14th Congressional seat candidates questionnaire
Democrat incumbent Bill Foster is taking on Republican Randall M. Hultgren, Libertarian Doug Marks and Daniel Kairis, Green Party, in the 14th Congressional District race
Q. What is your Number 1 campaign issue?
Foster. Creating jobs and rebuilding our economy The financial crisis of 2008 cost our economy over 8 million jobs and cost families more than 17.5 trillion dollars in net worth – more than $55,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States. This job loss came at the end of an eight-year period ending in March 2009 in which no net jobs were created – and in fact more jobs were lost than gained. Though we have acted to stabilize the economy, we must continue the recovery and get Americans back to work.
As a former small businessman that started a business that now provides hundreds of manufacturing jobs in the Midwest, I know that small businesses are the engine that drives economic recovery. This is why I have supported tax breaks for small businesses and tax credits for local entrepreneurs who are creating new jobs, while voting to crack down on tax loopholes for corporations shipping American jobs overseas. As a result of tax cuts I supported, according to USA Today, tax rates are now the lowest that they have been in 60 years.
We also need to support innovative industries and established institutions that will create the jobs of the future, which is why I worked to provide funding that created hundreds of new jobs in my district at diverse places such as Winergy, Fermilab, Northern Illinois University, and others. I am also supporting the creation of an “MIT FAB Lab” in Waubonsee's downtown Aurora campus to give area kids free access and training on a rapid-prototyping “factory of the future.”
Hultgren: Jobs and economic growth.
Marks: Reduction in spending, taxation and balanced budget amendment. The American people are so overburdened with taxes we are to the point where it is nearly impossible for anyone the get ahead. If we get the taxation and spending reduced we will see our economy return and job creation happen in the private sector.
Here are the issues that have caused our economy to tank.
1. Overspending, running up the debt. We cannot expect to buy our way out a recession. That economic mentality and policies have never worked in the past and will not work today. You cannot improve things by increasing your debt. If a consumer followed these examples nearly our entire population would have to file bankruptcy.
2. War. We have no declared wars and have spent over a trillion dollars supporting them and their nation building activities. The economy of the United States is in shambles yet we continue down the path of ruination. No civilization or country, throughout history, has been able to maintain a military presence throughout the world and maintain their economy and society. We either learn from history or follow their path. Reduce our worldwide military presence and involvement in combat or watch our country financially fail.
3. Corporate welfare, In the form of tax credit, grants, or bail outs does nothing for the economy or the American people. It forces the people to pay corporations for their bad behaviors, behaviors, for the most part, that have been approved and blessed by our current government.
4. Federal Reserve, We must repeal the Federal Reserve Act and do away with the manipulation of interest rates, Wall Street, and currency purchasing power. The Consumer Price Index is 15 times higher today than it was when the Fed was founded in 1913. In the hundred years prior to the Fed prices in America dropped by 1/3. What have they done since? The Fed was sold to America as a way to prevent bank failures, inflation, and recession. What is going on today? Hundreds of bank failures (all bailed out by taxpayer monies), out of control inflation (the value of your currency is dwindling), and recessions are now cyclic where each subsequent one is worse than the previous.
5. Social Programs, Are supposed to be a safety net to protect the less fortunate and those unable to care for themselves. But now, it has turned into an entitlement and some believe it is a right of citizenship. Anytime forcibly you take property from one to give it to another you are choosing winners and losers. Our government was not designed to behave in such a manner. The private sectors charitable organizations are better equipped to handle and manage those in need. If we repeal the 16th amendment charitable giving will increase and those who need assistance will find it readily available. We once had the best health care system in the world; personal service from doctors, low-cost hospitals free clinics and charity hospitals. Then the politicians created Medicare and Medicaid which turned our heath-care system into a nightmare and forced many of the charitable organizations out of business. It ain't broke until the government tries to fix it.
6. Greed and politics as a career path. Term limits! Our political system was never meant to become a career path but a way to give back to your neighbors. I support the “Bring Home the Politicians” movement. This is a movement to relocate the US representatives to their local districts, and other office holders to their locality, to securely telecommute for no less than 75% of their terms to increase voter access and reduce lobbyist influence.
