails revealed a multitude of times that John Podesta or other members of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign illegally coordinated and communicated with PACs supporting her candidacy, and nothing was done about it. In my opinion, there’s only one “minority” who’s actually ruining our country: The oligarchy. The true fight isn’t “white people vs. people of color” or “straight vs. LGBTQ” or “immigrant vs. native” or “male vs. female” or any other of these “battles” that our corporate media tells us we’re meant to be fighting. Those fights are there to distract us. There’s only one true fight: The people vs. the oligarchy. That’s it. But in order to win that fight, we have to stop fighting amongst ourselves. Even one of the largest corporations on the planet, GE, is now on board with a more "Bernie Sanders-style" economy, because they see the writing on the wall: If 90% of the people aren't making enough money to have anything extra to spend in the market, these companies are going to run themselves right out of customers. The funniest thing to me about the Bernie Sanders/GE thing is that it's the new CEO praising Sanders. What about the old CEO, Jeff Immelt? He wrote an op-ed criticizing Sanders in the Washington Post in 2016, criticizing Sanders' take on wealth and income inequality. A year later, he was fired. (Don't worry, after he was fired, he was given a golden parachute of over $200 MILLION. Isn't that great? Wouldn't it be nice to get fired and be rewarded with more money than you've ever imagined?) The new CEO, John Flannery, though, is all about what Sanders is talking about. The article ends by stating: "The lesson here is that public goods matter. Business doesn’t operate in a laissez-faire vacuum. Policy choices have an impact, and economic value flows to communities (or countries) that invest in things such as education and training." I'm pointing this out because I think it's important that you understand this is not a "give me free stuff at the expense of the rich" policy position. This is sound economic policy for everyone. It's just not as good for the very wealthy, but we can't sit around hoping they're going to be okay with being taxed more. They won't be. So, in addition to doing what’s necessary to overturn the Citizens United decision, I propose a drastic change in taxation, shifting the tax burden off of the dwindling middle class and onto the very wealthy through some combination of the following policies: 1) The current top personal-income-tax bracket in our country is 39.6% for individuals earning a taxable income (after write-offs) of $418,400, and for married couples filing jointly that number is $470,700. (During Republican president Dwight Eisenhower’s administration, the top federal income-tax bracket was set to over 90% on incomes, adjusting for inflation, of about $2 million per year.) But remember that 39.6% applies only to the money earned above that figure, and that goes for every tax bracket. For example, if we use a married couple filing jointly making $500,000, this means they would not pay 39.6% of $500,000 (which would come to $198,000) in federal income taxes. They would actually pay $143,230.80 in federal income taxes. That number is probably okay approximately where it is. What we need to do is add new brackets, such as (just for the sake of explaining the concept) 42% at $550,000, then 45% at $625,000, 48% at $690,000, and on upward until we get to something in the ballpark of 80% at $5 million per year in taxable income. Before you ask, no, I don’t expect that many people will actually pay 80% of their income in taxes. But if we pair this tax increase to a decrease in corporate taxes, under the right circumstances (for example, for corporations that hire Americans at living wages), it will cause business owners and executives to decrease their salaries (to avoid the government taking 80% of it) and leave more money in their companies, which can then be used to increase worker wages, hire more workers, and otherwise invest back into their companies through the purchase of new equipment; which also helps the equipment suppliers to do the same in their companies. It will create jobs, not hurt job growth. And, in fact, economists believe that raising the taxes on the very wealthy is a very good idea. As a caveat, I do think that an exception should be made in terms of taxes for professional athletes, actors, lottery winners, and anybody else whose opportunities at the highest income levels are likely to be short-lived. This can be done through a modified version of a windfall tax. 2) In 1965, before Wall Street completely took over the country, the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 20:1. That meant that for every dollar a company’s typical worker made, the CEO made $20. Not coincidentally, the top tax bracket at that time was 70% on incomes over $200,000 (married, filing jointly), which is about $1.5 million in today’s money. As of 2014, for every dollar a company’s typical worker made, the CEO made $303. Today’s ratio is 303:1! Even worse, among the companies on the S&P 500 in 2016, that ratio was 347-to-1! That means the CEOs in those companies are making almost as much money in a single day as their typical worker earns in an entire year! It’s obscene, and I believe this to be a moral and ethical issue as much as it is a fiscal issue. One way to address this is to tie corporate tax rates to this very ratio. The more disparate the ratio, the higher the company’s tax rate should be. And compensation through issuing stocks should be included in this ratio for reasons to be made clear in the next point. 3) We need to tax capital gains fairly. Capital Gains are defined as income from the sale of a capital asset, such as a house, or stocks and bonds. Current law taxes “short-term” (defined as any assets held for just one year or less) capital gains at the normal income-tax rate according to the person’s tax bracket. But “long-term” (assets held longer than one year) capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate. In 2016, before he was fired (which happened in March of 2017), Ford Motor Company CEO Mark Fields was paid a salary of “only” $1,787,500, and he also got a bonus of $2,736,000. That means he paid normal federal income taxes (as described in number 1 above) on about $4.5 million in income. The thing is, he also got $14,298,356 in stock as compensation. All he has to do is hold on to that stock for 1 year and he could cash it all in while paying only 20% of it in income taxes. (We pay 25%, individually filing, on incomes above only $37,950. He’ll pay only 20% on $14.3 million!) For that matter, when he was fired, Fields was given a “golden parachute” comprised of a $1.6 million cash bonus and about $55 million in Ford stock, which means he’ll only pay about 20% of that in income taxes if he sells all of it after only a year. This is an example of how the system is set up to favor the very wealthy while the rest of us pay more than we can afford. I believe we need to change the definitions of “long-term” and “short-term” capital gains in terms of stocks, changing the length of time for “long-term” capital gains to 10 years. And after 10 years, I believe the dollar amount of stocks that are sold should be taxed at half of the person’s top income-tax bracket; so, under the system I proposed above, if someone sold $500,000 in stocks, they’d pay 19.8% in taxes (less than the 20% they’d pay today), but if they sold $700,000 in stocks, they’d pay 24%. I also think we should protect homeowners from this higher tax burden by creating a new type of income separate from “capital gains” for the sale of a person’s primary residence. Homes shouldn’t be treated the same as stocks. If you live in a house, and maintain the house, when you sell it, you should be able to keep as much of the increase in value as possible. 4) Our representatives keep trying to tell us that Social Security is “going broke.” What they don’t like to tell you is that they’ve taken over $2.6 trillion out of Social Security over the years to pay for wars and tax cuts for the wealthy. But that’s another subject. This is about taxes. (But we do have to outlaw this practice of stealing from one program to pay for others.) Currently, Social Security is paid for by taxing everybody on their incomes of up to $126,000 per year. That means if you make $1 million in taxable income, you only pay Social Security taxes on the first 1/8th of your total income. This is another example of how the wealthy have used our representatives to manipulate tax codes for their benefit, because if you make less than $126,000, you pay Social Security taxes on every single dollar you make. We need to eliminate that ceiling so that everybody pays Social Security taxes on the entirety of their taxable income. If we did that, Social Security would not be in danger of insolvency. Our seniors and our needy people need to be prioritized over the oligarchy and the billionaire class. 5) The current tax code calls for a 10% federal income tax on individuals making up to $9,325 per year (or $18,650 for married couples filing jointly). This makes no sense whatsoever. The federal poverty level for a single person is $13,860, and for a couple it’s $18,670. People in this tax bracket cannot afford to give 10% of that money to the federal government. Not only that, but they’re likely going to be on some form of welfare. It seems like we should be able to cut back on some of the welfare by not taxing them, which should save money for the system as a whole in the process. Nobody should pay income taxes if they’re living below the federal poverty level. Period. And if we made just this change, a typical middle-class couple, filing jointly, would save $1865 per year in income taxes. Our elected leaders have chosen, repeatedly over decades, to make life harder for the many in order to maintain the privilege of a few. Now is the time to turn this around. Raise the Minimum Wage It shouldn’t be tolerated. Companies don’t hire people as a charity, they hire people because they need those people to do something. I don’t care if the company needs a person to lean against a particular wall for 8 hours per day, that person should be paid enough in their 40 hours of work per week to pay rent, food, and other basic expenses that all people have in our society. Because when they don’t pay enough, the balance ends up falling into our laps as taxpayers. We end up having to pay out welfare to the employees of profitable companies in the form of food, medical and housing subsidies. And why? Because their actual employer isn’t paying them enough? It’s wrong, because that means that we, as taxpayers, are subsidizing the costs (and thus the profits) of these profitable companies. In a free market, we should be able to decide if we want to subsidize a particular company’s employees by simply choosing whether or not we want to purchase from that company. So, I believe we need to raise the minimum wage to $15 as of 2019, not 2024 (as Democrats, with the help of Independent Bernie Sanders, are proposing), to start with. But truly, in my opinion, the minimum wage should be set by local living expenses, because $15 per hour in New York is meaningless, while $15 per hour in small-town middle-America may be too high. And whatever is decided to be a fair minimum wage needs to be permanently tied either to inflation or to the median wage. However, I think there’s another way of forcing companies to choose to pay living wages: Make them pay taxpayers back. In 2016, WalMart made a consolidated net profit of $14.29 billion. That means that after they pay all of their expenses, including exorbitant wages and bonuses to executives, they had over $14 billion leftover. Problem is, taxpayers are subsidizing their workforce to the tune of about $6.2 billion per year! We need a federal law requiring profitable businesses to pay that money back. In this case, it would cut WalMart’s profits from $14.29 billion down to $8.09 billion, which is still a lot of money. If we did this to all of these companies that pay slave wages to their workers, it would change the dynamic considerably, because the Wall Street share values of these publicly traded companies are largely based on their net profits. Profits are where dividends come from. So, if these companies were forced to pay taxpayers back for subsidizing their work force, the effective cut in net profit would force the company to make up the difference through cutting pay at the top of the company and increasing pay at the bottom. It’s a simple solution, but I believe it would work, and I believe I could get this done in congress. End the Failed War on Drugs While $75,000 definitely does seem expensive to me, as I’m sure it does to you, the truth is that it would be much easier for me to swallow this sort of expense if the people in prison were all violent criminals or major thieves. There’s absolutely no part of me that wants to be “easy” on crimes like those. Any crime with a victim should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. But who is the victim when someone breaks their leg in an accident, ends up hooked on highly addictive opiate prescription pain medications, and then ends up on heroin once the prescriptions run out? If they didn’t steal anything or hurt anybody, the only victim in that situation is the addict. Why would we jail the victim? Especially for $75,000 per year?! We can send them to addiction treatment for as little as $6000! It simply doesn’t make sense to me on any level. When we send non-violent drug offenders to prison, they go in as addicts or as people who made a very costly mistake, but they often come out as real criminals. They learn from the other inmates and then return to society more dangerous than before. Plus, returning to society with a criminal record makes getting a job really tough, and sometimes nearly impossible, forcing many of these people into more criminal activity. By treating drug use as a public-health issue, rather than a criminal issue, we could easily send these people to rehab for a tiny fraction of the cost, and then return them back to the free world without a criminal record, allowing them to become gainfully employed and contribute back to society once more. And the truth is, I believe most of us intrinsically know the war on drugs doesn’t work. I did a couple of informal polls on my Twitter account a while back and asked two basic questions. Look at how different the answers are. If it were your kid who was addicted to illicit drugs, it’s doubtful you’d call the police on them. Because deep down you know that wouldn’t be very helpful. If it’s true for your child, it’s true for most people. Besides, this is already being done elsewhere in the world. In Portugal, for example, they decriminalized all illicit drugs in 2001. After 15 years, the nation has less than half the number of addicts it had before, and now boasts the second-lowest drug-overdose rate in all of Europe. Not only would decriminalization reduce costs as I outlined above, but taxpayers would save billions every year at the enforcement level, as well, such as with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), the Coast Guard, and every other enforcement level from city cops all the way up to the feds. Ultimately, I believe that as long as any product or service has a market, legal prohibition against that product or service cannot work. It never has worked, as pointed out in the July 13, 1989, Wall Street Journal. It didn’t work when it was alcohol about a century ago, it doesn’t work with gambling, and it doesn’t work now with drugs. People who want those things are going to get them. All prohibition does is drive up prices and introduce violent and property crime surrounding it. If you want people to stop doing drugs, you do it the same way we stopped so many people from smoking cigarettes: Education, and taxes to fund the education. In other words, you have to reduce/remove the market for the drugs by making people not want to do them anymore. And this is why I believe that we will eventually – maybe not in my lifetime – need to look at outright legalization of all illicit drugs. It will cut back on crime from top to bottom related to the black market we have today. I believe that legalizing drugs outright (eventually) will result in the following positives: 1) Crime related to the manufacture, smuggling and dealing of drugs will nearly disappear. This means that street gangs, who make the bulk of their money dealing drugs, will lose that revenue stream. With that stream cut off, it will dramatically decrease the black market for firearms, which will make all of our homes and neighborhoods safer, since it’s not the legal gun owners who tend to shoot up neighborhoods. It would also eliminate a revenue stream from smugglers who make the bulk of their income bringing drugs (and often people) into our country from areas to our south. And the lower prices of legalized drugs would reduce property crime and other crimes such as prostitution, since people wouldn’t need to steal or sell their bodies in order to get their “fix.” 2) Since the United States makes up nearly the entire market for drugs manufactured and distributed by cartels in Mexico, Central America and South America, I believe we, as a nation, have to take some responsibility for what’s happening today in those nations to our south. As the American Ambassador to Mexico, Tony Garza, said in 2008: “Mexico would not be the center of cartel activity or be experiencing this level of violence, were the United States not the largest consumer of illicit drugs...” It’s American money that makes drug cartels so powerful that they often control entire governments. It’s American money that pays off police south of our border to look the other way when a bunch of students “go missing.” It’s American money that makes things so miserable for people all over Mexico, Central and South America. It’s American money that makes people’s homes so dangerous in, for example, Honduras, that they immigrate to the USA (often illegally). Because of the cartels there, Honduras has a murder rate of 74.6 out of every 100,000 residents. For comparison, it’s 4.5 per 100,000 in the USA. I believe we have a responsibility for causing the crime and misery we’re causing to those people, and legalizing illicit drugs would bankrupt the cartels and allow the citizens there to take back control of their own governments and their lives. 