GOALS: As a member of Congress, what two major goals do you believe you can achieve on behalf of the people of Utah?
1.
I would bring transparency and accountability to the office of Senate by accepting no monies from corporations and special-interests and removing subsidies and bailouts to large corporations and special interests which disenfranchise the small-business person and entrepreneur who are the backbone of our country.
2.
I accept a maximum of $200 from individuals only. By accepting no corporate or special-interest money, I become a candidate of campaign finance reform in a pure sense.
2.
GLOBAL WARMING AND FOSSIL FUELS: What do you think should be done at the federal level to stop global warming and to reduce our use of and dependence on fossil fuels?
1.
The oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries are politically, economically, environmentally, militarily and domestically indefensible and unsustainable.
2.
We continue to disregard the alternative energy programs that have developed over the last several decades in exchange for a highly volatile and extremely expensive energy programs.
3.
My focus is and continues to be on alternative energy such as solar, wind power, Bio diesel, hemp oil development, and supporting individuals and organizations such as the Apollo alliance.
3.
ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE: What should the federal government do to ensure that every American has access to affordable health care?
1.
Presently, our healthcare conversation nationally is disingenuous at best. According to the GAO over $300 billion dollars this year will be spent on private bureaucracy expenditures alone. We are presently spending over $6,000 per person on health care, twice any other industrial nations expenditures for healthcare.
2.
Preliminary investigations indicate that we could provide every person in this nation with national single-payer universal health-care, where they choose their own healthcare provider and receive all services free of charge, while cutting the healthcare budget in half.
4.
NATIONAL SECURITY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES: How do you propose to balance the need to guard against terrorism and other threats to national security with the need to preserve our basic civil liberties? Do you recommend any changes in the USA PATRIOT ACT?
1.
Our foreign policy over the last 60 years in the Middle East and other nations has been one that has terrorized its people. Starting with the CIA coup that brought about the overthrow of a fledgling democracy in Iran in 1953 as well as our support of dictatorial régimes. Our present, aggressive posture of first strike initiative is creating tremendous unrest globally both among the people and their governments. Unless we change this posture and create a more cooperative and respectful policy regarding other nations I fear disastrous results.
2.
The Patriot Act was obviously preconceived and presented to Congress with little opportunity for review, and should be removed.
5.
DIPLOMACY AND MILITARY POLICY: In Iraq, and for future U.S. military and diplomatic actions, what should be the balance between working cooperatively with other nations and international organizations like the UN and NATO, versus acting alone?
1.
We must join with the UN fully committed to working equally among nations, rather than unilaterally. This includes holding ourselves accountable, in the same regard that we expect of other nations.
2.
Whatever demands we may make of other nations, we must be willing to make upon ourselves. We can not expect other nations to remove nuclear weapons while we are developing nuclear weapons; and the demand for the removal of chemical, biological and other weapons of mass destruction from other nations arsenals should be met correspondingly with our own removal program.
6.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Do you support taxpayer funding of research and development of new nuclear weapons such as "bunker busters" and "mini-nukes," including upgrading and using the Nevada Test Site to test them? Why or why not?
1.
I am totally opposed to research and development of new nuclear weapons, no matter what they might be called. I am opposed to upgrading and using the Nevada test site, to test anything.
2.
We are now, because of present policy initiatives, escalating the nuclear proliferation threat in a way not seen since the Cold War. To disregard the historical narrative that many of us have lived through regarding nuclear proliferation and its dangers is unconscionable and unacceptable. This foolhardy policy raises, once again, the specter of mutually assured destruction.
7.
CAMPAIGN FINANCE: Do you support public financing for all federal elections? Why or why not?
1.
There should be limited financing for all elections, with the airwaves being open to public discourse and community programming. The licensing of our airwaves should reflect those ideals. This need for huge amounts of money in order for us to communicate with each other about issues and concerns in political debate should be totally unnecessary. If this is to be a nation “Of, For and By the people,” we must ensure that all people have the opportunity to express their views for all to hear.
2.
There should be no corporate or special interest money involved in the election process. At one time, each state exacted stiff penalties for that involvement. I believe that it is time to reestablish those penalties.
