D Eric Schansberg
Republican | Indiana
Candidate Profile
Moderate
BIOGRAPHY
Name
D Eric Schansberg
Party
Republican
Election Year
2022
Election
Primary
Race
U.S. Rep., Dist. 9
Incumbent
No
Links
EDUCATION
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, PhD (Econ), 1991
George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, BA (Math); BS (Econ), 1986
WORK & MILITARY
Econ Prof (Indiana University Southeast), Professor, 30
AFFILIATIONS
Thoroughly Equipped (discipleship training), co-author and co-admin, Southeast Christian Church (Louisville, KY)
layleader; Bible study teacher, Brandon's House Counseling Center, Board President
Hope Alive Initiatives, Board President
POLITICAL OFFICES HELD
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES SOUGHT
Candidate did not provide
Race
ENDORSEMENTS
CONSERVATIVE (1)
Republican Liberty Caucus of Indiana
OTHER INFORMATION
QUESTIONNAIRE
RIGHT TO LIFE
Abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, should not receive funds from federal, state, or local governments (including Title X grants).
Strongly Agree
I may be the person who finally got this on the political radar back in 2008 (when I ran for Congress as a Libertarian and made this an issue about the GOP).
I support 'aid in dying' laws which legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia.
Strongly Disagree
I'm a conservative, so I don't see this as a federal matter.
Under what circumstances should abortion be allowed?
none, except life of the mother
ECONOMY
Redistribution of income is needed to lessen the gap between the wealthy and working classes.
Strongly Disagree
Unethical (unbiblical or at least abiblical), unconstitutional and impractical. Other than that, a great idea. I discuss this at great length in my two books on public policy.
The government should cut spending in order to reduce the national debt.
Strongly Agree
Govt doesn't cut spending. And the GOP got crushed in the 90s, trying merely to reduce the rate of growth of spending. I will advocate a spending freeze until we balance the budget. (The debt is immoral and may crash the economy to boot.)
What changes, if any, should be made to the tax code?
Simplify even further. Would love to see a flat tax above a certain income (e.g., the poverty lines). Would love to see people talk about FICA taxes on income that are more onerous to 80% of wage-earners, crush the working poor, and get little discussion.
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Religious liberty is at risk in the United States and deserves the highest level of protection in the law.
Strongly Agree
Individuals and businesses should be required to provide services even if it would violate their moral and/or religious beliefs.
Strongly Disagree
again, these things should not be a federal matter...
What should be the relationship between the church and the state?
Everyone uses morals/ethics to inform their opinions on politics and public policy. So, there's no reason to discriminate against (certain) Christians in this regard. The larger questions are what (federal) govt should do-- and why. That said, believers are obligated to pursue a biblical and practical approach to politics and policy-- sadly, not often the case (or limited to one issue). This is a key subject in my second policy book, Turn Neither to the Right nor to the Left: A Thinking Christian's Guide to Politics and Public Policy.
HEALTHCARE
Under what circumstances (if any) should a government, school, or employer be allowed to require vaccinations?
federal govt: never schools and employers should be free to do what they think best for their setting
What most closely matches your view on healthcare: A) Healthcare for all should be guaranteed and funded by the government with no private healthcare option. (includes "universal healthcare," "medicare for all," etc.) B) Healthcare insurance funded by the government should be available for all who want it, along with private healthcare options. C) Medicaid and Medicare should remain available, but no other taxpayer-funded programs are necessary. D)Tax-payer funded health care should be abolished in all forms, and Medicaid and Medicare should be de-funded.
Between C&D. I'd prefer something closer to D, but we don't have the political will or knowledge to get there. (I have two readable journal articles on this topic; just google my name and health care.) The other thing to say here is that "Medicare for All" would, in practice, be "Medicaid for Some" (at best).
NATIONAL SECURITY
With regard to America's foreign policy, which view most closely resembles yours: A) The United States should intervene whenever freedom is threatened. B) The United States should selectively help countries trying to grow democracy and fight tyranny. C) The United States has become too involved in others' policies and should remain focused on issues regarding our own sovereignty unless in imminent danger. D) The United States should stay out of foreign conflicts completely.