3) Legalizing drugs would create a new and needed tax-revenue stream that we could use to treat addicts (as opposed to jailing them) and to educate people about the dangers of the very same drugs, just as we’ve done so successfully with tobacco products. 4) If drugs were legalized, that means they could be regulated by the government, which would make them much safer. Let me explain: Drug overdoses are rampant in our country right now, and the main reason most people overdose on, for example, heroin, isn’t because they just decide to do more than usual one day. Usually, overdoses happen when a drug user is used to using heroin that’s, for example, 25% pure, but then gets a batch that’s 50% pure without knowing it. They use the same amount but get double the dosage and either end up in the hospital or the morgue. If drugs were legalized, there would be regulations in place to make sure potency levels were consistent and other contaminants were eliminated. It would prevent accidental overdoses almost completely, saving literally thousands of lives every year here in the USA. 5) I know it’s hard to imagine, but the final benefit is that it would create legitimate jobs here in our country, from farmers growing the coca and poppy plants, to processing and shipping, all the way down to retail stores selling them. It’ll likely take decades to get there, if we ever do, but decriminalizing drugs is the correct first step. “But Steve,” you might be saying. “If drugs are legal, it’ll cause people to become drug addicts!” People are already drug addicts, often starting with legitimate prescription medications (which are often the true “gateway drugs”). Ask yourself this: Would you try heroin if it were legal? My bet is that you’re shaking your head no. I wouldn’t, either. I believe it’s possible that the use of hard drugs like heroin and methamphetamines could actually be reduced by legalizing them, simply because we always want what we’re not allowed to have, and allowing them will eliminate some of the appeal to trying them in the first place. End the War on Terror Jefferson used this analogy frequently in reference to slavery (which believe it or not, as a slave owner, he attempted to abolish more than once), but it applies the War on Terror, among other things. Please keep this quote in mind as you read what follows. Since the end of World War II, there has been a pattern to US involvement in foreign wars: The Korean War began with full media support and 65% public support of President Truman sending ground troops in to Korea (in August, 1950). One year later, support was cut dramatically, with 49% believing it was a mistake, while only 38% said it wasn’t. Throughout the war, public opinion bounced up and down a bit, but never reached the same level of support that it had when the war began. By the time President Eisenhower was elected, and he restarted talks of a truce, the “light at the end of the tunnel” caused public sentiment to take a positive turn. (As a bit of an aside, I highly recommend watching and listening to Eisenhower’s 16-minute farewell address, which can be found in its entirety here. A shorter, two and a half minute version of it, which gets down to the nitty gritty of discussing the “military industrial complex” and its influence over government, and liberty, can be watched here.) The Vietnam War not only had full support of the American media, but support for escalating the war was achieved by the CIA’s execution of a false-flag attack (a now-declassified event that I detailed here). In the beginning, the Vietnam War held a 61% approval rating, while only 24% said it was a mistake. Before the end of the war, it had reversed itself, with 61% saying it was a mistake, and 28% saying it wasn’t. And support for our current War on Terror, which began as Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, sat at 76% in favor one year before the invasion (only a few months after 9/11), and 71% in favor as the invasion began. By 2013, 53% of Americans thought the Iraq War was a mistake. The war in Afghanistan started out at 93% in favor, but by 2014, 49% of Americans said it was a mistake, while only 48% said it wasn’t. Now, it’s hard to find current approval ratings for the War on Terror in general, but in December of 2016, Gallup’s survey on the direction of the United States as a whole sat at a historically low 27% in favor. That means 73% of the country is not happy. If only 27% of your customers at your company were satisfied, you’d be out of business in no time. But not only does the government keep on keeping on, but they aren’t even changing anything. Why? Because they aren’t afraid of losing their jobs. They believe their jobs are secure, because so far they have been. That’s why I’m running for office. But the bigger point here is that this pattern of public support of war, followed by dissatisfaction with warfare, can be easily explained: 1) As I already pointed out, the media supports warfare. They always have. The New York Times, The Washington Post, all of the networks, throughout our history have supported every single major war at its outset. And considering what media’s role is in society, when they support a war, they’re as much salesmen as they are anything else. Legendary Tom Brokaw even said, “All wars are started on propaganda” while somehow attempting to defend the media’s role in not calling the government to task for pushing the propaganda in the first place. Essentially, the media acts as an agitator, stirring the people up to support warfare, and that’s the primary reason support is always so high at the outset. 2) We, as patriotic Americans, are stirred up by the media, but ultimately we have very little say in whether or not our government gets our country into a foreign war. So, most of us, as patriots, want to support our military, and support our government, through what is assumed to become a trying time. It’s wishful thinking. But the longer a war drags on, and the more the public feels its losses as our sons and daughters, mothers and fathers come home wounded – or not at all – we grow weary of it. If I’m elected to congress, I will be one congressperson who is willing to skip past the early support and try to look at how proposed wars will be viewed years into the future. Conservatives and liberals alike are tiring of this never-ending War on Terror. In December of 2016, The American Conservative pointed out that terrorism is increasing the most in the exact countries where our government is the most involved in combating it – Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Iraq. They also point out that it’s a war that cannot be won. And liberals have also come to the realization that the War on Terror is actually making terrorism worse. Of course the War on Terrorism is making terrorism worse. Classified paperwork detailing President Obama’s drone-strike policy was leaked to The Intercept in 2015, and it revealed that the way our military intelligence counts the dead in a drone strike is basically an outright lie, because the only civilian casualties they count as such are people who can be proven not to be males of fighting age. That means any males of fighting age killed in the strike are considered “enemy combatants” regardless of whether or not they actually were. And even then, the numbers are entirely inaccurate. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimated the true number of civilians killed in drone strikes to be as many as 1350 from 2004 through part of 2015, in Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia and Afghanistan alone, while the Obama Administration in 2016 claimed “up to 116” civilian casualties. Obama’s count left out Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq, and the BIJ’s numbers left out Syria and Iraq as well. But in July of 2016, one series of US air strikes on one village in Syria killed at least 73 civilians, including women and children. If you didn’t know this stuff before, you do now. And if you’re angry, good. I am, too. The reason I bring this up is because I want you to understand the logic of the War on Terror, and why it’s destined to make the situation worse, not better: Every single civilian who’s killed in US Military or Allied air strikes leaves behind family and friends who will often become terrorist sympathizers, or even terrorists themselves. I believe many of us would feel the same way if a foreign power was flying over us and killing us with impunity. A lot of us would try and fight back. It’s human nature, and people living in the Middle East are just as human as any of us. This, ultimately, is why we have the wolf by the ear. “Self-preservation,” in the short-term, might say we need to hang on to the wolf’s ear, but “justice” will not be achieved for the people in that region until we let the wolf go. It’s possible letting go will get us bitten, but that’s going to be true regardless of when we decide to let go, and we know we have to let go at some point because we can’t keep doing this forever – nor should we. I believe now is the time to let go of that wolf’s ear. We need to get it over with, and then avoid grabbing another one. We need to stay out of other people’s countries and end this policy of policing the world as if it’s ours alone. It’s not. The country we have here is wonderful. If we want to keep it that way, we need to focus our attention, money, and effort here, not there. Make Legal Immigration Easier Almost everyone in our country has a story like this, whether we know the details or not. And while we can all be proud of our individual heritage, we’re all Americans now. Illegal immigration is a hot-button topic nowadays, but if you look at the verifiable data, it seems that it’s really only a problem because it’s so difficult to come here legally nowadays. Former host of 20/20 on ABC, John Stossel, wrote about this 3-4 years ago. In his column, he points out that Forbes did an investigation into legal immigration and found that after a prospective immigrant goes to the American embassy and fills out their visa paperwork to be admitted to the USA, on average, a computer programmer from India has to wait 35 years to be legally admitted to our country. The same study showed that a high-school graduate from Mexico has to wait, on average, 130 years! So, when people say, “My family came here legally, why can’t they?” this is why they can’t. It’s simply not reasonable to make someone wait decades, or even over a century, to legally immigrate to another country. And as I pointed out in my section detailing my thoughts on the Drug War (LINK NEEDED), our nation’s policies are a significant part of the reason people want to leave their countries south of the border to come here in the first place. Simply saying, “Sorry, that just means you can’t come here,” does not strike me as a rational answer to this problem. Because of my job as a photographer and journalist in the motocross-racing industry, I’ve traveled all over the world, and I know many people who have gone through the process of legally immigrating to this country as well. Even for people from countries apparently favored by US immigration services, such as Australia, New Zealand, and the countries in Western Europe, our immigration system can be a total nightmare. Not only can it take a very long time, but it costs a lot of money. I’ve had this conversation with countless people, including members of my own family, and I know that my point of view may be unpopular in some circles, but I’m the kind of person who cares primarily about data. And frankly the data doesn’t seem to support the rhetoric we hear about illegal immigration. In March of 2017, the Cato Institute published a study entitled “Criminal Immigrants: Their Numbers, Demographics, and Countries of Origin.” The findings in that study, and others, have effectively debunked almost every anti-immigration argument I’ve ever heard, so I’ll detail them here: 1) “Illegal immigrants are criminals.” This is one that our president, Donald Trump, repeated relentlessly on the campaign trail in 2016. At this point, many people seem to just assume it’s correct because they’ve heard it so much. It’s not. The Cato study showed that the incarceration rate of native-born Americans is 1.53%, while the incarceration rate of illegal immigrants is 0.85%, and legal immigrants are incarcerated at a rate of 0.47%. But it doesn’t stop there, because obviously being an illegal immigrant is a crime in and of itself. When the Cato Institute controlled for people who are incarcerated only because they’re here illegally, the incarceration rate of illegal immigrants dropped to just 0.50%. That means that both legal and illegal immigrants are incarcerated at a rate of less than 1/3 the rate of native-born Americans. And if you really think about it, this makes sense. At least it does to me. If you’re in a country under a visa, or illegally, the last thing you want to do is draw attention to yourself by committing crimes. Even a conviction for a minor crime will cost a legal immigrant their visa and end with them being deported. And if you’re illegal? Forget it. Truth is, every new influx of immigrants to our country has been accused of being criminals. I’m of English/Scottish/Irish descent, and if you click here, you’ll see a Google search of anti-Irish-immigrant propaganda from less than 150 years ago, including this series of cartoons which depict Irish immigrants as building “infernal machines” (plotting the destruction of the USA), voting illegally to influence our elections, shooting and killing their landlords, and getting handouts they don’t deserve. Tell me that doesn’t sound familiar to you in regard to what we’re often told about immigrants from south of our border... It wasn’t true then, it’s not true now. 2) “There are more illegal immigrants here than are being reported.” This one is widely believed, and on the campaign trail in 2016, in Arizona, President Trump said the number, “could be 3 million; it could be 30 million.” The official number is about 11 million, and that number is on solid statistical ground, but what if the number is actually 30 million? Well, that would mean the incarceration rates I just cited would be much, much lower. If there were really 30 million illegal immigrants in this country, that means the incarceration rate of illegal immigrants would drop from 0.85% to 0.31%, and controlling for the crime of illegal immigration, it would drop from 0.50% to 0.18%. That would be over 8 times lower than the incarceration rate of native-born Americans. 3) “There are already too many immigrants here.” This one is pretty subjective, because it’s hard to determine what “too many” is in any objective way. Remember, almost all of us are descended from immigrants, but the real total number of immigrants is 12%. All-told, 12% of our population are immigrants. That might sound like a lot, but only 100 years ago it was 15%. 