Jonathan Simpson

Strongly Agree

I believe that all life is sacred and that it is the abject responsibility of our government to pursue policy and legislation that eliminates, or at least reduces, the practice.

Neutral

This is certainly a complicated issue with compelling and compassionate arguments on both sides. I am wary of the unintended consequences of allowing such a practice. However, I am not convinced that this should be a federal issue.

As a matter of practically implementable federal policy, we should focus on lowering the gestational limit at which elective abortions are permissible to be more in line with international democratic norms. Elective abortions beyond 10-12 weeks should be prohibited nationally. This should be a matter of federal law. While my personal preference would be to completely prohibit all elective abortions, lowering the gestational limit to meet international norms is a politically feasible endeavor. Exceptions in the case of fetal impairment, rape, incest, or threat to the mother's life as well as further restrictions on elective abortions should remain at the state level.

Disagree

Those who have or consume more should pay more in taxes, and there are certain things that the government should provide equally to all citizens, regardless of what they paid in taxes (such as roads and schools), so redistribution in a sense does occur and is desirable. Our focus, though, should be on improving the overall economy and increasing opportunity. That is what will lead to lasting prosperity for all Americans. More government never improves lives.

Agree

This is true, but we need to move beyond the "spend more / spend less" dichotomy. We need to start focusing on spending more efficiently. Our focus should be on creating a more efficient and effective government. Spending reduction will be a natural byproduct of that, to a far greater degree than arbitrary cuts ever would.

The income tax code is far too complicated and burdensome on American families and businesses. We know that corporate taxes are predominantly passed on to either consumers in the form of higher prices or labor in the form of lower wages or less opportunity. Income taxation should either be drastically simplified to a single flat rate and should be replaced entirely with a consumption tax (national sales tax). Many economists agree that a consumption tax is far superior to an income tax. It encourages investment and lowers compliance costs, and, with tax rebates or other schemes, it would be progressive.

Strongly Agree

No other right is more fundamental.

Disagree

Religious liberty is of paramount importance, but we also must be mindful of public accommodations and their role in our society. This, like many things, requires balance.

The government should not make any law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This seems pretty clear to me. The government should not restrict the exercise of religion or religious institutions, nor should it discriminate against religious institutions or people. Religious liberty should take precedence over most other considerations.

As a general precept of conservatism, the government should avoid interfering with the consensual employer-employee relationship. If a private employer wants to require vaccination as a condition of employment, that is their prerogative. Imagine an elderly person who has hired someone to provide in-home care. Imagine that they have determined that for their own safety they would like the in-home care provider to be vaccinated against a certain transmissible disease. If the in-home care provider refuses, that is their right. But, it is also the right of the elderly person to refuse to engage the in-home care provider in an employment relationship. It would be a tremendous overreach for the government to step in and force the elderly person to employ the in-home care provider against their wishes.

I really don't agree closely with any of these. Many countries have achieved universal coverage using private insurance markets; we can do the same. What we have to realize now is that we already have a "single-payer" system, it's jut for those over 65, and we already have a UK-style NHS system where the government owns the facilities and employs the providers, it's just available to veterans and military members, and we already have a subsidized government insurance plan, but i's only available to lower-income families. For everyone else, it's an "open market" that really isn't that open because of a lack of price transparency and because of billing practices. Uninsured Americans are not just a moral concern, but they are also a financial concern. Uninsured Americans cost the system a tremendous amount and drive up the cost for those who do pay. We need to work toward a single, market-based system that does leave every American, young or old, poor or wealthy, sick or healthy, with quality, affordable insurance.

I land somewhere between A and B. While it is true that American intervention has gone wrong in the past and has cost American lives and treasure, I am concerned about the move toward isolationism. America must not abdicate its duty to the free world. And yes, I do believe we have a moral obligation to stand up for freedom around the globe. That does not always mean we engage in military responses, but it does mean that we always do the right thing.

Strongly Disagree

Israel is a great ally of the United States and we have a moral obligation to stand with them as a fellow democracy in a very undemocratic and hostile part of the world. Israel has a right to exist in peace. I am not without sympathy for Palestinians, but the preservation and prosperity of the Israeli democracy is of the utmost importance.

Strongly Agree

We need to reorient our strategic thinking on China and the world in general. We need a strong conventional military, the best cyber security and warfare capabilities, and a powerful nuclear deterrent. We also need leadership that knows how to wield these on the world stage well.

The spread of democracy and capitalism will be the only lasting solution to the threat of Islamic terrorism. The liberation of a society is the only thing that has a chance at nearly eradicating the threat of terrorism. Without that, everything we do is just containment. With freedom, prosperity, and education, terrorisms has a chance of going extinct.

Strongly Agree

Physically securing the border should be one of the top priorities of the United States government. However, that will not be enough to combat illegal immigration, nor will it address the current population of illegal immigrants. We need to mandate and strengthen e-Verify in order to prohibit anyone not authorized to work in the United States from earning an income here. This will allow for self-deportation to occur and for effective, compassionate, and comprehensive immigration reform.

