League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
	Marin, Sonoma, Humboldt, Mendocino, Del Norte, Trinity Counties, CA June 5, 2012 Election
	Candidates Answer Questions on the Issues United States Representative; District 2

The questions were prepared by the League of Women Voters of California Education Fund and asked of all candidates for this office.     See below for questions on Economy, Budget, Energy, Health care, Campaign financing Click on a name for candidate information.   See also more information about this contest. 1. In this time of high unemployment, what are the most important steps that should be taken to improve our nation’s economy? Answer from Stacey Lawson: At a time when the California has the second highest unemployment rate in the nation, working and middle class families are seeing the American Dream fade away. I am fighting to create economic opportunity for the millions of hard-working Californians who are being squeezed out in these tough times. I'm an educator and small business owner with real-world experience creating jobs. As cofounder and teacher at the Center for Entrepreneurship and Technology at UC Berkeley, I've helped launch dozens of small businesses, created hundreds of high-wage jobs and developed technology to keep American manufacturers competitive. Small businesses create 85% of the jobs in America + and for the last 17 years, I have been involved with creating dozens of small businesses, all of which have generated jobs in northern California. I'm committed to serving working families like mine and yours. That's why I'm fighting to create the kind of high-wage middle-class jobs that send our kids to college and provide a secure retirement. I've written a detailed plan called "Making More In America" (available at http://www.StaceyLawson.com) to restore our manufacturing base, develop renewable energy and protect our environment, and make college and trade schools affordable so our kids can learn the skills needed for our changing economy. In Congress, I will fight for policies that increase investment in American small business, such as making big banks pay back their bailout funds faster and reinvesting more of the proceeds into small business loans. Answer from Mike Halliwell: The Standard & Poor credit rating for American bonds was downgraded recently because of the apparent unwillingness of our political leaders to stop shifting the cost of benefits for the current generation onto our children and grandchildren via deficit spending that is causing the National Debt to increase more than $1 trillion per year. This same lack of confidence about debt that will never be paid off causes many households to reduce their spending and "save for a rainy day," which cancels out efforts to boost the economy by putting more money into circulation, via various Stimulus Packages. ALL of the progress toward reducing the unemployment rate since it peaked at 10.0% in 2009, has been a result of discouraged people in their normal working years giving up looking for work. Long term unemployment (more than six months) is now higher than at any point since this statistic began being kept by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. We are now about 23 million short of the number of jobs our nation needs to reduce unemployment to the 5.0% level, where people changing jobs or entering the workforce can find employment in a reasonable amount of time. I oppose the "payroll tax holiday" President Obama insisted on in 2011 as part of any budget he is willing to sign, and paying for in with a surtax on incomes over $1 million (HR 3630). Not only does this not stimulate the economy, because of the adverse effect it has on job creation, it also undermines Social Security. There is no actual money in the Social Security Trust Fund, only a promise to find the money somehow, when the time comes to pay benefits. When benefits are not actually earned (as when workers pay only 2/3 of their normal Social Security contribution) there will be no political leverage to replace the 2.0% of earnings which workers kept to spend in 2011 and 2012. The $700 billion 2009 Stimulus Package (HR 1) paid for by "quantitative easing" (wherein we print money to buy our own bonds) failed because there were no "shovel ready" construction projects waiting in the wings for financing. Instead, the stimulus money wasted on other initiatives, like the Solyndra Project, where the government lost more than half a billion dollars, because of favors to large political contributors. Federal housing finance programs which required a quota of loans to buyers who could never have repaid them, even if the economy grew faster than its historic average, did no favor to those whose entire net worth was wiped out when the housing "bubble" burst. I supported the 2011 termination (HR 839) of the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), which has only HAMPered home ownership. Its main function was to show that Washington politicians cared about the plight of homeowners facing foreclosure. The program mostly consisted of paper shuffling, which postponed foreclosure briefly, while temporary modifications were not made permanent. Most of the HAMP "beneficiaries" lost their homes, anyway. In fact foreclosures in the United States rose from 2.3 million in 2008 to 2.9 million in 2010. Such a large fraction of the money spent went into futile efforts that the cost per permanent success averaged out to more than the value of the homes involved. There is no way for the federal government to provide the trillions of dollars that would be needed to permanently raise the value of homes, and there is no justification for temporarily boosting home values, so that speculators can turn their losses into profits. Most of the budgetary adjustments needed to roll back deficits must come from spending cuts, not tax increases. I support continuing the Bush-era tax cuts, which maximizes