Matthew G Rascon

Choose not to answer

Choose not to answer

Personally, I think in events where a pregnancy is non-viable, and/or the life of the mother is at risk, there are circumstances where the (often difficult) choice to abort becomes a matter of attempting to preserve life.

Strongly Agree

The average pay of CEOs has effectively risen over 1000% since the late ‘70s while effective worker pay has increased a mere 12%. The pay gap has grown from 20:1 to nearly 300:1. The issue doesn’t come from the small and mid-sized companies, nor does it simply come from the upper class. The issue lies with large multi-billion-dollar corporations and those that continue to take a larger share while shifting costs on to the working class and modest businessmen.

Disagree

It’s not a matter of simply cutting spending but refocusing where the government assigns funds. We need to reduce spending overall, but it’s more important to tailor what we as a nation invest in to lower the debt.

We should reevaluate the whole of the system; from how we construct tax brackets, where the lower and upper limits of said brackets lie, and where we add specific taxes.

Agree

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Neutral

It should be the prerogative of a private business owner to stand by their religious beliefs. The business has the right to pick clientele and deny service as they see fit. And those employed by them are expected to follow the standard set by the employer. However, anyone in a government job or any business receiving government funds should be expected to approach things from a neutral perspective in accordance with the constitution.

They should be Separate as laid out in the Bill of Rights . It is not the place of the government to regulate religious practices or place one faith above any other. However, this should not preclude the mention of religion in government as that current practice is not truly in line with the protections afforded religious expression in the bill of rights.

When it becomes a clear and present need for the health of the nation such as with smallpox and polio. The military requires vaccination for service members, more than the standard needed stateside. Public schools and government funded operations can have a justifiable right to mandate vaccines, but privately run and or operated businesses and schools should be free to set their own guidelines.

While I do believe the US is capable of option A (creating an exceptional version of universal health care) at this time I’m in favor of Option B. There should be a baseline government funded program with room for private insurance and practice.

I find the answer lies between B and C. To stay out of foreign conflict completely puts us at a disadvantage and opens the US up to risks. However, too much involvement can lead to unnecessary retaliation and situations where we take on burdens we shouldn’t bear. Ideally the USA should focus on issues regarding our own sovereignty and help those in need when the occasion presents itself. Sometimes helping others can be beneficial to our own safety and the growth of democracy as a whole

Neutral

Sanctions can have severe ramifications not just against the intended nation, but specifically the citizenry of the nation that may not have a day or be actively against the actions of leadership. Boycotts and divestment sends a strong message, but sanctions requires a bit more in-depth and measured examination before implementation. I am for equality and an end to hostilities and the occupation of the territories, but sanctions are too often a default action in these days.

Agree

Cyber security can be a huge concern, and the US needs to do more to beef up our defenses against cyber-attacks. Especially when dealing with resources and infrastructure like with water treatment and hydroelectric dams. Regarding intellectual property. These seems to be the biggest concern, with IP infringement seeming to be the CCP’s bread and butter.

De-escalation, and decrease of US presence in the Middle East paired with an end or reduction of the ill-planned drone strikes we’ve seen with the last few administrations. The number of civilian casualties we have allowed as collateral, or in attempt to chase the possibility of neutralizing a target, has done little to quell such threats, and actively gives such groups ammunition to use for propaganda justifying further terrorist attacks. As always, we must defend our people first, and take precise measures efforts in any preemptive or retaliatory acts to ensure we send the right message while putting a stop to atrocities.

Agree

While the southern border is not the largest contributor to illegal immigration (the bulk come from overstayed visas, and sea & air travel), it’s still vital that we properly secure our southern border. I believe the best way to handle this is not with more barriers, but an expansion of staffing coupled with new or expanded ports of entry. Increased CBP staff and new lanes can reduce wait times at crossings, while border agents paired with sensors can help secure open areas of land.

Disagree

The idea of canceling “sanctuary cities” does nothing to solve any issues. Federal overreach against a state backed practice could be construed as an attack on state's rights, and the practice can lead to retaliatory practices from cities and states that are annually providing more to the federal government than they receive in funds and assistance. States should be allowed to address the situation. The federal government should allow it to be worked out at the state level.

I think immigration is an act that needs some level of reciprocation and joint benefit. Ideally those with particular trades or skill sets in demand would be allowed in, and the US would work towards getting them into the states and communities that would most benefit from their presence. Beyond that, those who can prove to be finically stable and not be a burden of the state should have a means to immigrate. The very notion of people wanting to come to America is a sign we as a nation are doing something right. When it comes to refugees and asylum seekers, we should do our part to help out our fellow men, but the process should be looked at as one used for temporary relief, and shelter during incredibly trying times with the goal of those seeking refuge being able to return to their homelands. Permanent status for those under these difficult circumstances, sadly, should still be a rarer occurrence and not the active goal. Humanitarian relief should be our first approach prior to taking in refugees if it’s possible.

