A: Place an annual limit on all major categories of spending other than interest (because we can't) and Social Security (because we can reform the program and make it solvent, secure, affordable and sustainable). Limit how much federal revenues as a percentage of the economy the federal government can take absent a formal declaration of war by the Congress.
A: Yes, with protections to prevent abuse an ensure equity.
Q: What sort of protections?
A: To prevent discrimination and ensure that equal opportunities are being afforded.
A: Yes, and I strongly oppose "partial birth abortions".
Q: You support a woman's right to choose on legal grounds, while opposing it on moral grounds; so do you describe yourself as pro-choice or pro-life?
A: I usually describe my views as "pro life" while recognizing the difference between the moral from the legal dimensions.
A: No, I oppose privatization. Reform the base defined benefit system instead. But that we should consider supplemental--not substitute--individual accounts.
A: Yes, for very few crimes and subject to DNA testing. DNA should be used when possible and if it's conclusive then the death penalty is acceptable. If DNA can't be used, or it's not conclusive, then either they're deemed innocent, or they're not subject to the death penalty. To impose the death penalty should require a finding of guilty by a jury of one's peers, AND conclusive DNA testing.
A: Yes, but for a limited number of crimes. Not for marijuana use, as an example. For the record, I don't smoke marijuana. And I don't have glaucoma.
A: We need to understand there's a substantive difference between serious drugs and marijuana. And our laws need to be adjusted accordingly. Selling illegal drugs is immoral--absolutely and positively. Using drugs is a different issue. I would not legalize hard drugs. I would not legalize marijuana but would change the enforcement provisions to no jail time for just marijuana use.
A: Oppose. But I would support allowing a teacher-led moment of silence for prayer, reflection or whatever. This exists in certain states, including Virginia where my kids went to school.
Q: Public or private?
A: Some time in public schools and some in parochial schools.
A: Yes, but we need to focus on fair trade and enforce related trade provision agreements. Free and fair--we're not doing a good job on enforcement.
Q: What about NAFTA? Should it be re-negotiated, or are you for keeping it?
A: For, but there are issue about enforcement.
Q: How about China trade?
A: For, but there are issues with fairness that have to be explored and addressed by taking action.
A: Oppose. Not for convicted felons at all. Or for automatic/assault weapons--they should require special screening and registration.
A: Yes, it does.
Q: Should it be repealed?
A: Retain it, but it needs reform.
A: No.
Q: Would you cut the defense budget?
A: We should cut defense spending and contain it. And we can do so without compromising national security. We need to restructure because the types of conflicts we're likely to have in the future are different than in the past, and that effects your force structure, footprint, weapons systems, etc.
A: We should be out of both.
Q: What about Iran?
A: We should not go to Iran. No way should we commit ground troops in connection with Iran. Israel has significant capability to protect itself. We should try to resolve the Iran crisis with diplomacy and economic and other sanctions if at all possible.
A: Yes, for civil unions. I oppose "same sex marriage".
A: Support. From a moral standpoint, I believe abortion is wrong. I'm a practicing Roman Catholic, and not in name only. At the same time, from a legal standpoint, I believe it should be a woman's right up until the point the fetus is viable on its own. There's a difference between the moral and legal standpoints. You can't legislate morality. There's also a difference between church and state. Enforcement, in any case, should be on the physician.
A: Oppose. I believe in affirmative action but not quotas. I believe that people have to demonstrate that they're taking affirmative steps to prevent discrimination within the population that's available to fill the jobs that they have. If the evidence is they're not doing that--and the presumption should be that they are doing that--then only in those circumstances should the government intervene.
Q: What do you mean by "the population that's available to fill the job"?
A: The key is the qualified population. I used to run a worldwide practice. There are sometimes very few people from protected groups, rightly or wrongly, who are qualified for a particular job. You need to increase the supply to increase diversity.
A: Yes, as well as additional transparency in connection with Super PACs and other types of organizations. I'm for Constitutional Amendment on campaign finance reform--the system is absolutely out of control. The only way is a Constitutional Amendment given the Supreme Court decision. I'm for an Amendment to rationalize the current political campaign system.