Kairis. Job creation
Q. What is your Number 2 campaign issue?
Foster. Reducing the federal deficit – After years of fiscal mismanagement, America must put its financial house in order. Leaving each of our children and grandchildren with tens of thousands of dollars of government debt is unacceptable and both parties have acted recklessly with regards to our nation's financial future. I have voted against the Democratic Budget every time it has come up because it did not include a detailed plan to begin paying down the national debt. In 2009 alone, I voted against 3.7 billion dollars of specific wasteful government spending and earmarks. Furthermore, I have co-sponsored a bill to cut the pay of legislators by 5% and most importantly, I have voted to cap all nonessential spending. It took us years to get into this kind of debt and we need to let the American citizens know that we have a path to return us to economic prosperity.
Hultgren. The lack of accountability in Washington.
Marks. Reduction in government. We have a federal government that is out of control. The constitution of this country defines and restrict the size and scope of the federal government but this containment has been disregarded for decades. We need to return to the government that founded this country. We don't need to have congress either reaching into your wallet or looking into your bedroom.
The most efficient government is the one closest to the people and the federal government is the farthest. We are beyond the time for it to be reduced.
We need to re-implement the balance of power between the states and the federal government. We need to stand behind the 10th Amendment and repeal the 17th. The original design of the U.S. Constitution acknowledged that the state governments were better equipped, more than the federal government, to address the vast majority of citizens' needs. The democratically elected officials of those state governments live among the people they represent. They shop at their constituents' stores and socialize at their homes. Unlike a federal politician in Washington with millions of citizens he “represents”, state officials each have constituents that number in the tens of thousands. They are far more likely to know the people, their strengths, their problems and their sensibilities, and are therefore the appropriate representatives of the people's most critical political desires.
The original U.S. Constitution gave state governments a strong voice in the federal government by requiring them to select U.S. Senators to serve much like ambassadors today at the United Nations and thus created the U.S. Congress to be a political venue for the competition between state government interests and federal government interests. The Senate provided the state governments the necessary ability to restrict the natural inclination of the federal government to expand its power. The House of Representative were the voice for the people and the Senate was the voice of the states providing a balance between the desires of the people and the needs of the States. It is no coincidence that the federal government began its exponential growth following the passage of the 17th Amendment, just as soon as there was no longer a competing interest that could stop it.
Today all of the issues in today's society are primarily mandated, regulated, or directed out of Washington far away from the people being impacted by those policies. While the state governments bear much of the responsibility for their citizens, they have only secondary authority to do anything about the issues they face. When federal courts decline, as they frequently do, to interpret the 10th Amendment as protecting the sovereignty of states, without a voice in the U.S. Senate the states have no recourse. Repealing the 17th would address this deficiency and return the balance of power to congress so they could restrict the growth of the federal government.
Kairis. Education
Q. What is your Number 3 campaign issue?
Foster. Taking care of our veterans – We owe the men and women who have served in our nation's military a debt that can never be repaid. While we can never thank them fully for their courageous actions and sacrifices, we must do everything in our power to meet their needs and show our gratitude. That is why I was a strong supporter of the GI Bill for the 21st Century, which expanded educational benefits for veterans serving after September 11th, 2001 by providing them with the resources needed to pursues a college education and achieve success after the conclusion of their military careers. I also introduced legislation (H.R. 1175) to create the National Military Family Relief Fund. Modeled after a successful program here in Illinois, this fund would provide grants, funded by voluntary contributions, to meet the needs of military families with loved ones who have served, or are currently serving, in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Hultgren. Getting our nation's fiscal house in order by ending wasteful government spending like the TARP and Obamacare programs my opponent strongly supported.
Marks. Enacting term limits for elected and appointed political positions, all laws are to be written by Congress handling one subject at a time that can be justified by the constitution, and all bills including their amendments have to be read aloud to a quorum of both houses of congress and the legislators must sign an affidavit that they personally have read the entire bill and understand it's meaning.
Representing the people of the 14th district in Washington. For the better part of my life I have lived here and cannot remember when we have had a representative that concerned themselves with the people that lived here.
We have a duopoly of power that is more concerned about their party's agenda or repaying some campaign IOU than they do about the people of this district.
It is time for accountability in Washington and a stance for defending the constitution of this country. The oath of office is more than just rhetoric it is a statement of character and behavior. One that those who swear to abide by it must be held accountable for their actions when they do not uphold it's meaning and intent.
Term Limits: 12 years for combined House & Senate positions, supreme court justices, or any other appointed federal position. No more special retirement packages or medical insurance, all government benefits end once the office is vacated.
Legislature writes the laws: No more enforceable laws from bureaucratic decrees (CFR or other non-legislated documents), executive orders, or judicial rulings.
A constitutional review for all legislation to ensure it is within the powers of the federal government to enact.