4) “They come here to leach off of our welfare and other social programs.” Well, as I already pointed out, they said the same of my Irish ancestors, and it wasn’t true at that time, so that should make anybody skeptical of the claim as it’s repeated today. There have been many studies on this, and depending on the data they choose to include, it can seem like illegal immigrants are stealing from us, or it can seem like they’re helping us. I don’t trust any of the studies that only count the money that goes to illegal immigrants without counting the money that they pay into the system, though, and I think that’s a solid, logical position. So, if you look at it from a balance-sheet point of view, where you count the money coming in and going out, illegal immigrants are paying their own way, overall. In fact, the same study I just referenced above shows that immigration – even as mismanaged as it is in our country – represents a net gain on the US economy as a whole. I realize there may be data sets out there that say other things, but any of these “studies” that show doomsday scenarios of billions and billions of dollars going to illegal immigrants and getting nothing in return are just not trustworthy. While I do rely on data to form my positions on things as much as I possibly can, I’m still a human being with a set of morals and principles that guide me, and I have to say that I don’t think we can have a truly “free country” if good people aren’t free to come and go with relative ease. We can have reasonable restrictions, such as making sure that we get verifiable documents from their country of origin as often as possible in order to weed out as many criminals and potential terrorists that we can, but if we’re truly going to be the “land of the free and the home of the brave” I don’t believe we can be that while locking up our borders for fear of immigrants. That Which Can Be Destroyed by the Truth Should Be The only secrets I believe our government should keep from us are the secrets that put people in immediate danger, such as the location of secret personnel. Everything else, with very few exceptions, should be made known to the public. As we’ve seen with the leaks from Edward Snowden, Wikileaks, and others, secrets are mainly kept from us when the government knows we wouldn’t approve of the truth. Bulk data collection, stories of NSA analysts using their tools to stalk ex-girlfriends, other analysts going through nude pictures of American citizens and laughing about them... These are real things that have really happened, and that’s just the petty stuff. It’s not okay. Ever. And the best way you can tell something’s wrong at the highest levels of our government is by watching what happens when classified information is leaked. When something is leaked that reveals numerous, major constitutional or human-rights violations, the only people who go to jail for it are the people who leaked it. Think about that for a minute. The person who told the truth is the person who goes to jail, while the people who did wrong aren’t punished. Where’s the justice in that? That falls well short of “...and justice for all.” I don’t believe we should need leaks to know what’s going on inside our government, but if we do need them, the leakers should be protected from prosecution. Barack Obama ran on this idea in 2008, but then once he got into office, he proceeded to jail more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all previous presidents combined. In fact, Obama was so hard-lined about this that the New York Times pre-emptively blamed him for anything that President Trump would end up doing to harm the press. This government is meant to be a government “by the people, of the people, and for the people” and we can’t possibly do a good job of governing, or of choosing where we stand on issues or candidates, or even of choosing the direction in which we should be steering our country, if we don’t know what our government’s actually doing, or why it’s doing it, can we? I don’t think so. That which can be destroyed by the truth should be, because if anybody needs to lie to the American public in order to do their job, that means the public wouldn’t approve of what they’re doing. And if the public wouldn’t approve, it shouldn’t be done. Period. If it’s really necessary, the government needs explain why, truthfully. Convince us, and only after that should the government do these things. Never before. Who Works for Whom To put it simply, I think a lot of people – in the public, and especially in the government – have forgotten who the authority is in our country. You – we – are the authority. We should have every right to criticize our government at every level, and there should be mechanisms in place to hold our government accountable for what it does (and doesn’t do) at every level as well. It has to be done this way if our government is ever truly going to be “by the people, of the people, and for the people” again. What Is (And Isn't) Patriotism Patriotism isn’t something you wear, or hang in front of your house, or stick on the back of your car. Patriotism is about what’s inside your heart. I’m running for congress because I love my country, and I hate what’s happening to it, and what’s happening to us. I have the American Flag tattooed on me twice. Although the tattoo has faded some, it’s a tattoo of the original Betsy Ross American Flag crossed at the staffs with the modern version. I got this tattoo because I wanted to make sure I always remembered what this country was intended to be at its formation. I love my country, but I believe we’ve taken quite a few wrong turns over the course of time. I want to help fix those things. I believe patriotism isn’t a matter of blindly following any politician, party, or government or its policies. Patriotism, properly expressed, is more like being a parent; the patriot is the parent, the country is the child. When your child does the right thing, most parents gush with pride. Is there anything greater? Absolutely not. It’s the same thing with your country. But when your child does something wrong, you correct your child. You correct your child quickly and as effectually as necessary in the hopes it won’t happen again. Because what if you don’t? We all know kids whose parents don’t do a good job of raising them, don’t we? They hit another kid, and the parent blames the other kid rather than reprimanding their own child, and things like that? Nobody likes that kid, and nobody likes those parents. You don’t correct your child because you hate your child. You correct your child because you love your child and you want your child to be the best person they can be. This is all the same thing with your country. So, I reject the standard that a person has to wear an American Flag lapel pin in order to prove they’re a patriot. All they’re really proving is that they want you to believe they’re a patriot. I don’t know about you, but when I look at our government, with its tremendous corruption and greed, one thing’s pretty clear to me: Lapel pin or not, most of those people aren’t patriots. Even the word “patriot” has been co-opted so often that it has almost completely lost its meaning. In my opinion, perhaps the least “patriotic” bill ever to be signed into law is the 2001 USA PATRIOT Act. They built a bill around that word in order to fool us into believing we should support it. And we fell for it. I believe true patriotism is something very deep and moving, and we’ve allowed it to be treated like something very shallow and petty. And because of this, even though it may hurt me politically, I will not be going around trying to impress people with lapel pins or any other faux-patriotic trinkets. I just hope it will force enough people to look deeper into us all as candidates to see what truly lies in our hearts. What Is (And Isn't) Freedom I believe that all people are born free. At birth, we all have the ability (and the right) to think and believe what we want, say what we want, do what we want, go where we want, to defend ourselves and our families from anybody or anything who would want to harm us, and more. But with all rights come responsibilities. For example, we have a right to defend ourselves, but we also have a responsibility to defend those in our communities who cannot defend themselves, and a duty to do so without harming anybody unnecessarily. We have a right to say what we want, but we also have a responsibility to speak to the truth. And I believe that if we value our freedom, we need to be willing to stand up and defend the freedoms of others, even if – especially if – we disagree with them. I think the polarization of our country to two different “sides” is misguided, and people are responding to it by curtailing free speech, and other rights as well. Conservative speakers and pundits are being refused the right to speak at colleges and universities, or they’re being shouted down and bullied. That’s wrong. And liberal protesters who are refusing to stand for the National Anthem, or who are burning American flags, are being shouted down, assaulted, having their property (flag) stolen, and are being threatened. That’s also wrong. Period. I believe that good ideas can and should stand on their own, and bad ideas can and should be defeated on their merits as well. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If you disagree with someone’s positions on anything, talk to them. Ask them questions. Engage with them. And be open about the fact that you might actually be the one on the wrong side. We’ve all been on the wrong side of something, haven’t we? I’ve been on the wrong side plenty. I believe I’m on the right sides now, but if I’m not, talk to me. Tell me where I’m in error. Provide me with the evidence I require to change my mind, and I will change my mind. That’s how I got here, and that’s how I’ll continue to move forward through life. But one thing I know for sure: Force is never required to defeat a faulty idea in a truly free country. What Is (And Isn't) Supporting the Troops As far as I can tell, when somebody goes into combat, there are three possible outcomes: 1) They are killed. 2) They are wounded, survive, and are sent home with physical, mental, and emotional scars. 3) They are not wounded, and are sent home with mental and emotional scars. They all pay a price for war, with no exceptions. I believe the best way to support the troops is not to send them to war in the first place. That’s not to say there will never be a war again, but I don’t believe we should ever go to war if it is not in direct defense of the United States of America. But if we do have to send brave men and women into combat, when they come home, they should not have to wait an extra minute or spend an extra dollar to get any physical or mental healthcare they require. They should all have a roof over their heads. They should all have support structures in place. This is a moral issue, so the question isn’t “can we afford it?” it’s “how do we pay for it?” And what isn’t supporting the troops? Voting for candidates who needlessly send them to war, and who don’t provide adequate funding for their care when they get home. It doesn’t matter how many yellow ribbons you’ve tied, or how many stickers you have on your car, or how straight you stand during the National Anthem, or how loudly you recite the Pledge of Allegiance, or whether you fly a flag in front of your house, or sharing a post on Facebook or Twitter. Those are symbolic gestures, but in reality they do very little to actually support the troops. They need real support, not symbolism. By the People, For the People Back in 2014, Princeton University’s Professors Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page published a study entitled “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens.” The two professors studied and reviewed answers to 1,779 survey questions regarding public policy between 1981 and 2002, then broke the responses down by income level and determined how often certain income levels and special-interest groups got what they wanted from our elected government. Here’s a brief summary of what they discovered: Between 1981 and 2002, proposed policy changes with low (20%) support among the very wealthy was adopted only 18% of the time. If the policy change had high (80%) support, it was adopted 45% of the time. But here’s the kicker: When a majority of the people (us) disagreed with the economic elites and/or special-interest groups, the people generally lost. On top of that, even if the elites didn’t get their way, the people usually didn’t either, even when a fairly large majority of the people supported a particular policy change. They concluded: “Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.” In other words, this isn’t a representative democracy anymore. It’s an oligarchy, which is defined as: A form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few. As I said, that study spanned 1981-2002. Do you think it’s gotten better or worse in the last 15 years? I’d bet everything I have – which, admittedly, isn’t that much – that it’s gotten much worse. After all, we didn’t get the disastrous “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission” ruling until 2010. That ruling essentially declared corporations to have the same constitutional rights as people, which is asinine at face value since we can’t put corporations in prison, and they can live forever, among other things. This decision led to truly unlimited corporate political donations through Super PACs (Political Action Committees), with the caveat being that the PACs cannot communicate or coordinate with the campaigns or candidates they’re supporting in any way. Problem is, that part of the ruling is almost impossible to enforce. In the Podesta Wikileaks that came out in 2016, the emails revealed a multitude of times that John Podesta or other members of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign illegally coordinated and communicated with PACs supporting her candidacy, and nothing was done about it. In 2014, The Washington Post reported that the congressional candidate who spends the most money wins 91% of the time. On top of that, 0.53% of Americans contribute 67.8% of all election funding. Put those two numbers together, and it’s easy to see that less than 1% of our people determine over 90% of our elected representation. We need to do something before that last 10% disappears, too, because at that point, it will be too late for us to fix it through civil means. Our elected representatives shouldn’t be determined by how much money they have, or can raise; they should be determined by ideas, ideals and principles. The best ideas should win! That’s the only way a representative democracy can work. The first thing we can do to address this problem is move to publicly funded elections. There are a variety of ideas and ways to do this, but the crux of the idea is to give each campaign the same amount of money, or credits, to be spent in promotion of their candidacy; or to give the same amount of money, or credits, to every eligible voter to be spent on the candidates of their choice. The latter option has been shown to increase turnout at the polls, which is always good. As it sits, 40% of eligible voters stayed home on Election Day in 2016. This is going to sound crazy to some people coming from a congressional candidate, but I support staying home on Election Day if you don’t like your options; or, at least, abstaining from voting in the races where you don’t support any of the candidates. The way the two parties have things set up, they push us to choose between “the lesser of two evils” in every election, and over the course of time, that’s how we ended up with the two worst presidential candidates history. If more people would stay home or refuse to cast a vote for either one, under these conditions, I believe it becomes power in reserve. If you can imagine a scenario where 60% of the country didn’t vote for either presidential candidate, that 60% of the voting public represents the possible support of a worthy candidate, or candidates, in the following election. Even splitting that 60% between two candidates will beat the other two candidates who share the remaining 40%. A representative democracy only works when people are voting for candidates they want, not just voting against candidates they don’t. Public funding of elections will level the playing field considerably by itself, but these big-money interests still want the government to do what they want it to do, and as long as they can put their money behind a candidate, bill, or proposition, they will. And it will still swing elections against the will of the people as a whole, as it’s been doing for decades now. So, the next step is going to be to overturn the disastrous Citizens United v FEC Supreme Court decision. That means we’re going to have to amend the US Constitution. We need to propose a 28th Amendment outlawing political spending by corporations and severely limiting the spending of individuals. It will have to be proposed by a 2/3 vote of congress, or 2/3 of the states (33) can call a National Constitutional Convention to propose the amendment. Then the amendment must be ratified by 3/4ths of the state legislatures. This might sound impossible, but we’re already halfway there, believe it or not, as 19 states have passed resolutions to overturn Citizens United. That’s only 14 away from the 2/3 needed to call a Constitutional Convention, and halfway to the 38 states (75%) needed to approve the amendment. We live in the richest country in the history of the world, and the people running the government control trillions of dollars. Money is power, power is money, and we got a taste of how little the Democratic Party really values “fair election practices” during the 2016 presidential primaries. Ultimately, the establishment will do whatever it takes to run this country as they want it run. That’s why I believe we need to move back to paper ballots, nationwide, immediately, for all of our elections. The paper ballots can be treated as a backup to voting machines, or as the primary voting source, but we need paper records. I don’t believe Russia “hacked our elections” as the media’s narrative goes (at the time of my writing this, in July of 2017), but our voting machines are incredibly easy to hack. That means that, foreign adversaries aside, even if we manage to move to public funding of elections, and overturn Citizens United, the oligarchy can still install their preferred politicians just by rigging the elections through the voting machines. Nobody ever wants to believe that their government is crooked, but this is a tale as old as democracy itself. Historically, the only people who want a fair election are the people whom a fair election favors. While Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016, if you think he wouldn’t have cheated to win, or that Hillary Clinton wouldn’t have cheated to win, I don’t think you understand these kinds