A: Abortion is not an unrestricted right. Legally, it deserves to be restricted by states or even locales. That's why Roe v Wade was a bad decision: it took criminal punishment power away from states. (Also the Roe court was legislating, i.e. making law, when a court's job is to apply law). When states/locales can choose, some states will deem abortion a felony; some will deem a later term abortion "murder"; some will deem it a misdemeanor; some, sadly, will put no legal penalty on "mother" or abortionist.
Q: What about moral issues, beyond the legal issues?
A: Morally, it deserves to be censured by all. Abortion is at minimum a selfish act. A woman can do a beautiful thing by carrying a baby for an infertile couple. They will pay for her health care and more.In many cases it's a lot more
After the 1907 recession (another short one), progressives decided that we could use the federal government to try to prevent recessions. The created the Federal Reserve. And after progressives gained more power, in the 1930s they use Big government to try to steer projects, create "investment" and directly employ more people. The result: the three longest recessions that we've ever had.
In the 1930s the Federal Reserve tightened the money supply when it should have loosened it, and the New Deal legislation moved people around, but gave no permanent recovery. We pulled out of recession a full 11 years later.
In the 1970s, the Fed did not prevent a recession, and it did not combat it well. And currently, we are in the ninth year of recession, despite Obama's engineering and Bernanke's and Yellin's Fed policies, many Americans are out of work.
A: God no. A market-led recovery is the best kind. When the economy falters in the Free Market and talented people are out of work, employers at some point offer them work, because they are available relatively cheaply (some work is better than no work, unless the welfare benefits are high). That's what gets people back to work.
A: We should formally assist only when the discrimination takes place in government employment. In the Free Market, private action is almost always better than legislation. We don't need lawyers to sue and determine whether an employer is underpaying women or not hiring them due to misogyny. Women who feel discriminated against have the ultimate power -- go elsewhere. I believe in private advocates, who'll help a woman who is potentially timid about speaking up for her skills and her value to the company. That to me is a very good kind of feminist legal aid: "my client is worth more to you than the man you are paying $5/hr more; compensate her fairly now, or she's going to work for your competitor." Alternatively, "Compensate her fairly now, or she's going to work for your competitor, you Pig".
A: Government should stay out of the marriage business. Marriages will continue to be consummated and blessed by a couple's religion and community the way they have for hundreds of years before governments began to intrude. To the extent government is offering benefits to a spouse, it is sensible and fair that they be offered to same-sex partners.
I do ask same sex couples, and the LGBT community to yield the word "Marriage". It angers devout people who mean you no harm. They just don't want to see their private, holy institutions besmirched.
LGBTers have come such a long way in such a short time; it would be a shame if political militancy causes your potential allies among the religious (I am one of them) to be severed. You can have every benefit of government by calling is a "domestic partnership"; just refrain from calling it "marriage".
The best income taxation is ZERO personal income tax on citizens. I would replace the income tax with a national sales tax and a wealth tax. A wealth tax requires a Constitutional Amendment, as we did in 1913 to allow an income tax. Wealth taxes on real property and vessels (cars, trucks and boats) give us efficiency (we know where the assets are and their value) and fairness (high-value properties pay more).
I would keep the corporate income tax, but reduce it slightly. Eventually I'd reduced it greatly, but I'd like to keep accountants employed for a few more years. And I would keep an income tax on NON-Citizens. In part this goes to the cost of our monitoring and aiding your build-up to citizenship. In part it keeps some earnings here instead of being shipped back home.
A: There is no question that stricter punishment reduces crime. At a minimum, it gets bad guys off the streets longer. At the more optimistic level, it almost certainly det
A: Marijuana is not a gateway drug. Nobody gets high and craves harder drugs from it. Indeed, few people even have an addictive craving for marijuana itself. Marijuana is no more addictive than hot fudge sundaes, and no more of a gateway than an ice cream come.
The one extent to which marijuana IS a gateway drug, ironically, is because it's been made criminal. So some kids try it, have fun and suffer no harm, and REASONABLY conclude: "if this (Schedule 1) drug is what they call harmful, what could be so bad about LSD or heroin?" And they then try one of those the next weekend. Then marijuana, by it's illegality, becomes a gateway to truly addictive drugs. Stupid.
I support marijuana legalization. That some high political figures would criminalize an activity that harms at most the user himself is wayward thinking. It's despicable thinking when it comes from politicians who themselves used illegal drugs. Criminalizing pot use and pot sales to adults is more evil now than 35 years ago because criminal records are now a permanent hex -- they keep you from getting decent jobs forever; and if your "criminality" is a harmless third strike, these draconian politicians put you in prison for 25 years.