local purchasing power by avoiding the costs of collecting and sending back a diminished amount of funds (the state of California gets much less in benefits than it pays in federal taxes, and the 2nd CD pays far more than its proportionate share of taxes and gets less back than any other of our 53 congressional districts). I also favor HR 9, recently passed by the House, which provides a 20% tax cut for the sector of the economy responsible for most recent employment growth, small businesses with less than 500 employees. Unions can play a vital role in protecting employee rights, and requiring a secret ballot on issues of workplace representation is essential if intimidation is to be prevented. I supported the 2007 McKeon Substitute (HR 800) to insure that every employee has the right to vote secretly on whether a union supported by signed cards of 50% of a company's employees become his or her bargaining agent. I oppose so called "card check" legislation which would eliminate the safeguard provided by secret ballots re the selection of a bargaining agent. I agree with Justice Louis Brandeis' saying "sunlight is the best disinfectant," with respect to union representation and protecting stockholders from abuses by management. Answer from Norman Solomon: We must reinvest in America's workers and families, to rebuild our economy and our social fabric. I support robust public investment in economic programs that create living-wage jobs. The government should invest directly in the nation's infrastructure, and in social services that help stabilize our communities. Central to my campaign is support for H.R. 870 -- the "Humphrey-Hawkins 21st Century Full Employment and Training Act" -- introduced by Congressman John Conyers (who has endorsed me in this race), which provides for a federal policy of full employment. With a one-quarter of 1 percent transaction tax on Wall Street, the bill would generate roughly $150 billion per year in revenues, creating millions of new jobs. I am the only candidate in this race who has publicly called for massive federal jobs programs on a scale comparable to the New Deal. Please see my Marin IJ op-ed article calling for a "New New Deal": http://www.marinij.com/opinion/ci_19108715?IADID Answer from Brooke Clarke: The economy is the first thing that needs to be fixed. But to do that requires undoing a number of bad laws and ideas. Existing Bad Laws ----------------- After the 1929 stock market crash that started the great depression Congress spent a number of years studying what went wrong and to prevent if from happening again passed the Glass-Stegall Act in 1933 to regulate the banks. Things were fine until 1980 when the "Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act" was passed. This allowed banks to merge into super banks, removed limits on the interest rate that can be charged. Then in 1999 the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act" was passed by Congress opened the door for sub prime mortgages and initiated the official concept of "too big to fail". Then Congress passed the "Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000". Prior to this the commodity market functioned to minimize the risk to farmers and ranchers caused by market price fluctuations. This law established what's come to be called the "Enron loophole". In addition it also brought about "credit default swaps" and allows banks to gamble in the futures markets raising the price commodities such as food and gasoline. The "Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010" contains a provision that exempts the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) from the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA). This is part of the function of the regulatory agencies which now is to protect their industry from criminal prosecution. Note these agencies were established to regulate an industry, but because of regulatory capture now work to protect those industries. The SEC has been instrumental in preventing any criminal prosecution of the people on Wall Street responsible for the 2008 meltdown. Capitalism has Failed --------------------- When Adam Smith was writing "On the Wealth of Nations" the Industrial Revolution either had not started or was not under way enough for him to include it. So the basis of Capitalism comes from the time where agriculture (farming and ranching) were the big businesses. For Smith a factory making iron cookware maybe was the most capital intense business there was. Note this was before the advent of electricity. In the movie "A Beautiful Mind" there's a bar scene that illustrated the idea of John Nash (won Noble prize for this)that "Adam Smith" was wrong. This means that the ideas promoted by the Republicans are based on a failed idea. A better idea is Nashism which says the best outcome happens when we do what's best for us as individuals (Smith's idea) AND when we do what's best for out group. Privatization has Problems -------------------------- When some government function is privatized it very similar to how businesses were run in the U.S.S.R. ("Eat the Rich, Chapter 7 Russia) That's to say that in both cases the outcome will depend very much on how well you dot the i and cross the t. If you get this part wrong the outcome can be a disaster. Privatize the profits and socialize the losses seems to be the current idea. Income Taxes ------------ The Reagan era tax cuts worked because the marginal tax rate was around 80% and tax shelters were a popular product (that has no value to society). When the marginal tax rate was cut the IRS took in a lot more money and the waste associated with tax shelters was eliminated. Monetary System --------------- The current fractional reserve monetary system is not sustainable because each new loan only puts into circulation the principal amount of the loan and not the interest. There's no way the loans can all be paid back. Answer from Jared Huffman: If elected, my most urgent priority will be getting people back into the workforce. I would work on immediate and short-term strategies to spur economic recovery, coupled with a long-range vision to create and retain quality middle class jobs by fostering innovation, clean energy, domestic manufacturing and sustainable resource management. Answer from John Lewallen: We must end suicidal military actions and spending, and fund a national employment program to employ millions for energy conversion, education funding and reform, building an environmentally-sound national transportation infrastructure, providing single-payer health care for all,and meeting other basic peacetime needs. We need to free California's small farmers, fishermen, and medical marijuana suppliers from unnecessary federal regulation and attack. Answer from Susan L. Adams: One method is to promote clean, renewable energy for all new buildings, especially government buildings, insist on better fuel efficient cars, provide incentives, grants and loans for small local serving businesses and work closely with those in my District so that the right funds are directed where needed. The president's Jobs Act, which would reinvest into our failing infrastructure and would bring new jobs on board. Innovative programs like starting up the Maritime Highway with Short Sea Shipping, providing low interest loans for business incubators such as the FoodWorks in Arcata or the Venture Greenhouse in San Rafael. One of the biggest challenges is the regulatory nightmare which makes starting new businesses near impossible and chasing established businesses away. Regulatory oversight and efficiency needs to be part of the congressional job. As an example: George Lucas pulled the plug on his studio project in Marin County because a multitude of local, regional, state and federal agencies each had their own unique and long drawn out permitting processes (water and sewer districts, water quality agency, NOAA, ACoE, Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife, etc.). Keeping good regulations that protect health and safety is important, but streamlining the process so that what should take one or two months to approve, doesn't take 1 or 2 years and cost 3 times the amount. Answer from Larry Fritzlan: See candidate's website, http://LarryFritzlanforCongress.com for additional information. This country needs to shift from a carbon-centered energy source to green energy options and from machine-made food to farming and producing whole food using sustainable methods. These shifts will create numerous new jobs -- far more jobs than will be lost by the carbon energy-producers. 2. How should the federal budget deficit be addressed, now and into the future? How should budget priorities for defense and domestic programs be adjusted? Answer from Stacey Lawson: One critical way to reduce the deficit is to reduce military spending. The U.S. spends 45 percent of the world's expenditures on war. We are forward deployed in over 130 countries. We need to immediately reduce our militarism, bring our troops home, and invest much needed resources in our domestic economy. Revenue increases are also a critical lever for addressing our fiscal issues. While some believe that the answer to economic crisis is to shrink our government services, I believe that economic crisis is actually the most critical time to make smart government investment in economic stimulus (such as infrastructure, small business and promising new sectors such as clean energy) and to strengthen our social safety net. And finally + increasing economic activity by rebuilding the middle class will create new tax revenue while reducing tax expenditures on federal assistance programs. Answer from Jared Huffman: I believe our national debt crisis must be confronted immediately, but that we must do so in a sensible and balanced way that doesn't harm seniors or put our fragile economic recovery at risk. Solutions include targeted cuts in spending, including substantial reductions in military spending; increasing revenues by allowing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to expire and eliminating special tax breaks and loopholes such as those for oil companies; and key investments in education, clean technology and infrastructure to grow the economy. Answer from John Lewallen: We need a progressive federal tax structure fairly taxing all people and corporations, and financial industry reform to stop wild speculation leading to government bailouts. I believe that U.S. military imperialism is creating global war and leading to economic depression. If elected, I will organize writing a National Peace Conversion Act, to put the nation's human and technological power to work at home, meeting the basic needs of people and environment. Answer from Larry Fritzlan: The United States spends vast amounts on defense that could be better allocated to domestic uses. While we need to retain a defense budget, we don't need to continue colonizing the world. Energy, education, healthcare -- these are just a few of the areas that need better funding if this country is going to stabilize, move forward and flourish. Answer from Norman Solomon: The budget debate is another example of how large corporations have dominated the public debate in our country. The false message that the rich need government support to rescue our economy, while middle class programs are unaffordable, has been forced upon us by mega-corporations and their ultra-rich CEOs who have bankrolled their own politicians, think tanks and media outlets. Wall Street gets bailed out, while Main Street gets shafted. It's one more reason why I have refused to take any corporate PAC money + not one penny. I will fight for fairness for the middle class and Main Street, and I will stand up to Wall Street. As the only candidate in this race with significant foreign policy experience, I'm in a very strong position to challenge