C
I support the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement to pressure Israel to withdraw from occupied territories, remove the separation barrier in the West Bank, allow full equality for Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel, and promote the rights of Palestinian refugees.
Strongly Disagree
The Chinese Communist Party poses serious military, cyber security, intellectual property, and global economic threats to the United States.
Strongly Agree
What should the United States do to help eradicate the threat of Islamic terrorism?
See question 1. (Recommended read: Robert Pape's Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism.)
IMMIGRATION
The U.S. should do more to physically secure the southern border.
Strongly Agree
State and federal funds shall be denied to any public or private entity, such as a sanctuary city, that is not in compliance with immigration laws.
Strongly Agree
Running for Congress, so my answer would be for federal. Then again, why are there federal funds going to any city?
Who should be allowed to immigrate to the U.S. and under what circumstances?
Some refugees and many who are willing to work and be a good, productive citizen.
VALUES
Sexual orientation and gender identity should be protected classes in non-discrimination laws.
Neutral
Not a fan of non-discrimination laws, but if you're going to have them, then a laundry list of protected classes is inevitable and reasonable.
I agree with Critical Race Theory (CRT) which asserts that the institutions in the United States are fundamentally racist.
Strongly Disagree
Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
Christ-follower, disciple of Jesus, love the Bible and have taught it for 30 years. God wants the best for us-- and knows what's best for us-- 100% of the time, so we're morons when we don't follow Him. ThoroughlyEquipped.org for my discipleship training ministry Listen to my podcast / Bible literacy plan, The Word Diet
ELECTIONS AND VOTING
People should be able to vote without photo identification.
Strongly Disagree
a ridiculous idea
What laws would you propose to change present voting practices?
At the federal level, none? The feds should let states run their own elections. (But given this, we have to maintain the Electoral College.)
EQUALITY
Reparations should be given to people on the basis of race.
Strongly Disagree
a terrible idea ethically and practically
Is racism a threat to domestic security in the United States? Why or why not?
No...we don't even have a coherent definition of "racism" or "systemic racism". By any coherent definition, Biden's SCOTUS decision-making process would be considered racist and sexist. And the top examples of systemic racism would be K-12 education and welfare policies.
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
I support the use of hydraulic fracking to extract oil and natural gas resources.
Strongly Agree
price of oil, health of the economy, and as we've seen recently, it emboldens thugs like Putin
Which comes closest to your view? A) Stricter environmental laws and regulations cost too many jobs and hurt the economy. B) Stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost.
A (trade-offs but yes, A)
ABOUT YOU
When you consider your views on a wide range of issues from economic and social matters to foreign policy and religious liberty, which of the following best describes you overall?
Choose not to answer
You need a two-dimensional spectrum here. (And to boot, very few people are thoroughly conservative or liberal these days.) I have a libertarian political ideology: you can do what you want, as long as you don't do direct and significant harm to others. As a result, govt is consistent with the limited version prescribed by the Constitution. I also believe in federalism, subsidiarity, and sphere sovereignty: keep it local and state as much as possible.
Please provide publicly available information, including interviews and media reports, validating your answer to the previous question (other than your website).
My two books on public policy, hundreds of articles, SchansBlog, my Facebook feed, etc.
Have you ever been convicted of a felony or been penalized in either civil or criminal court for sexual misconduct? If so, please explain.
NO
What else would you like voters to know about you, including your legislative priorities?
Economy (debt, inflation, too much regulation), pro-life (and promote adoption), defend the Constitution (esp. the 1st, 2nd, and 10th Amendments)
CRIMINAL JUSTICE & PUBLIC SAFETY
Police officers should be personally immune from prosecution for conduct consistent with departmental policy (qualified immunity) while on duty.
Disagree
Not a federal issue, but bad local policy/decisions can be trumped (as in poor orders within the military).
I support redirecting funds from police departments to mental health and community programs.
Disagree
Again, not a federal issue. Generally, not a good idea, but it would depend on the context. Community policing has its benefits.
2ND AMENDMENT
What restrictions on gun ownership are needed to protect public safety?
none
Victims of gun violence should be able to sue firearms dealers and manufacturers.
Strongly Disagree