Strongly Agree

Immigration is incredibly important to the United States, particularly as birth rates decline. Legal immigrants have made immeasurable contributions to the United States and are just as a part of this country as those born here. Immigration must be managed, however, and the United States should consider bringing the annual legal immigration quota down to more historical levels. The people we allow to immigrate should be able to contribute to our nation, be it in medicine or labor or wherever else we determine there would be benefit, and should understand our culture, history, and be able to speak our language (and we should support them as they further their English fluency while living here). Uncontrolled and unmanaged immigration must end. Legal immigration must be championed.

Agree

The Supreme Court has already ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects sexual orientation and gender identity. There must of course be exceptions for religious organizations as well as exceptions made when it may interfere with the conduct of business, fairness of sports, individual privacy, etc. (particularly in regards to gender identity expression).

Strongly Disagree

Racism of the past has certainly created disparate conditions that still persist on a statistical level today. I am certainly in favor of policies that work to improve the lives of all Americans and ensure that all Americans have equal access opportunities.

I am a Christian, and I am a true believer. I believe in God and that Jesus died on the cross for our sins that we may be reconciled to the Father. My faith is at the center of everything I do. My wife and I met in ministry, we adopted our two boys from foster care because the Lord placed it on our hearts, and I decided to run for office to serve my fellow citizens after much prayer and calling. It will be at the center of how I conduct myself in office as well.

Disagree

Voter ID requirements are just one important step of ensuring our elections are secure, and they have been proven to have absolutely no impact on voter engagement.

We need to strengthen the process by which we identify eligible voters, place them on the proper voting roll, and then identify them at the time of voting. I am not opposed to early voting or mail-in voting, they allow more people to participate, but all voting must be completely secure.

Disagree

In terms of cash payment, of course no reparations should be given. However, we do need to realize that there is still a residual effect of past racism (and slavery) that is statistically noticeable. What we have to realize, though, is that reparations are not the way to fix anything. We need to focus on improving things like educational opportunities, crime rates, and community infrastructure.

Racism sadly still exists in our country, certainly not to the level of the Jim Crow era or the civil rights movement, but it does still exist. It doesn't appear to pose any kind of wide-spread domestic security threat, but it is still something we must contend with. We must always teach our children that the color of a person's skin does not matter in the slightest.

Agree

While we should be good stewards of our environment, we also must be good stewards of our economy. Oil and natural gas are part of our energy mix now, whether that is ideal or not, so we should produce as much energy here in the United States as possible. Energy independence is critically important, and fracking plays an important role in that. We do, however, need to explore and invest in other sources of energy as well, particularly nuclear power.

Some environmental laws need to be strict and others need to be rolled back. We can both protect the environment and ensure a prosperous economy. The environmental bureaucracy we have created is as much of a problem as the regulations it promulgates. We need to streamline the regulations and processes we do have and make sure that we get rid of ones that are not effective and damage the economy unnecessarily.

Moderate

I'm not even certain that the political spectrum as we know it makes much sense or is very helpful anymore. It seems like there isn't much ideological consistency on either side of the aisle these days. I believe in sensible, reasonable, and rational policy-making. I believe in limited, efficient, and effective government and in the protection of individual liberty. I believe in the party of Lincoln, and admire his example of both idealism and pragmatism. Whatever label that earns me, so be it.

n/a

No

I believe our representatives need to start putting forth actual solutions to problems. We need big ideas and a bold vision. I am particularly passionate about education reform. Republicans have been talking about school choice for decades, but I will propose legislation that will make it a reality for every American family. We must get government out of education and give parents choice. Parents should be able to send their children to well-performing schools that embrace their values, religious or otherwise, and help pass those along to their children, at no direct cost to them. We need to embrace a publicly funded, privately operated model, and I have a plan to make that happen.

Strongly Agree

Our police deserve our highest respect and honor for their courage and sacrifice. Politicians in Washington know nothing about local policing and need to make efforts to support police, both practically and with their words, not vilify them.

Strongly Disagree

There are certainly other things that can be done to help lower crime rates and improve communities, but there are plenty of other places to get the money from to support those efforts. Cutting police budgets is a terrible, counterproductive idea.

We all can agree that some restrictions are helpful. We do not want citizens to be able to possess fully-automatic, tripod-mounted weapons of war. As an infantry officer in the United States Army, I fully understand the difference between weapons of war and weapons that every citizen should have a right to own for self-defenses or recreation. We do not need to ban assault rifles or high-capacity magazines, and that would not solve many problems even if we did. Citizens have a right to protect and defend themselves. This is fundamental to American democracy. However, the vast majority of Americans who support universal background checks for firearms purchases are right. There is absolutely a common-sense way that we can both protect 2nd Amendment rights by creating a simple, streamlined check process and keep weapons out of the hands of those who should not have them.

Strongly Disagree

Gun violence is a serious problem in the United States. It affects inner cities, neighborhoods, and even schools. We can and we must both protect 2nd Amendment rights and American lives.