Abortion is an issue that has been used to divide this country, pro-life against pro-choice. I believe that this division has brought about a level of acrimony that serves no one. Both sides make legitimate points. The pro-life side is correct in that abortion is the killing of a human child; I find this indisputable. The pro-choice side is correct in that a woman has a right to control what happens to her body; I also find this indisputable. The fundamental problem is that there is an inevitable conflict between the rights of these two human beings, and there is no easy solution. On one hand you can violate a woman's right to control her body; on the other hand, you can violate a child's right to live. What needs to be recognized is that neither of these options is good, and neither side has the right to declare their opponents to be the evil ones.

This is one of many choices that the government must make that is inhuman; the government must make a choice between the rights of one group and the rights of another, and there is no optimal solution. But one thing that needs to be recognized in political discourse is that none of us can make a difference in those laws. The law of the land as it presently stands is only changeable by the US Supreme Court or by constitutional amendment. An amendment could certainly not be passed in the present political climate, and the influence any of us have on the makeup of the Supreme Court is minimal. Even the President can do little to affect this issue. As such, basing voting decisions on pro-life or pro-choice stances of candidates seems to be unreasonable when there are many other important issues which the candidate can actually affect.

I don't believe there is anything resembling a good solution to this issue right now, nor do I believe I could affect the law if I did. I believe what I can do is help reduce the number of abortions. Sexual education must include the consequences of actions. Young people must be taught exactly what will happen to their lives if their choices lead to a pregnancy. They must be aware of ways to avoid pregnancy and the efficacy of each. Only abstinence is 100% effective every time it's tried, but we must acknowledge the sad fact that many will not try it. If we are trying to turn young people into responsible adults, we must supply them with accurate information. To treat them otherwise is dangerous and disrespectful.

We must also help create a culture of forgiveness. Yes, it is a mistake to become pregnant at a young age, but it is also a mistake to ostracize young women who do from our families and communities. Women who have abortions don't typically do it as a matter of convenience; they do it because they believe it is the best choice out of the bad choices presented them. If young girls weren't convinced their families and friends would hate them for their mistakes, fewer abortions would take place. We as a society must find the balance necessary to uphold morality while still forgiving deviation.

All that having been said, I believe that there is one possibility that is rarely mentioned, but has the potential to eliminate this problem entirely. It may be technically feasible to create an artificial womb: an environment that would allow a baby to continue to grow and develop outside of its mother's body, before it would be able to survive on its own. Such technology has already been experimented with, and the results have been promising. If artificial wombs existed, the fundamental conflict between the rights of mother and child would be eliminated; the child could survive without having any effect on the mother's body, and thus neither party's rights would be violated. In addition, the lives of many premature babies might also be saved. Obviously a host of other issues would be brought up for debate, but I believe the consequences of those issues are far less than the consequences we deal with under the law as it stands. I thus strongly advocate funding of research into the creation of artificial wombs, and the lessening of legal barriers to that end. I believe that in this way we can find a much better solution to the problem of abortion than either pro-life or pro-choice camps present.

I do not support racial quotas in any case where minority status is not immediately relevant, and I do not support the hiring or acceptance of one candidate over a better qualified candidate based on minority status. I do support efforts to seek out qualified minority candidates and making them aware of positions they might not otherwise hear of. I also support the desire for diversity being one factor in selection between equally qualified candidates.

Many of the problems with the processes of the federal government lie with congressional procedure.

So long as bills are not required to have a single subject, congressmen can attach unpopular riders to existing popular bills. This either has the effect of passing an unpopular law that would never have passed otherwise, or scuttling an otherwise popular measure. Either way, congressmen are required to vote for things they don't believe in, or against things they do; all the while, what needs to be done isn't, and what doesn't need to be done is. I would support a bill such as the One Subject at a Time Act requiring all bills passed into law to have a single, clear subject. Such requirements are already law in many states, and should certainly be on the federal level.

I advocate a law such as the Read the Bills Act requiring that all bills passed by congress must actually be read, out loud, by a congressman to the rest of congress before being passed. At present, many bills are voted on without ever being read, which is an offense to any concept of democracy. Forcing every bill to be read out loud would also serve to reduce the length of bills to comprehensible levels.

I advocate a law such as the Write the Laws Act stating that all federal regulations with the force of law be voted on by Congress. Our democracy is questionable when bureaucrats can effectively make law without direct congressional action.

I believe that all actions taken by the federal government must be specifically authorized by the US Constitution to be legal, as stated clearly by the 10th amendment. Many actions presently taken by the government are not so authorized, except by extremely liberal readings of the general welfare or interstate commerce clauses. I believe that some of the present roles of the federal government that are not constitutionally authorized should be reserved to the states or people, and taken out of the federal government's hands; I believe that other powers presently exercised by the federal government are in fact the proper domain of that government, and the constitution should be amended to reflect this. Leaving things as they are, with the constitution as written simply ignored, is unacceptable to me.

I support the Enumerated Powers Act, which would require bills to state explicitly what provisions of the constitution authorize the bill.

I believe that copyright should exist, and serves a very important role in our society. I myself am both a writer and a programmer, and so am personally aware of the benefits of copyright. However, when copyright terms reach generations beyond the death of the original content creator, the purpose of copyright has clearly been forgotten. Copyright was created to encourage the creation of more art for the benefit of all of society, not to secure a lifetime income for the artist and his grandchildren, nor to prevent the creation of derivative works for entire lifetimes. Copyright is an artificial right, granted by the government; it is not a natural right. It is not reasonable that society should create a right for a limited group and expend resources enforcing that right, without any benefit to society as a whole in the form of culturally significant works eventually entering public domain.