A: I'd prefer to see no public schools in the first place. But if state must have them, vouchers are wise. They let students go to the schools that are best for them. They simultaneously make most schools BETTER. When schools need to compete for students carrying vouchers, the schools make themselves more attractive. Those that don't, fold. That's not a bad thing. Kids who see their decrepit schools fold go 20 minutes away to a BETTER school.
Q: What do you say to voucher opponents?
A: Those who rail against school choice are keeping kids down. Many students travel 45 to 60 minutes each way to get to a better school. Vouchers start bringing better schools closer to them. Education is too important to be besmirched by politics. There should not be federal grants for education. I dislike state grants as well, but as president I control no single school.
A: Congress Constitutionally controls education in one area: D.C. Here I have veto power and I will use it. I will implore privatizing education in DC, at least giving families vouchers to use in Maryland and Virginia schools if those in DC are deficient. Vouchers make schools better because they have to COMPETE. Do well for your students, or FOLD.
A: I would let private concerns prioritize green energy development. Regarding other nations' emissions, that is a Federal domain, and I take it seriously enough to make [the Environmental Protection Agency] a new cabinet-level department. Government funding is never as effective as private funding. Witness our wayward investments in A123, Abound Solar, Beacon Power, Fisker Automotive, Nevada Geothermal, and Solyndra. If a renewable energy idea is feasible IT WILL GET FUNDED PRIVATELY. Relying on grants steers money away from meritorious labs/firms towards labs/firms that are adept politically.
A: Environmental improvement is very intricate. In some cases, it is true that regulations are too restrictive. In some cases regulations are being enforced too restrictively. And in some cases, EPA and state bureaucrats ride wild extra-legally and restrict property owners & business owners in the name of extreme environmental defense.
Q: So are property owners too restricted?
A: Because the science is intricate & because individual rights in indivisible air/water are currently impossible to protect, this is one area where the Federal government should be involved. I am the nation's best environmental advocate because I give Americans a PROPERTY RIGHT in the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the rain that supports our crops. Actually, God gives us these property rights, I'm just the politician who is most forcefully recognizing them. As president I will raise the [the Environmental Protection Agency] to top tier cabinet level position.
I am not only seeking the Democrat Party's nomination, I am seeking the GREEN Party's nomination too. That party has been largely taken over by Marxist totalitarians. I would like to see a pure Green Party, one that advocates for environmental goodness without instinctively using government for it. (Remember the dirtiest places are in non-capitalist countries; private owners WANT to care for their stuff; socialist "owner" don't care so much). Let Jill Stein and the totalitarians who follow her compete for the Socialist Party nomination instead; that's where they belong--leave the Green advocates to do their work without being besotted by your anti-social, anti-capitalist rhetoric.
A: Women can make good money as baby-carriers for Americans who otherwise are spending huge sums dealing with Chinese and Russian adoption bureaucracies. There is nothing immoral about carrying life for another; it IS immoral to snuff out that life for your own convenience.
Yes, this "burdens" women and not men. Eliminating an extra burden on some does not balance snuffing out innocent babies. Women feeling burdened could instead take the upside: only you can deliver that soon-to-be-happy, healthy baby to parents who will be forever grateful. Your temporary burden is making a better world.
Varying state criminality codes is what our Framers envisioned. A president cannot alter Supreme Court rulings. But he can say from the "bully pulpit" that abortion is wrong, and implore women to carry babies to term and give them to couples who are willing and able to care for these newborns.
A: I absolutely support American Exceptionalism. God blessed America from the outset, and we have become great. Armed with Judeo-Christian values, a capitalist work ethic, and the precept that your background is irrelevant to your merit, we've built our society to bring more happiness and prosperity to more people than any nation has ever done. That includes our bringing values abroad. Western values have made the world better. I am unabashed about this. That's why I want fervently to "wage peace". That means we overwhelm the receptive world to our goods, our processes, our culture, and our friendship. JFK had a "Peace Corps"; i would re-enlist this concept, but without government. Our students, our businesses, our missionaries, our ex-pats, and our tourists should every day be sharing with peoples who will receive us.
Remember, American (and Soviet) might defeated Nazi Germany; but it was Western VALUES that defeated Nazi-ism. American might (and the Soviet threat) defeated Imperial Japan; but it was Western VALUES that defeated Imperial-ism. Our good values and our continued interaction with our former enemies helped Germany and Japan to become prosperous nations. I wish that for all peoples who rid themselves of modern oppression.
