Q&A with Oberweis

1. Why are you running for this office, whether for re-election or election the first time? Is there a particular issue that motivates you, and if so, what? What will be your main priority?

I am running for Congress because I want to ensure that my five children and fourteen grandchildren have the same opportunities to succeed that I have had the privilege of experiencing. Twenty years ago, in the wake of the stock market decline, I had to sell my business and was left with a net worth of zero. It was a low point from which I did not think I would recover. However, our great nation affords us the opportunity to rebuild our life. With hard work and lots of luck, I was eventually able to rebuild my business and enjoy a successful business career. When I think about our nation today, I am concerned that our children and grandchildren will not have those same opportunities. I am concerned that we are mortgaging their futures by spending irresponsibly and not addressing the overwhelming debt caused by Social Security, Medicare and runaway spending. As congressman, I will work to highlight this issue and work to address our debt. This will require tough and potentially politically unpopular decisions as we seek to set our nation on a stable economic course.

2. For incumbents and non-incumbents. If you are an incumbent, describe your main contributions. Tell us of important initiatives you've led. If you are not an incumbent, tell us what contributions you would make.

As the Congressman serving the 14th District, I will focus my efforts on three areas: constituent service, fundamental governmental reform, and fiscal matters. I've set a high bar for myself on the constituent service front: I want to match the standard set by Denny Hastert, who, for more than 20 years, helped residents navigate their way through the federal bureaucracy and fought on their behalf in Washington. Residents of the 14th District knew that when it came to getting help from their Congressman, it didn't matter whether they were Republicans or Democrats, small businessmen or farmers, college students or retirees - if they lived in the 14th, they had an advocate in Washington. My experience at Oberweis Dairy, a company known for outstanding customer service, gives me confidence that I can provide a high level of service to our constituents. As for issues, I intend to focus on two key areas: fundamental government reform, and fiscal matters. Washington is broken, and we need to fix it. Over the longer term, we will not be able to get the policy outcomes we need until we first reform the system by which we achieve those outcomes. I believe my 20 years experience in the Financial Services business has given me a solid understanding of our economy and what government needs to do (and not do) to get our economy moving forward again. On fiscal matters, I find it offensive that our government continues to spend our children's future. I was raised to pay my own way - as were my friends and neighbors in the Fox Valley - and I find it morally wrong that our government continues to waste taxpayer dollars and make commitments that it does not fund or adequately reserve for, passing a rapidly increasing debt service on to our children.

3. In which ways, if at all, would you alter U.S. policy in Iraq and Afghanistan? How would you characterize the effect of the U.S. "surge" in Iraq? What objectives, if any, must the U.S. still meet before it begins to withdraw troops?

The recent troop surge - combined with other factors, such as the Anbar Awakening and the decision by Muqtada al-Sadr to stand down his Shiite militia - has led to a significant decrease in violence in Iraq. Observers and analysts can argue over which was the more important factor in achieving the reductions in the level of violence; Congress, instead, should look forward, not back, in determining with the next Administration the next steps we take. While I don't believe setting a public timetable for withdrawal of U.S. combat troops makes sense (I am persuaded by the argument that doing so is akin to showing the other team your playbook), we should bring back U.S. combat forces as rapidly as we can do so without unreasonably risking the gains we and our Iraqi allies have made at so great a cost. Before we can call the entire operation in Iraq a success, we need to work harder with the Iraqi government to ensure that their military is capable of defending their nation (we have seen this continuously with the Iraqi military handling major provinces on their own and gaining more strength every day). We also need to ensure a stable government exists in Iraq that cannot be easily overthrown or intimidated by external forces. In Afghanistan, we must do everything in our power to ensure that the success we've enjoyed does not evaporate and allow a resurgent Taliban to emerge. I note with alarm that this very week, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, has indicated that we need to overhaul our current strategy and move significant additional combat forces to Afghanistan to prevent that from happening. We need to work more closely with the Afghan and Pakistani governments to utilize the U.S. military already deployed in Afghanistan.