Copyright does not grant a right to the copyright holder; it restricts the rights of everyone else. If not for copyright, basic property rights would dictate that you could take a CD you own, copy it onto other blank CDs you own, and then sell these CDs. Copyright limits your property rights, which is only tolerable because we all gain more than we lose, by the creation of new works. But as in any conflict between rights of individuals, some balance must be achieved. This balance is in the limited term of copyright. Copyrights as they stand are effectively eternal, due to Congress's repeated extensions of existing copyright terms at the behest of corporate interests. This is not acceptable.

Copyrights should have a definite maximum term that can never be exceeded, with this term depending on the nature of the work. After that period, all works should enter public domain. For software, the maximum term should be between ten and twenty years, with books and music conceivably having longer terms of 40-50 years. Copyright renewal might be allowable, but only with exponentially increasing fees for each renewal.

Despite the misinformation spread by certain corporate entities, copyright infringement is not theft; theft is a much more serious crime. Not-for-profit copyright violation should be classified as a misdemeanor, not a felony, and the maximum penalty for that misdemeanor should be strictly limited. It is a total abuse of our system of justice for corporate entities to sue private individuals into submission with a scattershot approach, destroying the financial futures of their victims without ever being required to prove any actual damages. Similar damage restrictions should apply to orphan works, where the legitimate copyright holder cannot be easily identified.

Further, it should never be illegal for a consumer to do what they please in private with their own purchase. At present, it is theoretically illegal to copy a DVD you own to your own iPod, because it is illegal to circumvent the copy protection software in place. This is an absurdity: there is no conceivable way that anyone is harmed by you being able to convert data you own from one format to another; thus it should not be illegal. Fair use should allow a consumer to manipulate data legally in their possession in any way they wish, including conversion, DRM removal, and backup purposes.

I would propose both law and constitutional amendment to this effect, and put my full weight behind ensuring their passage.

I cannot support capital punishment. The evidence that it leads to a reduction in crime is shaky, at best, and some studies have indicated that the financial cost to society is actually higher than life imprisonment. Nor do I believe that retribution is truly beneficial to the victims of loved ones; as a Christian, retribution is not something I can ever support. I would therefore propose a constitutional amendment to permanently ban the death penalty in the United States, potentially barring emergency military application. I would do anything in my power at any time to commute any death sentence under my authority, regardless of circumstance.

I hate debt. I don't like it in concept or in practice. Spending money we don't have at all levels of society is the root cause of the present economic crisis. I do not believe that the present unregulated bailouts and unfunded spending bills will prevent further economic decay; they will at best simply alter the character of the recession. I support the Balanced Budget Amendment, and I will not vote for any unbalanced budget without first proposing a balanced one. I want budget surpluses and I want them put towards paying down the debt. If we had a surplus, I would be more likely to put the money towards the debt than to tax cuts. I am not opposed to deficit spending during a declared war, so long as those debts are paid off quickly once the war is ended. Otherwise, I support the idea of cutting the pay of congressmen who vote for an unbalanced budget. I also support the idea of making all spending measures self-funding: each spending bill would include a tax to pay for itself. This would theoretically eliminate deficits, and make it obvious exactly how much every spending program of the federal government costs the people.

I am against recreational drug use in all its forms. I do not believe it serves any productive purpose, and it is harmful to the person using the drugs and to those who care about and depend on them. I feel the same about tobacco use, and will do anything in my power to convince people not to use these substances.

I am not convinced that it is the job of the government to prevent people from harming themselves. However, drugs like methamphetamine have such an impact on both the person and anyone around them that legalizing them is not reasonable. I will not press for or support legalization of these dangerous drugs.

Marijuana is a different question. Most medical evidence indicates that smoking marijuana, while certainly unhealthy in the long term, does not have the same dangerous effects of most other illegal drugs. It is arguably less dangerous to both the smoker and those around them than smoking tobacco. A staggering level of resources is devoted to arresting and imprisoning users of marijuana, resources which would be better used elsewhere. I advocate the legalization of marijuana possession and use by adults, and the immediate release of all those convicted of those crimes. I do not advocate the release of anyone convicted of the sale of marijuana for recreational purposes, especially to minors. There is a difference between breaking what one believes to be an unjust law and profiting off the breaking of that law. It should also remain illegal to drive while mentally impared in any way, including by marijuana.

I believe that any person imprisoned for drug use should be treated as well as incarcerated. Otherwise the incarceration is pointless.

I would propose a constitutional amendment which would codify the government's authority to regulate drugs into the Constitution, as I do believe it is an important function which is not sufficiently justified by the Constitution as it stands.

Public schools need money, and lots of it. In a country as rich as ours there is no excuse for a child receiving an inferior education due to simple lack of funding. However, simply throwing money at an issue is rarely the correct solution. Waste must be eliminated at all levels, and restructuring should occur to make education more effective. Students should be allowed to learn at their own speed wherever possible in every subject, whether that speed is above or below average. No student should be held back or moved ahead without justification. While I do not necessarily support the use of federal funding for education, I do believe that any federal funds should be placed directly in the hands of local school boards to do with as they see fit. Education is a local issue, and the needs of communities may vary. Availability of any federal funds should not be made contingent on anything but the public release of all proceedings regarding their use.

School prayer is an issue of some debate. I believe that the majority of the people in our country were Christian at its founding, and may in fact be so to this day. Some say that this country was founded on Christian beliefs, and they have a point in saying so. But part of this country being founded on Christian beliefs is the requirement of its government to respect people who believe differently. Any forced participation in religious activity risks alienation, which is the last thing Christians should want. I therefore am against mandatory prayer in any form. If an organized prayer is not mandatory and falls within bounds set by other school rules (i.e. those against speaking while the teacher is talking), it should be allowed under freedom of religion.