Read the bills: Enact fiduciary responsibility with consequences. I believe that those in Congress who vote on legislation they have not read, have not represented their constituents. All bills must be in open forum without being rushed through backdoor secret sessions. End all multi-thousand page bills. Legislation should be written in plain English and cover one subject matter reducing the complication and understandability of the laws.
Kairis. Alternative energy development
Q. What are the suburbs' most pressing transportation needs? What will you advocate for to help with the state's infrastructure challenges? How do you, if at all, propose funding the STAR Line rail project? Do you support or oppose O'Hare expansion?
Foster. The growth of Kane and Kendall Counties over the last decade demonstrates the need for a comprehensive plan to address the transportation needs of our suburbs, rather than a hodgepodge of earmarks and pet projects. This plan must focus on long-term considerations that make economic sense and are environmentally sensitive. It must encourage commercial growth and reduce congestion in areas that have seen the largest increases in population density.
As we envision the development of our suburban transportation infrastructure, commuter rail must play an increasingly important role. I support efforts to establish the STAR Line and expand Metra service into Kendall County. These initiatives will increase the mobility of 14th District residents, support economic growth, and reduce carbon emissions.
Hultgren. Repairing our crumbling infrastructure and reducing the congestion on our roadways are two of the most pressing transportation issues facing the western suburbs. We can relieve congestion on the north south corridors by improving and expanding the existing roadways, as well as through initiatives like the Oswego Metra station. I have supported the STAR line rail in the past and will continue to do so in the future. I think the current mechanism to fund the line with matching state/federal funds is appropriate. A vibrant O'Hare operation will help economic development in our area, as long as oversight of the process is improved and it doesn't become a slush fund for Chicago politicians.
Marks. I believe this question is better suited for someone running for state government. I do not believe that the federal government should intervene or voice an opinion on these types of local issues.
Kairis. The most pressing transportation needs include better, more convenient, easier methods of public transportation to relieve the street congestion and better construction methods to reduce the frequency of repairs and constant rebuilding of the road system.
We need to reduce the military costs and outsourcing of jobs to provide the funding for improving the infrastructure, including the STAR Line rail project.
I would not support an O'Hare expansion.
Q. Is government debt a problem? If so, what should be done? If you were in Congress at the time, how did you vote on measures, including the financial reform bill? Are you against earmarks? Will you accept them? Should taxes be cut at the federal level?
Foster. Government debt. Leaving each of our children and grandchildren with tens of thousands of dollars of government debt is unacceptable and both parties have acted recklessly with regards to our nation's financial future. I stood up to my party's leaders and voted against the Democratic Budget every time it has come up because it did not include a detailed plan to begin paying down the national debt. In 2009 alone, I voted against 3.7 billion dollars of specific wasteful government spending and earmarks. Furthermore, I have co-sponsored a bill to cut the pay of legislators by 5% and most importantly, I have voted to cap all nonessential spending. It took us years to get into this kind of debt and we need to let the American citizens know that we have a path to return us to economic prosperity.
I am a strong supporter of the Bipartisan Deficit Commission and support a line-item veto for budgets that increase the deficit.
Wall Street reform. The financial crisis of 2008 destroyed over 8 million jobs, caused the failure of millions of viable businesses, and caused American families to lose over 17.5 trillion dollars in net worth in the period of 18 months ending in March 2009. I was an active participant in the drafting of the financial reform bill, and voted in favor of its passage to ensure a crisis like this will never happen again. This legislation accomplishes a number of things. It ends the taxpayer bailouts of private firms, shuts down the unregulated mortgage pipeline that flooded our markets with “toxic assets,” empowers regulators to increase oversight and supervision of large banks to prevent a recurrence of “too-big-to-fail,” requires derivatives to be traded out in the open, and establishes an agency to protect consumers form predatory and deception financial practices.
Earmark reform: Ever since my election in March 2008, my office has applied stringent requirements for earmarks or appropriations requests. All requests were posted online and I only accepted requests from nonprofits or municipalities. As a result of these standards, I was able to help police departments in Aurora, Carpentersville and Elgin as well as Waubonsee and Elgin Community Colleges.
I understand the problems associated with the appropriations process in Washington and support reforms and potentially, the elimination of such appropriations if applied to all members of Congress.
Springfield also needs earmark reform. I believe that transparency measures I adhere to in Congress should also be adopted for members of the state legislature, especially given the lack of accountability and transparency in Springfield we so often hear about.
