[CUGreens] Response to College Democrats Column in the Daily

[Forthofer2000@aol.com]

Dear friends,

Last week, there were two columns in the Colorado Daily - one by CU Dems and 
one by CU Greens.  Andrew Trexler - thanks for a great job!  FYI, we have 
submitted a letter responding to the Dems, but it has not appeared yet.

Some are concerned about the charges in the column and have asked for a 
clarification of my positions.   

According to the column by CU Dems, my responses to Project Vote Smart were 
disappointing in that I didn't support the following:
---  an increase in AIDS funding
---  an increase in funding for the arts
---  a tax incentive for higher education
---  an increase in funding for computers and computer training in public 
schools
---  an increase in the penalty for possession of illegal guns.
To see my specific responses to these concerns, you can jump down to the 
section set off by a double line (======).

The following material provides background that you may find useful.

First and foremost, I encourage everyone to study the entire set of 200+ NPAT 
questions and answers for all four candidates in the congressional race.  
[The Vote Smart website (www.vote-smart.org) has the entire set of 
responses.]  

Like most of the surveys that I've have been asked to complete, the NPAT 
questions tend to be polarized.  It's usually pretty obvious what the 'right' 
answers would be based on a given definition of the political spectrum and 
the hot-button issues.  A politician would answer accordingly, but I'm not a 
politician!  My responses are based on principle, not pandering.

Also, note that the instructions for this 'test' clearly state:
"The National Political Awareness Test (NPAT) asks candidates which items 
they will support if elected. It does not ask them to indicate which items 
they will oppose. If a candidate does not select a response to any part or 
all of any question, it does not necessarily indicate that the candidate is 
opposed to that particular item."

By not checking the items raised by the CU Dems, I was NOT indicating that I 
would vote against such legislation.  In some cases, I felt it was 
inappropriate to talk about (let alone commit support for) increased funding 
outside the context of an overall budget reallocation.  Also, instead of 
supporting individual line items out of context, I often used the 'other' 
category to clarify my position and/or to specify exactly what I would 
support, eg 'minor' things like
---  government has no business practicing medicine (abortion category) 
---  elimination of corporate welfare (budgetary priorities category)
---  greatly increased funding for unarmed peacekeepers (defense budget 
category)
---  high priority for using surplus for environmental cleanup (budget surplus 
category)
---  greatly increased taxes on family incomes over $250,000 (income taxes 
category)
---  tax on pollution (other taxes category)
---  greatly simplified yet still progressive tax code (taxes category)
---  free public education, day care through college or trade school 
(education category)
---  contracts not to be awarded to corporations who have defrauded the 
government (employment and affirmative action category)
---  adoption by federal agencies of the precautionary principle - when in 
doubt, don't for all products/processes (environment category)
---  banning the sale or transfer of automatic or semi-automatic weapons (gun 
category)
---  universal health care through the single-payer system (health category)
---  repeal of the 1996 immigration act (immigration category)
---  elimination of military aid (international aid category)
---  evenhanded US role in peace negotiations (international policy category)
---  establishment of unarmed peacekeepers under the authority of the U.N. 
General Assembly (international policy category)

I was the only candidate in the race to list specific remedies for declining 
moral and ethical values:
---  institute public funding of campaigns and end "legalized bribery" of 
officials
---  reduce corporate influence over our lives and our children
---  provide living wages and benefit to all workers, allowing people to spend 
more time with their children to foster family and community values

I was the only candidate in the race to say NO to NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and fast 
track!  In contrast, Udall supported NAFTA, GATT and WTO and was 'undecided' 
on fast track.  Cox and Baker supported all four.

I listed my legislative priorities and how I would pay for them as follows:
---  eliminate corporate welfare and reduce weapons spending; 
---  confront global warming using existing technology; 
---  enact single-payer universal health care; 
---  institute real campaign finance reform via public funding and free media 
access; 
---  require federal agencies to adopt the precautionary principle - when in 
doubt don't; 
---  preserve and expand Social Security by lifting the cap
Reallocation of almost $200 billion in annual federal corporate welfare 
should cover it!    