Sex education is another significant issue. Some argue that teens are going to have sex anyway, so we should give them condoms so they'll be doing it safely. Others argue that teens won't necessarily have sex, and that giving teens condoms will simply increase the odds that they WILL have sex. I believe that during sex education students should be informed thoroughly about all possible negative consequences of premarital sexual activity, including pregnancy and disease, as well as all possible psychological consequences. They should then be informed of all major methods of protection, including abstinence, and the success rates of them all at preventing those various negative consequences. Only abstinence is 100% effective every time its tried, but we must acknowledge the sad fact that many will not try it. If we are trying to turn young people into adults, we must supply them with accurate information. To treat them otherwise is dangerous and disrespectful. I do not believe in spending federal money distributing condoms or other forms of birth control in schools. If a student wants a condom they can buy their own; the school's money can be better spent on things actually relevant to education.

As the electoral college was originally designed, the people didn't vote for who they wanted to be President; they voted for the people they trusted to select a good President. Somewhere along the way, we seem to have started voting for the President. What we really do is vote for a slate of electors bound to vote for the candidate we vote for. And in the laws of most states the winner of the state gets all that state's electoral votes.

This is stupid.

The electoral college made some sense at its inception, but eventually states manipulated the original design to give each state as a block the maximum possible weight. This effectively disenfranchises any voter who does not vote for the winner of their state, as their vote has absolutely zero weight on the outcome of the election. Any benefit the electoral college system originally had has been eliminated. We need to replace that system.

However, a direct plurality election is not the solution. "Select the one option you prefer" is fine so long as there are only two options to choose from. However, when there are more than two options, plurality voting fails miserably. Say there are three candidates, A, B, and C. Almost half the people hate candidate A, think candidate B is good, and think candidate C is just okay; an equal number of people think A is good, hate B, and think C is okay. The rest of the people, a much smaller group loves C, and doesn't much care about A or B.

So out of the three, who should be elected? Arguably, C should win, because more people will be happy with C than with either A or B. However, in the system we have now, either A or B wins, making half the people very angry. Compromise candidates have no chance.

We need a voting system by which people pick not just one candidate, but rank their preferences. Such a system is far more representative of the people as a whole, instead of only of the group that won. There are many such voting methods, with Schulze arguably being the closest to optimal. However, Instant Runoff Voting is presently the most popular. I would thus propose a constitutional amendment mandating the election of the President by either of these methods, and a separate amendment mandating the election of congressmen and senators by the same method.

I also believe that incumbents have an overwhelming and undeserved advantage in elections, with well over 90% of incumbents being reelected every cycle. We should modify elections so that while someone can be elected to an office an unlimited number of times, they cannot hold that office for two consecutive terms. This allows the people to keep a good officeholder indefinitely, while eliminating the concept of a career politician, and ensuring that no one must run against an incumbent. Politicians would be required to do their jobs during their terms, instead of spending so much time preparing for the next election. Failing this, I support absolute term limits on any elected office.

At present the United States is heavily dependent on imported oil for its energy needs. This situation is untenable for two reasons.

One, dependence is weakness: we are vulnerable to economic attack so long as we are dependent on other nations for our immediate energy needs. For national security, it is vital that we, at a minimum, reduce our oil imports to the realm of close allies such as Canada.

Two, peak oil: it is inarguable that fossil fuels will eventually run out. Exactly when is debatable, but it is not possible that oil extraction will continue forever, at the present level or any other. Eventually, at some future date there will simply be no more oil in any deposit, in America or anywhere else. Before that date arrives, we must do one of two things: learn to create oil from other sources, or learn to live without it entirely.

We must advance the state of renewable energy sources and storage. Development of gasoline-replacement technologies must accelerate. Research into biofuels must continue, especially on those that can use land not presently cultivated for other purposes. Manufacturers must be encouraged to develop more cars capable of better handling a variety of fuels. Infrastructure necessary for practical use of electric vehicles should be developed. Transformation of our sizable coal resources into a form usable by gasoline cars should be researched further. Some solution must be found to permanently break our dependence on oil, and eventually, any form of fossil fuel.

In the mean time, consumption of oil should be reduced in any reasonable way. Local public transportation systems, including light rail, need to be expanded, covering larger areas of cities and allowing more residents to avoid driving to work. Newer, experimental commuting methods should also be further explored, with pilot programs commissioned for the most promising. Curtailing urban sprawl and encouraging more centralized lifestyles would also be of great benefit in this regard, though I have no concrete proposals on such a matter at this time.

Restrictions should be relaxed on the construction of new oil refineries, especially in areas that are not subject to regular weather-related disruptions such as the gulf coast. Restrictions on offshore drilling should also be relaxed, though safety standards should be continually enforced. What must be recognized in all these issues, however, is that the construction of new oil rigs and refineries is a process executed by oil companies operating in a free market, not something that should ever be done by any government. In fact, the oil industry has found it more profitable to close refineries over the last several decades instead of opening them. If the market demands new refinery and drilling capabilities, they will and must be built. The best thing the government can do is get out of the way, so long as doing so is the will of the people.

The same applies to nuclear reactors and waste disposal. Newer reprocessing techniques would help alleviate concerns about nuclear waste disposal, and should be further explored.

Drilling in ANWR would be of relatively little consequence to our immediate energy needs. The option to do so should be retained in the event of future foreign supply interruption.

