Joe Dehn
Joe Dehn (Libertarian Party) ran for election to the U.S. House to represent California's 17th Congressional District. He lost in the primary on March 5, 2024.
Biography
Joe Dehn was born in New York and lives in Sunnyvale, California. Dehn earned a degree in electrical engineering and computer science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[1]
Elections
2024
See also: California's 17th Congressional District election, 2024
California's 17th Congressional District election, 2024 (March 5 top-two primary)
General election
General election for U.S. House California District 17
Incumbent Ro Khanna defeated Anita Chen in the general election for U.S. House California District 17 on November 5, 2024.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ |  | Ro Khanna (D) | 67.7 | 172,462 |
 | Anita Chen (R)  | 32.3 | 82,415 | |
| Total votes: 254,877 | |||
| = 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. | ||||
Nonpartisan primary election
Nonpartisan primary for U.S. House California District 17
Incumbent Ro Khanna and Anita Chen defeated Ritesh Tandon, Mario Ramirez, and Joe Dehn in the primary for U.S. House California District 17 on March 5, 2024.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Ro Khanna (D) | 62.9 | 74,004 |
| ✔ | | Anita Chen (R) | 26.8 | 31,568 |
 | Ritesh Tandon (D) | 4.9 | 5,738 | |
 | Mario Ramirez (D) | 3.8 | 4,498 | |
 | Joe Dehn (L) | 1.6 | 1,839 | |
| Total votes: 117,647 | |||
| = 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. | ||||
Endorsements
Ballotpedia did not identify endorsements for Dehn in this election.
2022
See also: California's 17th Congressional District election, 2022
General election
General election for U.S. House California District 17
Incumbent Ro Khanna defeated Ritesh Tandon in the general election for U.S. House California District 17 on November 8, 2022.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Ro Khanna (D) | 70.9 | 127,853 |
| Ritesh Tandon (R) | 29.1 | 52,400 | |
| Total votes: 180,253 | |||
| = 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. | ||||
Nonpartisan primary election
Nonpartisan primary for U.S. House California District 17
Incumbent Ro Khanna and Ritesh Tandon defeated Stephen Forbes, Rao Ravul, and Joe Dehn in the primary for U.S. House California District 17 on June 7, 2022.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Ro Khanna (D) | 66.0 | 74,892 |
| ✔ | | Ritesh Tandon (R) | 25.3 | 28,730 |
| Stephen Forbes (D) | 5.0 | 5,694 | ||
| Rao Ravul (D) | 2.1 | 2,394 | ||
| Joe Dehn (L) | 1.6 | 1,836 | |
| Total votes: 113,546 | |||
| = 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
- Sarah Katz (D)
2020
See also: California's 17th Congressional District election, 2020
General election
General election for U.S. House California District 17
Incumbent Ro Khanna defeated Ritesh Tandon in the general election for U.S. House California District 17 on November 3, 2020.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Ro Khanna (D) | 71.3 | 212,137 |
| Ritesh Tandon (R) | 28.7 | 85,199 | |
| Total votes: 297,336 | |||
| = 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. | ||||
Nonpartisan primary election
Nonpartisan primary for U.S. House California District 17
Incumbent Ro Khanna and Ritesh Tandon defeated Stephen Forbes and Joe Dehn in the primary for U.S. House California District 17 on March 3, 2020.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Ro Khanna (D) | 68.6 | 107,638 |
| ✔ | | Ritesh Tandon (R) | 21.4 | 33,527 |
| Stephen Forbes (D) | 7.7 | 12,110 | ||
| Joe Dehn (L) | 2.2 | 3,523 | |
| Total votes: 156,798 | |||
| = 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. | ||||
Campaign themes
2024
Ballotpedia survey responses
See also: Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection
Joe Dehn did not complete Ballotpedia's 2024 Candidate Connection survey.
Campaign website
Dehn’s campaign website stated the following:
| “ |
Issue: Drug War There has been a lot of political activity recently relating to "legalization" or "decriminalization" of marijuana. The sentiments behind this are mostly good, and some of the changes have helped some people. But there are three big problems with this: (1) the "war" against many other drugs is still going full steam, (2) these changes haven't led to a free market, even for marijuana, and (3) the federal government continues to interfere with marijuana, against the explicit wishes of voters in the various states. There are ways to help people who get into trouble using drugs. But these services can best be provided through private action, by people who care about the individuals involved and by medical professionals. The War on Drugs doesn't help bring this kind of positive change, and in many cases it makes it harder for the victims to find their way to getting help. What we should be demanding from Congress is an end to this counter-productive and expensive "war".