of people. To them, it’s not about serving us, it’s about power. As Joseph Stalin once said: “It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.” While voter fraud is probably not that big of a problem, I’d bet election fraud is already happening. I don’t know where, when, or to what extent, but that’s the danger of this type of threat: At the point that we go to the polls, cast our votes, and go home, there’s very little we can say or do to insure our vote was actually counted. A move back to paper ballots can put us back in front of this problem. And those ballots should be stored forever in a place safe enough to store any of our government’s most crucial infrastructure. We also need to do more to allow citizens to oversee the elections and vote-counting processes. Running a country is a lot of work, and in a country that’s meant to be “of, by and for the people,” that means we all have to increase the amount of effort we’re willing expend in order to insure that our country is run properly. The final thing that I believe needs to happen has very little to do with me at all. It’s not something I can do as a legislator. It’s your job, and mine, as citizens. As John F. Kennedy said a couple weeks after taking office in 1961, “No one has a right to feel that, having entrusted the tasks of government to new leaders in Washington, he can continue to pursue his private comforts unconcerned with America's challenges and dangers. For, if freedom is to survive and prosper, it will require the sacrifice, the effort and the thoughtful attention of every citizen.” Running this country is everybody’s job, and even if I manage to help achieve everything I outlined above as your representative in congress, none of it will matter if you, the American Citizen, don’t do your part. Money is Power, Power is Money The basic concept is that you can never destroy mass or energy; all you can do is turn one into the other. If you imagine burning a log in a fireplace, you start with a heavy object (mass), and then as you burn it, it loses mass, but that mass is turned into light and heat (energy). You’re probably sitting there reading this thinking, “So, what in the hell does this have to do with money in politics?!” Well, money and power are similar to mass and energy. Call it the “money-power equivalence” if you want. You can’t destroy them, but you can turn one into the other, or transfer them from person to person. This is why poor people don’t have political power even though there are so many more of them. Democracies, or Constitutional Republics, like ours, can provide political power to the poor in theory, but it hasn’t really worked out that well for them in practice in recent years, has it? Because of the money (power) behind the Washington Elite, they have been able to do their masters’ bidding almost entirely unimpeded throughout my lifetime. I believe the first step to fixing this problem is to use our power at the ballot to kick these people the hell out of office. We need to replace them with people of principle, and then those people will be able to do what’s necessary to get money out of politics for good. If you look at history, there’s one thing for sure: The elite never give up any of their money or power voluntarily. They’re going to put up a fight. Government Is Science But look at how dysfunctional our government is. It doesn’t matter which party is “in control,” either. It’s entirely dysfunctional, and they rarely accomplish anything of note. I’d like you to ask yourself this: Is the lack of accomplishment because running a government is just so incredibly hard, and the answers are just so difficult to figure out? Or is it because they’re completely inept and/or corrupt? I think the latter is much more likely than the former. The thing is, we have actual science to tell us which way to go on a myriad of issues that plague our government, and our society, today. We have scholars all over the country, and across the world, executing studies, and their peers are reviewing them to make sure the studies hold up to scrutiny. And we have this kind of information available on every issue that seems so stupefying to our elected officials. I believe the answers to what ails our country can be found in the data. Numbers. That’s not to say that I’m some sort of automaton without feelings or emotions, or morals. I’m very centered morally and ethically. I have a deep sense of fairness and justice, and of right and wrong. But if that’s all I had, I wouldn’t go very far with it. And the truth is, I believe most of us have an inherent understanding of right and wrong, and an inherent sense of fairness and justice. In order to get our country back on the right track, we need to study, and have a solid, foundational understanding of the following sciences: Economics – to determine the best course of action for the economy as a whole, what works, what doesn’t, which economic classes are affected the most and least by which policies, etc. Sociology – to determine how people in a society relate to one another, how they’re motivated, how they view what’s fair and what isn’t, and why... Sociology in policy-making is just as valuable as economics, if not more so, but is utilized far less. Socioeconomics – to bring the two previous fields of study together and form a cohesive strategy that can address most of what ails our society. Civics (as a scientific study) – as it relates to sociology, economics, and socioeconomics, civics teaches us what we can and should expect from the populace, and what the populace can and should reasonably expect from their government in terms of respecting their rights and maintaining a functional society. Criminology – to determine what causes and what reduces crime, how punishments work as deterrents (or not), the fairness of our application of laws (and of the justice system as a whole), expose biases in the system, and things like this, in order to help set public policy on a path balanced between the need for laws and the respect of individual rights. History (as a scientific study) – to analyze the effects of all of the things listed above, in various combinations, in past societies and then determine the direction we should take today’s society. Evolutionary Biology – to determine how much of what we learn from the above fields of study are in our “nature” as opposed to things that are learned, and therefore can be unlearned. For example, our closest living evolutionary ancestors, the Great Apes, have a genuine understanding of fairness. For that matter, so do monkeys and even our dogs. This tells us that fairness is deeply ingrained in our DNA. We can be taught to go against what’s fair, but to do that, we have to usually play off of another, deeper sense within us, such as greed, or fear. This study about different species’ understanding of fairness will help us understand which of the policies from the other fields above will be well-received if properly presented. That’s just one example of many. Psychology/Psychiatry – to determine how best to present new ideas, how best to help people overcome racial, social, and language barriers, and what should be done to adjust to the outliers in society, along with many other things. These fields maintain a close relationship with every other field of study above as well. Political Science – to determine directions to take in international relations, comparative politics, effectiveness of legislation, etc., and apply the things you learn from all of the other studies listed above. Government, managed properly, comprises the proper application of sound scientific research. So, when our representatives try to make us believe that “running a government is hard” it’s time to call them on it. The only people making governance difficult are the people who either don’t understand the science, or who have a specific interest (money, usually) in preventing the proper application of sound science. It's Not the Guns, It's Socioeconomics Every time there’s a mass shooting, people immediately start talking about a need for gun-control legislation. I understand that. While there are some things that are probably okay to institute “just in case,” I don’t actually believe that these regulations will do very much, if anything, to curb gun violence. There are a lot of reasons for this: 1) To date, every mass shooter who legally possessed the firearms they used, as far as I’m aware, either passed a comprehensive background check, or would have passed it had it been administered (there might be one or two exceptions to this from many, many years ago, but I don’t think there are). The Virginia Tech shooter passed two background checks. The Pulse Nightclub shooter in Orlando not only passed background checks, his was even more thorough than normal because he was licensed to carry a firearm as an armed security guard. The Washington Post, which is biased in favor of gun control, detailed every single mass shooting since 2012 and found that not a single one of those tragedies could have been prevented by any proposed gun-control legislation. 2) I’ll get into the false correlation between the number of guns in a country and the number of gun homicides later in this piece, but The Washington Post (again) has an op-ed where the author does a fantastic job of breaking down gun legislation by state, and comparing that to homicide rates and accidental gun deaths. His logic for this is sound: He wanted to see if stricter gun-control policies actually led to less homicides in general (rather than just gun homicides), because it doesn’t help much if you ban guns and then just as many people die from knife attacks or beatings. A homicide is a homicide. But he did include accidental gun deaths in the tally, because that’s a specific thing that should, in theory, be reduced with stricter gun-control legislation. It’s worth a thorough read, but the headline gives it away: “Zero correlation between state homicide rate and state gun laws.” Also, the rate of gun ownership in rural parts of the country is much higher than it is in the suburbs or in the cities, with 46% of people in rural areas owning guns as compared to 28% of people in the suburbs and only 19% in urban areas. However, in 2014, 54% of counties in the country had absolutely zero murders, while only 2% of the counties accounted for 51% of the murders during that year. If you look at the map from the link at left, and if you’re any good at knowing your US geography, you’ll quickly notice that the places with the murders are predominantly urban areas; Los Angeles area, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Seattle, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, Atlanta, Miami, New York, etc. In other words, the areas with the lowest rate of gun ownership have the highest murder rates. 3) Depending on the study, there are anywhere from 300 million to over 600 million guns in this country today, owned by at least 100 million people, along with trillions of rounds of ammunition. (For a detailed breakdown of how the estimated number of guns can vary so widely, it’s explained very well here.) Any way you cut it, that’s a massive number of guns, and gun owners. The reason I say “at least” 100 million gun owners is because gun owners have proven to be less than forthcoming to pollsters about whether or not they own a firearm, or how many they might have. In fact, the media’s bias against guns is evident in how they conduct and report on their polls, which is detailed very well here. Part of the reason for this disparity in the number of guns owned is that the bulk of our country’s firearms are completely and totally unregistered, which means the government has little idea what exactly they are, and no idea where they are. But the point I’m making here is that, with numbers that high, any attempts at banning guns outright and having them somehow removed from society would be impossible. Pandora’s Box is open, and it’s too late now, which means there will always be guns out there that mentally ill people, or gang members, will be able to find and use. 4) Even waiting periods (which are sometimes known as “cooling-off” or “cool-down periods,” because they presume anyone wanting to purchase a firearm intends to go hurt someone, and that this extra time will allow them time to chill out) have shown to be completely ineffective at curbing gun violence. (However, there is some evidence that waiting periods prevent suicides, but not to a noteworthy degree.) Not only are waiting periods not effective at curbing gun crime, they can actually be deadly, such as in the case of Carol Bowne. She was a New Jersey woman who went through the proper channels to legally purchase a handgun on April 21, 2015, because she feared that her ex-boyfriend, Michael Eitel, might harm her. She even called to inquire about the status of her gun permit on June 1st of that year, as it hadn’t yet been approved. Eitel stabbed her to death on June 3rd, in her driveway, six weeks after she applied for her gun permit. Any time laws prevent anyone from being able to defend themselves against those who would want to harm them, such as in the case of Ms. Bowne, I believe the government is complicit in the crime. 5) The widely circulated study that is often touted as proving that “if you have a gun in your house you’re more likely to be killed by a gun” is only true because it includes suicide. Suicide is always tragic, and we should do whatever we can to help prevent it. However, including a self-inflicted injury in a study about the danger of guns themselves is intellectually dishonest. And morally speaking, asking to restrain a person’s right to self-defense in order to prevent potential murders is much different from asking to restrain a person’s right to self-defense in order to prevent people from willingly killing themselves. Regardless, approximately 2/3 of all gun deaths are suicides, and that number is increasing while gun homicides are not. In fact, since 1993, gun homicides have dropped by half while gun ownership has skyrocketed. I know guns are scary, especially to people who haven’t been around them much, so I want to give you some numbers to help you understand how little danger you’re actually in. There are approximately: 100 million gun owners 30,000 gun deaths per year For the purpose of this thought-experiment, imagine that no gun owner ever kills more than one person with their gun (meaning they either kill one person in a homicide or they kill themselves). Do you know how long it would take for the 30,000 deaths per year to reach just 1% of all gun owners in the country? It would take 33 years and 4 months for those 30,000 deaths per year to account for 1% of all gun owners. If the guns were the actual source of gun violence, with upward of 300 million guns owned by 100 million people, in a country with about 330 million people in total, we’d all be shot by now. The fact is, guns are a tool. They do not cause violence any more than a hammer causes a wall to be built. And I’m not done yet, because it’s one thing to say that guns don’t cause gun violence, but unlike most pro-gun people, I believe I actually know what does cause gun violence. Recently, in looking to determine the accuracy of studies touted lately in the media that claimed “the more guns a nation has, the more gun homicides they have” I came across this article from The Guardian in 2012. It includes a comprehensive list of every country on earth, showing the rate of gun ownership, and the rate of gun homicides. Not every country provides complete statistics, but most do. The link also allows you to download the data set in the form of a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet file. The data is a few years old, and it shows the US as having an ownership rate of 88 firearms per 100 residents, which is very low, as I believe I’ve adequately demonstrated above. That number is certainly over 100 firearms per 100 residents today. Regardless, I made this little table (left) from the Excel file to demonstrate two points: 1) For the top of this chart, I just grabbed random countries I found on the list with higher gun-homicide rates than we have here and compared them to the USA, and to each other. (For Russia, they didn’t provide specifics on gun homicides, but their overall homicide rate is five times higher than the USA’s.) 2) For the bottom of this chart, I grabbed random countries with the lowest gun-homicide rates I could find and compared them to the USA, and to each other. There are some things that are interesting on that chart that definitely disprove the idea that “the more guns a country has, the more gun homicides they have,” such as the fact that France, Norway and Iceland all have a lower gun-homicide rate than England does despite having five times the rate of gun ownership. Also, Japan is interesting, as they have a gun-ownership rate of nearly zero, but still have more homicides by firearm than Iceland (although Japan’s number is still incredibly low). These anti-gun statisticians like to qualify countries by economic levels, such as comparing the USA to other “rich countries,” or to other “developed countries,” but, for example, Brazil is the eighth largest economy in the world. It would have to fit both definitions, yet how often is Brazil cited in any of these statistics? Never. And the reason why is obvious when you look at their numbers. They have 1/11th of the rate of gun ownership (and that’s against the 88-per-100 number that we know is low today for the USA), yet more than 6 times the rate of gun homicides! And look at the homicide rate in Honduras, largely because of drug cartels serving the American illicit drug market. Wouldn’t you want to leave there and come here, legally or not, if that’s where you lived? I would. I think it’s safe to say that I’ve thoroughly proven that the number of guns in a country does not correlate to the number of gun homicides, so does anything stand out to you about these two portions of the chart? Something definitely stood out to me, and I verified it the best I could throughout the entire list after I figured it out: All of the countries (with the exception of heavy-handed dictatorships like China) with a lower rate of gun homicides than ours do a much better job for their people in terms of socioeconomics. Conversely, all of the countries that have a higher rate of gun homicides do worse than we do in socioeconomics. That’s the answer. When I’m talking about socioeconomics, I’m talking about: mass-incarceration (we jail more people than any country on the planet by both outright number and percentage of population), the Drug War, availability and affordability of healthcare (including mental health), the gap from rich to poor along with the wage gap and the minimum wage, poverty rates, and things of this nature. That’s the overall cause of gun homicides. It’s the overall cause of all violent crime in general. So, here’s my question: Since many of these are things that the Democratic Party has repeatedly stated they want to fix over the years, why are they so focused on guns instead? I believe the general answer is two-fold: 1) Their donors don’t want to address socioeconomics, because it will cost them money. 