[ad_1]
There are two candidates on the Nov. 8 ballot for a six-year U.S. Senate term: Republican lawyer Mark Meuser and U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, a Democrat appointed to fill the vacancy left when Kamala Harris became vice president. Please read on for Meuser’s answers to 16 questions from The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board.
Q: What will be your top domestic and international priority in Congress?
A: With the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, we see that politicians in Washington, D.C., are more concerned with paying off special interests and their donors. The American vision of government was “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” The political elite provides lip service to the people every two to four years, but then turns around and serves lobbyists. It is time for that to end. It is time for someone in Washington to stand up and represent “We the People.”
The top domestic priority should be restoring the American economy. People are hurting. Record high inflation, gas prices and increasing food prices are hitting Californians’ pocketbooks. To start restoring the economy, the federal government must cut spending and start living within its means. I will support efforts to reduce federal spending, especially waste, fraud and abuse, and will encourage the adoption of a balanced budget.
Making sure schools educate children, with a focus on core topics like science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) is a priority. Schools should not indoctrinate our children. All education funding should follow the student, rather than fund systems. I will be a strong supporter of any proposal that focuses federal funds on support for students regardless of where they and their parents choose to go.
Q: How do you view the events of Jan. 6, 2021, in our nation’s Capitol and what led up to them? Do those events have implications about the future of the United States?
A: The longest-lasting consequence of Jan. 6, 2021, has been the curtailing of First Amendment activities around the Capitol. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., have kept the Capitol closed to the average American since the riots. By keeping the Capitol closed, the leaders have prevented the people from petitioning their government, resulting in those with close connections and other representatives of special interests having greater access to lawmakers than the people those lawmakers represent.
Current investigations seem to largely miss the mark. They have focused too little on security practices in place on Jan. 6, 2021. Even the 9/11 Commission did not hesitate to ask tough questions of the intelligence community — topics that current investigations seem hesitant to address. We need a much more thorough and unbiased investigation of the events surrounding Jan. 6, 2021.
Q: Inflation is at 40-year highs in the U.S., causing economic hardship for many Americans. What can the federal government do about this? What will you do?
A: Inflation happens when the government spends money faster than it can print it, not to mention faster than it can collect tax revenues. When the government prints money, it devalues the dollar. When the dollar is devalued, prices naturally rise, which hurts Californians’ pockets, requiring them to pay more for gas, food and other daily needs.
The federal government needs to stop spending money. My priority will be on identifying and eliminating wasteful, pork-barrel spending. Politicians should not be supporting their donors and special interests at taxpayers’ expense, especially when facing a potential recession. I will also focus on eliminating waste, fraud and abuse within the federal budget and will support a balanced budget amendment.
Q: Confidence in the Supreme Court is steadily declining. Should justices have term limits? Should the court be expanded? What, if anything, should change about the high court?
A: As a U.S. senator, I do not have the authority under the Constitution to vote for term limits for judges. It would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Expanding the court would only politicize it further. We need a court that is not viewed as political as the other branches of government.
Q: What do you see as the implications of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade?
A: Prior to Roe v. Wade, states were debating abortion. Roe preempted this debate with several men in black robes deciding the issue for the entire country. The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in June rightly returned the debate to states. The Constitution gives the states the authority to handle issues dealing with the health and welfare of their citizens.
States are much more responsive to the beliefs and needs of their people. The Dobbs decision was important as a check on the federal government and returned decision-making authority to the people and state legislatures.
Q: What will you do in Congress to combat climate change?
A: I love the great outdoors and the natural beauty of California. We need to be wise stewards of our resources. No one wants to drink dirty water or to live in smog-filled cities. California and the United States have made huge progress over the past few decades increasing livability standards.
There is a huge difference between being wise stewards and the extreme environmentalism we see today. Extreme environmentalists would have us surrender much of the technological progress society has made over the past century. Instead of surrendering this progress, we should embrace California’s bent toward innovation. The private sector will create the technologies necessary to reduce emissions and help us be wise stewards if we allow them and get the government out of the way.
With that said, to ensure adequate water supplies for people and farmers, we should not be afraid to build desalination plants. To decrease carbon emissions from forest fires, we need to enable foresters to remove the underbrush and thin out the forests.
Q: How should the U.S. approach the war in Ukraine? What should its involvement be?
A: Ukraine is doing the world a favor by keeping Russia at bay. We should acknowledge the extraordinary courage of Ukraine’s leaders and people.
But families in California are having hard times paying their bills because of record inflation. Politicians should not be rewarding their donors and special interests in the military industrial complex with massive government spending.
The time to prevent Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was before it started. President Joe Biden’s disastrous handling of the U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan signaled to Russian President Vladimir Putin that the United States would not respond to an invasion. Because Putin perceived the president’s weakness, he understood that the time was ripe for him to fulfill his vision of restoring the Russian Empire.
American politicians must focus on the needs of the American people. We need to get our house in order. We need to reduce inflation and put our monetary policies on a sound footing once again. Once we get our house back in order again, then we can ascertain whether it is proper for us to be funding foreign wars.