Federal tax cuts. The burdens of the economic crisis have fallen hardest on middle class families who are struggling to make ends meet. Restoring their financial security is critical to jump-starting our economy and we must keep taxes low. Specifically, we need to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for all but the wealthiest of Americans as we cannot dig our way out of this crisis by raising the taxes on those who have suffered the most.
I campaigned on a platform of middle-class tax cuts, and I delivered. As a result of policies I voted for, overall tax rates are lower than at any time during the last 60 years, according to USA Today.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm
Hulgren. The massive and growing federal debt is a huge problem and an unsustainable burden on future generations. I would have strenuously opposed the financial reform bill because it institutionalizes bailouts and does nothing to address the problem posed by government-sponsored enterprises like Fannie Mae, which were the root cause of the financial crisis. Taxes should be lowered; high taxes are hindering investment and hurting our international competitiveness, and the deep uncertainty about whether Democrats like Bill Foster will again raise taxes by letting the current rates expire has caused small businesses to avoid hiring new workers, further harming the economy and the people of Illinois. I support the current Republican moratorium on earmarks.
Marks. Yes, the federal debt is one of the leading issues for today's economy and it's inability to recover. First thing to be done, STOP SPENDING. Financial reform bill I would have voted NO. This is a problem created by government, more specifically, the Federal Reserve and cannot be fixed by those who created the problem. It's like asking the fox to watch the hen house. We need to start by auditing the Fed and then after finding out how much they have manipulated the markets, undermined our sovereignty, and destroyed the purchasing power of our currency disband this organization by repealing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
Earmarks. There is no place for them in a fair unbiased government so I am completely against them.
Taxes, What really needs to happen is that the federal government needs to get out of the business of forcibly taking property from the people and the only way to do that is to repeal the 16th amendment. Our federal government has grown way beyond the boundaries set forth in the constitution and it only can be changed by electing people who have this country's interests at heart and not personal aspirations or some misguided desires of a political party.
It is time for the people to once again rule this country. Most people, state and local governments live in fear of reprisal from the federal government so they conform to it's will but that is not what our Founding Fathers intended. The intention was for a small and relatively powerless federal government to be the binding agent for the states so they could work together harmoniously. What we have today is a bloated oligarchy of self righteous globalists determining what is best and what is needed for the people. I believe everyone has the right to decide for themselves what is best for them and their family but until we the people stand together against our current government we cannot expect any changes. If you vote the same way for the same parties regardless of their rhetoric de jour the results will not change. It is time to take a stand against the status quo. Think outside the box and vote outside the party lines.
I believe we need to end the unfair taxation in America. We need to reduce the federal government at all levels, constitutional amendments for a zero based balanced budget. To provide the funds to manage the items required at the federal level I believe that the zero balance federal budget figure would need to be billed to the states, apportioned by population, allowing the states to be the taxing entities removing this power from the federal government. The federal government must be forced to operate under the constraints of a balanced budget, aside from times of declared war or national emergency.
Kairis. We need to re-prioritize our spending by reducing our foreign expenditures and using those funds to start reducing the debt. I am opposed to earmarks, as most of them are little more than payback for campaign contributions. No, I would not accept earmarks. No, taxes should not be cut at the federal level. We need to concentrate efforts to end the loopholes for corporations and individuals who hide or shelter income in foreign accounts. We need to remove incentives that allow corporations to outsource jobs and facilities to foreign countries. This would result in more American jobs and more payroll taxes being paid, along with reducing our current need for services for the unemployed.
Q. Do you believe the country's immigration laws should change? If so, how? Do you favor or oppose Arizona's new immigration law and why? Would you support increasing the cap on the number of legal immigrants in the U. S.?
Foster. After passing immigration reform in the 1980s, Congress has failed to act to respond to the immigration crisis facing our nation. As a result of a lack of federal intervention, Arizona and other states have begun to take matters into their own hands.
Since taking office, I have personally visited the border, talked with law enforcement officials about the challenges they face, and seen the problems created by our broken system. I know immigration reform must begin with securing our borders, supporting and increasing the boots on the ground. We must also crack down on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants and provide them will a reliable database to verify a worker's employment eligibility. Undocumented workers currently in the United States must pay a fine for breaking our laws, undergo criminal background checks, pay their taxes, learn English, and go to the back of the line to apply for citizenship.
The best and only path forward on immigration is a bipartisan solution that truly addresses the issue and actually secures our nation's borders. I intend to be one of those working away at the center, taking criticism from all sides, and hammering out an agreement that is workable and fair to U.S. citizens, immigrants that wish to work here on a legal and controlled basis, and the businesses that need to employ them.
