Breaking News Bar
updated: 2/23/2012 1:04 PM

Jonathan Farnick: Candidate Profile

14th District U.S. Representative (Democrat)

Success - Article sent! close
  • Jonathan Farnick, running for 14th District U.S. Representative

    Jonathan Farnick, running for 14th District U.S. Representative




Note: Answers provided have not been edited for grammar, misspellings or typos. In some instances, candidate claims that could not be immediately verified have been omitted.

Jump to:

BioKey IssuesQ&A



City: Woodstock


Office sought: 14th District U.S. Representative

Age: 43

Family: Married, one child

Occupation: Computer Systems Consultant

Education: High School Diploma, attended seven other schools in three states over a period of sixteen years or so, never graduating

Civic involvement: None

Elected offices held: None

Have you ever been arrested for or convicted of a crime? If yes, please explain: 1986 - DUI, Ohio 1992 - Reckless Endangerment, Chicago, lack of evidence, charges dropped

Candidate's Key Issues

Key Issue 1

To do something about our $15 trillion national debt. If there is no money left after required spending and interest on the debt, it won't matter what your other priorities are.

Key Issue 2

Protect civil liberties and enforce the rule of law. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin. The Patriot Act, FISA, MCA, NDAA, etc, etc, etc should have the most egregious parts of those undone and we need to stop passing new ones like it (SOPA, PIPA, etc). Prosecuting those that ordered things like torture, rendition, extra-judicial killings over the past 11 years and prosecuting those that committed fraud and theft on Wall Street over the past 4 years. "When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil." - Thomas Jefferson [as copied from Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws, VIII, c.12:]

Key Issue 3

Jobs and the environment. This country's infrastructure (roads, bridges, sewers/water supply, etc) is falling apart and needs to be rebuilt and upgraded. There are tens of thousands of public and private buildings that can be upgraded regarding their windows/insulation and better efficiencies of heating and cooling, with the benefit of lowered energy costs, all which would put people the work all over the country, put money in their pockets to spend in a 70% consumer driven economy, and provide customers to the businesses that are hurting for sales.

Questions & Answers

What would you do to help ease partisan gridlock? Are you willing to compromise on sticking points including spending cuts and taxes to produce results' How can Congress move from being a "crisis-driven" institution?

Congress needs more and better Democrats, which will ease up the gridlock imposed by the Republicans, there has never been a time like now where almost everything in the Senate is met with a filibuster, and the 2011 Congress was the 'worst' in history, passing only 80 bills; Some spending needs to be curtailed. Some taxes needs to be raised; get money out of politics, until then, expect more of the same

Should tax breaks be extended? Why or why not? If so, for whom? What should Congress do to improve unemployment? Why do you support or oppose President Obama's jobs plan? What cuts or revenue increases do you support for deficit reduction?

If you make less than $250K/yr yes, if you make more than $250K/yr no; end tax breaks that companies receive when they close down a plant and ship the jobs overseas, raise some tariffs on imported goods, put export tariffs on domestic petrochemical companies that want to ship CNG and refined gasoline OUT of this country); see #3 campaign issue above; generally support the jobs plan, would like to see parts of it actually implemented as opposed to having the Republicans in Congree blocking almost all of it; the military-industrial-global empire-homeland security-ever increasing militarization of our domestic police-state could use a little pruning; having a simple, progressive tax structure, where taxable income is taxed @ the same rate no matter what type of income it is (example: $40,000 salary taxed the same as $40,000 in dividends, which is taxed at a lower rate than $400,000 of income, which is taxed at a lower rate than $4,000,000 of income, etc)

What steps should the country now be taking in the war on terrorism? What policy should the U.S. have toward Iran and North Korea? What is your view of terrorism policies that pit public safety against civil liberty?

Diplomacy and a carrot and stick approach to states that serves as hosts to those entities that use terrorism. Preemptive wars and occupations of far off countries do not a safe, sound, and secure foreign policy make. killing 10 "bad guys" and in the process killing 25 civlilians, could make 100 people who were once on the sidelines into more "bad guys" who now hate this country because we killed their mother or son or cousin, repeat ad infinitum; re Iran and N. Korea, see previous; civil liberties should be protected at all cost, we have enough tools already to fight an amorphous tactic without giving up our freedoms, case in point: there's not much terrorism in N. Korea, not much freedom either

How should Medicare and Medicaid be changed overall to fix fund gaps' How should Medicare be changed for those currently enrolled? How should it change for the Baby Boomer generation?

Before 2003, there was a $17 trillion 75-year cost of the government health care programs, after the Medicare Part-D debacle, it became a $38 trillion 75-year cost. With the passing of the Affordable Care Act, nothing was done to address the ban on using the bulk purchasing power of the government to lower the cost of providing prescription drugs. I am opposed to raising the eligibility age, and would like to actually lower it to zero (either a Medicare for all, or at least a Medicare buy-in). Raising the age to 67 from 65 would actually raise the costs of obtaining care for those in that age group, and the costs "saved" by the government by not providing care to those individuals would be offset by a larger amount of the tax breaks that would be received by those that are providing health care insurance to them. (the numbers I remember, that I cannot find now, is that it would save something like $67 billion a year, but would loose $220 billion in tax write-offs)

What is your position on concealed carry gun laws' How do you believe marriage should be defined legally? What is your position on abortion? What, if any, abortion exceptions do you support? Should abortion clinics receive government funding?

Am a supporter of gun rights of all law-abiding citizens, with few, if any, restrictions, one being of a 24-hour waiting period so a background check can be performed; marriage should be between two consenting adults, no church should have to perform a wedding that is against their beliefs and teachings, and no church should be able to stop two people from getting married at the local justice of the peace; I am personally not in favor of abortion, I will never have one, and I will never vote to restrict a woman from making her own decision on the subject, I am with the conservatives on this one: the government should not come between you and your doctor; 97% of what Planned Parenthood does is not related to abortion services, people in under-served communities need to be able to access affordable health care, and stopping all government assistance to entities like that does a disservice to an ever growing segment of our society