Agree

Choose not to answer

CRT is a field of study examining intersectionality and the reasonings behind inequalities. I don’t believe the US and its institutions are fundamentally racist, however I fully back the existence and study of CRT, which is a complex college-level concept/field of study not taught nor comprehendible at a grade-school level. It provided a look into social & legal constructs and can highlight where racism has very much shaped laws. (Redlining & stop and frisk policies being prime examples)

I was raised Catholic and still hold true to that faith. I believe in Catholicism and the values put forward by Jesus Christ and the Abrahamic faiths such as treating all with respect and compassion, helping our fellow man, working hard towards your beliefs and working towards the betterment of all.

Agree

A properly run election should be capable of evaluating the integrity of a vote without ID. The poll workers should be able to rely on their census information and district lists.

We should work to move Election Day to a weekend or the following Monday and make it a national holiday. This would free up time for more people to be able to exercise their constitutional right to vote. Additionally, we need to do more to push for total transparency and early voting as to allow for more thorough review and tallies as opposed to the current system where we can see hectic & rushed efforts to finish the tally as fast as possible for the iconic “night of” calling of elections

Agree

To this day we have signed treaties and even active treaties with the indigenous people of America that go ignored. I firmly believe we need to do more to respect and prop up the sovereignty of tribal communities, work towards the preservation of culture, and allow them to gain solid footing. Restitution isn’t something based on race alone, but on the toll on the culture, and the noticeable impact on the communities today.

According to FBI reports, racism is very much a threat to domestic security and acts in part as the basis for some of our largest domestic terrorist concerns.

Neutral

I’m against fracking, and specifically against the expansion of the practice, but current practices must remain till we can properly substitute them for cleaner practices. I believe it is important that we maintain current practices as we transition into renewable energy. While eventually we need to do away with fracking, first we must create the new infrastructure to facilitate 100% clean energy. However, there should be stricter oversight & penalties where harm to the ecosystem happens.

I’d say that “B” is closer to my view. As a whole, environmental laws and regulations do more to create jobs and benefit the economy as a whole. The narrative that is has an opposite effect is usually one pushed by multi-national conglomerates as an excuse for constantly rising prices leading to constantly expanding profits. Often when there are laxer regulations paired with cheaper base material costs, we’ve seen companies time & time again hike prices and resort to mass layoffs to increase profits.

Moderate

Socially liberal: looking towards fair treatment of our fellow citizens and holding true to the hard held beliefs of life and liberty for all. Fiscally conservative: we need to do away with wasteful spending and ballooning budgets that fail to allocate funds properly or do not consider return on investment where applicable. Globally we need less (costly) direct intervention and more diplomatic efforts. Religion: 1st amendment religious freedom is a fundamental of our nation.

.

No

My priorities are clearly laid out on my website. But to reiterate, my primary focus will be to work towards cleaning up Congress so that meaningful legislation can be passed by proper representation, and we can start to see the people of this great nation have faith in our legislature again. I am young, informed, and not tied to any political dynasty or set-in-stone ideology. I want to do the job of representing my constituents, not just the title of representative.

Disagree

If a policy enacted by a department goes against the letter and intent of the law, it is the duty of peace officer to reject the policy and refrain from actions unbecoming of the position. Military protocol is to obey lawful orders by superiors, and it is the standard of lawful orders that needs to be followed by our men and women in blue. If we cannot hold our superiors to a higher standard, that is when the system begins to crumble.

Neutral

It’s less about an immediate redirection and more about gradual balance. Police departments should in no way see a cut to funding until these services are properly in place thus lowering the need for police presence. Our LEOs currently provide the service these programs would provide, and while it’s essential to take addition tasks off their full plates so they can work with more efficiency, till that day gets here they need funding and staff.

The concept of state-by-state restrictions and regulations creates an “almost airtight” solution, that is to say it sounds good but ultimately means nothing. Something is either airtight or not, there is no in-between. In accordance with the spirit of the second amendment, and the needs of the modern day, we should look to an overhaul regarding gun rights on the federal level. With the exception of explosive ordnance and certain excessive weaponry, the US should look to regulation over restriction. There can be a time, a place, and proper safety training for many firearms be it hunting, or sport shooting. Military use semi and fully automatic weapons do not have a place in hunting or sports shooting and should be restricted. A baseline permit and onetime cost allowing access and ownership of standard weapons for home protection and hunting. Additional permits and background checks could allow for tiered access to certain firearms and accessories similar to how we handle clearance levels. Additionally, we should do more to promote safe practices and ranges where a wide variety of firearms and safe recreational practice can take place. Safety is priority, and there is always a balance between it and freedom, but we can work to allow more liberty in firearms in a safe environment.

Neutral

As with a lot of issues this could be case by case. If faulty manufacturing or misleading information leads to an unintended incident, the manufacturer should be accountable. If a dealer improperly/illegally sells to someone prohibited from ownership of a firearm, or without a background check, they should be clearly liable the same as any establishment selling liquor to an underage guest. In the event that all laws and stipulations are followed though, neither should be civilly liable.