I believe that as the most powerful nation on the planet, militarily and economically, we have an obligation to help people wherever possible. We can't help everyone, but we must do what we can. However, I also believe in using that strength in an intelligent fashion.

I support a restructuring of debt owed us by developing countries. These debts should either be forgiven, or the interest reduced, deferred, or eliminated. I believe we should pay off our own debts as quickly as possible, both publicly and on an individual basis, which will likely reduce the amount we ourselves give. But I see no need to place further burdens on impoverished countries. Any further monetary support should be in the form of gifts. The use of all such gifts should be thoroughly monitored. We must ensure that any aid sent to a country is used for the purpose for which it is sent.

I do not believe in the use of the military to assist in securing other countries, except where we are morally obligated to due to our own actions, or where US security is directly threatened.

I believe that the United States should refuse to sell weapons of any kind to countries with a consistent recent record of violating the rights of its citizens, or of aggression against its neighbors. Sale of weapons to these countries by US corporations should be heavily taxed or forbidden outright.

I support the concept of missile defense, both strategic and theater.

I believe in dialogue. If anyone is willing to talk to us, regardless of our past history with that country or person, we should be willing to hear what they have to say. We gain nothing by closing our ears.

I believe Israel deserves to exist. I support the right of the people of Palestine to self-determination. I do not support the actions of either side of the conflict that lead to the prolonging of that conflict, nor those actions that have led to civilian deaths. I believe peace can only be achieved when Palestine has a government sufficiently powerful to prevent native terrorists from striking at Israel regardless of any agreements to the contrary. Otherwise the present cycle of violence will continue. Palestine will only have peace when the people of Palestine want peace enough to police their own.

I believe that all necessary steps must be taken to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. No country sworn to destroy another can be allowed to develop weapons of mass destruction capable of achieving that end. Iran has a legal right to the peaceful use of nuclear power, but they must submit to inspections necessary to confirm that no weapons program is taking place.

I believe the US embargo against Cuba has been severely detrimental to both countries. Fidel Castro's regime has been brutal and inhuman, but given has he has remained in power for decades, it is obvious that our embargo did not have the effect of removing him from power. I support opening a dialogue with the government of Cuba, in hopes that by doing so we will have a more positive effect on its people and government than our embargo has had.

I support the efforts of the European Union, African Union, and Union of South American Nations to form regional trading blocs. So long as the will of the people is not overridden, greater integration between neighbors can only increase stability and prosperity for all involved. However, I am wary of similar concepts when applied to North America. While the United States and Canada share many cultural similarities, there is a significant divide between the US and Latin America. I believe that we should have a close relationship with Mexico and other countries in the region, but I do not believe deeper integration with them would be beneficial at this time, especially given the ambiguous attitude of the Mexican government regarding violations of US immigration law.

The basic concept of free trade is a good one; allowing for goods in one country to be moved to another country without any government-imposed tariffs can have many advantages. However, it also has many disadvantages, such as the loss of US jobs. I believe that the benefits of free trade can outweigh the disadvantages. However, I do not believe this is invariably the case.

Some advocate free trade worldwide. Others are completely protectionist, believing in free trade with no one. I support a middle path. There are coutries with whom free trade is overall greatly beneficial to both sides; Canada is a good example. On the other hand, Mexico does not have similar labor or environmental standards to the United States, and as such I tend to believe that free trade with Mexico may not be in the United States' best interest.

I strongly oppose free trade with China and similar countries. Our trade decifit with China is unacceptably high, and this combined with the interest on the federal debt paid to Chinese investors is a massive drain on the economy of our country. We should bring the Chinese trade balance back to a sane level by imposing tarrifs on Chinese goods. Prices would increase on many items, but I am convinced that the increase in US manufacturing would more than make up for this.



Another criticism of free trade comes regarding the conditions of manufacturing jobs in developing countries; pay, safety standards and environmental standards may be unacceptably low. "Sweatshop labor" is something all find abhorrent. I am thus an advocate of conditional free trade: if the labor to create a certain product was paid a certain, region-dependent minimum wage, and the production facility meets certain safety and environmental standards, then free trade may be allowable; if those conditions aren't met, we should refuse the import entirely. This would alleviate concerns regarding the working conditions of those that produce the goods we purchase, while preventing domestic manufacturing from being undercut by foreign slave labor.

I am a Christian. As a Christian, I believe that sexual activity outside of its designed boundaries is detrimental to a human being. I believe that sex is intended to both express and build a permanent psychological and spiritual bond between a husband and wife. This bond is created to exist between men and women, as they are uniquely suited to each other. Any other use of sexual activity will either cause harm when that bond is broken, or weaken or warp the bond to the point that it cannot be properly formed. Either harm is caused or a gift is destroyed. Thus I believe that sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong and harmful, including homosexual activities as specifically stated in the Bible.

However, I do not believe that it is correct to attempt to legislate that belief. Even if the Constitution allowed it, my respect for others would not, nor do I perceive such attempts as being beneficial to anyone. I also fail to see why religious concerns about the morality of homosexual activity are relevant to discussions of whether homosexual couples should have the same legal privileges as heterosexual ones. As Christians, our concern for how people live should be far greater than our concern for what people call themselves. And if our concern is simply one of the dilution of language and the misuse of the word "marriage", homosexual couples are not the greatest issue in that regard; many heterosexual marriages are already undertaken and executed with a similar lack of concern for God's will. Given the arguably greater immorality that many married couples engage in while still being legally recognized as married, I see little as being changed in this regard by legally recognizing homosexual couples as well.

