MARYOTT: MAKING GOVERNMENT BIGGER IS A BAD IDEA
Q: What will be your top domestic and international priority in Congress?
A: There are 118 members of Congress, including my opponent, who back a proposal which forces every American family off of their current health care system and onto a government-run system. Current benefits made available under Medicare will be terminated, as will benefits available through Tricare. They will be replaced by a one-size-fits-all government plan. Our health care system would never recover. The good news is there is great opportunity to build on our current system. We can restore a more robust and competitive private insurance market, take good care of those who are physically or financially vulnerable, and inspire remarkable medical advances for generations to come. All while bringing prices down — way down. And yes, we absolutely can do this without jeopardizing care for anyone with pre-existing conditions. For our veterans, we must build on the Mission Act, and I won’t rest until every veteran has the same health care choices as Rep. Mike Levin and I have in our health care plans.On the global stage, I want to work for and support a foreign policy that is bold and decisive, and also strengthens our diplomatic leadership around the world. I believe it is critical that the U.S. continues to inspire other nations and that we remain the world’s pre-eminent military and economic superpower. I am hopeful however, that we can do so without requiring anything like the overwhelming level of troop deployment we have had to support for roughly two decades now. To that end, we can and should prioritize the spending necessary to retain technological superiority in warfare weaponry.
Q: Has the pandemic changed your approach to health care? If so, how?
A: The coronavirus pandemic has reminded me how woefully unprepared the government can be when asked to tackle a national problem. The private sector is the only reason we are able to acquire a sufficient amount of personal protective equipment (PPE), quickly develop effective therapeutics and track spread and outbreaks with innovative technology. This evidence further strengthens the case against the government-run health care plan that my opponent has proposed. We have a worldclass health care system that continues to make remarkable strides in battling the deadliest health threats known to mankind. Take away any incentive to further innovate and develop in the market, and we’ll quickly lose not only our edge in the industry, but also American lives.
Q: What more could Congress do to combat climate change?
A: We should provide research and development credits to explore newer technologies that can further lower greenhouse gas emissions and also re-capture emissions. I oppose nationalizing the energy sector and the efforts to destroy our newly achieved energy independence. I will continue to oppose any additional efforts to increase offshore drilling on the coast of Southern California. I believe we should instruct the Department of Energy’s national labs to research better and cheaper recycling technologies but resist efforts to push punishing mandates on lower income families, for whom energy is typically their second highest non-discretionary expense. Finally, I will stand against efforts to ask the United States to take drastic measures that will bankrupt employers and families.
Q: What changes would you make to U.S. immigration policy?
A: The issue of immigration presents a great opportunity for compromise and bipartisan collaboration. Good-faith actors can admit that our current system has some gaping weaknesses. An appropriate analogy for our current immigration system is to compare it to a boat. This boat has holes and is slowly taking on water. If nothing is done to address the holes, it will surely sink. Our immigration system is similar in that we cannot accomplish effective reform without first securing our southern border. I refuse to sit by and accept the heartbreak and pain that the flow of drugs, illegal contraband and human trafficking has caused in our country. As congressman, I will work to smartly secure our border before making reforms that will allow for a more efficient and predictable legal immigration system including increasing the number of immigration judges, replacing the lottery system with one that prioritizes the needs of our labor market, and curtailing any loopholes that allow criminals to enter our country repeatedly.
Q: How would you address the massive national debt hanging over America’s future?
A: To even begin to address the national debt, we must first admit that this debt presents a real challenge to our future generations. My generation could kick the can down the road without repercussion, as could my children’s generation. It is irresponsible for our leaders in Washington to continue to ignore the problem and in fact, compound it. When it comes to federal spending, my opponent is one of the most dangerous politicians in the country. For starters, Levin argues against the 2017 tax reform that simplified our tax structure and saved the average American family thousands. To make matters worse, Levin actively advocates for wildly reckless, biggovernment spending programs like the aforementioned government-run health care plan and the Green New Deal. The price tag on these programs? Somewhere in the tens of trillions. The truth is, no one really knows just how much it will cost until it is implemented and the government smashes even the highest estimations, as they are prone to do. That’s what happens when you give the federal government more control: things get more complicated, more expensive and less effective. As congressman, I will oppose these big government plans and work to cut wasteful spending whenever possible. As a certified financial planner, I spent most of my career helping families and businesses save money and plan for the future. I think Congress could use a heavy dose of financial planning as well.
Q: Why should voters choose you over your opponent in this election?
A: If you don’t like what you are seeing from the most progressive wing of the Democratic Party — efforts to defund law enforcement and ICE, dismantle the electoral college and hand the keys of our energy, banking, housing and health care industries over to the federal government — I am your candidate. My opponent Levin is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the caucus responsible for the most extreme legislation proposed in the House. Mike Levin has co-sponsored the Green New Deal, government-run health care and taxpayerfunded elections. He voted to strip our law enforcement officers of qualified immunity, which he enjoys as a public servant. His proudest moments as a politician tell a clear story — standing behind Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, as she argued for the economic destruction of the Green New Deal, gleefully impeaching President Donald Trump with Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, and receiving the endorsement of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, for his radical ideas. Mike Levin is an extreme ideologue who is more worried about his celebrity status than the efficacy of his legislation. This is a smart district that cares about important issues like the environment, our military, our health care system, and the health of our economy; I will never become a Congress member who votes by party lines on these issues. Instead, I will support ideas and plans that have bipartisan support and make an immediate positive impact.