the excessive military spending that continues to boost the deficit and fuel endless wars. We can bring down the federal deficit responsibly (and with a prudent rather than hasty timeline) while cutting the Pentagon budget, eliminating the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy, ending tax loopholes for big corporations and imposing appropriate taxes on Wall Street speculation. At the same time, we must not blame middle-class Americans for the deficit -- and we must not try to balance the budget on the backs of working people or our senior citizens. The social compact requires that we honor our commitments to children, seniors and other vulnerable citizens. Answer from Mike Halliwell: I support a Balanced Budget Amendment along the lines the 1995 proposal (HJ Res 1) which came within one vote in the Senate of being sent to the states for ratification. The 1995 proposed Amendment required a 3/5 majority in each House to spend more than tax receipts bring in, and a 3/5 majority to raise the National Debt. However, where there is no political will to take necessary cost cutting measures which require only a normal majority vote, political courage cannot be expected to rise to the level of 2/3 majorities needed for a Constitutional Amendment, so we must get our fiscal affairs in order first, then amend the Constitution to prevent a return to spendthrift ways. In 2011 I supported HJ Res 77, which tried to prevent President Obama from increasing the National Debt by $1 trillion, but this measure never came to a vote in the Senate. I support retaining permanently the 2004 (HR 4275) extension of the 10-percent tax rate bracket at the lowest income levels, to replace the bottom part of the 15% income tax bracket. I also support keeping the 2004 (HR 4181) increase in the standard deduction and broadening of the 15-percent tax rate bracket for married couples filing joint returns. Unlike all of the Republican candidates in one of the early Presidential nominating debates, I would accept a 10-1 ratio between spending cuts and tax increases, if I could specify which spending cuts and which taxes, so long as they were phased in on parallel tracks. I would not accept tax increases now, in exchange for the promise of spending cuts later. I would permanently eliminate the ethanol tax subsidy, and phase out the 1993 (HR 2264) Clinton 4.3 cent per gallon tax hike as House Republicans tried to do in 1996 (HR 3415). I would raise the capital gains tax to 20% on the first $250,000 of hedge fund managers' "carried interest," with a 25% rate above $250,000, because the managers put none of their own money at risk. I would scale back the 85% of Social Security benefits subject to double taxation by the 1993 Clinton tax hike (when the income is first earned and again when benefits are paid out) to 80%, for those at average and above income levels, since these people already get back less in benefits than they pay in. I support protecting the Social Security Trust Fund, as the House voted in 2011 to do (HRes 501), from the effects of the payroll tax holiday, with a freeze on congressional salaries and other Federal employee pay. By expediting approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, HRes 501 would also create 20,000 jobs and reduce gasoline costs. Military pork is no less objectionable than any other sort of make work project. After the Soviet Union ceased to exist, our need for even more of the very latest in submarine technology disappeared. Another Trident D-5 submarine would provide very good wages for its manufacturers in Groton Connecticut, but it was unneeded in 1993, and I supported elimination of this appropriation (HR 2401). One would think that a fierce critic of unnecessary military spending like Lynn Woolsey would line up with a majority of both parties in closing unnecessary bases, but she voted the other way in 1995 (on HJRes 102) to reject the recommendation of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) when some of the military waste was in her district. Thus Lynn Woolsey was more "hawkish" that Mike Halliwell (and 90% of House Republicans) on the 1995 BRAC recommendation. Answer from Susan L. Adams: We can start by reducing defense spending and put that money to work at home rebuilding our infrastructure, funding education and health care. But we need to look at the defense allocation overall, especially some of the weapons systems which may be obsolete or unproven and military bases throughout the world where they may no longer be needed. But at the same time, we need to keep the promise we made to our troops and the provision of health services when they come home from the war. We can also consider raising the tax levels on corporations and the very wealthy. When Warren Buffet and his colleagues says "tax me, more," I'm happy to oblige. Answer from Brooke Clarke: The fractional reserve monetary system is not sustainable and so needs to be replaced. The elimination of the central bank would be a start and direct government printing of money might work if that money was used for things of value. But if it was used for war then we would be worse off than we are now. The defense (better called war) budget should be cut at least in half and the foreign bases all closed. Single Payer Health Care must be put in place soon. 3. What are your priorities with respect to our nation’s energy policy? Should there be an emphasis on clean energy and reducing carbon emissions, and/or on reducing our dependence on foreign sources? Answer from Larry Fritzlan: It is crucial that this country shift its dependence on carbon to using alternative, clean energy sources. We have resources within our own borders to produce energy from wind, water and solar sources. It's critical that this shift begin now, before it's too late for us and our planet to survive. Answer from Jared Huffman: In the Assembly, I have supported increasing California's RPS in addition