Mike Beltran

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

It should not be allowed.

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

Entitlement programs should be strictly limited to the genuinely infirm and disabled, should be carefully limited and audited, and should not be for "working families," or anybody else who is able bodied and competent. Under no circumstance should there be "more" taxes.

Strongly Agree

1) Limit Congress to its enumerated Article I, Section 8 powers 2) Limit entitlement programs to US Citizens who are truly needy and infirm and create no new programs whatsoever 3) Ensure allies bear the cost of their defense and limit unnecessary foreign entanglement 4) Perform no function that can be better provided by nonprofits or the private sector/market 5) Federal spending must benefit the entire country, not individual districts. (Interstates or military bases but not local projects.)

Strongly Disagree

There is no state religion and government must respect freedom of worship. Every citizen should carefully review the text of the First Amendment. The phrase "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution. However, many people are confused and think government must be antagonistic to religion or that voters or legislators may not use their religious values to inform public policy. The founders protected and invoked religion but did not regulate or establish it.

My answer is between C and D. I would look for cost saving reforms to Medicaid and Medicare but I would not be comfortable abolishing them entirely and immediately because Medicare has been paid for by retirees and there may be some truly needy persons who need Medicaid. Both programs, however, are maladministered and abused and significant efforts are needed to control costs.

Strongly Disagree

I do not know what level of "government" would keep a database, how "mental illness" would be defined, or whose "economic burden" they would purport to measure. This sounds like a new government program, which I would reflexively oppose in any event. Further, the program, as described, has no privacy protections and is prone to some very obvious abuses. The purported benefit of "assessing the economic burden of treatment" would likely not justify its cost, let alone other drawbacks.

Somewhere between C and D. Preferably, we would avoid conflict entirely, but we should obviously act if we are in imminent danger. Protecting ourselves if we are in imminent danger does not seem to be inconsistent with "staying out of FOREIGN" conflicts because any conflict presenting imminent dangers, is not purely foreign to us. This said, we subsidize our allies entirely too much and our activist foreign policy has needlessly antagonized others and led to further conflicts.

Strongly Agree

The relationship is important and I am gratified that, in some cases, Israel has acted when the United States was not ready, willing, or able to get engaged (bombing Iraq in the 1980s, getting the ball rolling bombing Iran more recently, and terrorists in general). This said, we must ensure that each country bear its own costs of defense and avoid foreign entanglements and conflicts whenever possible.

Strongly Agree

Only persons who are ready, willing, and able to both abide by the law and contribute to the economy. Persons who have assisted military or intelligence efforts abroad are sometimes admitted as well, but this largely arises from an unnecessarily activist foreign policy, which was previously addressed. Along these lines, we could also admit persons who can assist our military or scientific efforts (e.g. Operation Paperclip when European scientists were brought to assist with the Space Program.)

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Education is not within Congress' enumerated Article 1, Section 8 powers.

Strongly Agree

Such funds only allow for infiltration and come with strings attached.

Strongly Agree

Such efforts should never be directed at children, and nobody should "attempt" to transition somebody else or persuade them to be transitioned.

Strongly Agree

I believe that Government is too entangled in such matters. The "marriage penalty" should be eliminated from the tax code and government should strictly limit its involvement with family affairs.

I am a Christian and I believe that we are all God's children and must be treated accordingly. I believe in personal accountability and limited government. Most efforts should be done in the private, nonprofit, or faith-based sectors and government should be limited. I am 100% pro-life and pro-family and would always protect free exercise of religion.

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

I do not believe we should rely on one energy source. Fossil fuels are traditionally the most reliable and inexpensive, but we should seek efficiency and avoid reliance on foreign supplies. Renewable energy should be developed without subsidies.

No

No

Very Conservative

Strongly Agree

Felons are not allowed to own guns. Items like nuclear bombs, antiaircraft missiles, and fully automatic weapons are not in common use by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes and, according to Justice Scalia, can be regulated as Congress sees fit. Many other regulations are counterproductive, unconstitutional, or unadministrable.