So I have no moral objection to government recognition of gay marriage, because morally, that recognition changes nothing. However, I can not make the leap from that to arguing for such recognition. I find it difficult to separate support of legal recognition of gay marriage from support of homosexual lifestyles; while government recognition of gay marriage in itself may be a morally neutral act, actively supporting that recognition may inherently support homosexual lifestyles, which is something I can not do. I am not convinced the two are separable.

Nor do I believe that lack of recognition is a great evil on par with racial or gender inequality. While people may be born with the inclination to be attracted to people of their own gender, their actions in response are still, ultimately and always, conscious decisions. Inequal treatment based on race or gender is unquestionably wrong, but lack of recognition of gay marriage is not analogous due to the conscious choices involved.

A list of the potential extant benefits for married couples can be found here. Unfortunately, several of those items are presently administered by the federal government. This prevents the issue from being placed entirely in the hands of states, or I would advocate that position. At the federal level, since I find no reason to vote against recognition of gay marriages, I would likely vote for it if the situation arose. From a Christian perspective, doing otherwise would serve only to alienate those to whom we are to show love. However, I can not otherwise advocate or prioritize such recognition; one must not accept sin in the process of showing love.

There must be no warrantless or unrecorded wiretapping involving US citizens, ever. I support the American Freedom Agenda Act.

All sessions of congress and congressional committees must be a matter of public record, with very limited exceptions for intelligence briefings.

All federal officials of significant influence should be audited by the IRS every year.

All government accounting books, including the Federal Reserve, should be open to public inspection at all times, with this information published online.

No-bid contracts should be eliminated.

No voting machine should be purchased by any government office that is not fully inspectable, both in hardware design and software source code. There should always be a paper trail, allowing the possibility of a manual recount.

It should be easier to remove an elected official from office who is not performing according to their constituency's satisfaction.

Actions clearly defined as torture should never be performed under any circumstances by any individual in the employ of the federal government, nor should prisoners be turned over to countries where such actions are known to be taken. Individuals who order such actions should be severely punished. We're better than that.

Police use of tasers should be thoroughly examined; police should only be issued tasers that record every use numerically, and possibly with both video and audio.

There are two issues at hand when it comes to gun control: what does the second amendment say? And what should the proper role of government be?

The second amendment states, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Many seem to read only the first half, saying that the law obviously only applies to militias. Frankly, I fail to see why such an odd redefining of the English language has become so prevalent. It doesn't say that if you're part of a militia, you can have a gun; it says that because we need militias, you can have a gun. The first clause does not limit the second. Anything other reading is not English as I understand it.

That said, I recognize that it may be beneficial for a government to be granted the authority to regulate firearms in certain, very limited ways. I strongly believe that no new federal gun control laws should be passsed until an amendment to the US Constitution is ratified, codifying precisely what authority the federal and state governments have to regulate firearms. This amendment must be worded in a completely unambiguous fashion, granting the government very specific and limited authorities, to avoid any future judicial or legislative encroachment on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

I believe there should be background checks before buying any kind of firearm from any source, to prevent convicted violent criminals from obtaining weapons after their release. It makes sense that this should be administrated at a federal level, simply for the sake of efficiency. There should also be mandatory safety training on any firearm purchased, including how to secure the weapon when not in use. This would be better handled at a state level.

I am not a proponent of general firearm registration. However, given that gun registration may arguably bring about some benefit in reduction of crime, it is not unreasonable that mandatory weapon registration should be allowable, if the people of a state want it. I strongly believe that the choice of whether to require weapon registration or not should be a state issue, and absolutely not a federal one.

Some say that crimes committed from hate should be punished more than otherwise, because that hatred is damaging to society. Others say that you can't punish people for how they feel, only for what they do. I tend towards the first opinion. I certainly believe that the motivations of a convicted criminal should be taken into account when determining that criminal's sentence. If a crime is committed out of ignorance or anger or desperation, I would consider that to be cause for a lesser sentence than a crime committed out of hatred or greed or premeditated malice. While all convicted criminals deserve punishment, purposefully malicious people are arguably a greater danger to society than people who simply lose control.

However, I do not believe that longer sentences for those people should be made mandatory by legislation. Judges and juries should have the latitude to apply sentences they see fit, based on the circumstances they observe in a particular case. Many minimum sentences as they exist today do not serve the purpose of justice, as we all saw recently in the case of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean. I believe laws mandating minimum sentences should be thoroughly reviewed and, in many cases, repealed.

Health care in the United States has, in essence, two interrelated problems. One is the high price of health care, and by extension health insurance. The other is the sheer number of uninsured people, by some estimates over 15% of the population. These issues are interrelated: the number of uninsured people drive up overall health care costs, because they still receive some measure of care at no cost to them; and the high and increasing cost of health care drives up the number of people who can not afford health insurance.

Whether it is an appropriate task for government to ensure universal health insurance is a matter reasonable people can debate. However, I strongly believe that an attempt to implement universal health coverage at this time is a terrible error. Even if universal coverage were our ultimate goal, it makes no sense to create such a program at a time of insane deficits and ever-increasing health care costs. Instead, the government should first do what it can to reduce health care costs. Once this is done, more people will be able to afford insurance on their own, and if the country ultimately chooses to enact universal health care, the final taxpayer burden for covering the remaining uninsured would be vastly reduced. Based largely on the McKinsey & Company report, there are four very simple things that could be done to significantly reduce present health care costs, without costing any additional taxpayer money.

