Mike Kolls

Agree

The federal gov't should NOT take action on social issues. Social issues are best addressed by the people directly involved.

Disagree

The federal gov't should NOT take action on social issues. Social issues are best addressed by the people directly involved.

Abortion is a matter of personal conscience. Abortion is NOT a decision to be made casually, nor without considering the conceived child. If asked, I would counsel a young woman to consider adoption … and yet, … respect her decision.

Strongly Disagree

Laws must apply equally to all citizens and residents. The law should NOT favor/advance a group at the expense of another group. The US Dream is belief that hard work (and good fortune) provide life's needs and wants. Most citizens can improve their life by increasing their effort as a worker.

Strongly Agree

This is the first of three long term strategies I hope to accomplish as a Representative. I also desire to return us to constitutional governance and accomplish some real legal reform.

Ideally, federal taxes should be apportioned amongst the sovereign states - repeal Amendment XVI. This would reinstate the influence of the sovereign states upon the federal gov't. This would also greatly reduced the complexity and cost of collecting federal revenue - we could close the Internal Revenue Service and have only sovereign states contribute to federal receipts.

Agree

Amendment I is still the law of the land. Our ability to choose our religious practice (including Atheism) is central to freedom in the United States. We have a good history of religious tolerance. Other nations cannot make that claim.

Strongly Disagree

Private enterprises take on risks to provide a good or service to individuals in The Market. Decisions on how to conduct a business differentiates a business. Policies may attract or repel customers ... part of the business risk. Privately owned businesses must be able to operate per the dictates of the owners. On the other hand, gov't services are a public accommodation and must provide its service to all citizens and residents. Gov't cannot exercise personal convictions.

Church and state are partners. Religious institutions guide citizens along ethical lines. Most religions are charitable and provide help to the poor, unlucky, and unfortunate in society. Religious institutions instill social values in its members that seek safety and public tranquility. Govt's primary responsibility it to provide safety for citizens to pursue their dreams. Gov't punishes the antisocial and encourages peace and cooperation. The gov't should provide ample peace for individuals to worship as they please. Please review my comments on religious liberty.

"My body, my choice" (body autonomy) also applies to vaccinations. Each responsible adult will make the best decision concerning his/her own body and for dependent family members. This puts a responsibility on healthcare providers (as is their job) to share relevant information about health threats. Those who have a primary care physician have this resource. That leaves municipal gov't and charity to develop basic healthcare for the poor and unlucky. I heartily encourage larger hospital systems to serve their communities via a Public Health department. My current employer has started this type of effort. Public schools, a public accommodation, must accept all students - even unvaccinated students.

D is the closest option, but NOT really that close. Healthcare is a service competing with other commodities and services in The Market. Currently, healthcare is overly expensive. This is mostly due to gov't injection Into healthcare. The (hopefully) well-meant rules, regulations, accreditations, and standards all impose costs to medical providers. Gov't price fixing for both Medicare and Medicaid also cause pricing disruptions. These programs, that underpay providers, cause some providers to NOT participate. This artificially reduces the number of providers. With a lower supply of health providers, costs tend up (even with gov't "fixed" prices). I offer an unlikely step to reduce healthcare costs - end the practice of NOT taxing fringe benefits. As most citizens obtain health insurance via their employer ... as an untaxed fringe benefit. Decoupling health insurance and employers would increase individual wages. A tax rate offset (a lower federal income tax rate!) would have to accompany the taxing of fringe benefits to NOT negatively affect workers. This is further explained on my campaign website at http://kollsforcongress.org/Healthcare.html.

D is the closest option. A nation is, in part, defined by its borders and its ability to defend those borders. A "nation" that does NOT defend its border is NOT really a nation. The United States does NOT want another nation involved in the governance of the United States. Likewise, other nations do NOT want US interference in its domestic affairs. The peace amongst nations is best served via diplomacy. Aggression and war never resolve conflict; they just build resentment and anger over centuries. IMHO, if we pursue becoming the world's peacemaker (via diplomacy without military action/assets) we can enhance our own national security. Please see my campaign webpage - http://kollsforcongress.org/Ukraine.html#Diplomacy.

Neutral

Foreign affairs is the charge of the Senate, NOT the House of Represntatives. The Senate is better equipped to address international convulstions. My tendency is to NOT fund aggression, nor colonial actions. Please see my prior answer that includes our pursuit of being an International peace agent.

Agree

With our current adversarial posturing China and most other nations are a threat. Yet, this assessment belongs to the Senate. Please reference my prior answer.

Trade partners are less likely to shoot each other. Pursuing fair, unilateral trade agreements would advance peace. Continued military aggression cannot advance peace. For example, we could offer Middle Eastern nations civil planning and construction services for the OIL we want. We cannot forget the costly mistake of Afghanistan.