Issue: Education The incentives for producing a good result at a reasonable cost are all wrong in a system where government controls everything, including paying for it. It sounds good at first – everybody gets the service "for free". But that just means that everybody pays, more and more every year, and nobody is really in control. More money (higher taxes) is not the answer. That has been tried, over and over again. That's how we got where we are today, with government schools that cost more to operate per student than private schools and produce results that should be embarrassing to all involved. And it's not the fault of any one group. There are many good teachers in public schools, but they can't do their best in a system that is over-regulated. Advances in technology should be leading to both more effective teaching and lower total costs – instead they have mostly been turned by this dysfunctional system into a series of expensive boondoggles that only profit certain favored companies and leave schools with equipment that is obsolete almost as soon as it is installed. The current K-12 educational system is fundamentally flawed because it is based on what is essentially a socialist model. It is failing to meet our expectations for the same reason that agriculture and manufacturing kept failing to meet expectations in the old Soviet Union. Minor "reforms" or better "planning" will not yield the improvement we really need. The whole system needs to be replaced by one based on a free-market model. These problems started at the local level, and were made worse by state governments, even before the federal government got involved in a big way. Mostly they need to be addressed at the state and local level. But the federal government can at least try to avoid making the problems worse. To that end, here are some steps Congress can take:
Issue: Health Care The advances are coming from the work of our biotechnology and other high-tech companies (many of them right here in Silicon Valley), the researchers at our universities, and of course the many dedicated and skilled health care practitioners. But the benefit of these advances is being held back by the way health care services are managed, delivered, and paid for. Some say this is a failure of the free market, and call for more government involvement. But we do not currently have a free market in health care. This is one of the most heavily regulated industries in our entire economy! Almost everybody in the United States has their health care paid for either directly through a government program or through insurance programs that have their current form because of regulation, subsidies, and tax policies. At the same time, government policies limit the supply of medical professionals, and drive up the cost of equipment and drugs. And individuals are powerless to control any of this, because they don't even understand what they are paying. Yes, it's a complicated mess that needs to swept away. But "single payer" or "Medicare for All" isn't the answer -- and in the long run would make things even worse. The right answer is to get the government out of the way so that the basic economic principles that have led to lower costs in almost every other industry are allowed to function.
Issue: Immigration This has always been a nation of immigrants. People born in other parts of the world have contributed their energy and culture to make America what it is today. Almost everyone living here now is either an immigrant or a descendant of immigrants. Most politicans today are uncomfortable with immigration. They don't all talk about it using the same language, but they all agree that it needs to be controlled. They have forgotten that bold claim "created equal" that was such a central feature of the document on which this country was founded. They have also forgotten the basic idea of democracy, a principle that many of them claim to consider more important even than liberty – that it should be the people living in a geographic area who get to decide who governs them, and how. Allowing the government to decide who can live where is turning that idea on its head! And the government has not, in fact, managed to prevent immigration – what it has done, instead, is brand a large number of human beings as "illegal" or "undocumented", without the rights of the rest of the population, against whom discrimination is not only legal but required. No democracy can survive with such a large and growing population of disenfranchised subjects. As a Libertarian, I respect the rights of all people, no matter where they were born. The right to move about and seek a better life for oneself and one's family is a fundamental right. I look forward to a day when all the present restrictions are gone. I don't expect that to happen immediately, but it should be our goal. In the meantime, I support the following common-sense reforms:
Issue: Science Government has no business endorsing scientific theories or findings. Throughout history, attempts by authoritarian institutions to impose "official" views on scientific questions have interfered with progress. Famous examples include suppression of the heliocentric model of our solar system and the promotion of the Lamarckian theory of evolution. Our society today is not exempt from repetition of such follies. Similarly, government should not endorse or attempt to discredit scientists or scientific organizations. Experts in various scientific fields are best identified by their peers. The general public should not be misled by titles or honors bestowed by politicians and bureaucrats. I have personally had a strong interest in science my entire life, but I do not see taxes as the proper way to support scientific research. In addition to the basic injustice of taking money by force, from people who may have other priorities, to pay for something that I personally consider worthy, government funding of research creates perverse incentives that can lead to waste of resources, while discouraging research that might lead to both better understanding of nature and practical new products and methods. Research should be privately funded by businesses, universities, and other institutions that allow those interested in various fields and scientific questions to pool their resources for this purpose. Government can best facilitate this by lowering taxes, on both businesses and individuals, to allow non-government institutions to put more of their resources into this important activity. Issue: Taxes
