When we start hearing similar questions about the same issue from folks all around the district, it's obvious that issue is really hot right now. Below are Dave's answers to some questions that are on voters' minds today. The links to the right will take you to questions that folks were asking earlier in the campaign.
If there's an issue that really matters to you, Ask Dave where he stands on it! Scroll to the bottom of the page and just fill out the form Check back often, since we'll update this page frequently with answers to new questions.
25 February 2010
Q: I retired after 20 years in retail management to become a school teacher. I teach with many other teachers who changed professions to make a difference in public education. What is your position on school vouchers and, if you support school vouchers, how will you see that public schools are adequately funded? As a conservative Texan, I want to see all of our students succeed and become successful, tax-paying citizens.
A: Schools are a matter for state and local officials to address, based on the will of local citizens. I do have a private opinion on vouchers - but this is not a national issue, and I do not expect the subject to require my input as a member of the US Congress. Congress should stay out of state and local issues, and I plan to.
By the way - bravo to you for your career change. You are right that our future lies with our children and their education should be a top priority. Dedicated teachers like you are critical to our success.
23 February 2010
Q: Will you sign up for the Defund Pledge that says "I solemnly pledge to my constituents that I will consistently work to defund, or vote against appropriating any money for, any federal department, program, or activity not specifically authorized by an enumerated power of the United States Constitution. For any federal department, program, or activity I do vote to fund, I will provide the specific enumerated power constitutionally permitting it."
A: My signature means a lot to me. I do not use it lightly. I am assaulted daily with a barrage of requests from groups that want me to sign up for some carefully worded pledge that allows them to define an issue and proclaim publicly how I did or did not meet their definition. So I try not sign a pledge unless I am sure I can do what it says.
It looks to me like this pledge is asking me to sign that I will go through every sentence and line of a $4 trillion budget and personally match every dollar spent to a specific sentence in the Constitution. It would be easy for me to say "sure" and make you go away. It would also be a lie.
This would be a multi-year project for a large dedicated staff. And it would lead to continuing infighting among conservatives over interpretations. Can you name the enumerated power that allows the FAA? Federal funding of cancer research? Federal support of the GPS satellite constellation? Do you think all conservatives would agree on these answers? Actually doing what this pledge says would be a huge time sink and lead to strife and discord within our movement.
A much better approach is to select targets where federal spending and exercise of power are clearly outside the Constitutional framework, and go after those. One example would be intrusion of the federal Department of Education into issues that clearly belong to the state or local government. Another would be the overreach of the EPA in defining carbon dioxide as a hazardous substance and exercising power over it (which presumably means they claim the right to supervise breathing).
Let's pick our targets of un-Constitutional behavior, unify, and go after them, rather than diffusing our power by arguing over a wide range of issues that we will never agree on or control.
22 February 2010
Q: Why is it you stated that "[t]heir solution to a weak economy is more taxes – precisely the formula for killing small business and retarding growth," when about one third of the stimulus bill was tax cuts? Furthermore, you state that the current administration is giving terrorists "a global platform to malign our nation." Wouldn't locking terrorists in prisons while torturing them recruit more terrorists than taking them through court? Are you simply misinformed or misleading people? Why would I vote for a senator who doesn't know the issues, or is willing to blatantly lie to gain votes? (Editor's Note: Dave is running for the District 17 Congressional seat, not for the Senate.)
A: Two questions - two answers.
#1: Stimulus vs Tax Cuts: There is a big difference between a one year tax reduction ("stimulus") and a long term tax cut. If families received a one time tax reduction, they might use it to buy something like new carpet. This will give the local carpet guy some extra business, and he might respond with additional hours for his workers - one time for the one year stimulus. But he knows this is a one time, one year deal. He will not buy a new truck (helping truck sales), hire new workers (creating new jobs), or expand his showroom (boosting the construction industry) based on a one year stimulus. These INVESTMENTS require that he take a risk, and he will only do that if he thinks his costs are going down and his sales are going up OVER TIME. So long term tax cuts (which I advocate) do work to grow the economy. A short term, one time, government stimulus (which I oppose) does not.
#2: Terrorism and torture: Let me begin by repeating what I have said in hundreds of presentations on terrorism in the last 10 years. I have never advocated torture at any time in any forum. As a strategist, I argued against contracting out interrogation in Afghanistan (which resulted in many abuses early in the war), and argued for closer supervision of our detention and interrogation system well before the abuses of Abu Ghraib. As a soldier for 30 years, I that know that torture generally does not work. I was taught that if captured I should lie if possible and die if necessary rather than give up my cause and my friends. Why would our enemies be any different? While I do understand that exceptional circumstances may require exceptional measures (the traditional "ticking time bomb" scenario, for example), using torture as a policy is both wrong and counterproductive.
Now, to your specific question. First, let's remove the hyperbole by clarifying the fact that no one anywhere is arguing that prisoners in Gitmo are being tortured today - this is simply not an issue. What is an issue is whether we should be giving the accused an open court, live cameras, and thousands of reporters to report their every lie and outrageous statement. I think this is a terrible idea, and so do most people in New York regardless of their politics.
With the hyperbole removed, your question can be restated: "Doesn't trying terrorists outside of a traditional court setting recruit more terrorists?" Years of research and practical experience suggest that the answer to your question is "No." I have never heard any terrorist or any expert on terrorism suggest that we are being attacked because or our failure to try captured terrorists in traditional courts, or that attacks would stop if we would only change from military to civilian prosecution. Radicals are mounting attacks because they believe our national power and way of life threaten the spread of radical Islam across the earth. Their intent in attacking us is to further their vision for the future of mankind and destory ours - not to "pay us back" because of how we conduct trials.