to other bold policies to increase energy efficiency and expand renewables. Among other things, I authored the Renewable Generation and Efficiency Incentives Act (AB 920), which is expanding green energy incentives by requiring utility companies to pay homeowners and small businesses for any surplus power they produce from renewable energy sources; and the Solar Hot Water and Efficiency Act (AB 1470), which created the nation's largest solar hot water program. Answer from Brooke Clarke: Energy policy is a subset of sustainability and needs to be addressed in that light. The key idea is that you can not sustain growth when in an environment that has finite resources. So energy policy needs to be balanced with air, water, food, etc. in an optimum way. Growth needs to be seen as a problem rather than a way to make more money. Answer from Norman Solomon: We must put climate change back at the top of the agenda in Washington. It is unacceptable to kick the global-warming can down the road any longer; future generations and the planet's entire ecosystem are at stake. Rather than promote a "cap and trade" formula that can be easily manipulated and gamed by Wall Street, we need a tax on carbon (with revenues equitably distributed to the American people) to reverse global warming and bring greenhouse gases under control. As former co-chair of the Commission on a Green New Deal for the North Bay, I am committed to developing sustainable energy sources that will move this country and the world away from the impending disasters of climate change. Fundamental changes are needed to utilize solar, appropriately sited wind and conservation -- while halting the destructive momentum of extreme overreliance on fossil fuels. I reject oxymoronic myths like "clean coal" and "safe nuclear power." It's time for our country to become a technological leader with green, clean energy. Answer from John Lewallen: Energy conversion to wind and solar energy is essential for many reasons: to save the environment, reduce carbon emissions, prevent wars for control of hydrocarbon sources, and provide employment. To achieve this, we need a growing mass movement of public demand for energy conversion. If elected, I will organize writing a National Energy Conversion Act. Answer from Susan L. Adams: We must change our emphasis to clean, renewable energy, away from fossil fuels, natural gas, coal and nuclear. We must create more fuel efficient vehicles, and institute clean and renewable energy use in all public buildings and vehicles. The increased implementation of solar panels alone can save millions in cost, and provide energy to fuel much of our electrical needs. Answer from Mike Halliwell: Every large scale potential energy source that is not already being fully exploited has a down side. The energy locked up in fossil fuels originally came from the sun, and once this accumulation is used up, we will have to go back to the original source. Collecting solar power is much more efficient in outer space, because the collectors can be always turned directly toward the sun, operate 24 hours a day, and make use of the high energy part of the solar spectrum which is screened out by earth's ozone layer. It may seem odd that it is easier to manufacture solar power collectors on the moon, and launch them into orbit around the earth, than it is to transport them from earth. But the moon's escape velocity is only 1/5 of earth's and energy is a function of velocity squared, so it is 22 times more cost-effective to use the moon as the raw materials source for space-based solar power collectors. Nuclear power on earth should be phased out, because the highly radioactive isotopes left from splitting uranium atoms can't be recycled, and their heat will eventually melt any containment vessel. But nuclear power is ideally suited to lunar industry, since lunar nights are two weeks long, and the moon is geologically dead, so nuclear waste buried in a deep hole stays put. Ending America's manned space program as the Obama Administration has done, is not in our nation's long term interest. Along with Peter Behr, Bill Filante and Diane Feinstein, I supported the 1990 Big Green Initiative (Prop 128) to phase out carcinogenic pesticides, ban coastal drilling for oil and preserve redwood forests. I agreed with the 1990 efforts of Senators John McCain and Pete Wilson to raise CAFÉ mileage standards (S1224) and reduce noxious tailpipe emissions (S1630). In inflation-adjusted dollars, the 1990 Gulf War pushed oil prices to $30 per barrel; last year's oil shock sent prices to $120 per barrel. Every gallon of gas we could have saved in 1990, is now four times as valuable. Conservation is the heart and soul of fiscal conservatism. In 2005 I supported protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) from oil drilling (Markey Amendment to HR 6). Petroleum reserves in environmentally fragile locations should be saved until last, when its price pays for safe extraction. I support HR 3408 (being blocked by President Obama) to bring Canadian oil sands to American refineries via the Keystone XL pipeline, making us less dependent on overseas sources for our energy. The refinery waste product is carbon dioxide, which will be absorbed by rain and become carbonic acid. This very dilute acid flows into our oceans, where it combines with dissolved minerals to make carbonite rock. Bio-based fuels (except ethanol which drives up the cost of corn for human consumption) are another useful means of lessening dependence on foreign energy sources. In 2007 I supported the Dent Amendment to HR 547 to promote production of bio-based fuels to reduce our environmental footprint, improve air quality and lower greenhouse gas emissions. In 2011 I supported HR 2354, which provided $6 billion for energy efficiency programs, renewable energy development and environmental clean-up efforts. It would also strengthen levees where a confluence of rivers poses