Although new taxes are sometimes offered with the promise that they will replace existing taxes, things are extremely unlikely to work out that way. If any new tax is instituted, it will most likely at best be coupled with a reduction in some other tax which will then start creeping up again – and in the long run we'll end up with higher taxes overall than before. Although some argue that we should increase rates for some people in the name of "fairness", I do not believe that shifting the burden from one class or special interest group to another is the answer. Current levels of taxation are already unfair to average working people because they would be better off being able to spend the money that they earn themselves. And the wealthy are already paying far more than their share of total taxes. The so-called "1%" are currently paying more in federal income taxes than all of the bottom 90% combined! Taxation is inherently unjust, because it takes people's money without their consent. There is no way to make the income tax "fair" by taking more of anybody's income. The only way to make income taxes "less unfair" is to reduce them for everybody, to the point where they are not a significant burden on anybody. Other taxes should also be reduced or, better yet, eliminated. The tariffs imposed by the Trump administration but now being continued by the Biden administrations are a kind of tax that hurts American consumers – and in the long run also American businesses as other countries respond with similar actions. Congress should act to roll back these tariffs, and to remove the president's ability to impose them unilaterally. How can we avoid increasing taxes, given current spending levels, without continuing to add to the national debt? We can't! The correct solution is to lower the level of spending – both to eliminate the deficit and so that taxes can also be reduced. Issue: Transportation Financing projects through federal taxes also creates perverse incentives for state and local governments, who must fight each other for this "free" money. Of course that money isn't free at all – the federal government doesn't create wealth, it just takes it from us and redistributes it. But state and local governments are put in a position where they must play this game, for fear of not getting "their share" of the money that was originally taken from their own citizens. We can see the disastrous results right here in California with the failed "high speed rail to nowhere" project that has squandered billions of dollars in tax money, lining the pockets of politically-connected consultants and contractors, with no prospect of ever producing a service that will be of practical use to the average traveler or commuter. All that money could have been, and should have been, spent on something more useful. Meanwhile, advancing technology has opened up new ways to address real transportation needs. We are on the verge of a revolution in transportation, with electric vehicles soon to become predominant, self-driving cars close to a reality, and air taxis on their way. This is not the time to be wasting tax money on massive new projects that may well become outmoded before they are even completed. This is, rather, a golden opportunity to move the financing of transportation back to the private sector. To cut gas taxes and let investors build roadways and bridges that will pay for themselves, to let Elon Musk build his hyperloops, to enable those who believe in rail to make investments without fear of tax-subsidized competition, and to let these and possibilities not yet even imagined compete to provide the best solutions for our transportation needs. Issue: War and Peace And if that weren't bad enough, the habit of meddling in the business of other countries has continued to make enemies of people around the world. There hasn't been an actual "declaration of war" since 1942, but Americans have been fighting other people in the name of this country all around the world almost continuously for the past several decades, with every president claiming the power to send them there with or without any specific approval by Congress. It is up to Congress to put a stop to this, by establishing policies that will make us more secure in a sensible way:
|
” |
| —Joe Dehn’s campaign website (2024)[3] | ||
2022
Joe Dehn did not complete Ballotpedia's 2022 Candidate Connection survey.
Campaign website
Dehn's campaign website stated the following:
| “ |
Issue: Drug War The so-called "War on Drugs" is in reality a war on people. It's certainly true that people can use drugs in ways that are dangerous and make their own lives worse. However, drug prohibition is more dangerous than drugs themselves and comes with a staggering cost in both money and human lives. The War on Drugs is a continuing threat to individual liberty, to domestic order, and to peace in the world. Furthermore, it has provided a rationale by which the power of the state has been expanded to greatly restrict our right to privacy and to be secure in our homes. There has been a lot of political activity recently relating to "legalization" or "decriminalization" of marijuana. The sentiments behind this are mostly good, and some of the changes have helped some people. But there are three big problems with this: (1) the "war" against many other drugs is still going full steam, (2) these changes haven't led to a free market, even for marijuana, and (3) the federal government continues to interfere with marijuana, against the explicit wishes of voters in the various states. There are ways to help people who get into trouble using drugs. But these services can best be provided through private action, by people who care about the individuals involved and by medical professionals. The War on Drugs doesn't help bring this kind of positive change, and in many cases it makes it harder for the victims to find their way to getting help. What we should be demanding from Congress is an end to this counter-productive and expensive "war".
