Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
John Munn
John Munn (Republican Party) ran for election to the U.S. House to represent California's 4th Congressional District. He lost in the general election on November 5, 2024.
Munn completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2024. Click here to read the survey answers.
Biography
John Munn was born in Dinuba, California. Munn earned an associate degree from the College of the Sequoias in 1969. He also earned a bachelor's degree in soil and water science and engineering in 1974 and a graduate degree in soil science, both from the University of California, Davis. Munn is a registered professional forester.[1]
As of 2024, Munn was affiliated with the following organizations:[1]
- Yolo County School Boards association (past president)
- Yolo County Taxpayers Association (past president)
- Professional Soil Scientist Association of California (past president)
- Yolo County Republican Party (past chairman)
Elections
2024
See also: California's 4th Congressional District election, 2024
California's 4th Congressional District election, 2024 (March 5 top-two primary)
General election
General election for U.S. House California District 4
Incumbent Mike Thompson defeated John Munn in the general election for U.S. House California District 4 on November 5, 2024.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ |  | Mike Thompson (D) | 66.5 | 227,730 |
 | John Munn (R)  | 33.5 | 114,950 | |
| Total votes: 342,680 | |||
| = 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 4
Incumbent Mike Thompson and John Munn defeated Andrew Engdahl and Niket Patwardhan in the primary for U.S. House California District 4 on March 5, 2024.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Mike Thompson (D) | 62.5 | 120,736 |
| ✔ | | John Munn (R) | 30.4 | 58,787 |
 | Andrew Engdahl (D) | 6.0 | 11,492 | |
 | Niket Patwardhan (No party preference) | 1.1 | 2,116 | |
| Total votes: 193,131 | |||
| = 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
- Matt Brock (R)
Endorsements
Ballotpedia did not identify endorsements for Munn in this election.
2012
Munn ran in the 2012 election for California State Assembly District 4. He and incumbent Mariko Yamada (D) won the blanket primary on June 5, 2012, unopposed. He was subsequently defeated in the general election on November 6, 2012.[2][3][4]
| Party | Candidate | Vote % | Votes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic |  Mariko Yamada Incumbent |
62.5% | 108,081 | |
| Republican | John Munn | 37.5% | 64,946 | |
| Total Votes | 173,027 | |||
Campaign themes
2024
Ballotpedia survey responses
See also: Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection
John Munn completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2024. The survey questions appear in bold and are followed by Munn's responses. Candidates are asked three required questions for this survey, but they may answer additional optional questions as well.
| Collapse all
- Financial behavior of the federal government is not sustainable.
- Growing national debt and interest payments will limit the freedom and opportunities of our children and future generations.
- Wealth is not a given, it must be created by our own activities before it can be spent.
Film - High Noon
Principles - Limited government, individual responsibility, and free enterprise.
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 website
Munn’s campaign website stated the following:
| “ |
Introduction to Issues and Positions The call to give up small pieces of our income and individual freedoms for promises of future security, or to take them from some citizens for the benefit of others, can be very seductive. But these pieces have accumulated and now add up to large tax burdens and significant losses in rights that were won and defended at great sacrifice before being passed to our care. Once gone, our rights will be extremely difficult to restore. I believe that preserving freedom and opportunity must be based on the principles of individual responsibility, limited government, and free enterprise to keep the prosperity we are so fortunate to enjoy today. To help you know what I believe, I have prepared statements on many of the issues that are facing our country. Since it is unlikely that two people will agree on all, I hope that you will consider the sum of my thoughts and compare them with alternative views I describe in “The Opposition” or statements by my opponents to decide which candidate to support with your vote. We are unlikely to agree on everything, and some might disagree with most. What I hope is that everyone will keep in mind the overall question of “Is this what you want?” when thinking about what government is doing now. When I reviewed where we are today and my positions from past years and campaigns, I found that the years have made little difference. There have been changes, of course, but the same problems still exist and need to be dealt with before they reach the crisis stage. It also took me less time to keep the look and feel of earlier websites, so if someone thinks they have seen this before, the site is similar. It has been been updated with changes and additions, but is consistent with my past positions and honestly describes my approach to government. National Defense As technology becomes more important to military operations, it points toward a merging of civilian and military discoveries. This is not new, but the integration between what is useful in our everyday lives and military operations is continuing. To stay ahead, we really do need to keep the best and the brightest working in this area. And as the hardware becomes more complicated, it is essential that we be able to both recruit and train