4. What short-term steps, if any, would you advocate to keep gasoline prices in check?

Currently, our nation has established a fuel system that allows for higher gas prices when Americans need it the least. With reformulated gasoline blends, or "boutique fuels," the federal and state governments are asking for higher gas prices. As the fuel blends continue to diversify, and the GSA can account for at least 46 different fuel blends in the United States, the costs of creating each blend increases. This forces refineries to reduce the number of fuel blends they want to create, reducing the supply of these blends for our cities - which includes the Chicagoland area. The lower supply, coupled with our increase in demand, forces prices to go up. We should temporarily eliminate the fuel blends and open up the competition among refineries once again. The GSA estimates up to $.40 per gallon would be reduced if the fuel blends are eliminated. With Chicago having one of the most unique blends in the nation, it is past due that we work to provide this immediate relief to the consumer.

5. Please list the key elements of your preferred long-term energy policy. Rank or rate the relative importance of domestic oil exploration, conservation and alternative-energy development. What part, if any, should ethanol play in U.S. energy policy?

Most of us agree that the United States has depended on foreign sources of oil for too long. We need to get serious about addressing this economic and national security risk by pursuing a variety of ideas that will help us do three things: produce more American-made energy; consume less of it; and invest in developing new alternative and renewable sources of energy. Increased drilling in the United States - including off-shore and ANWR drilling - are important elements of the solution. We must build new refineries, remove government restrictions on using oil shale, increase nuclear production and encourage wind and solar technology. But even as we encourage the creation of more American-made energy, we must also take steps to reduce the rate of growth of our energy consumption by providing increased incentives for conservation. For example, we should provide businesses with tax incentives to encourage their employees to use mass transit. Simply making employer provided mass transportation vouchers tax deductible for the employer, or perhaps even the employee, might be a step in the right direction.

6. What steps, if any, should Congress take to promote economic recovery? What steps by the federal government might make the nation's economy worse?

Before we begin prescribing Congressional action to promote economic recovery, let's first remember that there's one law Congress cannot repeal: the Law of Unintended Consequences. In large measure, the financial crisis we're now facing is a crisis created by the unintended consequences of earlier Congressional and governmental action - so before we go about creating new "fixes," let's all take a breath and figure out how we got here in the first place, and do what we can to avoid mistakes the second time around. Some recently proposed "fixes," like government (taxpayer) guarantees for Money Market Funds and reverse mortgages, may lead to even greater taxpayer losses in the future. I'm concerned that we may be setting the stage to repeat recent mistakes, potentially costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars more in the future. We need some experienced, level headed guidance serving on our House Financial Services Committee. So, how did we get here? The Clinton Administration's decision to take a Carter-era law - the Community Redevelopment Act - and pump it up, made it easier for sub-prime borrowers (read: greater credit risks) to obtain loans, while simultaneously making it harder for lenders to deny them such loans. The result? Lots of bad loans were made. A second key governmental action was the passage, in the wake of the accounting scandals in the early part of this decade, of the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation - a law imposing new accounting regulations that required financial institutions to mark down the value of certain assets on their books, which had the effect of forcing them to set aside more capital reserves, which led to a loss of confidence among investors. As Congress, the Administration, and federal regulatory bodies work together to address the crisis, we should be focusing on fundamental truths: a government big enough to protect you from all financial risk is a government powerful enough to take away everything you have; all other things being equal, lower tax rates stimulate economic growth more robustly and more fairly than do increased government spending; and when it comes to regulation, what counts is not the quantity of the regulations but their quality - and, just as importantly, the quality of their enforcement.

7. Do you favor or oppose a larger federal role in health-care? Either way, why and what should the federal role be? What, if anything, should be done about rising health care costs and Americans who do not have health coverage?