Q: How should the U.S. change its immigration policies? What specific changes would you pursue?
A: There are far more job openings available than qualified Americans to fill them at every skill level. America does not offer enough work permits, visas or other mechanisms to allow into this country the people who are willing to be profitable members of society. Everything from our farms to the high-tech industry suffer as a result. We must have a pragmatic, and flexible, approach to work-related immigration.
We need to reform everything from H-1B to H-2A visas to reflect current demands. If politicians are willing to take a pragmatic approach, we will help reduce traffic on our southern border, particularly the human smuggling business of the drug cartels.
Q: What specific issues about border life in San Diego and Tijuana will you prioritize?
A: Crime decreases the quality of life in both San Diego and Tijuana. From the federal perspective, the best help we can provide is by providing Border Patrol with the resources it needs to keep our communities safe.
Q: The nation is experiencing more mass shootings with higher death tolls in recent years. How would you address this issue?
A: The more recent mass shootings all have one thing in common: people. Motivations may differ — some shootings may be the result of mental health issues, some shooters may want their names across the media. The solutions are not easy, and we do need to have a national discussion about mental health and the role of the media. But one thing is certainly clear: Restricting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens is not an option, just like restricting the rights of the press to cover mass shootings would violate the First Amendment.
When it comes to the most vulnerable in this country, children, we must protect them. Protecting them means having the proper security in place at every school in the country. We must ensure that our schools are properly hardened, have armed resource officers present and are prepared for any type of contingency.
Q: What did the U.S. government get right and wrong in its approach to the pandemic since its start in early 2020? How would you have responded differently?
A: Unelected bureaucrats from thousands of miles away do not know what is best for families. The Constitution prohibits public health officials from depriving people of their life, liberty, property or pursuit of happiness without due process of law. This means public health officials do not have blanket authority to shut down businesses, schools or churches via mandates. We are a nation of laws debated and enacted by our elected representatives, not unelected bureaucrats seeking their 15 minutes of fame.
For the last hundred years, public health would inform the public about its options and empower people to make the decisions that are best for their families. Furthermore, public health officials would only isolate individuals they believed were actually infected by a contagious disease. In the COVID-19 pandemic, unelected bureaucrats flipped this script by assuming that everyone had the same health risks and took it upon themselves to determine what was essential, or what was not, and thus destroyed the fiscal, emotional, physiological and spiritual well-being of millions of Americans without underlying health conditions who were at lesser risk of dying from COVID-19.
Q: How would you address the rising cost of private health insurance nationwide? Do you support government-subsidized health insurance for all Americans? Why or why not?
A: I thought Obamacare solved the problem of health insurance affordability. As we all know, Obamacare drove the cost of health insurance up, proving that the more the government gets involved in an industry, the less affordable it is. Compare most routine medical procedures at hospitals to Lasik eye surgery. Lasik is elective, with most people paying out of pocket. These prices have dropped substantially over the past decade while the prices of most routine medical procedures have skyrocketed.
Government should set some simple guard rails for health insurance, but needs to get out of the health care and health insurance regulation business. Prices will fall if companies are allowed to compete with each other, especially if they can compete nationwide with each other. Singapore proves that competition among providers results in lower costs and better outcomes.
Q: What can and should the federal government do to address the high cost of housing?
A: The beauty of our system of dual sovereignty — with the states and federal government having defined responsibilities and authorities — means that the federal government can focus on where it is strong and states can focus on more immediate needs. The Constitution reserves for the states the authority to address housing costs. The best thing the federal government can do is stay out of the way of the California government and let the state Legislature handle it.
Q: Reducing homelessness has been a focus for all levels of government in recent years. What would you do differently?
A: Homelessness is a major problem in California. But it is a problem created by state and local governments. This means that the solution is also with the California government and with our cities. The federal government should stay out of the way and let California, San Diego, Los Angeles and other cities experiment with solutions. My job as senator is to make sure that the federal government does not interfere with this experimentation.
Q: The U.S. national debt has exploded in recent decades. Are you concerned about this?
A: I am very concerned about our national debt. Both parties have spent money at a rate that would make a drunken sailor blush (no offense to our brave sailors in the service!) Just as families in California must live within their means, politicians in Washington should stop funding special interests and repaying donors. Getting control of the national debt means saying “no” to additional government spending, eliminating waste, fraud and abuse in the federal budget and forcing politicians to do their jobs.
Q: Why should voters elect you over your opponent?
A: I want to represent the people of California — not special interests, lobbyists and other well-funded and connected interests — in Washington. As a constitutional attorney, I have a proven track record of fighting for the people of California against big businesses, big tech and big government.
When unelected bureaucrats shut down our churches, schools and businesses, I was in court fighting to get them open again. When unelected bureaucrats forced people to choose between their jobs and vaccines, I was in court fighting for their rights to choose their health care options.
I am not, and will not be, paid for by special interests. My campaign is funded by the people of California and that is who I will represent in Washington.
[ad_2]
Source link