A: I fully support free trade. And we don't need elaborate negotiations to do free trade. The 1000+ page TPP can't possibly be free trade. There are clearly restrictions, penalties, and tit-for-tat reciprocity that serves political interests. The proper restrictions are NO restrictions. If a foreign government is subsidizing its industry and "dumping" goods on the USA, that's good for our consumers. They can't do it forever. If a foreign government is keeping US-manufactured products out, we need to "wage peace" with their citizens, that they demand the American stuff (which most foreigners love) or they will rebel.
Talk about "great deals", consumers do these great deals privately every time. Every time someone freely purchases an item, it means he obtained something valuable for a proper price OR LESS. That "consumer surplus", what a consumer would have paid but didn't have to, is the great deal that free trade gives & that Mr. Trump doesn't seem to recognize.
Now a lot of stored-up dollars abroad probably come back to purchase our stuff. So that's when our trade deficit moderates. But if it never goes to even, so what? That indicates we are rich enough to procure stuff from other nations. It incidentally helps those nations too. Free trade is what lifts societies, we should reduce almost every trade barrier we've erected.
A: This is a joke. It's as easy to register to vote as it is to get a library card. The people wanting to reform voter registration by and large want non-citizens to vote. They should be laughed out of town. If anything, it should be HARDER to vote. I support an assessment every decade or so (it could be a WORTHY part of the mostly-unworthy dicennial census) whether a would-be voter knows English, and has basic reasoning capacities. If so, and for some reason you were denied the right to vote, we;ll help you get it straight. If not, stay home. Let others vote.
A: Yes, all mentally competent adults have an absolute right to gun ownership. This is prudent, for the best defense when someone is trying to beat your buddy or rape your wife is a GUN. The San Bernardino Shooters, Oregon Shooter, Aurora shooter, Sandy Hook Shooters, and Charleston Shooter would have taken out no more than two innocent people had even one good protector been present and able to use a gun. The best defense when a mentally imbalanced shooter is firing at innocent people is GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS. And the best defense when a sober-but-evil terrorist has a weapon is also a clear-thinking American WITH A GUN. North America has had seven highly public terrorist shootings since 2009. To me, the absolute saddest are the three that happened at military installations: Fort Hood, the Washington Naval Shipyard and the Chattanooga Army recruitment station. These are places where in normal times our Military Police carried guns.
A: Heavens no, we can't expand ObamaCare. The ACA should be ENDED, along with Medicare, and replaced by the most perfect health care system in the world: the Free Market. Free markets in groceries get us foods from around the world, cheaply, fresh, and (if governments don't interfere) with good labels. Free markets in clothing get us various styles, durabilities, and sizes. Free markets (generally) in higher education give us varied colleges, universities, technical schools, and training academies. They draw from all over the world, still largely unfettered by our government. Health care choice is too important to leave to the government. The perniciousness of ACA is so serious, it would be a wonder how we got here in the first place.
To wit: Government "death panels", reduced choice in MDs, higher premiums, higher deductibles, fewer careers due to 29 hour caps, MDs leaving the profession, and fewer raises due to 50 employee caps. Enough said.
"Death panels" sounds incendiary. To be fair, any private HMO has a death panel, defined as decision makers other than you who can withhold treatment. But the HMO that wrongly withholds needed care suffers consequences, contractually and in reputation. The Government death panel has no consequences for its unfair decisions about patients. This dissociation begets the VA scandal.
A: The Military is our first priority. That might not require more funding though. There are areas where we can spend less. Thousands of swarming, nimble fighter jets are probably more effective than three or four Joint-Strike fighters, and the cost is equivalent. We feed, house, train, and pay an abundance of soldiers abroad that are probably unnecessary. (There are eight US bases in Italy; there are 22 in Germany.) The 30,000 "man" DMZ is almost certainly over-bloated. Defense is the PRIMARY reason we form a government, for mutual protection. Defense, courts, and environmental protection are the only truly worthy federal functions, so we should give them their due. And because well-trained, bad-ass soldiers, and the willingness to use them if necessary just may deter bad foreign actors, I err on the side of more for the military.
AND THE AMERICAN CULTURE IS GREAT. We stand for Judeo- Christian values that have civilized/improved most of the world. I am the one candidate arguing that illegal immigration costs us our sovereignty AND our culture.
Deporting is feasible. Don't let pundits tell you otherwise. Two months after I am inaugurated, I will set up tribunals to adjudicate the tricky cases. Where there is no evidence of proper immigration, many will be incentivized to self-repatriate. For the rest, escorting 80% of illegals home is feasible in one summer. Use school buses, Greyhounds, Cruise ships, and C-130s. My exceptions would be those who've learned English, and have begun promoting American values, and POSSIBLY those who've lived here 17 years or more.