Education is too important to be left to the government. A free society needs individuals who learn to think for themselves. Producing cookie-cutter adults out of children with different interests and abilities may seem like a cost-effective way to do things, but it isn't good for our kids or our nation. And it isn't even cost-effective! The costs of the current education system have been growing faster than inflation for decades. The incentives for producing a good result at a reasonable cost are all wrong in a system where government controls everything, including paying for it. It sounds good at first – everybody gets the service "for free". But that just means that everybody pays, more and more every year, and nobody is really in control. More money (higher taxes) is not the answer. That has been tried, over and over again. That's how we got where we are today, with government schools that cost more to operate per student than private schools and produce results that should be embarrassing to all involved. And it's not the fault of any one group. There are many good teachers in public schools, but they can't do their best in a system that is over-regulated. Advances in technology should be leading to both more effective teaching and lower total costs – instead they have mostly been turned by this dysfunctional system into a series of expensive boondoggles that only profit certain favored companies and leave schools with equipment that is obsolete almost as soon as it is installed. The current K-12 educational system is fundamentally flawed because it is based on what is essentially a socialist model. It is failing to meet our expectations for the same reason that agriculture and manufacturing kept failing to meet expectations in the old Soviet Union. Minor "reforms" or better "planning" will not yield the improvement we really need. The whole system needs to be replaced by one based on a free-market model. These problems started at the local level, and were made worse by state governments, even before the federal government got involved in a big way. Mostly they need to be addressed at the state and local level. But the federal government can at least try to avoid making the problems worse. To that end, here are some steps Congress can take:
Everyone can see we have a problem with health care. In some ways, America's health care industry is the envy of the world, leading in technology and with some of the best facilities anywhere. At the same time, costs are soaring, making even basic services unaffordable to some and a significant burden on others -- and on our country as a whole. As Warren Buffett has often commented, it's become like a "tapeworm" on our economy. The advances are coming from the work of our biotechnology and other high-tech companies (many of them right here in Silicon Valley), the researchers at our universities, and of course the many dedicated and skilled health care practitioners. But the benefit of these advances is being held back by the way health care services are managed, delivered, and paid for. Some say this is a failure of the free market, and call for more government involvement. But we do not currently have a free market in health care. This is one of the most heavily regulated industries in our entire economy! Almost everybody in the United States has their health care paid for either directly through a government program or through insurance programs that have their current form because of regulation, subsidies, and tax policies. At the same time, government policies limit the supply of medical professionals, and drive up the cost of equipment and drugs. And individuals are powerless to control any of this, because they don't even understand what they are paying. Yes, it's a complicated mess that needs to swept away. But "single payer" or "Medicare for All" isn't the answer -- and in the long run would make things even worse. The right answer is to get the government out of the way so that the basic economic principles that have led to lower costs in almost every other industry are allowed to function.
The Declaration of Independence famously proclaims that "all men are created equal". It doesn't say "people born in the United States have more rights than other people". This has always been a nation of immigrants. People born in other parts of the world have contributed their energy and culture to make America what it is today. Almost everyone living here now is either an immigrant or a descendant of immigrants. Most politicans today are uncomfortable with immigration. They don't all talk about it using the same language, but they all agree that it needs to be controlled. They have forgotten that bold claim "created equal" that was such a central feature of the document on which this country was founded. They have also forgotten the basic idea of democracy, a principle that many of them claim to consider more important even than liberty – that it should be the people living in a geographic area who get to decide who governs them, and how. Allowing the government to decide who can live where is turning that idea on its head! And the government has not, in fact, managed to prevent immigration – what it has done, instead, is brand a large number of human beings as "illegal" or "undocumented", without the rights of the rest of the population, against whom discrimination is not only legal but required. No democracy can survive with such a large and growing population of disenfranchised subjects. As a Libertarian, I respect the rights of all people, no matter where they were born. The right to move about and seek a better life for oneself and one's family is a fundamental right. I look forward to a day when all the present restrictions are gone. I don't expect that to happen immediately, but it should be our goal. In the meantime, I support the following common-sense reforms:
I support the separation of science and state. Science is too important to allow government to manage or control it. Science is a process by which we increase our understanding of the natural world, always seeking better models, not a set of facts that can properly be the subject of legislation or edict. Government has no business endorsing scientific theories or findings. Throughout history, attempts by authoritarian institutions to impose "official" views on scientific questions have interfered with progress. Famous examples include suppression of the heliocentric model of our solar system and the promotion of the Lamarckian theory of evolution. Our society today is not exempt from repetition of such follies. Similarly, government should not endorse or attempt to discredit scientists or scientific organizations. Experts in various scientific fields are best identified by their peers. The general public should not be misled by titles or honors bestowed by politicians and bureaucrats. I have personally had a strong interest in science my entire life, but I do not see taxes as the proper way to support scientific research. In addition to the basic injustice of taking money by force, from people who may have other priorities, to pay for something that I personally consider worthy, government funding of research creates perverse incentives that can lead to waste of resources, while discouraging research that might lead to both better understanding of nature and practical new products and methods. Research should be privately funded by businesses, universities, and other institutions that allow those interested in various fields and scientific questions to pool their resources for this purpose. Government can best facilitate this by lowering taxes, on both businesses and individuals, to allow non-government institutions to put more of their resources into this important activity.