the greatest danger of flooding. Flood control projects help to preserve topsoil necessary for a renewable timber industry and to protect tourist attractions. Answer from Stacey Lawson: Growing up in a rural, coastal community, I was raised to protect and preserve our resources through sustainable, responsible use and environmental stewardship. Northern California's coast is a natural treasure and lifeline for local economies, supporting fishing, tourism, recreation and almost 400,000 related jobs. That's why I will fight from day one in Congress to prevent offshore drilling along our Pacific coastline. As we pursue a policy to restore the strategically imperative high-wage manufacturing sector to the American economy, there is one vital raw material that we can start making more of in America -- and that is renewable energy. There are many reasons to make our own energy. Transitioning from our dependence on fossil fuels to more sustainable, low-impact energy sources is simultaneously an environmental imperative, a national security issue and an urgent economic necessity: By making more renewable energy we lower the greenhouse gas levels contributing to global warming and environmental degradation. By making more of our own energy, we lower the "oil subsidy" we now pay to many nations that would do us harm. Ultimately that means a safer America and billions of dollars each year in savings from money we now spend to keep oil shipment routes secure. By making our own energy, we stimulate our long-term economic recovery -- and stop the flow of high-wage jobs that inevitably follows the billions of dollars we currently send overseas to buy energy we could make right here at home. My main energy policy priorities include reducing energy consumption and spurring green-collar jobs through building retrofits, creating the next-generation smart electric grid, setting national renewable energy and consumption standards, and making our military and the federal government energy independent. 4. What, if any, changes should be made to federal health care policies or programs? Answer from Norman Solomon: The fact that the U.S. spends more on health care than most industrialized nations is a reflection of the unhealthy power of the insurance, hospital and pharmaceutical industries in our country. Our current system does not serve Americans equitably. It must be reformed and improved. I strongly support single-payer health care (enhanced Medicare for all), and have done so for many years. I am co-chair of the Healthcare Not Warfare campaign along with Donna Smith of the California Nurses Association and Congressman John Conyers. This campaign advocates for ending the wars and redirecting the funds to pay for a national single-payer health care system. While the Affordable Care Act (ACA) brought expanded coverage to portions America's uninsured, it also brought a humongous transfer of power and wealth to the private insurance industry. Instead, single-payer health care would provide quality health care at a significantly reduced cost. In lieu of a federal single-payer system, however, I would support legislation to make it easier for states to adopt a single-payer system. Such a system would create equitable coverage for people of all ages. In the meantime, federal legislation should curb the excessive profits of the insurance, pharmaceutical and hospital industries as well as protect the rights of all patients to treatment without price gouging of any kind. Answer from Jared Huffman: We must defend the Affordable Care Act. It's already making a difference for millions of Americans and lives are being saved through coverage that otherwise would have been unavailable. Longer term, America needs single payer. I've co-authored single payer legislation each year in the Assembly and will continue to support it in Congress. Answer from Larry Fritzlan: The healthcare problem in this country is first a problem with obesity and preventable health conditions that are rampant in America and that cost millions of dollars to treat. We need to promote health in this country by educating people about healthy food and lifestyle choices, and by providing affordable, nutritious food. When we subsidize corn. corn syrup-filled food, as well as salt and fat-filled food, are cheaper than lettuce and broccoli. The affordability and availability of non-nutritious addictive foods skyrockets health care costs. Second, we need a healthcare plan that does not reward insurance companies at the expense of medical care. A single payer health plan is the only viable means to bringing down healthcare costs and providing fair and easy access to medical care. Answer from Susan L. Adams: I propose a Medicare for All program. Medicare is working. It has a low overhead and can be expanded for all, not just the elderly and disabled. Get the insurance companies out of making health care decisions based on profits, not the needs of the patients. Obama's health care plan is a start. But we need to do so much more. As a County Supervisor I have seen first hand how locally run preventative care-oriented clinics can help those in need, keep people healthier, including the elderly and children and add to overall wellness and well-being of he community. This is an economic issues and even a National Security issue, in preparing to met demands of the 21st century. Answer from Mike Halliwell: There is probably no aspect of life where a "one size fits all" straight-jacket approach is more counterproductive than health care. Ted Kennedy's former Massachusetts Senate seat was considered safely Democratic until the January 19, 2010 special election became a referendum on President Obama's health care restructuring plan. The only way that what became the Affordable Care Act (ACA) got through the Senate (12/24/09 vote on HR 3590) was by means of bribes such as the "cornhusker kickback" and the "Louisiana purchase." These obnoxious features