It is probably because I carry this strong disposition for workable, common-sense compromise instead of partisan talking points and extremism that the National Journal recently rated me as the 2nd most centrist member of Congress.
Hultgren. Strengthening the security of our nation's border is the main issue. There would be limited issue with our immigration laws if our borders were secure. I would not support increasing the cap on the number of legal immigrants, especially with the millions of illegal aliens we have in this country now, but I do support reducing the bureaucratic hurdles that prevent highly skilled entrepreneurs from entering the country legally, starting new businesses and creating jobs.
Marks. I believe we should have open borders but with the disparity we have between the classes, the current welfare state we live in and other political challenges it is not something that would currently work within our society. So here is the challenge, a way to find a simpler and more streamlined process for immigrants to gain citizenship. I understand that there is way too much bureaucracy, difficult paperwork, and unrealistic fees attached to filing the paperwork for becoming a citizen. So that is where we need to begin, with a rebuilding of the current requirements and fees attached to citizenship. Along with this, any person who is not a legal citizen should not benefit from any current, or future, tax payer funded programs available.
Immigrants used to come to this country to find religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom from an oppressive government, or for the opportunity for a better and more prosperous life. Now, many come looking for the handouts of free health care, education, housing, cell phones, and food. The people these policies are attracting are not the people who made this country great. If we want to stop the influx of immigrants who come here for the wrong reasons then we need to stop giving everything away.
I neither support nor denounce Arizona's law. They are an autonomous state and know best how to handle their local situation. My understanding, accurate or not, is that they mirrored the federal statute so they could enforce the law that the federal government failed to do.
I do believe placing a cap on the number of immigrants will fix anything. Immigrants have been the backbone of the creation of this country. We need to attract those who wish to earn their way into our society. We need people who want to be here for the right reason not for the handouts. Placing a cap on immigration just limits the ones who will be beneficial to our society.
Kairis. The 1986 amnesty program put laws into place that would penalize workplaces for hiring illegal workers. Those elements of the law were not enforced. Many of those here illegally have been exploited by our nonenforcement of the laws and unscrupulous workplaces.
There has to be a fair system to allow illegal immigrants to return to their home countries. I would propose a two-year period to allow them to put any family or business affairs in order before they are required to leave.
Q. What is your view on the Defense of Marriage Act? Should gay and lesbian couples receive the same benefits as heterosexuals? What's your view of “don't ask, don't tell” and why?
Foster. I oppose gay marriage, but I support Civil Unions that provide same sex couples with the same legal rights and privileges as heterosexual married couples. I support ending the policy of “don't ask, don't tell” and allowing every person the opportunity to protect our freedoms and defend our nation. As former Republican Senator and Presidential nominee Barry Goldwater put it, “You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.”
Hultgren. Don't Ask Don't Tell is a decision the military leadership should decide. I support the traditional definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman and the Defense of Marriage Act, which passed with bipartisan support and was signed by a Democratic president.
Marks. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”, our Declaration of Independence clearly explains we are all free to make choices that affect our personal lives. The government is not required, nor authorized, to grant specific rights to specific groups. This kind of legislation does not fit within the structure and beliefs that defined this country. In an ideal world, government would have absolutely no role in marriage, which is a compact between two consenting adults and, at their mutual discretion, a religious entity. In the end, we have confused the religious marriage with a corporate pact of joining two individuals legally binding them financially for the purpose of sharing wealth, property and medical insurance.
In our practical world, this contentious issue has nothing to do with any religious or historical definition of marriage. Instead, we are looking at an attempt to keep a particular group of citizens legally relegated to second class status based on sexual orientation, just as the shameful Jim Crow laws legally relegated another group to second class status based on race.
This is just wrong. We are either a nation of free adults or a nation of busybodies. While I fully support the autonomy of churches to perform and recognize marriages at their discretion, I cannot support the legal relegation of a category of citizens to second class status, for any reason.
Everyone has an unalienable right to pursue happiness, in his or her own way and without the interference of government so long as he or she does not interfere with that same right held by another. It is time for government to either apply the law uniformly, or to get out of the marriage business altogether.
Don't ask/Don't tell: Should not be in place. I served with gay men in my unit and would have happily gone into combat with them. They are just as driven and loving of this country as I. They had my back and I had theirs, I trusted them with my life. The thought that they were gay was NEVER an issue because we were family joined together to fight in defense of OUR country. A bullet does not care about sexual preference, why should the military?