2) They are using guns as an emotional wedge issue to drive their people to the polls and vote for them. In short, they focus on guns, rather than addressing socioeconomics, because of money and power. Period. Guns are not the problem in our country; our society is. The Basics of Economics So, let me ask you this: Were you worth 248% more money at the end of Barack Obama’s presidency than you were at the beginning? Or were you making 248% higher wages at the end of his presidency than you were at the beginning? My bet is that the answer to both of those questions is “no.” So, why do we focus on the stock market whenever we talk about economics? Because Wall Street pays the bills at CNN, CNBC, Fox News (and Fox Business), Bloomberg, etc. That’s why. Plus, it’s simply an easy way for the Democrats to put a feather in their cap and talk about some of the “successes” of the Obama Administration. Here’s what I’ve come to learn about economics: When the press talks about the “free market,” they almost always define it wrong. So do our politicians. The thing is, we are the market. Businesses are the marketplace, but we are the market. When someone talks about how Steve Jobs at Apple “discovered a market for smart phones,” the “market” is us. He discovered that there are a lot of people who love to have information and communication in their pockets. What he didn’t do is create a market for smart phones. He couldn’t have. Think about it like drilling a well: You can tap into a water supply, but you can’t create one. It’s the same thing with markets. The easiest way I’ve found to visualize the marketplace and the market is to imagine a shopping mall, like the Brea Mall: The businesses (stores) are the marketplace, and the customers are the market. So, when the press, or politicians, talk about how we need to keep government regulation of businesses to a minimum in order to “keep the market free,” they’re not talking about the market. They’re talking about the marketplace. They’re misusing the term “free market.” What they’re usually referencing is an economic principle known as “laissez-faire.” But a “free market” in economic terms is exactly what it sounds like in plain English: It’s a group of people (market) that is free. That means that a “free market” is a market where, first and foremost, the people can enter or leave the market at will. The market for televisions is a perfect example of a free market. Television isn’t necessary to live, so most of us can enter or leave that market whenever we want. If prices are too high, or quality is too low, we simply don’t spend our money there. And when we do spend our money on a TV, we’re happy to do it, because we find a TV that we like at a price that we are willing to pay for it, and we happily exchange the money for the television. That’s the “free market.” Money spent in a free market is always voluntary. And because the marketplace (the TV manufacturers and retailers) have to compete against each other for our money, and because we also can tell them “no thanks” and not buy anything from them at all, these companies are continually building better and better products for less and less money. They have to in order to earn our money. This is how a “free market” economy operates. The problem comes when we’re dealing with a monopoly (where one company controls enough of a marketplace that they can determine prices for everybody else), a captive market (where the market is not free to enter or leave the marketplace at will), or collusion (where companies work together to fix prices or product quality). Healthcare in our country is a good example of all three of those things. In true, free-market capitalism, it takes a lot of hard work and dedication to turn a profit, but it’s well-deserved when you do. This is why so many business start-ups fail. But in captive-market capitalism, it’s easy to make a profit. It couldn’t be much easier. And in truth, captive markets victimize free-market businesses as well, which means not only is making a profit easy in a captive market, captive markets make turning a profit much harder in the free markets as well. That’s why I believe we need to control the captive markets in our economy, where necessities are sold to our people, but I don’t believe we need to put a lot of effort in regulating or controlling our free markets. As long as markets are free, they’re beneficial. Business vs. Theft When you make a purchase as part of a free market, you’re doing so voluntarily. You’re happy to make the purchase. To re-use my example regarding the television marketplace, you find a TV that is a size and quality that you like, at a price that you’re willing to pay, and you happily trade your money for that television. That’s how a free market works. It’s always a voluntary, usually happy, exchange. But imagine that you are at the ATM withdrawing some cash and someone walks up behind you and demands that you give them all your money or else they’ll shoot you to death. The choice they’re presenting to you is: Either give them your money, or you will die. You have no other options. How is that any different, on a moral level, than being diagnosed with leukemia and being told you either have to mortgage your house and give them all your money, or you’re going to die? The only real difference is that the hospital didn’t give you the leukemia. But either way, it’s not a happy exchange of money. You don’t really have any choice. It’s not voluntary. That is not a free-market economy. And when it’s not a free-market economy, it’s theft. Eliminating captive markets, monopolies, and collusion within marketplaces, will do nothing but strengthen our economy as a whole. My position on this issue is the position of a true free-market capitalist. But only a free-market capitalist. Laws vs. Rights Laws and rights (as in freedoms or liberty) are inversely proportional, which means the more rights we have, the less laws we can have, and the more laws we have, the less rights we have. Don’t worry, I’m not an anarchist. I support laws as long as the laws are necessary for public safety and impact the liberty of said public as little as possible. But it’s important that we understand the relationship between laws and freedom/liberty/rights. We’re not supposed to be a “nation of laws.” We’re supposed to be a “nation of rights.” As it says in our National Anthem, “o’er the land of the free...” Or in our Pledge of Allegiance, where it says, “with liberty and justice for all.” I mean, we all use the phrase, “it’s a free country,” all the time, don’t we? We can’t be “a nation of laws” and “a free country” at the same time. They are opposite concepts. Our Constitution and its Bill of Rights are powerless to help us if we don’t stand up for them. It’s not the Constitution that protects the people, it’s the people who must protect the Constitution. That’s our job. We live in a country where businesses are regulated too little, and people are regulated too much. I believe we need to reverse that. What the Founders Thought The Founders largely believed that parties created division based on rooting for your “team” and lessened our ability to have meaningful public discourse. Look around. Think they were right? I do. Truthfully, they were right a lot. They were flawed men, but they were students of history, largely inspired by the Enlightenment philosophers, and they had an incredibly solid understanding of how best to balance the rights of the people against the rules and laws of government. It might surprise many of you to see some of these very real quotes I’ve attached here (I made them, so I encourage you to download them and share them with your friends and followers.) Thomas Jefferson in particular wrote in favor of a graduated tax – a tax that increases as the wealth of the subject increases – but also wrote against such an idea when it was something that was going to affect him directly. Like I said, these men weren’t perfect, and nobody likes paying taxes. But when he was not biased by his own self-interest, I think he came up with the right answers much of the time, as did many of our other Founders. Jefferson also frequently spoke up against slavery (and even attempted to outlaw it more than once in government), but he still didn’t release his slaves... Most of the Founders agreed that inherited titles, such as in the monarchy they were opposing, were wrong. The man on our $100 bill, Ben Franklin, believed there was very little difference between inherited titles and inherited wealth, and he wasn’t alone on that. Even Jefferson – who only became a prominent businessman through inheritance himself – once wrote that perpetuation of property is “contrary to good policy.” While I don’t believe that inheritance is wrong or bad, I do believe that everybody in our society should be encouraged to participate, and I also believe that such wealth can shield certain people from much of what ails the society around them. No longer being able to identify with the common man, sometimes they can find themselves in opposition to the solutions the common man is so desperately seeking. This can lead to a state of opposition in general, sometimes leading to the rich being viewed by the common people as evil; and that, historically speaking, never really ends well. Our Founders wrote about this, and I agree. I don’t believe in any sort of dogmatic adherence to the thoughts or beliefs of this nation’s Founders. Blind adherence to tradition favors the wishes of the dead over the needs of the living. But I do believe that since they are the minds behind the foundation of this country, their thoughts should always be considered. Some things have changed a lot in the last couple-hundred years. Many things have not. End Adversarial Policing We absolutely need police. This section is not about “hating police” or even “not supporting” them. I believe it’s the opposite. This is the kind of support good police officers need from us. Because we absolutely need people who are willing and able to investigate crimes, arrest criminals, and help to keep our communities safe. I don’t believe this is even questionable. But I do believe that the polarization surrounding policing has contributed to an “us vs. them” mentality, both in law enforcement as well as in the communities they serve. It’s dangerous. It’s dangerous for the law-enforcement community, and it’s dangerous for civilians. The first thing I’m going to do here is lay some ground work of information that you need to know in order to understand the hows and whys of what I think needs to be done to make policing safer for everybody. A) Officer-Involved Shootings I need to preface everything I’m about to say here by emphatically stating that it’s never okay for police officers to be killed or injured in the line of duty. It’s not something I would ever wish for. Every death of a police officer – or, truly, every death of any person, not a result of natural causes – represents a failure somewhere, and heartbreak for the family and friends of the deceased. It’s always tragic, and I always feel terrible for the people left behind. That being said, I’m always primarily concerned with data – numbers – when attempting to figure out where society’s needs lie, and how best to address them. These are the numbers: It’s a little-known fact, but the number of officers intentionally killed in the line of duty has been hovering at or near historic lows for at least a decade now. I’m only counting officers intentionally killed, not car accidents, heart attacks, etc., as those are simply a part of modern life. In regard to homicides committed against officers, the lowest number of officers killed in a single year, ever, came in 2013 when 36 officers were tragically killed (34 shot, 2 stabbed, 0 beaten, 0 strangled). So, while there are often dramatic headlines like, “U.S. Police Officer Shooting Deaths Up 56 Percent in 2014: Report,” we all should remember that the 56-percent increase is from the lowest number ever recorded (34) in 2013, up to 50 in 2014. Again, all 34 in 2013 and all 50 in 2014 were tragic, and none were justifiable as far as I’m aware. I’ve never even heard of a police officer being justifiably killed by a civilian. From 2007 through 2016, the highest number of police officers shot to death on duty was 73 in 2011. That was a particularly violent year, apparently, as there were also 2 officers stabbed to death, 1 strangled to death, and 2 beaten to death, bringing the total all-told to 78 officers tragically and mercilessly murdered by civilians. But the problem with numbers that are this historically low is that any variation from one year to the next means a massive statistical shift in terms of percentages. From 2007 to 2008, there was about a 37% decrease in officers murdered in the line of duty, for example, but it was only a drop from 70 to 44. The numbers are too small to look at using percentages, especially when you consider there are roughly 800,000 sworn police officers in our country. In fact, with 800,000 sworn officers, law enforcement hasn’t cracked the top 10 in “most dangerous professions” since 2001, due to the heroes lost at the World Trade Center on 9/11. Most recently, law enforcement ranked 15th among the most dangerous professions in the country. Here’s the list of the top 10, including average yearly salary, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: 1) Logging ($37,640) 2) Fishing ($29.970) 3) Pilots ($119,260 airline, $84,510 commercial) 4) Roofers ($40,630) 5) Trash Collectors ($36,370) 6) Farmers/Ranchers ($69,880) 7) Iron/Steel Workers ($54,750) 8) Truck Drivers ($38,030) 9) Electrical Powerline Workers ($65,650) 10) Taxi Drivers/Chauffeurs ($26,070) And then: 15) Law Enforcement Officers ($62,760) Frankly, as someone with friends in law enforcement, but who has never had the desire to become a police officer, the rhetoric about violence against police just strikes me as irrational, and it’s usually coming from the law-enforcement community. Despite the historically low number of officers killed during the Obama Administration, for example, the law-enforcement community was pushing partisan propaganda stating the opposite without any facts to back it up. Those two stories I just linked to there came out less than two months apart! And while law enforcement has been overstating the dangers of their job, they’ve been under-reporting the number of people killed by law enforcement. Although the FBI tracks just about every stat you can possibly imagine in regard to crime in this country, from homicides, weapons used, police officers killed and how, and the race, age and sex of the offenders, the FBI has never tracked the number of people killed by law enforcement. I still find that dumbfounding. The FBI announced in 2016 that they would begin gathering the data through open-sourcing, just as The Guardian has been doing for a few years, and in December of 2016, the FBI revealed some startling findings: Between June of 2015 and May of 2016, the FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistics believe at least 1900 “Arrest-Related Deaths” (ARD) occurred (at the top of page 2 here). That’s an average of 158 per month. A review of three particular months of data showed that some of these deaths were classified by the departments as suicides or accidents, which the FBI says still falls under the responsibility of the department, since civilian safety while in custody is the responsibility of the arresting agency. But even if we assume the numbers are completely accurate, which not even the FBI is assuming, it still leaves over 1200 confirmed homicides at the hands of police every year (or over 100 per month). While I think it’s a safe bet that a majority of these deaths are