1) Physicians are in many cases paid per procedure performed, per referral, or per patient seen. Doctors often also share in the profits of facilities to which they refer their patients. This pay structure inevitably creates a conflict of interest for the doctor. Doctors are forced to choose between providing the best possible care for the patient and making the most possible money. Even if there is no conscious decision on the doctor's part, the conflict still exists. I am an engineer, and I understand the importance of an inviolable ethical code. Professions that put lives at stake every day must always focus on the end goal of keeping people safe, and financial or social pressures to the contrary should be avoided wherever possible. The AMA should require that doctors' be paid on a salaried or hourly basis, and refuse to work under any other pay system. Should the AMA fail to pass such a resolution, individual states should step in and demand that their doctors be paid in accordance with their ethical obligations. The interference of the federal government should be a last resort in this matter, but it should be considered as a possibility should other means fail.

2) Prescription drugs in the United States cost significantly more than their equivalents in other countries. Market forces have no effect on price, because while drugs are protected under patent, the pharmaceutical company who developed the drug has a legal monopoly on its distribution and can therefore charge any price. This needs to change. Developers of new drugs do deserve some measure of exclusive profit to recoup their investments, but the US consumer bears far too high a proportion of this burden. Patent protections for prescription drugs need to have shorter terms, incentives for licensing the drug to competitors, and more difficulty re-patenting what is effectively the same drug. It should also be made easier for consumers to obtain prescription drugs from outside the United States, so that the market force of lower drug prices elsewhere can be brought to bear lowering drug prices here at home. Americans should not be used to subsidize the lower drug prices other countries have negotiated for themselves. And to lower costs to the pharmaceutical companies, advertising of patented prescription drugs to the general public should be disallowed, as part of the terms of the patent; consumers are not in a position to make informed choices about prescription drugs, or they would not require prescriptions. Doctors should decide what medicine is best for their patients without additional pressure.

3) Malpractice concerns drive up health care costs in a number of ways. Most obvious is malpractice insurance, which due to high premiums costs over $20 billion a year, or nearly $30,000 per doctor. These costs could be greatly reduced by tort reform, which would alter the situations under which a patient may sue their doctor. Costs would be reduced further by the subsequent reduction in defensive medicine. There should be a statute of limitations on bringing malpractice suits, forbidding suits more than a few years after an alleged mistake was discovered. There should be limits on non-economic damages, preventing destructively large awards for non-quantifiable losses like pain and suffering. The idea of setting up a system of specialized health courts to hear malpractice cases should be explored. Doctors should not be immune to the consequences of their mistakes, but the cost of doctors' protecting themselves is passed on to all of us, and needs to be reduced.

4) Insurance companies must spend a huge amount of money ensuring compliance with fifty different state regulatory agencies, administrative costs which are passed on to the customers. As authorized by the inter-state commerce clause of the US constitution, a unified federal body to regulate insurance companies which do business in multiple states should be created, eliminating the need for these companies to keep track of dozens of different sets of ever-shifting rules. The general tax burden would not be increased, since the state bureaucrices would all diminish as the federal one came into effect, and overall insurance costs would drop dramatically. This new set of federal regulations should mandate electronic record keeping and claim submission. It should also mandate that all insurance companies publish statistics regarding claims made by their insured. The insurance industry defies market forces in some ways, because unlike most industries, insurance profits from providing bad service. There is no feedback, punishing them for denying valid claims. Making public knowledge how many claims are accepted or denied would be the first step to restoring this market force, as customers would then be able to select companies which are more likely to accept their claims. By my estimate, these changes could lead to over $230 billion in savings, or well over $800 per person. With the possible exception of health courts, none of these ideas cost a dime in new tax money, nor do they unnecessarily give any government deeper control over our lives.

There's still more that can be done. More significant savings can be had by reducing administrative overhead further. I am open to other ideas for reducing this overhead, and other problems associated with health insurance. Powerful lobbies oppose these ideas, especially the pharmaceutical companies. They do not own me, nor will they. If you want a change that benefits you, instead of benefiting corporations, vote for me.

Borders absolutely must be secure, and I support any workable effort towards this end. No alien should be able to get in or out of the country without the government knowing about it, and we must keep consistent track of any persons who are in the country on a temporary basis. If people want to come and live here, a place can be made for them, and restrictions should be relaxed to make immigration reasonably possible for those who wish to come. But they must do it by the rules or not at all.

Illegal immigrants presently in the country must not be granted amnesty, as such an amnesty would only encourage more lawlessness. I am not strongly opposed to the idea of simply deporting any illegal immigrant identified in the United States. However, I beleive that attempting to send them all back to their country of origin is neither beneficial nor realistic. I advocate that all present illegal immigrants should be required to register their presence, pay a fine for breaking immigration law in proportion to their time illegally in the country, pay any unpaid taxes, and then be placed in a queue for legal status.

Any illegal immigrant who has committed a serious crime in the US in addition to their illegal status should be imprisoned, deported, or both, and denied future immigration.

I believe that creating and maintaining the national infrastructure is one fundamental job of the federal government, a job that has been largely ignored in recent decades. Cutting corners cost New Orleans dearly; that should never happen again. Our highways and bridges, the power grid, levies in flood-prone areas, and public transportation programs like Amtrak should all receive sufficient funding to be operated and maintained.

The US military is and must remain the strongest military force on the planet. Future combat systems should continue to be developed to maintain our superiority against all conceivable opponents. Projects that are nearing completion should rarely, if ever, be canceled. I do not support recent plans to cut back on F-22 orders. Weapons and technologies that unpreventably cost civilian lives, such as land mines and fully autonomous armed robots, should be abandoned except in unusual circumstances.