were left intact in a House vote, to do an "end run" around Senator Scott Brown's election, and then later removed (in a way that did not require 60 votes in the Senate). The 2011 bill (HR 2) to repeal the ACA would reverse the criminalizing of refusal to purchase health insurance whose coverage is dictated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. It would also end a personal mandate which forces young people pay three times the true cost of their insurance in order to subsidize the health care costs of much more affluent age groups. Until the entire ACA is repealed or ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, I support the 2011 bill (HR 358) which overturns the aspect of the ACA which requires plans to pay for abortions, not involving rape, incest or a threat to the mother's life. I support the 2005 bill (HR 5) which would extend California's $250,000 limit on subjective "pain and suffering" malpractice awards to the nation (to reduce the need for the "defensive medicine" that protects doctors rather than patients). I would use the $46 billion savings (per decade) from this reform to help replace the ACA with a fairer allocation of health care subsidies across the income spectrum. I would cut back the tax benefits for "Cadillac" health care plans (up to $8,000) to the $2,500 benefit for an average ($10,000) family health care policy for an average family income. I would provide the same coverage for the working poor, with cost reduced on a sliding income scale. I would allow health insurance purchase across state lines, so that the subsidy could be used for a plan best suited to individual needs, which provides the coverage required by at least half of states, with a combined population of 50% of the whole nation. When the ACA is gone, the advocates of centralized health care control will demand that a "single payer" system (such as Congressman John Conyers' HR 676 proposal in 2007) of health care financing be adopted. This would be the death of freedom of choice, since "he who pays the piper always calls the tune." This "Medicare for All" approach would destroy this program for senior citizens, since there would be no "prepayment" aspect and most doctors are willing to see Medicare patients only because they shift ten or twenty percent of the inadequate Medicare reimbursement to their private patients. If we halt the $250 billion (per decade) diversion of Medicare funds to the ACA, and use the new revenue sources tapped by the ACA to eliminate the scheduled 27% Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) cut in physician reimbursement, Medicare will be able to pay for adding the "baby boom" seniors Answer from Stacey Lawson: Federal health care policies are not only a social welfare and health issue, but they are also a small business and economic matter. Local, small business owners carry a burden that many of their larger competitors don't carry: they must pay the ever-rising cost of health care which makes locally made goods and services more expensive. According to the Small Business Majority's statement before the House Subcommittee on Health, without reform, "small businesses would pay nearly $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years in health care costs for their workers; 178,000 small business jobs, $834 billion in small business wages, and $52.1 billion in profits would be lost due to these costs." That's why we must continue to support health care measures such as President Obama's Affordable Care Act - to not only protect Americans' health but to also aid small businesses. Answer from John Lewallen: It is essential that we, the people, unite to demand single payer health care for all! The present health insurance industry is a sadistic system, arbitrarily raising premiums and denying coverage, a very expensive nightmare that delivers very poor results. I recommend that people join http://www.singlepayernow.net, and help create a mass demand for single payer health care. Answer from Brooke Clarke: Single Payer Health Care is mandatory. The U.S. is the only industrialized country that has private for profit medical care and it's costing about twice what the other industrialized countries spend with lower outcomes. 5. What, if any, changes should be made to federal rules on campaign financing? Answer from Stacey Lawson: Government is meant to serve the people. Campaign financing must be kept transparent to ensure candidates' accountability to their constituents, not to lobbyists or big business. That's why we must work to repeal the Citizens United decision that supports corporate and lobbyist contributions. Answer from Norman Solomon: For decades -- as an activist, author and nationally syndicated columnist -- I have detailed how big money in politics promotes everything from war and environmental degradation to economic injustice and unfair trade treaties to media conglomeration and corporatization of health care. In my largely volunteer-driven campaign for Congress, I have implemented a grassroots approach to fundraising: raising over half a million dollars from more than 5,000 (mostly small) donors, while refusing to accept a penny of corporate PAC money. Principle is key to our strategy. As a member of Congress, one of my top priorities will be to push legislation and a constitutional amendment aimed at removing money from politics. Among my plans: I will promote a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood, and to affirm that campaign-related spending can be strictly regulated, thereby overturning the Citizens United decision. I will immediately cosponsor the "Fair Elections Now Act" -- which would establish public financing of elections (sometimes called "clean money") and enable federal candidates to avoid large donations, big money bundlers and donations from lobbyists. I will also cosponsor legislation banning elected officials from working as lobbyists after they leave office. Polls