High levels of taxation are a burden on individual citizens, a drag on our economy as a whole, and a continuing source of injustice. Discontent about taxes was one of the reasons our country was founded, and it is one of the primary jobs of our representatives in Congress to protect the people from being over-taxed. Ideally, our goal should be to replace as many tax-supported functions as possible with ones based on market solutions and voluntary actions, which would allow for dramatic cuts or even the elimination of many taxes in effect today. Meanwhile:
Although new taxes are sometimes offered with the promise that they will replace existing taxes, things are extremely unlikely to work out that way. If any new tax is instituted, it will most likely at best be coupled with a reduction in some other tax which will then start creeping up again – and in the long run we'll end up with higher taxes overall than before. Although some argue that we should increase rates for some people in the name of "fairness", I do not believe that shifting the burden from one class or special interest group to another is the answer. Current levels of taxation are already unfair to average working people because they would be better off being able to spend the money that they earn themselves. And the wealthy are already paying far more than their share of total taxes. The so-called "1%" are currently paying more in federal income taxes than all of the bottom 90% combined! Taxation is inherently unjust, because it takes people's money without their consent. There is no way to make the income tax "fair" by taking more of anybody's income. The only way to make income taxes "less unfair" is to reduce them for everybody, to the point where they are not a significant burden on anybody. Other taxes should also be reduced or, better yet, eliminated. The tariffs imposed by the Trump administration but now being continued by the Biden administrations are a kind of tax that hurts American consumers – and in the long run also American businesses as other countries respond with similar actions. Congress should act to roll back these tariffs, and to remove the president's ability to impose them unilaterally. How can we avoid increasing taxes, given current spending levels, without continuing to add to the national debt? We can't! The correct solution is to lower the level of spending – both to eliminate the deficit and so that taxes can also be reduced.
Transportation infrastructure is an essential component of our economy, and must be developed in the most cost-efficient way and with the future of related technologies in mind. Unfortunately, the way this has been done in the past has often fallen short of this ideal. Financing and managing major infrastructure through the federal government has led to misallocation of resources, because the political process simply is not a good way to manage economic activity. Even the past projects that are widely seen as having been "successful", in that they created something we use today, may not have been the best use of the resources involved – we see what was created, but we don't see what was not created because resources were diverted from them. Financing projects through federal taxes also creates perverse incentives for state and local governments, who must fight each other for this "free" money. Of course that money isn't free at all – the federal government doesn't create wealth, it just takes it from us and redistributes it. But state and local governments are put in a position where they must play this game, for fear of not getting "their share" of the money that was originally taken from their own citizens. We can see the disastrous results right here in California with the failed "high speed rail to nowhere" project that has squandered billions of dollars in tax money, lining the pockets of politically-connected consultants and contractors, with no prospect of ever producing a service that will be of practical use to the average traveler or commuter. All that money could have been, and should have been, spent on something more useful. Meanwhile, advancing technology has opened up new ways to address real transportation needs. We are on the verge of a revolution in transportation, with electric vehicles soon to become predominant, self-driving cars close to a reality, and air taxis on their way. This is not the time to be wasting tax money on massive new projects that may well become outmoded before they are even completed. This is, rather, a golden opportunity to move the financing of transportation back to the private sector. To cut gas taxes and let investors build roadways and bridges that will pay for themselves, to let Elon Musk build his hyperloops, to enable those who believe in rail to make investments without fear of tax-subsidized competition, and to let these and possibilities not yet even imagined compete to provide the best solutions for our transportation needs.