justified, we need to do everything in our ability to curtail as many of the unjustified deaths as we can, and unfortunately I believe that means we cannot rely on the departments to determine for themselves whether or not the deaths are justified, because... B) Self-Investigation Doesn’t Work My mother is practically a saint, but I wouldn’t trust her to investigate herself, nor would I trust anybody else. Police are just as human as any of us, which means they’re just as likely to make mistakes as any of us, and none of us are perfect. But when a civilian makes a mistake that costs somebody their life – for example, a split-second decision to drive through a yellow light, which turns red, resulting in the driver hitting and killing a pedestrian – the civilian will be held legally accountable. It’s not a matter of punishment for the civilian as much as it is a matter of justice for the deceased and their family and friends. It’s how a country that truly has “liberty and justice for all” must operate. Accountability and justice like this is severely lacking in our country when law enforcement officers make fatal errors. For example: In the state of Wisconsin, they formed Police and Fire Commissions back in 1885 whose job it is, in part, to determine whether or not officer-involved shootings are justified. They’re made up of police officers and firefighters from the communities over which they reside, and the commission members are elected to three-year terms by their respective department personnel. Would you believe me if I told you that, since 1885, throughout the entire state of Wisconsin, there has never been an officer-involved shooting that was determined by the department, a Police and Fire Commission, or a coroner’s inquest to be unjustified? It’s true, at least as of December of 2013. (Look at the seventh page in this hearing transcript, marked page 4, where the state of Wisconsin admits this in court.) Now, ask yourself, what are the odds that every single officer-involved shooting over the course of about 130 years was completely justified? That not a single officer ever accidentally shot the wrong person, or made an incorrect judgment call, for over a century? It’s impossible. And that’s the kind of injustice people are running into all over the country. C) Police Are Rarely Successfully Prosecuted, Possibly By Design Despite the data I’ve cited already, showing the massive numbers of civilians killed by police every year, police almost never see the inside of a jail cell. On average, there are usually only about 5 officers charged per year with criminal offenses related to on-duty behavior, and very few are ever convicted. In 2015, there was a surge in officers put on trial, but despite 18 officers tried, none were convicted of a crime. Between 2005 and 2016, 77 officers in total were tried for murder or manslaughter, and only 26 were convicted. Of those 26, 13 pled guilty to the crime, and the other 13 were convicted by juries, while none of the officers who chose to have a bench trial (where the judge determines the case alone) were convicted. Overall, that’s a conviction rate of 1 in 3, or 33%. The overall, nationwide conviction rate is 93%. We could choose to believe that juries just don’t want to convict, but as pointed out above, convictions actually come more often with juries than without. Having a judge decide the case is usually a smart move, as pointed out by NBC News: “...even when cases do go to trial we see that officers waive jury trials and try their case in front of a judge who tends to be more sympathetic to police officers.” The reason it’s difficult to prosecute law enforcement is at least two-fold: 1) It’s law enforcement’s job to gather the evidence for any trial, and if they simply aren’t very motivated to gather it, the prosecution will have weak evidence. Nearly all of the 13 jury convictions mentioned above included video evidence. And it also frequently falls on police officers to testify in trials against other police officers, which makes things difficult for the prosecution as well. 2) This is the most important part to understand: District Attorneys and prosecutors have to work hand-in-hand with law enforcement every single day. Law enforcement writes the reports, collects suspects and evidence, and testifies in court at the request of prosecuting attorneys. Because of this necessary, usually friendly relationship, prosecutors are often not truly motivated to convict law enforcement officers, because when they really try, things can become difficult for them. From fallout between prosecution and police in Baltimore, to New Mexico, where the Albuquerque DA became the target of a police investigation after mentioning to the chief that she was leaning toward filing charges against two officers who used rifles to shoot to death a homeless whose crime was “illegally camping.” His name was James Boyd. You can watch the shooting here if you want. It seems obvious to me that Boyd was suffering from some sort of mental illness. And investigating the DA wasn’t the only thing Albuquerque PD did her. She ended up resigning in 2016. You can read the full story here. These are reasons why prosecutors often will not dutifully try a case against police officers. In recent times, prosecutors have begun charging officers with crimes that don’t fit what actually happened in order to get the officers acquitted on a technicality. In 2015, Chicago PD officer Dante Servin was charged with involuntary manslaughter for an off-duty shooting. Upon reading the verdict, Judge Dennis Porter ruled that since shooting someone intentionally is not “involuntary” he had to acquit Servin because Servin should’ve been charged with murder. More recently, there was an acquittal in the shooting of Philando Castile in Minnesota by St. Anthony PD officer Jeronimo Yanez, who shot Castile multiple times as Castile reached, as instructed, to get his wallet and provide Yanez with his ID, while simultaneously explaining he had a concealed-carry permit – which he was required to do by law. Yanez was charged with second-degree manslaughter, which as you can see also did not fit the circumstances. Even worse, once he was acquitted, he was fired from the St. Anthony Police Department and received a $48,500 golden parachute. I believe these trials are often intended to give the illusion that justice is being done. And I firmly believe that injustice for one person in our society is injustice for all of us. D) Civil Asset Forfeiture This one is straightforward: Civil Asset Forfeiture laws were instituted as part of the fight in the War On Drugs (which I believe should be abolished anyway), and they allow law enforcement to seize your property just based on the suspicion that the property is linked to criminal activity. Since it’s based on civil law, rather than criminal law, law enforcement can legally take any cash you have on you, as one example, and since the asset itself (which can be cash, a house, a car, a boat, or just about anything) is what is being legally accused, if you will, there’s very little recourse for us to get our property returned to us. People whose property is taken through Civil Asset Forfeiture are often never charged with a crime, or even arrested, the property just gets taken, and then the only way to get the property returned is to go to court and prove a negative – prove that the property was not garnered through any illegal means – and that can be literally impossible to do because the burden of proof is shifted to the accused. This is just about as unconstitutional as it gets. And before you say, “Well, it’s not that much of a problem, is it?” Over the last three years, property taken by law enforcement through Civil Asset Forfeiture has cost Americans more than all burglaries combined during the same years. If you want to laugh while you’re angry about this, here’s a bit HBO’s John Oliver did on this subject in 2014. It’s really informative as well. Thankfully, as Californians, this isn’t a problem for us, as Governor Brown signed a bill in September of 2016 that made Civil Asset Forfeiture illegal unless it is accompanied by a criminal conviction. It’s nice when your state gets something right for once, huh? And it was just in time, too, because President Trump’s Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, announced in July of 2017 that he plans to increase Civil Asset Forfeitures. E) Citations Can Do More Harm Than Good None of us get to vote on what the penalty is going to be for any sort of traffic or parking offense, but as I point out elsewhere, our local, state and federal governments can often treat us as if we’re bottomless pits of endless cash. The problem is, things like gasoline taxes and traffic citations disproportionately effect the poor and middle classes. Here’s a great column from the LA Times about the situation here in California, where a $100 ticket will end up costing $500 about 80% of the time. This 400% increase in fees has helped the California state government to bring in billions in additional revenue. When a government can levy such high surcharges, based on fines that we have no choice about as citizens, essentially writing their own checks, that’s the definition of extortion. And extortion is wrong. These things I’ve just detailed above are all policing issues that create and maintain an adversarial culture between police and the public. That’s not how it should be in any country, but especially in the United States of America. We need police to be a part of the communities they’re patrolling, and there are a lot of things we can do that will improve accountability for police and civilians alike while also making interactions between the two much safer for everybody. The first and best idea to help in this regard is Civilian-Led Policing. This is a new program that I endorse which I believe will be able to help bridge the divide between law enforcement and their communities. I encourage you to check it out. Along with Civilian-Led Policing, I’d like to end the practice of the federal government incentivizing criminalization of illicit drugs (which, again, I believe should be decriminalized anyway) by ending the issuing federal money to state and local law enforcement based on their ability to arrest people for non-violent drug offenses. Instead, I’d like to use that same money to incentivize state and local law enforcement to hire officers who live within the very communities they will be policing, or by having officers move into those communities. This can be done in a variety of ways, but the end goal will be to have as many police living within the community they patrol as possible, which I believe will create a bond between police and their communities and drastically change the adversarial-policing dynamic we’re witnessing today. I will work to permanently ban the process of Civil Asset Forfeiture without an accompanying criminal conviction nationwide. In regard to traffic citations, I will advocate for fines to be set on the basis of the recipient’s ability to pay, so that traffic fines will still maintain whatever punitive effect they may have of discouraging poor driving, but not victimize our most vulnerable people. I believe that if any state or municipality needs more money to pay their bills, they should get it the honest way: through taxes approved by their constituency. If they can’t do that, then they should do without the money until such a point that they can. Allowing traffic citations to be used to pay government bills quickly turns into “highway robbery,” as governments continually increase the fines, fees, and penalties associated with the citations, and hold your driving privileges hostage until you can pay. And it also increases the motivation for governments to focus their policing not on public safety, but revenue generation. This usually leads to ticket quotas, which are against the law in California – and should be nationwide. But regardless of their legality, police in California still do it. When they get away with it, it’s usually by calling the quota a “guideline,” for example, but if you’re a police officer and you don’t write very many tickets for a few weeks, you will definitely end up getting a visit from your superiors. All civil and criminal penalties enforced upon Americans should be in an effort to make society safer and/or more just. Period. No government should rely on revenue from punishments to operate, because as I just showed, it leads directly to more, heavier punishments regardless of whether or not they benefit society itself in any way. There are a few ways to combat this: One could be by allocating the money earned in citations to be used outside the system, such as for schools; but the danger to this is the government could cut funding for schools, like the state of California did after they brought in the California Lottery in 1984. Another way to combat it would be to force the money, by law, to be used to fund things that are currently not being funded, but should be. Maybe starting an account with this citation revenue to fund new business startups could be a smart move, for example. But something has to be done to remove the government’s incentive for targeting its populace like this. I believe there needs to be justice whenever anyone needlessly harms another person in our country, whether the offender is a police officer or not. I believe that positions of power should require a higher standard of behavior, not a lower one. If as your congressperson I’m ever charged with a crime, I expect to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, not just let off as often happens with government representatives, employees, and the very wealthy. It’s wrong. If law enforcement officers who are charged with a crime are prosecuted effectively, they should be convicted at roughly the same rate as anybody else. So, when I’m elected, I will do whatever I can to help Tennessee congressperson Steve Cohen get his law passed through congress that mandates independent prosecution of law enforcement officers for police shootings. I’d like to take that a step further and have independent investigators involved in some capacity as well, which should not only remove bias from the investigators, it would bring the investigation in line with the officer’s Garrity rights, which means the officer would be allowed to be investigated without conflict. I believe that all good law enforcement officers will welcome the fair trials of officers who needlessly harm the public and, as a result, make their jobs more dangerous. The danger of the justice system failing victims of police abuse is that, ultimately, victims can be expected to seek justice on their own. It’s human nature. And a culture of accountability will also make it easier for the good officers to displace the bad ones throughout the American law-enforcement community. Jailing bad police officers would be a good start toward fixing this issue, but ultimately there needs to be a change in how police are trained in our country. Salt Lake City is proving to be an example of how much better it can be done. Then-Chief Chris Burbank, back in 2013, explained how and why he’s attempting to change the police culture in Utah’s capitol city. His focus was on ending adversarial policing, because he believed it makes everyone less safe, including his officers. Although he ended up being fired by the mayor (due to poor handling of sexual-harassment complaints from within the department) in June of 2015, his transformation of policing in the city was already nearly complete, as his department was receiving new training in de-escalation, including a concept they refer to as “giving ground.” As a result of these new policies, (as of my writing of this section, in July of 2017) the Salt Lake City Police Department hasn’t killed anybody since 2015. Here’s a video clip of an SLCPD officer practicing these de-escalation techniques to successfully arrest a man with a knife, even though the chief said he would’ve been technically justified in shooting and killing the man. This is how policing needs to be handled in our country. We can do it much better than we are. Police are not our enemy, and we are not theirs, but it’s obvious that, somewhere along the line, many officers and civilians alike have lost their way. It’s time to remind everybody that we are all in this together.[32] |
” |
| —Cox for Congress[44] | ||
Timeline
- April 18, 2018: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee adds Gil Cisneros to its Red to Blue program. Candidates in the program receive organizational and financial support.[45]
- February 22, 2018: End Citizens United announces its endorsement of Gil Cisneros (D).[46]
- February 16, 2018: Our Revolution endorses Andy Thorburn (D).[47]
- January 16, 2018: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R) endorses Shawn Nelson (R).[48]
- January 11, 2018: Rep. Mimi Walters (R) endorses Young Kim (R).[49]
- January 8, 2018: Incumbent Ed Royce announces his retirement[51]
- December 8, 2017: Democracy for America announces its endorsement of Sam Jammal (D).[52]
- September 16, 2017: 314 Action announces its endorsement of Mai Khanh Tran (D).[53]
- July 13, 2017: EMILY's List announces its endorsement of Mai Khanh Tran (D).[54]
Endorsements
Ballotpedia tracks endorsements by organizations and elected officials. As of May 29, 2018, we have located the following endorsements in this race. To notify us of other endorsements, please email us.