Q: You're referring to Citizens United, which allowed unlimited donations to PACs?
A: Yes, it was a mistake. I understand corporations are "persons" for contract purposes--but the definition of "person" for campaigns should be "persons who can vote." Corporations and unions cannot vote. And we need more transparency over 501(c)(4) SuperPACs. More campaign contributions with total transparency is good--more so than limits with loopholes--but what we have now it the worst of all worlds.
A: Support. We need fundamental healthcare reform irrespective of the Supreme Court's decision on ACA.
Q: You're referring to the Supreme Court's ruling on the ObamaCare Affordable Care Act argued last week, with a ruling due in June? And you mean you would support a new federal health initiative if ObamaCare's individual mandate is struck down in that ruling?
A: Our healthcare system is currently not appropriate, affordable, or sustainable--our known demographics will require more federal funding. We need to impose annual limits in what the federal government spends in every category except two-- Social Security and national debt--we need to join every civilized nation in the world in placing an annual limit on federal healthcare spending; otherwise it'll bankrupt the country. We've way overpromised and we need to change our payment system.
A: Yes, under limited conditions like military service. In the vast majority of cases there'd be a pathway to legal status instead of citizenship.
Q: What about enforcement?
Q: My view is that we need reform but also enforcement, and then to let economics take over. We're not enforcing the laws.
Q: Enforce against whom? Should immigration laws be enforced by focusing on illegal immigrants themselves, or on their employers?
A: Enforcement means against employers. But we should have more work permits--legal--and provide pathways to legal status as well. Citizenship might result from serving in the military, for example, a much higher bar than for legal status.
A: Are we talking about the effective tax rate?
Q: Most people mean a progressive marginal tax rate, where high-income earners have a much higher tax rate for their top marginal earnings than do low-income earners.
A: I am FOR making the EFFECTIVE tax rates more progressive, but I'm against making MARGINAL tax rates more progressive. Like a Reagan-style reform. Our current tax system is an abomination-- it needs to be simpler, fairer, and more competitive. And we need to broaden the base--fewer and better targeted tax preferences bring top marginal tax rates down to 25% for corporations as well as estate taxes and individuals. We should eliminate the differences with capital gains and ordinary income like Reagan did. So the bottom line marginal rates would go down but the effective rate would go up for the wealthy.
A: Yes, up to 25%. But we've got to get more people paying and less people taking a free ride--that's dangerous in a democracy. This proposal would also eliminate the need for the Buffett Rule.
Q: By the "Buffett Rule," you mean Obama's proposal that the top 1% of income earners, such as Warren Buffett, pay a surtax so that their marginal tax rate isn't lower than the bottom 99% of income earners, such as Warren Buffett's secretary?
A: Yes; eliminating the differences with capital gains tax rates would eliminate the need for the Buffett Rule.
A: Yes, allow them to do it, but maintain separation of church and state. The latest issue is requiring church-related entities to offer contraceptives. Federal law has always recognized that church organizations are exempt from those types of mandates.
Q: You're referring to the provision in ObamaCare that as of August 2012, all employers, including churches, must provide health insurance which includes contraception?
A: Yes; if people want to work for church and get contraceptives, they won't go to work for a church-affiliated organizations. Even if they do, the economic cost is not that significant. Most churches are self-insured; their outside insurance is typically just catastrophic stop-loss insurance. Obama's so-called "compromise" of the insurer paying for contraception means it's the church paying for it, in effect. That was no compromise at all. But yes, we need to separate church and state.
|
The above quotations are from Email interview series: Presidential candidates interviewed by OnTheIssues.org. Click here for main summary page. Click here for a profile of David Walker. Click here for David Walker on all issues.
David Walker on other issues: |
Abortion
|
Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade
Govt. Reform
| Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles/Values Social Security Tax Reform Technology/Infrastructure War/Iraq/Mideast Welfare/Poverty
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
| Click for details -- or send donations to: 1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140 E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org (We rely on your support!) | |||||||