There are several things the federal government can and should do to make health insurance more affordable and available. America has the best health care in the world; why else would the world's most powerful people regularly come here for life-saving, cutting-edge treatment? The problem is not the health care itself; the problem is the delivery system we've devised over the years to deliver that health care to Americans in need. This "third party payer" system, in which most Americans get their health insurance through their employer, creates strange incentives, and, because the consumer of the health services is divorced from paying for those services, offers no incentives to manage health care costs better. Moreover, too many workers are left in a "job lock," where they are afraid to move to a new job because they would lose their current health insurance coverage. This stifles economic growth and increased productivity, and is a further drain on our national economy. We need to change the way health coverage is treated. The Roadmap for America plan on healthcare would shift healthcare from third-party systems to two-party systems - the individuals using the health plan and the company providing the health plan. Instead of providing tax exclusions for employers, we should shift towards a tax credit for American's who do not have military or Medicare health plans. This would provide more insurance opportunities to Americans who currently cannot afford health care, plus allow a portability of carrying the same health plan from job to job without worry. The new two-party system would also stimulate market competition to provide the best healthcare with the lowest cost possible. Because most uninsured Americans work at a job where their employer does not offer health care coverage, this seems a reasonable place to start. And which are the businesses that don't offer health care coverage to their employees? Small businesses -- 99 percent of large employers in America regularly include health care coverage as part of their employees' compensation packages, while just 41 percent of businesses with between 1 and 10 employees can afford it. Small businesspeople and self-employed individuals should be able to join together, through a trade or professional association, to negotiate cost-effective health insurance coverage for their members. Alternatively (and/or simultaneously), we could create -- at the state level -- statewide health insurance exchanges, through which the self-employed, and those who work for small businesses which don't provide coverage, could purchase their own lower-cost policies. These policies would be personal and portable, and would be tax-advantaged. No discussion of health care reform would be complete without taking a look at the need to reform our medical malpractice system. Too many places have made it unaffordable for doctors to stay and maintain a practice. They simply cannot afford the medical malpractice insurance necessary to operate a medical practice. Reforming this system must be a top priority of any comprehensive health care reform effort.

8. Would you maintain or scale back federal tax cuts made during the past eight years? Either way, why? How, as specifically as possible, would you try to reduce federal budget deficits and the national debt?

I begin with the premise that the federal government is too big. It spends too much, and taxes too much. A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government powerful enough to take away everything you have, and it is my intent to go to Washington to fight the growth of the federal government. The tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 should be made permanent. To allow them to expire, as a significant element of the current Congress would, would be to allow the largest tax increase in American history. As we do what we can to work through tough economic times, it makes no sense at all to increase the tax burden - instead, we should be looking for more places to CUT taxes. In addition, we should reform our tax code, and implement the Taxpayer's Choice Act, a bill proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin that would eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax and provide an option for Americans to pay taxes the way they do now, or employ a new tax rate system where there are only two tax rates - a low one for middle-class workers and a higher one for higher-class Americans. This would reduce the tax burden on many middle-class families, providing more money to purchase essential goods.

9. The current Congress could not agree on immigration reform. What would you do to advance reform in a divided Congress, and, briefly, what should the key policy elements be?

In order to best secure our borders we need to look at how we enforce our current immigration laws and work across party lines to make sure these laws are being enforced. We must work on ways to strengthen our nation's borders, through increased Border Patrol and Drug Enforcement agents, and through the use of our nation's technological minds. We should also work to increase sanctions against employers who knowingly employ illegal immigrants. The soft punishments they receive now does not deter violating our laws and it needs to be changed. Other parts of an overall immigration reform include; a rejection of amnesty as a means to solve the problem - which did not work in the 1980s and it will not work today, the establishment of a national database of everyone who obtains a work or student visa, an tamper-proof identity card that can quickly and effectively identify the duration a foreign national is allowed to stay in the United States, as well as increasing the means to verify the visa-holder's employment eligibility.

10. In what ways is the U.S. government successfully defending citizens against terrorism, and in what ways is the U.S. failing in that regard?

The United States has responded admirably in the wake of Sept. 11. From strengthening our security at all airports to increasing funding for our cities and states to enhancing our ability to gather information about terrorists, our nation has responded dutifully and quickly to make sure we do not see such a tragic event like 9/11 unfold again. Airport security is at its highest in the United States, with continuous screening at all airports, as well as new additions to our security protocol whenever technology warrants. However, we still have a lot of work to go before this nation is truly a secure nation. Our ports for cargo coming into the United States are still not secure. We have not had the same measure of success when goods come in by sea as we have when they come in by air. It is a gaping hole of security for this country and one that Congress must work to address with the new administration next year. Our rail transportation is also lagging behind the airports. Technology exists today that would allow easy, quick security screening for rail passengers and their luggage, but the Dept. of Homeland Security still does not employ it. We need to work faster to prevent railways from becoming a national tragedy. The Transportation Security Administration has done an admirable job in preventing terrorism in the air, but the security methods are still far behind where we should be in our airports. Newer technology, higher rates of success among equipment, and lower turnover from airport personnel are keys to truly preventing another air catastrophe like what we experienced just seven years ago.