The only legitimate purpose of the U.S. military establishment is the defense of this country and its people from attack by other countries. It's the job of Congress to implement this principle, by approving funds and passing other laws that regulate the military services. It's also the job of Congress, should it become necessary, to declare war. Our military establishment has expanded far beyond what is necessary to serve this purpose. Our "defense" budget is now larger than the next five biggest combined -- even though the U.S. represents less than 5% of the world's population, and only about 6% of the land area. There are U.S. bases on every continent. It has become an end itself, consuming a huge amount of resources, adding to the level of taxation and to the national debt. And if that weren't bad enough, the habit of meddling in the business of other countries has continued to make enemies of people around the world. There hasn't been an actual "declaration of war" since 1942, but Americans have been fighting other people in the name of this country all around the world almost continuously for the past several decades, with every president claiming the power to send them there with or without any specific approval by Congress. It is up to Congress to put a stop to this, by establishing policies that will make us more secure in a sensible way:
|
” |
| —Joe Dehn's campaign website (2022)[4] | ||
2020
Joe Dehn completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2020. The survey questions appear in bold and are followed by Dehn's responses. Candidates are asked three required questions for this survey, but they may answer additional optional questions as well.
| Collapse all
He has been a member of the Libertarian Party for 35 years and has run for public office previously. He served as a member of the Libertarian National Committee for many years, including two terms as National Secretary. He created the Libertarian Party's first web site, in 1994. He is currently County Chair for Santa Clara County and a member of various committees at the state and national level.
He is running this year to offer a radically different alternative to the failed policies of the Republicans and Democrats. Under those parties the government has grown to monstrous proportions, come to dominate every aspect of American life, and continues to meddle in the affairs of other nations. He proposes the exact opposite platform: drastic cuts in the size of the federal government and taxes; ending U.S. military involvement in disputes between and within other countries, and an end to all the domestic "wars" as well, including the wars on drugs, guns, and immigrants.- It's time to take Washington back from the special interests of the Left and the Right that are burdening us with ever-growing regulation of our personal lives and businesses, and that are hobbling our economy with taxes and debt.
- It's time to stop getting involved in other countries' civil wars, stop supporting monarchs and dictators, stop trying to be the world's policeman, and bring our troops home.
- It's time to end the wars at home, too - the wasteful and counter-productive war on drugs, the unconstitutional war on guns, and the ugly war on immigrants.
- Education - We must move to replace the current socialist model with free-market solutions that better serve our kids, allow teachers to do their best, and take advantage of new technology to reduce costs.
- Health Care - Government has made a mess of this, through a combination of over-regulation, tax policy, and subsidies. The answer is not "single payer". The answer is to get government out of this industry entirely.
- Immigration - Our current immigration policies are unjust and unworkable. Being able to move to a different place is a basic human right that should not be infringed by any government. There are several practical steps that Congress could take in the short term to move us in the right direction.
- War and Peace - It's the responsibility of Congress to set policies about use of American military resources - including funding, management, and, if it becomes necessary, declaring war. So it's the responsibility of Congress to end the waste of taxpayer money, the disability and death of our fellow citizens, and the bad will of people around the world, that all result from our current over-extended military establishment.
Note: Ballotpedia reserves the right to edit Candidate Connection survey responses. Any edits made by Ballotpedia will be clearly marked with [brackets] for the public. If the candidate disagrees with an edit, he or she may request the full removal of the survey response from Ballotpedia.org. Ballotpedia does not edit or correct typographical errors unless the candidate's campaign requests it.
Campaign finance summary
Note: The finance data shown here comes from the disclosures required of candidates and parties. Depending on the election or state, this may represent only a portion of all the funds spent on their behalf. Satellite spending groups may or may not have expended funds related to the candidate or politician on whose page you are reading this disclaimer. Campaign finance data from elections may be incomplete. For elections to federal offices, complete data can be found at the FEC website. Click here for more on federal campaign finance law and here for more on state campaign finance law.
See also
2024 Elections
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Joe Dehn for Congress, "About the Candidate," accessed May 16, 2022
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Joe Dehn for Congress, “Issues,” accessed February 12, 2024
- ↑ Joe Dehn for Congress, “Issues,” accessed May 9, 2022