soldiers, airmen, and seamen capable of using it. To do this, people must see the potential for a future beyond military service, so military training needs to incorporate skills that lead to future employment in private sector jobs. And the government must keep its promises about health care and other services to veterans. As with Social Security and Medicare programs for civilian workers, promises to our veterans must be honored. As with any government spending, there needs to be constant attention to prevent, or at least minimize, cost overruns and unexpected needs. I don’t pretend to be an expert on the latest military developments, but my degree in engineering shows some ability to follow how things work, and from experience in government I know that process is sometimes used to obscure what’s really happening. Spending & Debt Since the end of 1998, over a period of only 25 years, the national debt has grown from less than $6 trillion to more than $34 trillion, more than 5 times larger, and it now exceeds $100,000 for each of our 335 million citizens. This just happens to coincide with the length of time that my Democrat opponent has been in office. Our debt has now become larger than the annual sum of all of our payments for private goods and services (the gross domestic product or GDP), and it will be passed to our children and their offspring to repay – while limiting what they can afford to do. Annual interest payments on the national debt in 2023 is approaching $880 billion, and is expected to pass Medicare (our second most expensive program) within two years. This debt is mostly held in short-term notes, and will increase greatly with higher interest rates. And our 2023 federal budget required borrowing another $2 trillion. If this continues, debt will soon become the greatest threat to our nation. These are big numbers. To help put them in context, a billion seconds is about 32 years, while a trillion seconds is approaching 320 centuries. So we have a chance of living through 2 billion seconds, but a trillion seconds takes us beyond the start of recorded history. Debt is also growing as a proportion of our annual budgets. In 2023, when the sum of mandatory expenditures for Social Security, Medicare, Veterans benefits and services, and required interest payments are subtracted from federal revenue, only about $800 billion is left to pay for all of the “discretionary” programs in a budget that totals about $6.1 trillion. The difference between spending and revenue is the annual deficit, which is covered by borrowing. This discretionary spending includes national defense, Medicaid, transportation, housing, agriculture, and all of the other program areas that I haven’t mentioned. Put another way, 2 out of every three dollars spent on discretionary programs in 2023 were borrowed. If this continues, all of the federal government’s discretionary spending will be borrowed in about 2 years. The bottom line is that, if the federal government continues this behavior, it will need to borrow money to keep its lights on. Fixing the federal budget without creating a crisis is going to take time. Spending must be held in check while encouraging the economy to grow to increase federal revenue. It took more than 20 years of digging to get into today’s financial hole, and it is going to take time to climb out of it. I don’t have a secret plan to fix the federal budget overnight, but we must have a plan, and stick to it, to stop spending money we don’t have, while protecting national defense and the Social Security and Medicare, where taxes have already been collected for promised benefits. Democrat President Clinton with the prodding of Republican House Speaker Gingrich proved that the federal budget can be balanced. Unfortunately, Mr. Thompson didn’t learn this lesson when he went to Congress. As a member of the Congress, I would work to:
Federal spending is on autopilot and out of control, and all the games to hide it have been played. Congress and the President can no longer conceal the truth about the fiscal mess they have created; but they still want you to trust them to fix it; and you can count on the Democrat fix to be much higher taxes and fees that will drive away jobs while businesses and farms can no longer survive, which will end up making our problems worse. Taxes
Gasoline taxes provide a good example of how multiple levies and fees have been imposed on our transactions. Currently, we pay per-gallon gasoline taxes of 18.4 cents to the federal government and 53.9 cents to the state plus smaller fees to the state for oil spills and underground tank storage, and then a sales tax of around 8 percent on the total purchase price. So when gasoline costs $4.50 per gallon, the government share adds up to about $1.07, which is approximately one-fourth of the total price. Levying the sales tax on the entire purchase price also leads to charging a tax on the other state and federal per-gallon taxes, which brings the government an additional 5.7 cents per gallon. More taxes that add to the cost of gasoline are collected on profits and purchases of the producers, refiners, wholesalers, and retail suppliers who bring oil from the ground to the pump. In addition, a portion of the income to all owners and employees along this chain is also paid in taxes. With all of these added costs, it seems that government, rather than business, is the real profiteer in the oil business. An unsettling catch 22 of the Democrat approach to government is requiring the state to collect taxes for assistance programs to help people who then need two jobs to pay taxes. Overall, many of us will pay nearly half of our income in taxes of one sort or another every year. I was once scolded by a Democrat opponent about how Americans are undertaxed. This is a basic philosophy with which I strongly disagree. Affordability Examples of how government affects our everyday living expenses include:
So far, government’s response to affordability problems has been to give subsidies to lower income residents. But this approach actually adds to the problem by requiring increased taxes and fees that are then included in the prices that we all pay. Instead of such an unquestioning reliance on subsidies that end up increasing everyone’s costs, we need to start the process of untangling the many expenses imposed by government so that we can attack the problem from the cost side of the equation and make rational decisions about how we all can afford to live in the United States. Education Politicians, at least in California, have come to regard education in terms of votes and political contributions. This has led to strings on school funding, a multi-volume education code that prevents local control, and political indoctrination of the captive student audience. In contrast, I believe that government’s role in education reform requires returning the authority and responsibility for schools to local communities. Steps toward improving education include:
The bottom line is that control of schools and curriculum is being shifted away from local school boards to state and federal agencies while school funding is being used to promote political indoctrination and social engineering. In contrast, I believe that schools should be taking their direction from parents and the local community, while government oversight should be limited to student safety issues, such as building standards, and funding differences should be based solely on local needs. Much of this occurs, as it should, outside of federal control, but government at all levels needs to be promoting local control. Health Care
A primary objective of these reforms should be to restore personal choice and patient satisfaction to health care delivery, while maintaining the fiscal stability and sustainability of our health care programs. Law & Order Instead, I believe that penalties for criminal acts must include full consideration of effects on victims. Robbery is more than a loss of possessions. It is an assault on the security that we need to live in a truly free society. And murder must be understood and prosecuted as the irrevocable loss of a fellow human being along with their hopes, dreams, and plans for the future and all of the love and comfort that might have contributed to others. So we must promote justice for victims with real penalties for criminal acts, and do more to provide timely prosecution so that justice delayed does not become justice denied for crime victims. We also must provide the resources needed by law enforcement agencies to make the best use of new technology. Our debates about crime and punishment too often ignore the lack of compassion and the lack of respect that must underlie a decision to harm someone else or to take what belongs to another. I believe that our best hope for reducing crime in the long run lies in developing attitudes of personal responsibility and respect for others in our young people, so that we can build character instead of prisons. These values come first from the family and are reinforced by encouraging responsible behavior in our schools and society at large. Preventing crime now and in the future will require:
Where money for these activities is made available from federal sources, measures should be in place to ensure that these funds are spent by local agencies for the intended purposes. Gun Control Instead of relying on sensationalistic headlines for political gain, effective measures to prevent illegal use and possession of guns should include a reliable instant check system to prevent individuals with a criminal record or mental problems from purchasing guns, along with enforcement of the many laws that are already in place to reduce the availability of guns on the street and to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and gang members. And since knowing how to avoid problems is the best way to prevent accidents of all types, we need to take every opportunity to provide information and education about gun safety and the dangers and consequences of irresponsible use. I would also support the adoption of tax credits for the purchase of a gun safe to help keep guns and other dangerous items in our homes away from children and thieves. As with other aspects of criminal behavior, our best hope for reducing violence of all types lies in developing attitudes of personal responsibility and respect for others in our young people. Abortion That said, I know that abortion is of great personal importance to many voters, and I hope that you will realize that while Democrat leaders are condemning Republicans on matters not under legislative control, they are actively advancing a political agenda that would greatly change the world in which we, and our children, will live – such as late term abortion up to and including birth. So rather than worrying about turning back the clock, we should be most concerned about being taken to places where we don’t really want to go. Overall, I believe that there is too much talk about divisive attempts at social engineering and too little attention to spending, roads, water, and other issues that are needed to maintain the quality of life for all people. My personal view about abortion is that we have all received the gift of life through conception and birth, so I am opposed to abortion because it ends the development of a baby that we could eventually hold in our arms with a life that we would value and protect. As mentioned above, the debate about abortion has little to do