In general, I look at the big picture and try to 
(1)     emphasize prevention of problems and conflicts
(2) when problems do occur, address their root cause(s) rather than opting 
for band-aid 'solutions' that aren't really solutions at all!

=========================================================

Re the AIDS issue - On the line immediately following the question on AIDS, I 
called for universal health care based on the single-payer model which 
stresses prevention as well as comprehensive care.  People are not excluded 
from getting insurance because of pre-existing conditions.  Drugs are more 
affordable because the government has the power to negotiate reduced rates 
from the pharmaceutical companies.  Health education and prevention are 
stressed under this approach.  I think people suffering from AIDS and all 
other diseases will benefit far more from universal health care than almost 
any other program.

Re the tax incentive for higher education - on the line immediately following 
the tax incentive issue, I called for publicly funded education from child 
care through the university level, including publicly funding for trade 
school education.  I think this is a far better approach for dealing with 
education than tax incentives.  In particular, the poor who have the greatest 
need are unlikely to benefit from tax incentives.

Re the computer in public schools - I again took the big picture perspective. 
 In my opinion, we are substituting technology for learning.  I don't think 
there is evidence demonstrating that the huge investments we have made in 
computers in the school systems during the last 30 years have paid off.  In a 
time when there are too few resources being put into our educational system, 
I choose to spend more for teachers than computers.  I think we need to pay 
our public school teachers higher salaries.  We also need to give them 
flexibility in teaching.  I agree we need to teach students how to use 
computers, but encouraging thinking plus teaching reading, writing and math 
and science skills are more important.  In addition, the arts and manual 
skills should not be ignored for those interested in them.  I would have 
included this comment on the form, except I had already called for publicly 
funded education in the only 'other' response available in this section.

Re the gun penalty issue - Do we know that there is a need for increasing 
penalties?  Will that make a difference?  I checked the following:
---  maintain and strengthen the enforcement of existing federal restrictions 
on the purchase and possession of guns
---  require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks on guns
---  require background checks of gun buyers at gun shows
---  ban the sale or transfer of semi-automatic weapons (no exceptions)

Again, I am taking the big picture perspective.  If our goal is to reduce gun 
violence in society, how do we do that?  One thing is to enforce existing gun 
laws and to add laws to close loopholes.  Another thing is to end the war on 
drugs, a primary source of violence.  Pay a living wage to allow more time 
for parents and children to be together.  Provide publicly funded child care 
to ensure children have a safe place after school if parents are not at home. 
 These were all responses that relate to gun violence that I provided in 
other sections of the survey.

Re the arts funding - There were 14 items to consider for funding and the 
choices were increase, keep the same, decrease or eliminate.  Unlike Udall's 
response which had no decreases - everything was an increase or remaining the 
same - I called for decreasing four areas of the budget in addition to 
eliminating one whole area.  I took this section seriously whereas it appears 
Udall didn't.  I also kept two areas the same - the arts and medical 
research.  I called for increases in funding in agriculture, international 
aid, scientific research and greatly increased funding in welfare, education, 
environmental, and national parks.  Udall called for a slight increase in the 
arts whereas I kept its funding the same.  In the big picture, I am 
comfortable with my position.  My budget will reallocate federal spending 
whereas Udall's budget must result in a huge increase in federal spending.

I encourage you to look at the survey yourself - don't allow some biased 
folks who have taken things out of context win.  Look at my responses and 
compare them to the other candidates.  You will see huge differences that I 
know you will support.  Again, the website is www.vote-smart.org.

I hope this helps.  If you still have concerns, let me know.  Thanks for all 
your great work!

Ron
--
# To unsubscribe, send a message to cugreens-request@flwyd.dhs.org with the
# word unsubscribe in the body.  For assistance, mail tstone@flwyd.dhs.org