show that public financing and lobbying bans are popular with the U.S. public -- whether Democrat, Republican, some other party or independent. I pledge to go to Washington to fight to fulfill the public's desire to take money and corruption out of politics. Answer from Brooke Clarke: The major problem is that the Democratic and Republican parties have more influence on Congressmen than a SuperPAC. That's very clear by the number of times that votes are split along party lines. Term limits need to be put in place. Corporations are not people. The Citizens United case needs to be reversed or a Constitutional amendment enacted to reverse that decision. Answer from John Lewallen: I support the Move to Amend the U.S. Constitution to clearly state that corporations are not people, and money is not free speech. In addition, we need a Constitutional amendment prohibiting the use of big money to lobby and finance elections. Meanwhile, if you elect me, John Lewallen, an independent citizen-candidate with a low-budget campaign, focused on organizing people to unite for fundamental reform, it will be the beginning of the end of big-money rule of U.S. politics! Answer from Jared Huffman: I support overturning Citizen's United. Additionally, I believe we need increased transparency of campaign contributions. I have co-authored a recent bill, which is currently making its way through the state legislature, the California DISCLOSE Act, AB 1648. This bill will fight back against unlimited hidden spending on campaigns by letting voters know who really is paying for political ads -- on the ads themselves. Answer from Susan L. Adams: We must get the built-in corruption bred of special interest and corporate money out of politics. The Citizens United decision allowing corporations to give endless amounts to fund their candidates must be overturned by Amendment. Small changes are made at the local level, but major systemic changes at the Federal level codified by strong laws and enforcement are needed. Answer from Mike Halliwell: Before the 50% tax credit (up to $100 on a joint return) for small political contributions was repealed in 1986, I usually found a worthy Republican candidate to help with a maximum covered contribution. I believe that the antidote to excessive influence of large political spenders is the matching of small contributions with public funds. In 2008 Senator Barack Obama destroyed public financing of presidential elections, when he refused to honor his pledge to limit himself to the available equal funding of both major party nominees. Senator Obama had the most lopsided spending advantage in the history of presidential elections, including more in Wall Street contributions than Senator John McCain. The Democratic Party is MORE dependent on large contributors (such as hedged fund manager George Soros) than the Republican Party. I do not support ANY amendments to the Bill of Rights, but there is room within the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision to keep large "independent" election information spenders from buying influence with candidates to a) crack down on a candidate's top supporters who cannot meet the "lack of co-ordination" requirement for exceeding limits on direct contributions (upheld in the Buckley v Vallejo decision), and b) require instantaneous filings via the internet, identifying the source of contributions to so called "Super PAC's", and c) include source of funds statements in all political ads. When voters realize that an attempt to "buy" an election is underway, candidates beholden to unpopular special interests are hurt, not helped, by this linkage. I also favor other measures to preserve and enhance integrity and accountability in the political process. I supported the 2006 decision by Republican House leaders to renew the Voting Rights Act (HR 9) a year early, to protect the voting power of ethnic minorities from dilution by procedures used to conduct elections. I opposed the 2001 congressional gerrymander (AB 632) facilitated by Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey and her Democrat colleagues. The lack of political evenhandedness in this plan made it the antithesis of the prior court-ordered plan, which had reflected criteria set forth in S 7 (1993). I supported a 1998 measure (HR 1428) to provide a voluntary pilot program to test the use of federal data on citizenship by states seeking this assistance. After the bitterly close presidential election in 2000, I feel that the 2006 Federal Election Integrity Act (HR 1428) is needed to maintain confidence in the legitimacy of our political processes. This measure would require presentation of a government-issued photo ID to vote in federal elections (after a two-year period to facilitate issuance of free ID's to citizens who could not afford them), to reduce the participation of illegal aliens in elections. Answer from Larry Fritzlan: This is the most critical issue our nation faces today. Until there are different rules for campaign financing, this country will continue to be in a logjam where nothing can be done. As long as politicians are bought by special interests, and cash and special favors are the currency of vote-getting, we cannot have a democracy that represents the people. Campaign finance reform is the only way we can get honest politicians in office who will serve the people's needs. None of the big problems our country faces-- environment, energy, education,addiction, healthcare -- can be effectively dealt with until we have honest adult politicians in office who are capable of thinking about what best serves the majority of the America's citizens. Responses to questions asked of each candidate are reproduced as submitted to the League.  Candidates' statements are presented as submitted. References to opponents are not permitted. The order of the candidates is random and changes daily. Candidates who did not respond are not listed on this page.