with the business of the House of Representatives, where authority in this area is limited to issues like public funding, which I oppose. At this point, Congress can be most helpful by promoting a society that supports, rather than stigmatizes or penalizes, the upbringing of children, regardless of who is caring for them. Finally, this is not an easy topic for discussion. But I have tried to be honest about my views, and hope that you will ask the same of other candidates. I also believe that we must be willing to listen and be considerate of each other’s concerns and needs, so that we can interact with a mutual respect that does not foreclose the opportunity for cooperating on other matters. Gay Rights Here, I want to repeat that that while Democrat leaders are condemning Republicans on matters not under legislative control, they are actively advancing a political agenda that would greatly change the world in which we, and our children, will live. So rather than worrying about turning back the clock, we should be most concerned about being taken to places where we don’t really want to go. For example, it is silly to allow men to compete in a sports program for women because they feel like a woman. Overall, I believe that there is too much talk about divisive attempts at social engineering and too little attention to spending, roads, water, and other issues that are needed to maintain the quality of life for all people in the face of a growing population I will also repeat that this is not an easy topic for discussion. Again, I have tried to be honest, and hope that you will ask the same of other candidates. And I hope we can listen to and be considerate of each other’s concerns and needs, so that we can interact with a mutual respect that does not foreclose the opportunity to cooperate on other issues. Immigration These are not easy questions, and answers often seem cold or heartless. We first need to understand that the United States is not the same nation that received earlier waves of immigrants without providing help with basic needs, where living in poverty was expected, government support was much more limited, and low skilled, and low paying, jobs were more common. And our boarders were never really open. My view is that we do not have the resources needed accept a huge influx of impoverished immigrants without creating serious damage to our own economy, which will have ripple effects that make life even more difficult in less developed countries. And being a relief valve for dissatisfied people does not improve conditions in their homelands. These are heartless realities, but they are not going away, and ignoring them does not create a better future for people in the United States or the rest if the world. For the short term, we need to prevent illegal border crossings and spread the message that our borders are not open. In the long term, our best option is to use our resources and influence to make life better in immigrant homelands, both economically and socially. This is not something that the United States can do alone. But if we truly want to solve problems with immigration to the United States, it begins with improving life elsewhere. And this includes not accepting or assisting, foreign government policies from which people are fleeing for opportunity or safety. Energy The summer of 2000 is a good place to start discussion of how even well- intentioned government meddling can hurt the public it is supposed to help. This example applies at both here and in Washington DC. At that time, California was facing an impending electricity crisis that was obvious everywhere but in the halls of state government. There were no clean hands in this fiasco. The law pretending to be deregulation was passed with support of a Democrat controlled legislature and a Republican governor. Despite, or perhaps because of, bipartisan support that precluded serious review, the resulting law was seriously flawed by requiring caps on what private utility companies could charge, while having no limits on what they might have to pay, and by prohibiting private companies from entering into long term contracts at favorable rates. These were stupid mistakes, but could have been overcome, which makes this such a telling example of government management of business affairs. The subsequent failure that turned obvious problems into a crisis occurred when our elected leaders pushed these growing problems under the rug until after a November election, despite company pleas for help and attempts by some to call a special session. Apparently, elected officials believed that private utilities could afford to lose billions of dollars every month without serious financial consequences to constituents. But when the freshly reelected representatives convened in January 2001, they found the state’s private utility companies in a state of financial ruin that eventually required the use of government bonds to pay accumulated power bills. Everything that happened later was covered by political spin and damage control, while we were stuck with paying for electricity used in 2000 in later year’s utility bills. I bring up this old news for a 2024 federal election to make a point about current affairs. Shortages of all types of energy have been created by ignoring the need for increased supply to serve a growing population that relies on use of electricity and vehicle fuels. Now government want to mandate use of electric vehicles, including trucks, without a plan to provide needed generating capacity. This is a trap that will spring on us when electricity demand exceeds supply and will affect all parts of our economy. Of course, specific requirements are put off to future years when the politicians who created these problems