| Democratic candidate endorsements | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Endorsement | Chen*
|
Cisneros[55]
|
Jammal[56]
|
Janowicz[57]
|
Thorburn[58]
|
Tran[59]
| |||
| Federal officials | |||||||||
| Mark Takano, U.S. representative | ✔ | ||||||||
| Judy Chu, U.S. representative | ✔ | ||||||||
| Pete Aguilar, U.S. representative | ✔ | ||||||||
| Nanette Barragan, U.S. representative | ✔ | ||||||||
| Salud Carbajal, U.S. representative | ✔ | ||||||||
| Lou Correa, U.S. representative | ✔ | ||||||||
| Lois Frankel, U.S. representative | ✔ | ||||||||
| Jared Huffman, U.S. representative | ✔ | ||||||||
| Zoe Lofgren, U.S. representative | ✔ | ||||||||
| Grace Napolitano, U.S. representative | ✔ | ||||||||
| Lucille Roybal-Allard, U.S. representative | ✔ | ||||||||
| Raul Ruiz, U.S. representative | ✔ | ||||||||
| Linda Sanchez, U.S. representative | ✔ | ||||||||
| Norma Torres, U.S. representative | ✔ | ||||||||
| Loretta Sanchez, former U.S. representative | ✔ | ||||||||
| Arne Duncan, former U.S. secretary of education | ✔ | ||||||||
| State figures | |||||||||
| Fiona Ma, California Board of Equalization member | ✔ | ||||||||
| Connie Leyva, California state senator | ✔ | ||||||||
| Ian Calderon, California state assemblyman | ✔ | ||||||||
| Kansen Chu, California state assemblyman | ✔ | ||||||||
| Chris Holden, California state assemblyman | ✔ | ||||||||
| Reggie Jones-Sawyer, California state assemblyman | ✔ | ||||||||
| Ash Kalra, California state assemblyman | ✔ | ||||||||
| Sharon Quirk Silva, California state assemblywoman | ✔ | ✔ | |||||||
| Blanca Rubio, California state assemblywoman | ✔ | ||||||||
| Marty Block, former California state senator | ✔ | ||||||||
| Dolores Huerta, activist | ✔ | ✔ | |||||||
| Local figures | |||||||||
| Rick Tuttle, former Los Angeles city comptroller | ✔ | ||||||||
| Jose Moreno, Anaheim mayor pro tem | ✔ | ||||||||
| Jorge Marquez, Covina mayor | ✔ | ||||||||
| Rose Espinoza, La Habra mayor | ✔ | ||||||||
| Michael Blazey, La Habra mayor pro tem | ✔ | ||||||||
| Amy Thomas Howorth, Manhattan Beach mayor | ✔ | ||||||||
| Polly Low, Rosemead mayor | ✔ | ||||||||
| Michele Martinez, Santa Ana mayor pro tem | ✔ | ||||||||
| Molly McClanahan, former Fullerton mayor | ✔ | ||||||||
| Ali Sajjad Taj, Artesia city councilman | ✔ | ||||||||
| Katrina Foley, Costa Mesa city councilwoman | ✔ | ||||||||
| Melissa Fox, Irvine city councilwoman | ✔ | ||||||||
| Juan Garza, Bellflower city councilman | ✔ | ||||||||
| Jorge Marquez, Covina city councilman | ✔ | ||||||||
| Jesus Silva, Fullerton city councilman | ✔ | ||||||||
| Diedre Thu-Ha Nguyen, Garden Grove city councilwoman | ✔ | ||||||||
| Kim Nguyen, Garden Grove city councilwoman | ✔ | ||||||||
| Wayne Lee, Millbrae city councilman | ✔ | ||||||||
| Hector Medrano, South El Monte city councilman | ✔ | ||||||||
| Shin Liu, Cerritos College board trustee | ✔ | ||||||||
| Jim Moreno, Coast Colleges board trustee | ✔ | ||||||||
| Manuel Baca, Mt. San Antonio Community College board trustee | ✔ | ||||||||
| Robert Hidalgo, Mt. San Antonio Community College board trustee | ✔ | ||||||||
| Stephen Blount, North Orange Community College board trustee | ✔ | ||||||||
| Ed Lopez, North Orange Community College board trustee | ✔ | ||||||||
| Zeke Hernandez, Rancho Community College District trustee | ✔ | ||||||||
| Ryan Ruelas, Anaheim Elementary School board president | ✔ | ||||||||
| Connor Traut, Centralia Elementary School board vice president | ✔ | ||||||||
| Joanne Fawley, Fullerton Joint Union High School board trustee | ✔ | ||||||||
| Andy Montoya, Fullerton Joint Union High School board member | ✔ | ||||||||
| Jeanette Vazquez, Fullerton Elementary School District board member | ✔ | ||||||||
| Martin Medrano, Hacienda La Puente Unified School District board member | ✔ | ||||||||
| Ida MacMurray, La Habra City School board vice president | ✔ | ||||||||
| Gina Clayton-Tarvin, Ocean View School District board member | ✔ | ||||||||
| Layla Abou-Taleb, Walnut Valley USD board member | ✔ | ||||||||
| Helen Hall, Walnut Valley USD board member | ✔ | ||||||||
| Jamison Powers, Westminster School board member | ✔ | ||||||||
| Organizations | |||||||||
| 314 Action | ✔ | ||||||||
| Asian American Action Fund | ✔ | ||||||||
| Asian American and Pacific Islanders Victory Fund | ✔ | ||||||||
| Asian Americans & Pacific Islanders Rising & Empowering | ✔ | ||||||||
| Blue America | ✔ | ||||||||
| California API Legislative Caucus | ✔ | ||||||||
| California Labor Federation | ✔ | ||||||||
| California Nurses Association | ✔ | ||||||||
| California Teacher Association | ✔ | ||||||||
| California School Employees Association | ✔ | ||||||||
| CAPA 21 | ✔ | ||||||||
| BOLD PAC | ✔ | ||||||||
| Climate Hawks Vote | ✔ | ||||||||
| Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles | ✔ | ||||||||
| Common Defense PAC | ✔ | ||||||||
| Communications Workers of America Local 9510 | ✔ | ||||||||
| Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus Leadership PAC | ✔ | ||||||||
| Democracy for America | ✔ | ||||||||
| EMILY's List | ✔ | ||||||||
| End Citizens United | ✔ | ||||||||
| Feminist Majority | ✔ | ||||||||
| Fullerton Action & Community Team | ✔ | ||||||||
| Giffords: Courage to Fight Gun Violence | ✔ | ||||||||
| HONOR PAC | ✔ | ||||||||
| International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 11 | ✔ | ||||||||
| International Longshore and Warehouse Union | ✔ | ||||||||
| International Longshore and Warehouse Union Locals 13, 63, and 94 | ✔ | ||||||||
| International Longshore and Warehouse Union Southern California District Council | ✔ | ||||||||
| International Union of Painters and Allied Trades | ✔ | ✔ | |||||||
| Korean American Democratic Committee | ✔ | ||||||||
| Latino Victory Fund | ✔ | ||||||||
| Los Angeles County Federation of Labor | ✔ | ||||||||
| Machinists Conference of California | ✔ | ||||||||
| Mexican American Bar Association Political Action Committee | ✔ | ||||||||
| Moms Demand Action (Candidate distinction) | ✔ | ✔ | |||||||
| Mt. Sac Ideas Club | ✔ | ||||||||
| National Education Association | ✔ | ||||||||
| National Nurses United | ✔ | ||||||||
| Orange County Labor Federation | ✔ | ||||||||
| Our Revolution | ✔ | ||||||||
| Our Revolution Orange County | ✔ | ||||||||
| People for Bernie Sanders | ✔ | ||||||||
| Progressive Democrats of America—Orange County | ✔ | ||||||||
| The Progressive Vietnamese American Organization | ✔ | ||||||||
| SEIU California | ✔ | ||||||||
| Serve America PAC | ✔ | ||||||||
| Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters | ✔ | ||||||||
| Stonewall Democratic Club | ✔ | ||||||||
| Tri-Counties Democratic Club | ✔ | ||||||||
| United Auto Workers Region 5 | ✔ | ||||||||
| UNITE-HERE Local 11 | ✔ | ||||||||
| United Food and Commercial Workers 324 | ✔ | ||||||||
| United Steelworkers | ✔ | ✔ | |||||||
| VoteVets | ✔ | ||||||||
| *Chen withdrew from the race in March 2018. | |||||||||
| Republican candidate endorsements | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Endorsement | Huff
|
Kim[60]
|
Nelson[61]
|
| Federal officials | |||
| Dana Rohrabacher, U.S. representative | ✔ | ||
| Ed Royce, U.S. representative | ✔ | ||
| Mimi Walters, U.S. representative | ✔ | ||
| Rosario Marin, former U.S. treasurer | ✔ | ||
| State figures | |||
| John Moorlach, California state senator | ✔ | ||
| Dennis Hollingsworth, former California state senator | ✔ | ||
| Phillip Chen, California state assemblyman | ✔ | ||
| Jordan Cunningham, California state assemblyman | ✔ | ||
| James Gallagher, California state assemblyman | ✔ | ||
| Tom Lackey, California state assemblyman | ✔ | ||
| Jim Patterson, California state assemblyman | ✔ | ||
| David Hadley, California state assemblyman | ✔ | ||
| Bob Pacheco, former California state assemblyman | ✔ | ||
| Jim Silva, California state assemblyman | ✔ | ||
| Connie Conway, former California state assemblywoman | ✔ | ||
| Local figures | |||
| Kathryn Barger, Los Angeles County supervisor | ✔ | ||
| Tony Rackauckaus, Orange County district attorney | ✔ | ||
| Sandra Hutchens, Orange County sheriff | ✔ | ||
| Andrew Do, Orange County supervisor | ✔ | ||
| Michelle Steel, Orange County supervisor | ✔ | ||
| Curt Hagman, San Bernardino County supervisor | ✔ | ||
| Mike Antonovich, former Los Angeles County supervisor | ✔ | ||
| Don Knabe, former Los Angeles County supervisor | ✔ | ||
| Cynthia Coad, former Orange County supervisor | ✔ | ||
| Michael Gates, Huntington Beach city attorney | ✔ | ||
| Cecilia Hupp, Brea mayor | ✔ | ||
| Peter Rogers, Chino Hills mayor | ✔ | ||
| Cynthia Moran, Chino Hills vice mayor | ✔ | ||
| Carol Herrera, Diamond Bar mayor pro tem | ✔ | ||
| Michael Vo, Fountain Valley mayor | ✔ | ||
| Steve Nagel, Fountain Valley mayor pro tem | ✔ | ||
| Mike Posey, Huntington Beach mayor | ✔ | ||
| Tim Shaw, La Habra mayor | ✔ | ||
| Greg Raths, Mission Viejo mayor pro tem | ✔ | ||
| David Shawver, Stanton mayor | ✔ | ||
| Nancy Tragarz, Walnut mayor pro tem | ✔ | ||
| Gene Hernandez, Yorba Linda mayor | ✔ | ||
| Ron Garcia, former Brea mayor | ✔ | ||
| Don Schweitzer, former Brea mayor | ✔ | ||
| Gwenn Norton-Perry, former Chino Hills mayor | ✔ | ||
| Howard Vipperman, former La Habra Heights mayor | ✔ | ||
| Tom King, former Walnut mayor | ✔ | ||
| Drexel Smith, former Walnut mayor | ✔ | ||
| Tom Sykes, former Walnut mayor | ✔ | ||
| Marty Simonoff, Brea city councilman | ✔ | ||
| Jim Edwards, Cerritos city councilman | ✔ | ||
| George Ray, Cerritos city councilman | ✔ | ||
| Gary George, Chino city councilman | ✔ | ||
| Ray Marquez, Chino Hills city councilman | ✔ | ||
| Art Bennett, Chino Hills city councilman | ✔ | ||
| Stacy Berry, Cypress city councilwoman | ✔ | ||
| Jimmy Lin, Diamond Bar city councilman | ✔ | ||
| Stephanie Klopfenstein, Garden Grove city councilwoman | ✔ | ||
| Chris Phan, Garden Grove city councilman | ✔ | ||
| Patrick Brenden, Huntington Beach city councilman | ✔ | ||
| Joe Carcchio, Huntington Beach city councilman | ✔ | ||
| James Gomez, La Habra city councilman | ✔ | ||
| Gerard Goedhart, La Palma city councilman | ✔ | ||
| Peter Kim, La Palma city councilman | ✔ | ||
| Michele Steggell, La Palma city councilwoman | ✔ | ||
| Laurie Davies, Laguna Niguel city councilwoman | ✔ | ||
| Dean Grose, Los Alamitos city councilman | ✔ | ||
| Diane Dixon, Newport Beach city councilwoman | ✔ | ||
| Rhonda Shader, Placentia city councilwoman | ✔ | ||
| Jerry Yamaguchi, Placentia city councilman | ✔ | ||
| Al Ethans, Stanton city councilman | ✔ | ||
| Rigoberto Ramirez, Stanton city councilman | ✔ | ||
| Diana Fascenelli, Villa Park city councilwoman | ✔ | ||
| Robbie Pitts, Villa Park city councilman | ✔ | ||
| Eric Ching, Walnut city councilman | ✔ | ||
| Kimberly Ho, Westminster city councilwoman | ✔ | ||
| Beth Haney, Yorba Linda city councilwoman | ✔ | ||
| Tom Lindsey, Yorba Linda city councilman | ✔ | ||
| Patsy Marshall, former Buena Park mayor | ✔ | ||
| Bruce Barrows, former Cerritos mayor | ✔ | ||
| Carol Chen, former Cerritos mayor | ✔ | ||
| Prakash Narain, former Cypress mayor | ✔ | ||
| Tim Keenan, former Cypress mayor | ✔ | ||
| Don Bankhead, former Fullerton mayor | ✔ | ||
| Dick Jones, former Fullerton mayor | ✔ | ||
| Christine Barnes, former La Palma mayor | ✔ | ||
| Charlene Hatakeyama, former La Palma mayor | ✔ | ||
| Mark Waldman, former La Palma mayor | ✔ | ||
| Pat McKinley, former Fullerton city councilman | ✔ | ||
| Ed Royce Sr., former Stanton mayor | ✔ | ||
| Tony Lam, former Westminster city councilman | ✔ | ||
| Jack Bedell, Orange County Board of Education trustee | ✔ | ||
| Ryan Bent, North Orange County Community College District trustee | ✔ | ||
| Soo Yoo, ABC Unified School District board president | ✔ | ||
| Paul Ruiz, Brea Unified School District board clerk | ✔ | ||
| James Na, Chino Valley Unified School District board clerk | ✔ | ||
| Janny Meyer, Fullerton School District board member | ✔ | ||
| Hilda Sugarman, Fullerton School District board member | ✔ | ||
| Joseph Chang, Hacienda La Puente Unified School District board trustee | ✔ | ||
| Sandi Baltes, La Habra City School District trustee | ✔ | ||
| Alexandria Coronado, former Anaheim Board of Education trustee | ✔ | ||
| Norman Hsu, former Hacienda La Puente Unified School District board member | ✔ | ||
| Mark Perumean, La Habra Heights County Water District board president | ✔ | ||
| Scarlett Kwong, Walnut Valley Water District board director | ✔ | ||
| Organizations | |||
| Asian Americans for Good Government | ✔ | ||
| California Republican Assembly | ✔ | ||
| California Women's Leadership Association PAC | ✔ | ||
| Hispanic 100 | ✔ | ||
| Lincoln Club of Orange County | ✔ | ||
| National Republican Asian Assembly | ✔ | ||
| Republican Main Street Partnership[62] | ✔ | ||
| San Bernardino County Republican Party | ✔ | ||
| San Diego Asian Americans for Equality Foundation[63] | ✔ | ||
| Silicon Valley Chinese Association[64] | ✔ | ||
| Susan B. Anthony List | ✔ | ||
| Value in Electing Women PAC | ✔ | ||
| Winning for Women PAC | ✔ | ||
| Women2Women PAC | ✔ | ||
Campaign advertisements
Gil Cisneros
Support
|
|
|
|
Bob Huff
Oppose
|
Sam Jammal
Support
|
Young Kim
Support
|
Shawn Nelson
Oppose
|
Andy Thorburn
Support
|
|
|
|
Republican district won by Hillary Clinton
This district was one of 25 Republican-held U.S. House districts that Hillary Clinton (D) won in the 2016 presidential election.[65] Nearly all were expected to be among the House's most competitive elections in 2018.
Click on the table below to see the full list of districts.
Click here to see the 13 Democratic-held U.S. House districts that Donald Trump (R) won.
District analysis
- See also: The Cook Political Report's Partisan Voter Index
- See also: FiveThirtyEight's elasticity scores
The 2017 Cook Partisan Voter Index for this district was EVEN, meaning that in the previous two presidential elections, this district's results were within 1 percentage point of the national average. This made California's 39th Congressional District the 200th most Democratic nationally.[70]
FiveThirtyEight's September 2018 elasticity score for states and congressional districts measured "how sensitive it is to changes in the national political environment." This district's elasticity score was 0.95. This means that for every 1 point the national political mood moved toward a party, the district was expected to move 0.95 points toward that party.[71]
State overview
Partisan control
This section details the partisan control of federal and state positions in California heading into the 2018 elections.
