Dennis Anderson: Candidate Profile

Back to 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:BioQA Bio City: GurneeWebsite: www.dennisanderson14.comOffice sought: 14th District U.S. Representative Age: 63Family: Wife - Susan Glad-AndersonOccupation: RetiredEducation: BA, Economics and Political Science, University of WisconsinGraduate Studies: Public Administration, University of Wisconsin (no degree)Graduate Studies: Theology, Loyola University Chicago (no degree)Civic involvement: Board of Directors, Dane County (WI) Humane Society, 1988-1995Institutional Review Board, Hazleton Laboratories-America, Alternate Member, 1989City of Madison (WI) Ethics Board, Mayoral Appointee, 1989-1996U-CARE (HMO) Grievance Committee, Madison WI, 1990-1991Board of Directors, Southern Wisconsin Foodbank, Inc., 1995-1996Volunteer, Warren-Newport Public Library, Gurnee, 2007-PresentBoard of Directors, International Breast Cancer Research Foundation, 2007-2013Volunteer Adult Tutor, Literacy Volunteers of Lake County, 2010-2011Board of Directors, Literacy Volunteers of Lake County, 2011-2012Member, Gurnee Rotary, 2011--Present, Community Service Chair, 2012-2013Elected offices held: I am not a politician, and have held no elective offices in the past.Have you ever been arrested for or convicted of a crime? If yes, please explain: NoQuestions Answers Why are you running for this office? Is there a particular issue that motivates you, and if so, what is that?I am running for Congress for a number of reasons, not least because I feel, as do most Americans, that Congress is dysfunctional. The Nation faces problems in a number of areas, but among the greatest is a continuing high level of unemployment and poverty. What we need most immediately is relief for families that are suffering from unemployment and/or poverty and the all-too widespread hunger that accompanies them. Many things must be done to solve our problems, but hungry people cannot wait for long-term solutions. Sadly, our current Congress has spent far too much time on partisan wrangling and meaningless gestures than on getting down to the real work of addressing the Nation's most pressing needs.What differentiates you most from your opponents in the race?I am running to provide meaningful representation for all the people of the 14th District, whether Democrat, Republican or Independent. Our interests are largely the same, regardless of occupation or party affiliation, and we must engage in open and honest debate in order to find the common ground that leads to best solutions. I am genuinely interested in the wide range of issues that face the nation, and make every effort to become conversant on the issues. I do not believe that the people of the 14th District are well-served by simple repetition of party-issued talking points, many of which continue to be repeated long after their validity has been disproven. We need discussion of the issues that is substantive and rooted in facts. I believe that without an understanding of the issues and a willingness to engage in meaningful discussion we will continue to have a Congress that is recognized by virtually all observers as dysfunctional. I view service in Congress as a trust granted by the people, not by special interests, and understand that democracy is inherently an experiment in compromise between sometimes widely divergent views.Do you support moving ahead with the Affordable Care Act? Why or why not? Which parts of the law, if any, would you change?It is important to recognize why the Affordable Care Act (ACA) came into being in the first place. Tens of millions of our fellow Americans have been effectively shut out of the health insurance and health care systems for one very simple reason: cost. It is also very important to remember that the private sector, for which I have tremendous respect, has by all indications been unable to devise a solution to the problem of the uninsured since Theodore Roosevelt first attempted a century ago to make access to health care a national priority. I do support moving ahead with the ACA and support its goal of making health insurance, and thus health care, available to all.There has unquestionably been some disruption in the health insurance sector, as should be expected in any such major change. Some insurance policies that do not offer quality coverage have been discontinued, and that is disruptive to those who held them. Some people who have chosen in the past not to carry health insurance are being required to do so or pay a penalty, and that is disruptive. Congress and the Administration can act to reduce the effect of these disruptions without discarding the whole with no meaningful replacement. What the ACA is not, despite the hyperbole to which we continue to be subjected, is a "government takeover" of health care or "socialized medicine". The ACA leaves in place essentially the same hospitals, clinics, pharmaceutical companies and physicians as existed before the ACA's passage.What specifically would you do to end gridlock and partisan infighting in the U.S. House and promote cooperative problem-solving?I am a pragmatist, not an ideologue. I believe that Congress' responsibility is to do what is right for the Nation, and that it will be unable to do so if alternative views are not considered. There is too much adherence to rigid agendas that ignore the nuances of the issues with which Congress must deal. I recognize that shades of gray are the norm, not black and white distinctions. I am not only willing to consider alternative views, but demand that those alternatives are part of the discussion. While I am willing to discuss and debate virtually any issue with anyone, I expect that all parties will enter such discussions from a starting point rooted in demonstrable facts, not ideological pronouncements or vague, unfounded talking points. It is here that the current House has failed the American people. In me, any member of the House, regardless of party, will find a willing partner in the National dialogue.What should the U.S. House do, and what specifically will you do, to avoid another government