will no longer be facing voters for re-election. Conservation has greatly reduced the rate of growth in demand for energy of all types over the past 40 years, and is now helping to prevent electricity shortages on a daily basis. But conservation has not stopped population growth that has started outstripping the suppressed growth of energy supplies. Working our way out of this hole must be approached from all angles – large and small projects, local and state-wide viewpoints, and out-of-state cooperation. Ways that government can help include providing off-the-shelf designs for photo-electric systems on both houses and businesses; encouraging the development of small private generating firms and local utilities with generating facilities; and identifying sites that are suitable for large generating plants, with expedited review of environmental studies and construction permits to encourage private development of power plants at pre-determined locations. Natural gas supply has also become a problem in California. And we even have the Governor supporting a moratorium on home use of this relatively low-cost fuel. What we actually have are shortages and higher prices caused by lack of pipeline capacity, while other parts of the country have an abundance of natural gas at much lower prices. This goes back to the lack of planning and the difficulty and expense of undertaking large construction projects in the California regulatory environment. The solution is not complicated – build more pipelines. This is especially important if new power plants rely on the availability of natural gas to produce electricity. The federal government’s roll can be particularly useful with multi-state projects and permitting. A lack of concern about energy supply has, in fact, been orchestrated by the Democrat leadership in both Sacramento and Washington DC (remember only a few years ago when the US was briefly energy independent), who do not want voters distracted by a real problem. Now, it is clear that we need representatives who will look ahead and act to head off clearly apparent future shortages, instead of viewing them as a political inconvenience that can be swept under the rug until after an election. Gasoline and diesel supplies have also been restricted by state policies requiring special fuel formulations primarily produced by refineries in California. But we are not building enough new refineries to keep up with demand. And I can remember when California started requiring the use of MTBE as a pollution reducing oxygenate. Now, MTBE has been eliminated because it is polluting water (which was known to be a problem in the first place). And since MTBE made up more than five percent of our gasoline, removing it without using another oxygenate would further reduce supply. The alternative oxygenate is ethanol, which is produced from fermentation of plant materials. Most of the ethanol made in the United States comes from corn grown in the mid-west. But it could also be produced at ethanol plants constructed near our rural communities from crops grown on farms in this Congressional District – which would provide good paying jobs and alternative crops for farmers and workers who have seen processing plant closures. It is hard to understand why a supposedly environmentally friendly California government is not supporting the use of a renewable energy resource that can be produced locally and could help to both maintain supply and reduce the price of gasoline in California. So far, this has been about conventional energy sources. What about “green power” which seems to be shorthand for use of electricity from non-carbon dioxide producing generation sources. What comes to mind is electricity from solar panels, wind turbines, geothermal, and hydroelectric generation and then substituting this power in place of other sources of energy production, such as coal, natural gas, propane, gasoline, and diesel, that produce carbon dioxide when burned. I think this is a great idea as far as it goes. The problem is that it doesn’t go very far. Mainly, this is a matter of scale. It takes lots of solar panels to run an air conditioner, and with current battery technology, electric-only cars have a range of about 300 miles without pushing one’s luck about getting home. And using battery power to pull a trailer (livestock or travel) or to power a big truck does not get one very far. There will be a place for green power, but it is not ready to replace, or even make much of a dent, in conventional sources. This is not intended to be an exhaustive description of for and against arguments about green or renewable energy, just an observation that it is not ready to replace the millions of commercial, household, and transportation uses that are currently provided in other ways. And I am not the first to ask where the electric generating capacity to replace gasoline and diesel vehicles is coming from, even if the limits on battery storage are suddenly overcome. The bottom line for this election is that green and other types of renewable power are not going to replace conventional energy sources in the foreseeable future. Government should continue to support the development of renewable energy, but restrictions on conventional sources and mandates for use of renewable energy in place of conventional sources are not practical and will only lead to significant costs and economic losses. Future energy problems are real, and instead of developing long-term solutions that recognize the concept of supply and demand, our state and national governments have largely avoided dealing with the root causes of these problems. At every turn it is apparent that the Democrat leadership has ignored long-term energy needs in favor of