Congressional delegation
- Following the 2016 elections, Democrats held both U.S. Senate seats in California.
- Democrats held 39 of 53 U.S. House seats in California.
State executives
- As of May 2018, Democrats held seven of 10 state executive positions and the remaining three positions were officially nonpartisan.
- The governor of California was Democrat Jerry Brown.
State legislature
- Democrats controlled both chambers of the California State Legislature. They had a 55-25 majority in the state Assembly and a 27-13 majority in the state Senate.
Trifecta status
- California was a state government trifecta, meaning that Democrats held the governorship and majorities in the state house and state senate.
2018 elections
- See also: California elections, 2018
California held elections for the following positions in 2018:
- 1 Senate seat
- 53 U.S. House seats
- Governor
- Seven other state executive positions
- 20 of 40 state Senate seats
- 80 state Assembly seats
- Two state Supreme Court justices
- 35 state Court of Appeals judges
- Local trial court judges
- School board members
Demographics
| Demographic data for California | ||
|---|---|---|
| California | U.S. | |
| Total population: | 38,993,940 | 316,515,021 |
| Land area (sq mi): | 155,779 | 3,531,905 |
| Race and ethnicity** | ||
| White: | 61.8% | 73.6% |
| Black/African American: | 5.9% | 12.6% |
| Asian: | 13.7% | 5.1% |
| Native American: | 0.7% | 0.8% |
| Pacific Islander: | 0.4% | 0.2% |
| Two or more: | 4.5% | 3% |
| Hispanic/Latino: | 38.4% | 17.1% |
| Education | ||
| High school graduation rate: | 81.8% | 86.7% |
| College graduation rate: | 31.4% | 29.8% |
| Income | ||
| Median household income: | $61,818 | $53,889 |
| Persons below poverty level: | 18.2% | 11.3% |
| Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in California. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here. | ||
As of July 2016, California had a population of approximately 39,000,000 people, with its three largest cities being Los Angeles (pop. est. 4.0 million), San Diego (pop. est. 1.4 million), and San Jose (pop. est. 1 million).[72][73]
State election history
This section provides an overview of federal and state elections in California from 2000 to 2016. All data comes from the California Secretary of State.
Historical elections
Presidential elections, 2000-2016
This chart shows the results of the presidential election in California every year from 2000 to 2016.
| Election results (President of the United States), California 2000-2016 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | First-place candidate | First-place candidate votes (%) | Second-place candidate | Second-place candidate votes (%) | Margin of victory (%) |
| 2016 | Hillary Clinton |
61.7% | Donald Trump |
31.6% | 30.1% |
| 2012 | Barack Obama |
60.2% | Mitt Romney |
37.1% | 23.1% |
| 2008 | Barack Obama |
61.1% | John McCain |
37% | 24.1% |
| 2004 | John Kerry |
54.4% | George W. Bush |
44.4% | 10% |
| 2000 | Al Gore |
53.5% | George W. Bush |
41.7% | 11.8% |
U.S. Senate elections, 2000-2016
This chart shows the results of U.S. Senate races in California from 2000 to 2016. Every state has two Senate seats, and each seat goes up for election every six years. The terms of the seats are staggered so that roughly one-third of the seats are up every two years.
| Election results (U.S. Senator), California 2000-2016 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | First-place candidate | First-place candidate votes (%) | Second-place candidate | Second-place candidate votes (%) | Margin of victory (%) |
| 2016 | Kamala Harris |
61.6% | Loretta Sanchez |
38.4% | 23.2% |
| 2012 | Dianne Feinstein |
62.5% | Elizabeth Emken |
37.5% | 25% |
| 2010 | Barbara Boxer |
52.2% | Carly Fiorina |
42.2% | 10% |
| 2006 | Dianne Feinstein |
59.5% | Richard Mountjoy |
35.1% | 24.4% |
| 2004 | Barbara Boxer |
57.8% | Bill Jones |
37.8% | 20% |
| 2000 | Dianne Feinstein |
55.9% | Tom Campbell |
36.6% | 19.3% |
Gubernatorial elections, 2000-2016
This chart shows the results of the four gubernatorial elections held between 2000 and 2016. Gubernatorial elections are held every four years in California.
| Election results (Governor), California 2000-2016 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | First-place candidate | First-place candidate votes (%) | Second-place candidate | Second-place candidate votes (%) | Margin of victory (%) |
| 2014 | Jerry Brown |
60% | Neel Kashkari |
40% | 20% |
| 2010 | Jerry Brown |
53.8% | Meg Whitman |
40.9% | 12.9% |
| 2006 | Arnold Schwarzenegger |
55.9% | Phil Angelides |
39.0% | 16.9% |
| 2002 | Gray Davis |
47.3% | Bill Simon |
42.4% | 4.9% |
Congressional delegation, 2000-2016
This chart shows the number of Democrats and Republicans who were elected to represent California in the U.S. House from 2000 to 2016. Elections for U.S. House seats are held every two years.
| Congressional delegation, California 2000-2016 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Democrats | Democrats (%) | Republicans | Republicans (%) | Balance of power |
| 2016 | 39 |
73.5% | 14 |
26.4% | D+25 |
| 2014 | 39 |
73.5% | 14 |
26.4% | D+25 |
| 2012 | 38 |
71.7% | 15 |
28.3% | D+23 |
| 2010 | 34 |
64.1% | 19 |
35.8% | D+15 |
| 2008 | 34 |
64.1% | 19 |
35.8% | D+15 |
| 2006 | 34 |
64.1% | 19 |
35.8% | D+15 |
| 2004 | 33 |
62.3% | 20 |
37.7% | D+13 |
| 2002 | 33 |
62.3% | 20 |
37.7% | D+13 |
| 2000 | 32 |
61.5% | 20 |
38.5% | D+12 |
Trifectas, 1992-2017
A state government trifecta occurs when one party controls both chambers of the state legislature and the governor's office.
California Party Control: 1992-2025
Twenty years with Democratic trifectas • No Republican trifectas
Scroll left and right on the table below to view more years.
| Year | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 00 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Governor | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | D | D | D | D | D | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D |
| Senate | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D |
| Assembly | D | D | D | S | R | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D |
See also
- United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018
- United States House of Representatives elections, 2018
- United States Senate elections, 2018
Footnotes
- ↑ Daily Kos, "Check out our maps and analysis comparing 2016's presidential and congressional results by district," January 31, 2017
- ↑ WTOP, "Calif. Democrats vying for US House may crowd each other out," April 24, 2018
- ↑ Voice of OC, "Democratic Congressional Candidates Fail to Get Endorsement Recommendations in Four Key OC Races," January 31, 2018
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Here's how California's Democratic Party endorsements are shaping up this weekend in crucial House races," February 24, 2018
- ↑ Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, "Red to Blue," accessed May 25, 2018
- ↑ The filing deadline in this race was extended because the incumbent opted not to run for re-election.
- ↑ The Mercury News, "Late GOP entries shake up congressional races as California filing deadline looms," March 9, 2018
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 California Secretary of State, "Election dates and resources," accessed January 31, 2018
- ↑ Ballotpedia staff, "Phone call with the California Secretary of State's Office," January 31, 2018
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 DCCC, "Red to Blue Candidates," accessed May 15, 2018
- ↑ The Intercept, "THE DEAD ENDERS: Candidates Who Signed Up to Battle Donald Trump Must Get Past the Democratic Party First," January 23, 2018
- ↑ Federal Election Commission, "California - House District 39, Compare candidate financial totals," accessed May 30, 2018
- ↑ Facebook, "American Future Fund," accessed June 4, 2018
- ↑ The Hill, "Dem money floods Calif. primaries to avert electoral disaster," May 27, 2018
- ↑ Twitter, "Elena Schneider," May 7, 2018
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "DCCC elevates Democrat Gil Cisneros in hopes of uniting Democrats to flip Rep. Ed Royce's seat," April 18, 2018
- ↑ Daily Kos, "Morning Digest: Daily Kos Elections debuts our initial 2018 gubernatorial race ratings," June 1, 2018
- ↑ Politico, "What to watch in Tuesday's primaries," May 22, 2018
- ↑ 19.0 19.1 Vox, "California’s 'top two' primary chaos, explained," May 29, 2018
- ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 Cook Political Report, "House: Democrats Risk Disaster in California's Top Two Primaries," May 2, 2018
- ↑ National Public Radio, "GOP Fears It Will Be Shut Out Of California Governor's Race," May 10, 2018
- ↑ Roll Call, "‘That Danger Is Real’ — Democrats’ Final Push to Avoid Shutout in Key California Races," May 24, 2018
- ↑ The Hill, "Democrats may suffer from California’s top-two system," May 22, 2018
- ↑ Slate, "House Democrats Are Starting to Pick Sides in Key California Primaries," May 11, 2018
- ↑ Roll Call, "DCCC Launches Joint TV Ad With California’s Harley Rouda," May 22, 2018
- ↑ Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, "Bob Huff and Shawn Nelson," May 23, 2018
- ↑ OC Register, "Another Orange County Democrat withdraws, narrowing crowd for 48th congressional seat," April 11, 2018
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Democrat drops out of race against Rohrabacher in the name of unity, calls on other candidates to do the same," March 21, 2018
- ↑ Twitter, "Christine Mai-Duc," May 1, 2018
- ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Republican drops out of race for California governor," February 26, 2018
- ↑ Talking Points Memo, "GOP Group Launches Bid To Shut Dems Out Of Key California House Races," May 23, 2018
- ↑ 32.00 32.01 32.02 32.03 32.04 32.05 32.06 32.07 32.08 32.09 32.10 32.11 32.12 32.13 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Dr. Herbert Lee for Congress, "Campaign Issues," accessed May 29, 2018
- ↑ Suzi Park Leggett for United States Congress, "Home," accessed May 29, 2018
- ↑ Andy Thorburn for Congress, "Issues," accessed May 29, 2018
- ↑ Dr. Mai Khanh Tran for Congress, "On the Issues," accessed May 29, 2018
- ↑ Cullum for Congress, "Platform," accessed May 29, 2018
- ↑ Bob Huff for Congress, "About -> Accomplishments," accessed May 29, 2018
- ↑ Young Kim for Congress, "Issues," accessed May 29, 2018
- ↑ Phil Liberatore for Congress, "The Issues," accessed May 29, 2018
- ↑ Shawn Nelson for Congress, "Priorities," accessed May 29, 2018
- ↑ Andrew Sarega for Congress, "Platform," accessed May 29, 2018
- ↑ Steve Vargas for Congress, "Issues," accessed May 29, 2018
- ↑ Vote for Cox, "On the Issues," accessed May 29, 2018
- ↑ The Hill, "House Dems add five candidates to ‘Red to Blue’ program," April 18, 2018
- ↑ End Citizens United, "END CITIZENS UNITED ENDORSES GIL CISNEROS IN CA-39," February 22, 2018
- ↑ Twitter, " Andy Thorburn," February 16, 2018
- ↑ OC Politics Blog, "Rohrabacher backs Nelson for the 39th Congressional District," January 16, 2018
- ↑ Kim for Congress, "U.S. Representative Mimi Walters endorses Young Kim in CA39," January 11, 2018
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Rep. Ed Royce endorses former GOP Assemblywoman Young Kim to replace him," January 9, 2018
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedretire - ↑ Democracy for America, "Democracy for America backs four U.S. House challengers in critical California races," December 8, 2017
- ↑ Facebook, "314 Action," September 16, 2017
- ↑ Facebook, "EMILY's List," July 13, 2017
- ↑ Gil Cisneros for Congress, "Endorsements," accessed March 23, 2018
- ↑ Sam Jammal for Congress, "Endorsements," accessed March 23, 2018
- ↑ Phil Janowicz, "News," accessed January 27, 2018
- ↑ Andy Thorburn, "Endorsements," accessed March 23, 2018
- ↑ Dr Mai Khanh Tran, "Home," accessed January 27, 2018
- ↑ Young Kim, "Endorsements," accessed March 23, 2018
- ↑ Twitter, "Shawn Nelson for Congress on January 16, 2018," accessed January 27, 2018
- ↑ Roll Call, "Republican Main Street Partnership Backs 10 Recruits," April 26, 2018
- ↑ San Diego Asian Americans for Equality Foundation, "SDAAFE endorses Bob Huff for Congress," January 24, 2018
- ↑ Silicon Valley Chinese Association, "Silicon Valley Chinese Association endorses Bob Huff for Congress," January 11, 2018
- ↑ This figure includes Pennsylvania districts that were redrawn by the state Supreme Court in early 2018 and districts that flipped in special elections.
- ↑ The new 1st district was created in early 2018 due to court-ordered redistricting and most closely resembles the old 8th District held by Fitzpatrick. Click here to read more.
- ↑ The new 5th district was created in early 2018 due to court-ordered redistricting and most closely resembles the old 7th District held by Meehan. Click here to read more.
- ↑ The new 6th district was created in early 2018 due to court-ordered redistricting and most closely resembles the old 6th District held by Costello. Click here to read more.
- ↑ The new 7th district was created in early 2018 due to court-ordered redistricting and most closely resembles the old 15th District held by Dent. Click here to read more.
- ↑ Cook Political Report, "Introducing the 2017 Cook Political Report Partisan Voter Index," April 7, 2017
- ↑ FiveThirtyEight, "Election Update: The Most (And Least) Elastic States And Districts," September 6, 2018
- ↑ California Demographics, "California Cities by Population," accessed April 2, 2018
- ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "Quickfacts California," accessed April 2, 2018