Foreign bases necessary for present and future global operations must be acquired and maintained. Any foreign bases not necessary to this end should be closed; it is not the purpose of the US military to support local economies across the world. Military personnel should be financially supported and kept as safe as reasonably practical, given the mission of the US military.

Present military operations in Afghanistan should have a clear end goal defined before any further commitment of troops. It is impossible to win if winning is undefined.

One side of the minimum wage argument says that we should have a minimum wage, and that that wage should be enough for someone to potentially live on. They argue that otherwise many people would not be paid enough to survive. The other side argues that almost no one actually has to live on minimum wage, and that by having and increasing such a wage the government is driving small businesses over the edge into bankruptcy, and redirecting revenues of larger companies that would otherwise be used to hire more workers.

I don't know which group is right, because there's insufficient information to draw strong conclusions. I'm a scientist, so I suggest we perform an experiment: let the states set their own minimum wage. Each state has different circumstances and a different cost of living, so it makes no sense for all to be bound by a single minimum wage. Given fifty different sets of circumstances we should be able to discern which of the theorized positive and negative effects are actually the case. We should remove the minimum wage from the hands of the federal government, because it never really belonged there in the first place.

Telecom companies hold an effective monopoly on internet access, and in this way are much like many other utility companies. Monopolies always bear watching, as they are not subject to market forces, and are thus particularly open to abuse. A telecom could, for example, filter internet traffic over their segment of the network in order to make a competitor's VoiP services appear to have lower quality than a competing service offered by the telecom. This would constitute an abuse of the telecom's monopoly status. Because of this possible abuse, and the necessity of reliable internet service, I believe that with regard to internet services telecoms should be treated as common carriers. This would require them to treat all customers equally so long as they pay for the same level of service. The quality of the internet connection should never depend on the type of data being carried.

Some people insist that English should be the official language of the United States. I have difficulty with this idea, mainly because I'm not quite clear on what the purpose of an official language is. I believe all federal government business should be done in English by default, making reasonable allowances for translation when necessary. I also believe that all students in the public school system should be required to master English, and I would like to see foreign language training expanded. However, I am not convinced that it's the job of the federal government to mandate either of those things.

Patents, like copyrights, exist to encourage innovation, not stifle it. However, many patents are obtained for no reason other than to prevent innovation by competitors. A patent is developed or obtained, and then put on a shelf, only to be used as a weapon in court in case someone else develops the same thing. Patents should be reformed such that any patent which is not developed within four years is nullified and enters public domain.

The patent office is presently under a heavy backlog. Patent examiners should be paid more, and other issues leading to high turnover rate examined, in order to reduce this backlog. Patent examination is a fundamental government function, and that function should be performed well.

Prescription drug prices are a significant source of the higher price Americans pay for health care when compared to other countries. Prices are higher here in large part because newly developed prescription drugs are protected by patent for the first twenty years of their existence, making their sale a government-created monopoly and removing any effect of market forces on their price. Patent terms on prescription drugs should be shortened, renewal made more expensive, and incentives should be implemented for licensing the drug to competitors.

Nobody likes pollution. The only question anyone has is whether a clean environment is worth the price. Everyone draws that line in a different place. I see no obvious reason the federal government should be involved in drawing one line for everyone in all situations. The care of American waterways is a reasonable task of the federal government, as it is effectively impossible for water pollution to be contained to a small area. However, air pollution is a different issue.

I would advocate the removal of air pollution standards from the federal government's hands, placing that issue back with the states where it belongs. Exceptions would be made for facilities within a certain distance of state borders: where emissions would affect more than one state, the state with stricter emissions standards would dominate, regardless of where the facility is actually situated. This distance would obviously depend on the installation in question. It may be reasonable to leave enforcement of these emissions standards at a federal level; either way, enforcement agencies must be funded and staffed such that they are capable of reasonably executing their duties. I would propose a constitutional amendment expressly codifying the federal government's authority for such an enforcement agency.

There are two major sources of pollution can definitely be replaced by superior technologies, and I'd like to see those new technologies further developed and implemented. First, I am a firm advocate of alternative fuel technology, whether fuel cell, biodiesel (particularly algae-based), ethanol, or electric vehicles. However, I do not support projects that have no potential to be a positive net environmental improvement. The energy balance of ethanol in particular has been a target of significant criticism in this regard. More research is required before I can determine whether to support ethanol as a clean fuel.

Second is coal plants. Over a period of the next several decades, I want to see existing coal plants replaced with cleaner sources of grid power as they reach end-of-life. I see no reason to ever build another standard coal plant in this country again; we have better options. This would allow a smooth transition away from heavily polluting technologies while giving the economies of coal-producing states sufficient time to adapt. Clean coal technology, while not presently ready for large-scale implementation, is also of great future interest.

I am an advocate of hydroelectric, photovoltaic solar, and wind generation as a supplement to our power needs, but the entire grid can never be based on weather-dependent sources. Modern nuclear plants, while certainly not perfect, are by far the safest and cleanest weather-independent generation technology available today. Large-scale solar thermal installations are also of interest, as they are a proven technology, far less weather dependent than photovoltaics, and have an even smaller ecological impact. I will support any measure that I believe will advance these goals.

Any pollution on government-owned lands or from government activity should be greatly reduced or eliminated. It is unacceptable for the government to not exceed the standards it imposes on industry.

The US prison population is growing to unacceptably large levels. Right now, over two million people are imprisoned in the United States, half for non-violent offenses, and every additional prisoner costs taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars every year. Tens of billions of dollars are spent housing criminals that are not direct threats to those around them. That money that could be better spent elsewhere. Prisoners convicted of violent offenses should certainly be kept away from the law-abiding population, but those who are convicted of non-violent offenses such as theft and most drug-related crimes are a different issue.