short-term, politically expedient actions. This negligent approach to governance must be changed if California and the nation is to offer opportunity and prosperity now and for future generations. To fill this void, leadership from federal representatives to help provide long-term energy solutions is long overdue. Business The current trend of increasing fees and permit costs and persistent calls for higher taxes must be reversed to ensure that our businesses and their employees can both look forward to a prosperous and secure future. It is essential to understand that people and business, not government, creates wealth and prosperity for our nation and for us. Agriculture Government has knowingly contributed to agricultures problems by adopting policies that increase production costs, reduce water availability, increase the number and cost of permits, and intrude on negotiations between growers and workers. When taken as a whole, one must wonder if government wants to put farmers and timber producers out of business. We must also recognize that processing facilities are a major pathway for bringing the wealth of the fields and forests to local communities. These plants and mills provide a home for food and forest products and employ many workers. I have heard it said that our farmers can switch to crops requiring less labor. This might help the farmer survive, but it will never replace the employment and economic opportunities that agriculture can contribute to other American workers. Governments can help with tax and regulatory policies that promote employment and the establishment and success of processing facilities for locally grown products and can provide incentives for developing new crops and opportunities. In addition, it is important to understand that if agriculture does not succeed as a business, then farms and forests will be replaced by other land uses. And as the nation’s urban population grows, it is critical that uses of private property be honored by all levels of government. Water My family’s experience with shifting from furrow irrigation to sprinkler, dripper, and mister systems is an example of agriculture’s long history of working to conserve water. But even with conservation, past droughts have clearly shown that available water storage capacity is not always adequate to meet even past demands. And considering how much has already been done to conserve water and the inadequacy of existing storage capacity in dry years, it is obvious that growing urban demands and diversions to meet requirements for fish, wildlife, and other environmental uses will not be met without developing new sources of water supply. The continuing controversy over water for farmers or fish in the Klamath Basin provides a real-life example, and warning, about how persistent and serious this problem can be. Groundwater storage can help, but is limited by both availability of suitable recharge areas and recharge rates. So the development of new in-stream and off-stream surface storage facilities is essential to meet current and future water needs. The Cal Fed program was supposed to address this problem in California, but little beyond talk has happened to increase supply. In addition, California’s large winter storms in 1986, 1997 and 2023 plus flooding elsewhere in the nation have clearly demonstrated the need for more upstream and downstream flood protection. Accomplishing this will require both leadership and a realistic understanding of watershed and environmental processes that I can help with in Congress. Transportation Reducing the millions of hours lost each year to sitting in traffic, added air pollution, and increased vehicle operating costs will require both conventional and innovative approaches. Additional and improved roads are needed, and mass transit can be expanded where needed. But we must also look for solutions that change the nature of the problem, such as encouraging large employers to locate in areas that disperse, rather than concentrate traffic, continued use of telecommuting and satellite offices, and promoting flextime to even-out the daily flow of traffic. Improvements in our transportation system, however, will not happen when the taxes that are supposed to go for roads are diverted to pay for deficits created by bad budget decisions. So creating a balanced budget that directs transportation funds to transportation projects is an essential starting point for fixing overloaded systems of roads, highways, and public transit. And the federal government’s role in interstate trucking, air transport and rail systems cannot be ignored. These are major movers of people, goods and services. Trucks rely on the interstate road system where Congress provides much of the funding for maintenance. Rail systems also need maintenance that the federal government can identify and promote through tax policies. While air transport, and the facilities on which this relies, are becoming important conduits for delivery of on-line products as well as the major provider of long distance travel. Natural Resources Environment There are now laws on the books to safeguard many essential resources and habitats. The application of these laws should be based on real risks, an understanding of environmental processes, and a respect for property rights. Unfortunately, environmental decisions by rule makers have not always followed these standards, and the recent history of regulatory agencies contain many examples of questionable decisions that have resulted in lost opportunities for both landowners and the environment. For example, private landowners are often reluctant to provide or enhance habitat for threatened and endangered species because providing habitat can trigger enforcement of repressive government