Again, I do not and have never advocated torture as a policy. But I do believe that neither our misbehavior in the past, nor military tribunals in the present, have any real impact on future terrorist attacks. They are attacking us for entirely other reasons. To believe otherwise is to misunderstand both our enemy and our current strategic situation.
17 February 2010
Q: Will you sign the Mount Vernon Statement?
A: I already have. I recommend that you sign it too. Here are the ideas the statement supports.
"We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding. Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.
"These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere."
10 February 2010
Q: What do you think of the President’s “Race to the Top” education program? Do you support or oppose this approach to national standards in school curriculum?
A: I strongly oppose this program as sneaky way to subvert state and local control of schools while dumbing down curriculum nationwide. The “Race to the Top” is a federal program that promises federal money for any state that agrees to sign on for a national curriculum with national performance standards, designed in DC, that would make up 85% of all school work. One major problem is that states have to sign on before the standards are even complete – but states are so desperate for funding that only Texas and Alaska have withheld their approval. Indications thus far are that the curriculum is being designed by people with little or no experience in education or the classroom, but plenty of experience with political agendas. And the time requirements accompanying the curriculum would make it very difficult to require state standards that exceed the low standards of performance being written into the federal program.
This is a bad deal for students, states, educators and citizens. The “Race to the Top” is more likely to be a “Stampede to the Bottom.” If elected to Congress, I will oppose it with vigor.
08 February 2010
Q: Dave, I read your response the 2nd amendment question but I need a little more. Specifically, I'm worried about congress trying a repeat of the so called assault weapons ban of the Clinton era. If you support owning guns for target practice and hunting, do you also support the right of law abiding citizens to own semi-automatic weapons? I always thought the term "assault weapon" is disingenuous, since by definition those are fully automatic and regulated by the ATF. I don't want the federal government taking away my right to own an AR-15, and I want to know if you'd fight against another assault weapons ban.
A: I would oppose bans on assault weapons and similar disingenuous laws. In 30 years in the military, and many days firing everything from pistols to artillery and tanks, I never heard a single person use the term "assault rifle." To a person who actually does assaults for a living, every weapon is an assault weapon, to include a shovel. Banning assault weapons has no meaning to a professional who handles weapons for a living.
The term "assault wepaons" was invented by gun opponents to sound scary, and they went on to include certain features of weapons in an attempt to make them seem more ominous. For example, the “assault weapons ban” forbade the manufacture of new rifles with a stud for the mounting of a bayonet – as if bayonet attacks on taxi cab drivers were a big problem.
In reality, the rifles described with these characteristics were generally expensive, high quality weapons of a type almost never used in the commission of a crime. So the effect of the assault weapons ban was simply to curtail citizens’ 2d Amendment right without having any impact at all on crime.
It was a dumb law with a dishonest intent. I would not vote to support it.
07 February 2010
Q: Could you please offer your comments about the following issues: Do you favor a big US government or should it become smaller? Is it currently doing a good job or does the US government need to become more fiscally responsible? How do you feel about the need for people taking personal responsibility? Is the US government doing an adequate job of defending our National Sovereignty? Do you think that the US Constitution is being followed or is the Rule of Law being ignored by any or all branches of the US government? Do you think that the US Government has usurped any of the rights reserved to the states and the people? If so what should be done?
A: Wow. This is a lot to try to answer in a format designed for quick, easy reading. I will try to be both concise and complete.
The size of the federal government should be determined by its responsibilities under the Constitution. Should the size of these responsibilities grow (as, for example, the responsibility for defense grows in time of war), then the size of that part of the federal government should grow. Likewise, when the size of responsibilities decline (after a war, for example), then the size of that part of the federal government should shrink as well. In our current situation, I think the federal government is much larger than it should be in most areas (the Department of Education springs to mind, for example). But there are a very few areas where I see valid arguments for expansion (Border Patrol, for example, perhaps inspectors checking for dangerous materials in toys made in China, etc).
The primary reason the government has become too large is that too much money is available through taxes (especially the income tax, originally intended only for time of war), and through borrowing (which should also be reserved for national emergencies.) Reduce the resources available, and government bureaucrats would have to prioritize – which is the first step toward fiscal responsibility.
The argument for Rule of Law is a tricky one. Remember that King George argued that our forefathers were in revolt against the established Rule of Law at that time. Washington, Jefferson and others argued that there is a higher authority than man's law -- the Author of Law - and sought to craft our Constitution in accord with the natural laws of the Creator. Yes I do believe that the federal government is exceeding its authority under the Constitution in many areas (the proposed new Health Care Legislation is one such area), and failing to live up to its responsibilities in others (like guarding our borders). In fact, some laws are in violation of the spirit and intent of the Constitution, which makes upholding Rule of Law even more problematical.
The only way I see out of this mess created by over taxing, over spending and over reaching is for Congress to review every department of the federal government line by line, searching for functions that can be eliminated. The burden should be on the agency to prove that it is performing a critical function required by the Constitution. If it cannot make this case, it should be eliminated. And every agency should pass this test.
The issue of National Sovereignty requires a longer answer for completeness -- I will try to get to this soon. But the short answer is that I am concerned the current Administration does not value national sovereignty, and so its defense is inadequate in both the physical realm (along our borders) and in the legal realm, where the left has long seen the US as a threat to the international order to be reined in by international law. Of course, as a conservative I think they have this exactly wrong. The more we assert and defend our own sovereignty the stronger we will be - and the stronger the US is, the more stable and secure will be the world as a whole.
Have a question of your own? Want to know where Dave stands on an issue? Let us know!
