Jeanne Ives: Candidate profile
Bio
Party: Republican
City: Wheaton
Office sought: US House of Representatives (IL-06)
Age: 55
Family: Paul Ives (Husband), Matt, Nick, Andrew, Joe and Louisa (Children)
Occupation: Mom
Education: United States Military Academy
Civic involvement: Cross Country Coach (12 years), St. Vincent DePaul Volunteer, American Legion
Elected offices held: State Representative (6 years),Wheaton City Council
Incumbent? If yes, when were first elected: No
Website: JeanneForCongress.com
Twitter: @JeanneIves
Facebook: @JeanneIves
Questions and Answers
1. What have the past three years of Donald Trump's unconventional leadership taught us about politics in the United States? What is the best thing his presidency has done? What is the most significant criticism you have of it?
President Trump was elected by people tired of the political ruling class and the biased media telling them what they should think. President Trump made promises and he remembered those promised and the people to whom he made them. Unlike so many who run on high-minded ideals only to sell out to powerful party leaders and special interests once elected.
He demonstrated that authenticity, commonsense and keeping your promises still matter a great deal to wide swaths of voters. Bernie Sanders had a similar appeal to progressive voters.
President Trump's accomplishments: 1. His pro-growth economic policies have given us a 50-year low in unemployment, a record breaking stock market, and significant wage growth. 2. He has reset American leadership in foreign affairs - including trade deals. He is rebuilding the military. Our closest Allies and partners in regional alliances know what we expect from them, and our antagonists know what lines we will not allow them to cross. 3. He has taken steps to dismantle bureaucratic processes that are costly, -ineffective, and demoralizing to business owners and citizens that expect govern-ment to work for them and not the other way around.
I am critical of President Trump's unnecessary personal attacks on his adversaries.
2. What needs to be done to get Congress to work constructively, whether that be senators and representatives of both parties working with each other or Congress itself working with the president?
We need to pay less attention to personality and more attention to policy. As a state legislator, I worked with politicians on both sides of the aisle on issues of common interest.
Politicians should not have fans. They are merely a means to policy ends.
Supporting a candidate, or even admiring the work they do, shouldn't be a blanket endorsement of everything they've ever done or ever will do. Blind devotion to a specific politician based on their personality rather than substantive work they've done does not help democracy.
Fan culture should not extend to politics. Your admiration of a politician should only go so far as their policies - not their personalities. Unlike with movies and music, lives are at stake in what the Oval Office and Congress do daily. If we're going to hold the people in office accountable for their actions, then we can't treat them like rock stars.
3. What do you see as the most important issues to address regarding immigration reform? If you oppose funding for a wall, what steps do you support to try to control illegal immigration?
Our immigration system is broken. We must act swiftly to ensure we keep the American people safe and enforce the rule of law. Border security must come first. Enough is enough, let's enforce our laws. I will approach border security holistically, with solutions that make sense for each stretch of the border - if a border wall doesn't make sense for particular expanses of land, then let's look at the technical solutions available including monitoring those who overstay their VISAs.
Implementing border security and VISA controls, first, will lead to a legal immigration system that all Americans can have confidence in, and then we can then talk about next steps for immigration reform. America is the shining city on the hill and the American Dream is alive and well. Migrants should enter legally and we should welcome them and their contributions to society.
4. Please define your position on health care reform, especially as it relates to the Affordable Care Act.
We only have to look at the experience of being a patient in the VA system to know what universal healthcare would look like. Over 300,000 died waiting for care in our VA hospitals. This is an atrocity. When no one is held accountable and there's no competition, quality of care suffers and costs - passed onto taxpayers - skyrocket.
We need a free market, patient-centered health care system that gets the government out of your doctor's office.
Our goal should be to implement a healthcare system that puts patients first, encourages competition, allows consumers to buy health insurance across state lines, and expands health savings accounts. Our vision for healthcare should be centered on choice, customizability, and innovation, with sensible safety nets that ensure those with pre-existing conditions are not left behind.
5. What is your position on federal funding for contraception, the Violence Against Women Act and reproductive rights?
On federal funding of contraception: the medication should be treated like other prescription drugs. When birth control is purchased over the counter, federal funds should not be expended in that case - or in the cases of abortifacients.
On Reproductive Rights: I am Pro-Life, except in circumstances to save the life of the mother, because I believe in the potential of every life. As a state legislator, I stood up for Parental Notification and Informed Consent. But we never ran a "Heartbeat" Bill.
President Clinton's watch words on arbortion were "safe, legal, and rare." Now Democrats vigorously cheer when bills that legalize late-term abortion & taxpayer funding of abortion are passed. They even openly mull the legalization of infanticide.
On the Violence Against Women Act of 2019, there was disagreement among Congressional Women over the merits of the bill. The first time this bill was passed, as well as the second and third renewals, it was nearly unanimous. Further versions took the legislation away from its core meaning. I would need to know the specific details of the 2019 version before weighing in.
6. What do you consider America's role in world affairs? What are we doing correctly to fill that role? What else should we be doing?
The best deterrent to war is a strong and ready military. America must always be the most militarily prepared power in the world. Our deterrence capability works best, however, with a strong system of alliances. Collectively, through military, economic and political means we must fight the international terrorists that seek to do harm around the world. Especially, we need to isolate Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East.
We will continue to have a military presence around the world - we are still in Germany after 70 years. Our role is not to enforce international law, but to partner with and train our regional allies when it serves our national security interests.
We need to find - and I believe we are finding - a sustainable balance between nation-building on one extreme (which has failed) and pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan entirely on the other. We saw what happened in 2011 in Iraq. We left a power vacuum that turned out to be disastrous. As quickly as possible, we need to bring our troops home, keeping only a residual force that prevents the resurgence of ISIS and more terrorist attacks on the homeland.
7. Do you believe climate change is caused by human activity? What steps should government be taking to address the issue?
Yes. The climate is changing, as it has been for all of Earth's history. Geologic evidence shows that we have had many periods of warmer and colder temperatures in the past. In fact, geologic evidence shows that global temperatures were naturally warmer than today, 1,000, 2,000, 4,000, and 7,000 years ago, long before we had SUVs and power plants.
My opponent's climate alarmism, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez' Green New Deal, are symbolic of the problems with leftist, politicized environmentalism. The reason so many American's don't heed their warning is because when the policies attached to those warnings are rolled out it becomes clear that progressivism is the priority - not the environment.
We need sober-minded cost-benefit analyses of proposed environmental policies, especially since Illinois produces excess energy - that is sold across state lines - from fossil fuels, that fuels our economy.
I, like many of my friends and neighbors, think having a clean environment, above all else, should be our focus. America has made great strides since the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.
There's a need for a serious discussion about our climate. But Sean Casten's alarmism - like the Green New Deal - is not it.