shutdown?Government shutdowns benefit no one and have proven to be extremely costly to taxpayers. Shutdowns hurt businesses large and small, thus the fact that Chambers of Commerce and other business organizations joined others in pleading with the House not to let it happen last October. Shutdowns hurt individuals who rely on the government for their income, either as employees, contractors, or others who provide services to the government. Shutdowns hurt the economy, as we saw clearly in October. There is no upside to a shutdown. Keeping the government operating should not be dependent upon the satisfaction of some ill-conceived ideological posturing by those with close ties to the Tea Party.To avoid another shutdown, the House must recognize and accept its responsibility to govern. While the power of any single House member to stop such actions is obviously very limited, I would demand that those who favor such disastrous strategies explain publicly and in well-reasoned detail what benefit they expect their actions to derive for the Nation.Do you favor measures included in Senate Bill 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013? Specifically, which segments do you support, if any, and which segments do you oppose, if any? Are there other proposals related to immigration that you support or oppose?S 744, the "Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act", represents the best effort yet to address needed immigration reform, and I hope that it will be brought to the House floor and passed soon. Provisions of the act of particular merit are the "W" worker program, increased visa opportunities for those with plans and the means to start businesses in the U.S., the inclusion of the "DREAM Act" and the AgJobs Act in the bill. I am less supportive of the expansion of the expensive border fencing and patrol portions of the bill, primarily due to lack of confidence that those efforts, including their considerable costs, will be justified by their results.On what issues would you break with your party, or have you broken with your party, and why?I would have broken with my party and fought against the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act. I was opposed to the troop surge in Afghanistan and I would have opposed our entry to a war of choice in Iraq. I am opposed to what I view as an indiscriminate use of drones, and to allowing the NSA to function with too little oversight. I have been deeply troubled by a number of Obama administration appointees and I am disappointed in the Administration's failure to close the detainment facility at GuantanamoShould federal spending cuts known as the sequester be continued in their current form? Why or why not? Where specifically would you cut the federal budget, if any? What areas, if any, would you exempt from cuts?Possibly the least thoughtful approach to budgeting possible, sequestration has provided cover for a Congress that has abdicated its responsibility to make the difficult decisions that governing requires. According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, some 750,000 fewer jobs have been created because of the sequestration. In July 2013 the CBO estimated that repealing sequestration would result in an increase in GDP of between 0.2% and 1.2% and in job creation by between 300,000 and 1,600,000 in the third quarter of 2014. Sequestration has been bad for the Nation and should not be continued.Hard times remain a fact of life for millions of Americans, and we should not cut back on unemployment benefits, SNAP, health clinics, school lunches and other such essential support programs while the need remains so great and so immediate.Defense spending more than doubled between 2000 and 2011, from about $300 billion to about $700 billion. It has begun to fall over the past couple of years, but remains unnecessarily high. In July of 2010, the Sustainable Defense Task Force identified nearly $1 trillion in savings that could be realized over a decade without threatening national security. Defense spending must be subject to the same scrutiny as any other federal program, and should be no less vulnerable to reductions when unnecessary expenditures are identified. In other areas, subsidies for such immensely profitable industries as big oil and big agribusiness ought to be discontinued. We still need controls on drug costs, which remain a major driver of the high cost of health care in the U.S.How would you vote on cutting Social Security and/or Medicare?I would vote against any cuts in Social Security or Medicare, two immensely successful government programs that have saved millions of elderly Americans from poverty. It is important to recognize that Social Security is funded through a dedicated tax and has no effect of the Nation's deficit, a fact recognized by virtually all economists and by such notables as Ronald Reagan, among others. Cutting Social Security would help no one, would hurt future recipients, and would not ease the deficit. Medicare has saved generations of the elderly from the sometimes overwhelming burden of health care costs. When we as a Nation look for areas of the budget where savings may be found, we should first identify those programs that are least successful and/or least vital to the well-being of average Americans.Finally, is there anything we haven't asked about that you feel we should know?As I mentioned in response to an earlier question, I am not a politician. At the age of 63, I have no intention of trying to begin a new career in Congress. I am running because the House of Representatives is broken, and the people of the 14th District deserve to have a Representative who is interested in striving for good government. Not big government, not small government, but good government that serves the people of this District and this Nation. I believe that we all want the same things -- good, secure jobs; good schools; safe neighborhoods; and secure retirements. Attempts to define us as either "makers" or "takers" are not constructive. We will achieve nothing if we do not recognize our common interests and work together to achieve them.