Agree

I do NOT think a border wall is effective. I favor sovereign states having a say in who enters their state. Some states want immigrants others do NOT; "let" each state decide. Texas Governor Abbott's bussing of immigrants to New York and DC shows the real impacts of an unexpected and unwanted surge of immigrants. Interior states interested in immigrants can work with border states to transport new arrivals to the interior state.

Agree

I favor NO federal subsidies to the sovereign states. If a state wants a certain policy it must raise the funds to enact the policy. The federal taxpayers in the other 49 state must NOT fund one state's desires. The sovereign states should be the final authority for all social issues.

As long as new arrivals receive NO federal assistance anybody reaching our border is welcome to pursue the US Dream. Current citizens and residents pursuing their US Dream must NOT be forced to subsidize a new arrival's pursuit of the US Dream. Please review my thoughts on proper sponsors of new arrivals at http://kollsforcongress.org/Border.html.

Strongly Disagree

I strongly disagree only because a protected class will exclude someone else. Our laws must apply to everyone, NOT just a selected group(s). If laws are written where everybody is protected then I can support that law.

Disagree

CRT is one of many competing visions of society. In a school setting, a local school board can decide to adopt CRT or to NOT adopt CRT. As to "race" I believe the US is color blind. With this understanding, is it impossible to hate someone of a "different" race - there is just the Human Race.

I am a Christian. I try to love God and love my neighbor. Faith can improve society when we act to help others. These good intentions are an individual choice; they cannot be forced upon someone. I have been blessed. I can be a blessing to someone else,

Disagree

It is reasonable to prove who you are to exercise the great privilege of voting. Anecdotally, a friend of mine was denied his right to vote because someone else used his name.

Voting for federal offices is done by citizens of the various sovereign states. Each state should control how its Representatives are selected. For the presidency, each state should be able to determine how it pledges its apportioned Electors. Each state can effectively oversee these processes. There is NO need for federal "oversight". Besides, Shelby County v Holder (2013) has given this authority to the sovereign states.

Disagree

Based on skin color? My family did NOT arrive in the US until 1900. There were Confederate States citizens that did NOT own slaves. There were northern citizens who did NOT own slaves. Based just on skin color these citizens without slaves would pay reparations? I do NOT see how any reparations scheme would work.

I see our division along economic or class lines. There are the "Haves" and the "Have NOTs". The Have NOTs seem to be stuck in urban centers. I do think that local gov't (of these large cities) are best situated to address this poverty. I do NOT see federal subsidies to these larger cities. Can people who have started in poverty and done well be involved in helping other struggling citizens out of poverty? Can their stories of success inform large cities to address the people in poverty?

Agree

The US needs affordable energy. Prior to 2021 we were a net exporter of energy. The current administration has changed direction and stopped energy producers. We should lift the moratoriums and re-issue drilling permits to produce more energy. It would be ideal to eliminate the need for foreign oil. We do NOT need to provide energy to the world.

I think is time to have a market-led referendum on climate. I encourage companies that advocate climate-friendly practices to do them. The company can market their product and their climate measures taken. Will consumers buy products from climate responsible companies or merely seek the best price for products? I am exceeding interested in this market exercise. Before this experiment is run ... I tend to think A is more true. Rules and regulations issued by Executive agencies often impose hefty expenses on businesses. The cure cannot be worse than the illness.

Choose not to answer

I am socially liberal, to the left of most Ds. I am financially conservative, to the right of all Rs. This best-of-both-worlds strategy empowers We The People and limits gov't. I enthusiastically advocate Classical Liberalism and identify as a Goldwater Republican (I do NOT embrace containment or military adventurism).

My campaign website (hopefully) details Classical Liberalism. My contacts with the media are shared on http://kollsforcongress.org/Media.html

I have NOT.

Congress has some systemic problems. They are the focus of my campaign and call for action. These items will require prolonged action across multiple congresses. The damage is deep. First, the federal debt has to paid. Second, we must operate within the Constitution (honor the separation of power). And third, we must do some real legal reform. These three items are featured on my website - http://kollsforcongress.org.

Neutral

Law enforcement is a local issue. City leaders and citizens must decide what police presence and tactics are appropriate for their city. Each city has unique situations to address. A federal one-size-fits-all "solution" would insult most cities. On the other hand, if a large city has a successful strategy it can share its success with other large cities. I see each city finding a solution different than the solution for a similar city. Local control.

Neutral

Local control. Please review my previous answer.

The vast majority of gun owners are responsible; they practice proper gun safety voluntarily. The few irresponsible gun owners will NOT comply with existing or new laws. If aggravated assaults are prosecuted and harsh penalties are rendered there will be a general deterrent. "shall NOT be infringed" is still the law of the land. Placing restrictions on the 99.9% responsible gun owners will achieve nothing; they are NOT the problem.

Strongly Disagree

Every single time a person willfully pulled the trigger. That person alone is responsible and no one else.