A: I have a nice pathway to citizenship. It's called a bus or a cruise or a C-130 escort home. And it resumes with illegals getting in line like legal would-be immigrants have done. After they who've done it right have cleared our immigration hurdles (which I will reduce), then I'd let the illegal aliens who make restitution and who have great references from multiple Americans begin the return process.
A: Women are more empowered by helping themselves. In most cases, they have the Free Market as their ally. There are very few employers that dislike women; those who do should stay free to suffer the consequences of not having talented workers helping their sales and production. They might also suffer the consequences of consumers who don't like discrimination (that's 99% of us) not buying their products.
Minorities can and should act similarly. And I'd still propose advocates for those who have a hard time standing up for themselves (including those in government employ) In the Free Market if your employer is racist and you are suffering because of it, leave. He loses your talents and just may lose the business of we who despise racism. I strongly believe in consumer boycotts. If they are backed up by truth, I support consumers withholding their purchases as a way to alter corporate practices.
A: True tolerance says we should not stifle devout people who want to express their devotion to God or attempt to glorify God. Private displays on public grounds are not offensive; towns and states should let displays go forward. A creche or a menorah displayed for a month in city hall is in no means an attempt to establish religion. That's what the First Amendment proscribes, but even our most active zealots are nowhere near doing that.I am a Jew who is proudly attending Christmas tree lighting ceremonies. I believe the Ten Commandments should be taught in middle school, at least as part of "Civics". If a school is going to teach sex ed, its students should know the 7th, 8th and 9th Commandments.
If I make it to the White House it's because Americans see in me a warrior for better democracy. So my priority is to keep the people vigilant. I will point out where congress and bureaucrats and regulators are trying to dis-serve American interests. I will use the VETO power to assure this.
I will cultivate new candidates for Congress and State House sets through The Resistance (www.weResist.us), the organization I founded to help grass-roots candidates.
And I will work to WAGE PEACE, letting American students, firms, families and orgs suffuse the receptive world to American goodness.
A: Yes, we should allow Americans to opt out of Social Security. A government fiduciary can remain for those who trust government more than themselves to conservatively invest for retirement. But many people, especially young people, will want to opt out. They can thereby save 15.2% a year. They can let that money build, earning interest in the vehicles they or their private fiduciaries see fit. And they don't have to wait to age 65 (soon to be 70) to use that money. If buying a home, starting a business, or putting a child into private school is more important, that couple has a USABLE nest egg.
A: Remember, Social Security is the most regressive tax we have. Forced contributions stop above $106,000 in earnings, meaning the $500,000 earner is takes at around 3.5% while the $40,000 earner is taxed at 15.2%. Think that's unfair? How about dying before you reach 65--Your return on all that you invested in Social Security is ZERO. Think that's unfair? How about being African American in this system--On average African American men die at age 65.9; they are able to recoup for less than one year after retiring. By contrast White men on average dies at age 73.2. Thus they collect on average NINE times longer than the African American male. Blacks should be absolutely irate about forced Social Security.
A: It's not right to tax people just "because you can". Similarly I dislike taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, many of which are bought by addicts. They have a hard time stopping, but state coffers are buoyed by taxing their addiction. A progressive tax system to me seems unfair - wealthy people take no more government services than poor people. A straight tax seems more fair - a certain percent across the board, with NO exceptions. That alone helps America rid itself of many lobbyist, who USE the tax code to favor special groups. Income taxes unfairly give power to Congress, lobbyists, and big corporations. They use the tax code selfishly and manipulate the rest of us. No income tax de-fangs them and improves democracy.
A: See my Wage Peace argument above. But be willing to preserve Americans' lives and lifestyle against terrorists. Where we are right, and we have the capacity to exterminate evil, i lean toward doing so. I firmly believe that Right makes Might. We are the sustained the biggest*-and-best armed force in part because we use it for good. When a wealthy country can extirpate evil and free many people in the process, I believe it should do so, at least on a small scale. For large scale "nation-building" I believe we need a referendum. But that's down the road, after we first get our domestic house in order. When we become a domestic model. we have even more going for us in our ventures abroad.
* Yes, China has more men under arms. But if called upon, American volunteers fighting for liberty (I'd never draft Americans) would exceed China's military in the first month.
|
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 Mark Stewart. Click here for Mark Stewart on all issues.
Mark Stewart 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!) | |||||||