Non-violent offenders should not, as a general rule, be incarcerated in the same facilities as violent offenders. They should instead be put on strict forms of probation or parole. This would both save tax money and eliminate the severe overcrowding seen in many prisons. The activities of parolees should be strictly monitored for the period of their sentence, with rehabilitation provided as necessary, but imprisoning non-violent offenders is a severe and expensive overreaction to their crime.

The length and strictness of probation should be partially dependent on the offender's actions, as well. Bad behavior should lead to longer and stricter sentences, while good behavior should lead to more freedom. Definitions of good and bad behavior should also be dependent on the nature of the original crime; an executive convicted of embezzling, for example, would receive good behavior credit for helping make restitution to those they stole from. This would help turn a large class of convicts from a drain on society into potentially productive people. Similar systems should be applied to prisoners housing violent offenders.

I strongly support advances in space travel and aerospace research. I believe that the commercialization of spaceflight is a very important step, and that NASA should focus on things that cannot effectively be done by the private sector. However, there are many things that cannot yet be effectively achieved by the private sector. I strongly advocate a program to map the sky and identify all objects that threaten to impact Earth, and to develop technologies to help avert such impacts. I also advocate research into novel launch mechanisms, such as launch loops, which could help make commercial spaceflight a much more feasible concept.

I have not necessarily agreed with NASA's approaches to various issues, and believe that many things should have been done differently. Politics and budgetary constraints have cost the space program much progress. I believe that any endeavor into manned spaceflight should have a clearly defined and preferably short list of requirements, and that these requirements should always be met in the way most technically feasible. The Space Shuttle's design was ditcated by political interference. The ISS's orbit was chosen because it made Russia's participation easier, turning the most expensive science project in history into a nice symbol instead of an important waystation for future missions. In short, I want engineering decisions to be made by engineers, not politicians.

I want to throw out the entire federal tax code and replace it. There is no reason for it to be as complex as it is, except to allow people to avoid paying what they would otherwise pay. All loopholes should be closed, everywhere.

I am flexible as to what form the tax system should take. I do not believe there is any such thing as a "correct" or "fair" way to tax. Charging everyone the same percentage of their income, the same dollar amount, or the same percentage of their expenditure have all been proposed as being more "fair" than the present progressive income tax. None of these are inherently more "fair". In taxation there is no fair. There is simply what works.

Taxes are inherently damaging to the people being taxed. A progressive income tax directs that damage to those best able to take it. It is the only method of taxation I've ever seen proposed that can support present levels of federal spending without severe adverse affects for taxpayers dependent on their immediate income for survival. No, it's not fair. Neither is anything else. A progressive income tax is just the least bad. If anyone has another suggestion that does less overall damage, I'm all for it.

I am interested in the potential use of the tax code to more smoothly regulate monopolistic tendencies. As things stand, when a company approaches monopoly status, the government suddenly begins to regulate it. It would be more beneficial to the free market if companies were taxed more heavily the closer they came to being a monopoly. Companies would find that they profit more by having competition than by destroying or assimilating that competition, just as we consumers profit from competition between suppliers. Government interference in the market would be reduced, companies that are "too large to fail" would naturally devolve into smaller competing companies, and the consumer would benefit from greater competition.

Legal concerns are crippling several segments of American society. I support the efforts of the Common Good organization to reform the American justice system such that red tape and the fear of being sued will cease to prevent teachers, doctors, and parents from doing their jobs.

I believe that the increasing number of medical malpractice suits are a burden on both our legal and medical systems which cannot be indefinitely sustained. I advocate placing stricter limits on the statute of limitations regarding medical malpractice suits, and I am interested in exploring the establishment of a system of medical malpractice courts specially suited for hearing such cases. I am open to other options or proposals to help address this problem.

Programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid suffer from a fundamental problem: scarcity of resources. Short of some fundamental change in the world, there will never be sufficient resources to keep everyone healthy and well-fed all the time. The question is, then, one of priorities, and we as a society must ask, where do we draw the line? When should our tax money be spent to help care for people, and when should it not? Should we, as a society, expend resources on keeping a hypothetical 115 year old man with prostate cancer alive a few more months? How about a 100 year old? 80? 60? Yes, it's an inhuman question. But so long as resources are finite, it's a question that must be answered. Social Security and Medicare will soon overwhelm the federal budget because there simply isn't enough money to take care of everyone; benefits will go down or taxes will go up, and probably both.

This cannot go on. I'm not saying I have the answer. I'm saying that so long as we avoid the question, we will continue on the way to destruction. Selecting a particular group and guaranteeing a particular level of benefits to them for all time is simply untenable. Personally, I do not believe it is the job of the federal government to provide aid; that is better done at a state, local, or private level. However, if federal government involvement is inevitable, as it presently seems, it must be handled in a sane fashion. I believe that the most reasonable course is to prioritize groups that will receive aid, including the young, poor and elderly, and define how much aid they receive as a proportion of GDP or overall tax revenues. I am open to other ideas. My main point, however, is that the question must be asked. We must have this conversation, unpleasant as it is. If we fail to, if we leave our heads in the sand, if we leave things as they are, we risk total financial collapse.

The same principles apply to universal healthcare. Drawing a line regarding the care of those who can not otherwise afford such care is unpleasant, but necessary. The government taking over healthcare would unnecessarily force that line to be drawn for everyone, everywhere. This would help no one; it would merely guarantee equally bad treatment for all.