Chris Putnam

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

I support the Heartbeat Protection Act of 2019 (HR490) and will be a vocal advocate for this bill.

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

First, everyone is entitled to what they paid in period. Additionally, no one that is receiving benefits today should be asked to take a reduction of any kind. That said, we have to address the solvency issue before it's a full blown crisis and end the Ponzi scheme that's been created. The career politicians have already proven they don't have the interest or expertise to address the issue. Like I did in local office I will utilize my business background to unwind the Ponzi scheme and develop an equitable approach to addressing the solvency issue. That starts by trying to identify the waste in the system by addressing bureaucratic bloat and system fraud. In other words, before we start talking about cutting anything or delaying benefits let's first look at the expense side of the equation and reducing the cost of delivering the program. Like all government programs there is a ton of opportunity to deliver them more efficiently.

I will evaluate any & every opportunity to reduce federal spending. Like I did at the local level I will take a zero-based approach and ask if a program requires more, less or the same level of investment or should be eliminated altogether. I will not vote for a single federal budget that doesn't include real spending cuts. We need to radically reduce the size, scope & influence of the fed government and it will take a hard core reform effort, political will and non-career politicians to do it

none

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

Yes

First, this language doesn't exist anywhere in the Constitution. It was an attempt at paraphrasing a statement by Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. The Founding Fathers guaranteed religious freedom for all of us, not just Christians, by ensuring the prevention of a national church. That does not mean we are in any way prevented from legislating based on the Judeo-Christian values and principals in which our Constitution and society are grounded.

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Disagree

It's not the federal government's responsibility to provide health insurance. It should be addressed almost exclusively by the free market. There might be some role for the government in assisting individuals who have pre-existing conditions with tax credits or another vehicle to help manage higher premiums. However, as we've now seen clearly with Obamacare government has simply made the cost of health care coverage more expensive. The legislative focus to reduce the cost of healthcare should be in addressing prescription drug prices, and removing as much wasteful regulation/reporting as possible on health care providers. We also need to illegal immigration on this front because taxpayers are bearing an extraordinary financial burden to provide free healthcare to illegal immigrants that dramatically increases the costs for our own legal citizens.

Strongly Agree

Whatever it takes and we should be proactive addressing militarily whenever and wherever a legitimate threat is identified. I support President Trump's aggressive efforts on this front with Al Queda, as well as pressuring Iran on nuclear containment with tough sanctions and our commitment to defend Israel.

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

The United States has a long and proud history of legal immigration. We are the single most egalitarian society on the planet and have led on this front for three centuries now. It's a legacy that has defined us, grounded on the notion of people desiring to escape oppressive governments to experience true liberty and freedom. It's important to continue that tradition while absolutely rejecting the false democrat conflation of restricting immigration with racism which is political garbage. That said, we do need to carefully manage legal immigration and not use it as a tool for large corporations to import cheap labor at the expense of our own citizens and they paychecks. Additionally, we should promote the idea of American exceptionalism to new immigrants and strongly encourage assimilation. That means requiring immigrants to have a clear understanding of our history, the Constitution and speaking English.

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

I am a lifelong committed Christian with a deep, personal relationship with Christ. I re-committed myself through public Baptism as an adult in 2014. I believe that the foundations of our country were principally grounded in Judeo-Christian values and that our "natural rights" are conveyed on us solely by God and protected by the Constitution. Protecting religious liberty in the face of progressive socialism is one of the key issues of our time and I will be a very public and vocal leader on this front. I am completely guided in everything I do by Christ and Faith.

Very Conservative

As a city councilman/Mayor Pro Tem I passed the first known tax rate cut in city history, accelerated debt repayment and passed the strictest ethics and transparency reforms in the state of Texas. These included term limits which we advanced to city referendum and won 83% - 17% in the single largest election in city history with over 70% voter turnout. I was voted "Best Local Elected Official" in the StarTelegam in 2016, and many media outlets have referred to me as a "Taxpayer Champion" for my work on council and applying my business experience to government budget management. The President on one conservative media outlet called me "the most conservative local elected official in Texas". I have fought successfully against eminent domain abuses, and government waste. I was the leading opposition voice to the extraordinarily wasteful TexRail commuter rail project which has cost taxpayers well over $1B to date, and is running at 10% of projected ridership forecast (which I predicted).

No.

I never had any ambition to go into politics and consider myself more of a reformer than politician. We need to elect people who will not play the same old Washington games and instead challenge the system much like how the President has done. It's no coincidence that the first non-politician we elected President has had an outsized impact on changing the way DC works. I spent 30 years in the private sector building companies, and creating and saving careers under dynamic circumstances. I applied that experience to local government along with a "taxpayer first" model and it's been incredibly popular. We CAN reform Washington DC and Congress the same way but not without first replacing the people that led us to this state of dysfunction and polarization. We have to secure our border, protect innocent life, and restore fiscal sanity to our federal budgets. The career politicians like my opponent have proven they aren't willing or interested in doing it. I will.

Strongly Agree

I support Constitutional Carry and am a strong 2A proponent. I will vocally oppose any efforts to limit 2A rights.

Strongly Disagree

Neutral

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Disagree

*REAL border security budget and immigration reform including removing the incentives like free healthcare and education that cause people to migrate here illegally in the first place. I would also make sanctuary cities illegal and withheld federal funding from any municipality that ignores or actively thwarts our federal immigration laws. That means you Portland, San Francisco and countless others. *Heartbeat Protection Act *Balanced Budget Amendment

When it manifests itself as legitimate domestic terrorism yes but thankfully those examples are rare on both the left and right despite the best efforts of an exploitive fake news media. I believe that the United States is the single most egalitarian society in history and that most rational, critically-thinking people reject the divisive efforts of the progressive left and media to divide us racially. Identity politics is a deliberate scourge designed to exploit us for politically expediency along racial lines. It's up to all of us to reject these tactics and instead focus on productive ways to encourage civil, productive debate about tough societal issues even when we don't agree without devolving to exploitative race politics.