Kairis. The government should not determine what defines marriage. It should be determined by the religious institutions. A more valid approach to the question of marriage rights would be to remove government from any association with “marriage” altogether, limit government's role to the recognition of “civil unions” only, without regard to sexual orientation, and recognize “marriage” as a purely religious matter, to be defined by each religious denomination. This would allow equal treatment under the law for all.
The “don't ask, don't tell” policy is discriminatory. Polls of the troops show most have no problem with gays and lesbians serving with them. The policy should simply be any who meet the physical and mental requirements to serve should be able to do so.
Q. Should there be more or less government oversight with oil drilling? What are your ideas for improving the U.S.'s response to the BP oil spill? What would you have done differently if you were in Congress at the time?
Foster. In the long term, we need to develop a more sustainable national energy policy, but in the short term, we will remain reliant on offshore oil for a significant fraction of our energy use. The Deepwater Horizon disaster made it obvious that industry alone cannot be relied upon to conduct deepwater drilling in a safe manner, which means that competent regulation is essential. Specifically:
1. Safety procedures must become more strict as we drill in deeper locations. Much of the environmental damage from the BP oil spill occurred because the extreme depth of the well made diagnosing problems, capping and repairs difficult and time consuming.
2. Methane hydrates that form at great depths were not considered in the spill mitigation plan.
3. Safety-critical equipment such as blowout preventers should be tested and inspected by a competent 3rd party with legal liability if the test and inspection is faulty.
4. At sufficiently large depths, it may be wise to require a second relief well, pre-drilled 95% and ready to perform a “bottom kill”, before the main shaft penetrates the oil and gas reservoir. Had this been in place, the time to fix the spill would have been days, not months.
5. Finally, we should recognize that the U.S. taxpayer dodged a bullet when this massive oil spill happened at a site operated by a company (BP) that could pay for the damage it caused. In the future, we must insist on a bond or insurance fund at all drill sites to make sure that the taxpayer does not end up on the hook when a less-well-capitalized operator has a similar disaster.
Hultgren. The existing government oversight of drilling failed to prevent the BP oil spill. The solution is to improve the existing regulatory bodies to ensure spills like this do not happen again in the future, without hindering the development of American energy exploration that reduces the cost of gasoline at the pump and weans us off foreign oil.
Marks. The whole process should be different. This whole thing would not have happened if the government wasn't in the back pocket of the petroleum industry. We need to remove all litigation protections for these industries and mandate they carry, roughly, 100 billion in liability insurance and as a government hold the insurance companies as well as the oil companies liable. The insurance company, in order to protect itself, will mandate and enforce safety measures in order for the oil company to drill. Make the insurance companies liable for policing these safeguards and have both organization report to the government.
I do not have enough detailed information to judge how well the government's response was but from what I have read I believe the federal government stood in the way of the efforts of the local government and peoples of the region. The local government is the best one to decide how to handle local situations. The federal government should have supported whatever the locals wanted.
In the discussion about energy, the Department of Energy was originally created to find a path away from fossil fuels. Decades later we are still nowhere near a final solution. First and foremost, this dysfunctional failed department needs to be disbanded.
For the short term, drilling bans need to be removed and refineries need to be expanded and/or built.
Subsidizing ethanol is a bad idea. We are just promoting fossil fuel combustion when we need to be moving away from all forms of fossil fuel combustion. Also, promoting ethanol only places pressure on the food markets as the farming industry will shift more and more resources into that market because it is more lucrative causing an escalation in the cost of food.
For the long term, the technology for moving away from these fuels is available and commercially viable but the influence the fossil fuel industries has over our manufacturing and legislative entities has overshadowed the ability for the markets to move to a better technology.
Once we are stable in our own production I propose a sunset timetable for all forms of fossil fuel combustion so these new technologies can be utilized in the marketplace. I am against using the government for influencing the free market but since there has already been extreme influence used against migrating from fossil fuels it only stands to reason that it will require legislation to end this stranglehold these corporations have over governmental policy.
Kairis. It is obvious there needs to be more oversight. The reports indicate the problems causing the oil spill were numerous and reported well in advance of the spill. Proper oversight may have prevented the disaster from ever happening. As I do not take campaign contributions from corporations or special interests, I would have brought the early problems to the attention of the regulators to stop the drilling.
Name of Candidate: Bill Foster
Running for: U.S. Congressman, 14th District
Party affiliation: Democrat
Hometown: Batavia
Occupation: Congressman
Incumbent? Yes