regulations without corresponding benefits. In other cases, land use restrictions have been put in place for species that are not really threatened by the restricted use. And the decision to put MTBE, that we are still trying to clean up, into gasoline when it was a known threat to groundwater provides a very clear illustration of the bad judgment that results from playing politics with environmental matters. This makes it clear that we need to draft environmental laws in ways that guard against their use by special interest groups to create impasse in land use decisions. Headlines now are all about climate change. This started out as global warming, but became “climate change” during a period of cooler temperatures. Is climate changing? This is actually a simple question, since it always has. The real issues about change are about its amount and persistence. I can remember periods of warming temperatures that then switched to cooler temperatures and dry stretches between wet periods. But these variations in weather don’t indicate trends. It will take many years to know if a climate change trend is real and persistent. And modeling, where I have some experience, is not perfect because it can, even unintentionally, be influenced by one’s own bias. Whether climate is changing or not, we cannot simply wait while oceans rise into coastal cities or high temperatures make life difficult. Instead, we need to focus our efforts on actions that make a difference, rather than on what benefits various interest groups. We hear a lot about carbon dioxide increases in the air driving a warming trend, but hear little about water vapor, which is a much more common and effective “greenhouse gas”. And we aren’t certain how carbon dioxide increases, and other greenhouse gases produced by activities that benefit mankind, will interact with water vapor. Higher humidity might mean more trapped heat, while more clouds can reflect heat and lead to cooling. Assumptions about such uncertainty is part of what makes modeling difficult. These are areas where government can help by supporting research on questions that need answers. But it is not a good idea to ignore nature until it is too late. I just don’t think it makes good sense to accept preconceptions without questions. With carbon markets, money has become involved, which always “clouds” an issue. And environmental concerns about both reducing carbon dioxide production and saving forests from harvesting are examples of contradictory positions, since very large amounts of carbon dioxide are released when overgrown forests inevitably burn down. Wind turbines can be hard on birds, land cleared for solar panels has both land use and local environment trade-offs, while adding solar panels makes housing even more expensive. So dealing with climate has many pieces, each of which needs to be honestly considered in arriving at a cumulative effect. My natural sciences background and experience with government programs would be very helpful in developing legislation leading to workable solutions to address environmental problems, whether climate turns out to be changing or not. Local Control The state’s appropriation of local revenues in California has had the even more serious consequence of disconnecting tax payments from local government spending. This has shifted the perspective of local governments from balancing local needs and tax collections to maximizing the spending of state and federal handouts, which has created an attitude that each unit of government must spend all of the money that it can get without concern for taxpayers and a belief that state and federal tax dollars that are not spent in one place will be spent somewhere else. Therefore, local governments, and schools in particular, have much less incentive to evaluate and prioritize programs that are supported by funds from non-local, sources. To prevent encouraging this behavior, use of federal funds should be applied only to intended purposes. The solution to problems created by state and federal meddling in local affairs can only be changed by those whom voters send to local, state, and federal offices. Accountability Much of the problem in detecting and eliminating unnecessary government spending and regulations lies with the sheer number of laws, programs and rules that are intertwined in a manner that makes change very difficult. In fact, the complexity of government requirements has reached a point where it is unlikely that anyone can undertake a substantial federal project with a full knowledge of its legal requirements and without violating some law or regulation along the way. Without a conscious effort toward simplifying and reducing federal codes and regulations, we will continue along a path that already leads to escalating costs and legal gridlock for lawful projects. This is another area where my experience with government will bring a practical perspective to Congress on how our laws are working and how to bring about changes in the federal bureaucracy. Regulations
Welfare |
” |
| —John Munn’s campaign website (2024)[6] | ||
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.
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Information submitted to Ballotpedia through the Candidate Connection survey on February 2, 2024
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Official primary candidate list," accessed March 13, 2014
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Official 2012 Primary election results," accessed March 13, 2014
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Official 2012 General election results," accessed March 13, 2014
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ John Munn for Congress, “Issues,” accessed February 8, 2024
