Burton Culley

It depends on the individual circumstances. I do not feel government has the responsibility or power to make such a decision for anyone.

It depends on the individual circumstances. I do not feel government has the responsibility or power to make such a decision for anyone.

Agree

In my opinion, government should not be involved or provide funds in these areas.

Agree

In my opinion, government should not be involved or provide funds in these areas.

Neutral

I am split on this and do not think government is the best arbiter of these types of decisions.

Neutral

I am split on this and do not think government is the best arbiter of these types of decisions.

The IRS should be abolished or severely curtailed. IF we have taxes, they should be collected via a flat or fair tax program, NOT via "income tax", or any of the myriad current taxes people pay. One of the most egregious taxes people pay is the "property tax" levied against home owners. In reality, a person never owns their home, they continuously rent it from the government in the form of property taxes. If you fail to pay, the government takes away your home.

The IRS should be abolished or severely curtailed. IF we have taxes, they should be collected via a flat or fair tax program, NOT via "income tax", or any of the myriad current taxes people pay. One of the most egregious taxes people pay is the "property tax" levied against home owners. In reality, a person never owns their home, they continuously rent it from the government in the form of property taxes. If you fail to pay, the government takes away your home.

Everything I could possibly find and cut.

Everything I could possibly find and cut.

Strongly Disagree

K-12 education should be a local decision, and locally funded. The current methods lead to government control and interference. Funds should NOT be "thrown at buildings or institutions", funds should be provided for students. Children matter, not the buildings. Higher education is a personal choice. If a person decides NOT to attend college, but to enter a trade, or self-teach new skills, that is NOT paid for by taxpayers (in most cases). College should be in the same category.

Strongly Disagree

K-12 education should be a local decision, and locally funded. The current methods lead to government control and interference. Funds should NOT be "thrown at buildings or institutions", funds should be provided for students. Children matter, not the buildings. Higher education is a personal choice. If a person decides NOT to attend college, but to enter a trade, or self-teach new skills, that is NOT paid for by taxpayers (in most cases). College should be in the same category.

Strongly Disagree

Forcing someone to perform a service is slavery. Doing this to a business removes individual liberty. This should NOT happen.

Strongly Disagree

Forcing someone to perform a service is slavery. Doing this to a business removes individual liberty. This should NOT happen.

Unless there is a serious health, safety or law violation, I don't think the government should be able to close ANY business or church! That is not the purpose of government.

Unless there is a serious health, safety or law violation, I don't think the government should be able to close ANY business or church! That is not the purpose of government.

I will reject all four options presented, I am split between C and D. I do NOT believe health-care should be taxpayer-funded, and I think Medicare/Medicaid should be phased out over time. I do not think the current options are in any way efficient or effective. Government involvement has caused more harm than good in health-care, and while the possibility of revamping the existing systems and industry exists, I do not think any of the options presented will lead to any improvement. Removing the multiple layers of bureaucracy from the health decision process would be a good place to start. The current regulatory environment adds costs which are unnecessary. Government regulations, designed to improve "safety and efficacy" increase the costs of pharmaceutical research and production, raising the costs of medications. Government requirements increase almost every aspect of health care. Government regulations lead to insurance regulations which raises costs even further. In many cases, if a patient agrees to pay out-of-pocket, without going through insurance, doctors are willing to charge less just to avoid insurance regulations. The specific options provided can be answered thus: A) Health care is NOT a right. It is a need, and free market providers can provide the needs B) Nothing is "government funded" if from the government, it is TAXPAYER funded C)Medicare and Medicaid were initially implemented to supplement the elderly and retirees. It has bloated to be a "catch-all" for anyone. This was not the purpose and I think it should be returned to the initial purpose for which it was established. D)Taxpayer funded Medicare and Medicaid should be phased out over time. Perhaps a free-market option could be found to privatize, while keeping government bloat and pork, along with insurance bloat and pork, out of the program.

I will reject all four options presented, I am split between C and D. I do NOT believe health-care should be taxpayer-funded, and I think Medicare/Medicaid should be phased out over time. I do not think the current options are in any way efficient or effective. Government involvement has caused more harm than good in health-care, and while the possibility of revamping the existing systems and industry exists, I do not think any of the options presented will lead to any improvement. Removing the multiple layers of bureaucracy from the health decision process would be a good place to start. The current regulatory environment adds costs which are unnecessary. Government regulations, designed to improve "safety and efficacy" increase the costs of pharmaceutical research and production, raising the costs of medications. Government requirements increase almost every aspect of health care. Government regulations lead to insurance regulations which raises costs even further. In many cases, if a patient agrees to pay out-of-pocket, without going through insurance, doctors are willing to charge less just to avoid insurance regulations. The specific options provided can be answered thus: A) Health care is NOT a right. It is a need, and free market providers can provide the needs B) Nothing is "government funded" if from the government, it is TAXPAYER funded C)Medicare and Medicaid were initially implemented to supplement the elderly and retirees. It has bloated to be a "catch-all" for anyone. This was not the purpose and I think it should be returned to the initial purpose for which it was established. D)Taxpayer funded Medicare and Medicaid should be phased out over time. Perhaps a free-market option could be found to privatize, while keeping government bloat and pork, along with insurance bloat and pork, out of the program.

None that I can think of.

None that I can think of.

First off, recognize what it is: Terrorism. Terrorism in all forms should be resisted. The steps taken will depend on the threat posed. I cannot specifically propose an action without knowing the threat.

First off, recognize what it is: Terrorism. Terrorism in all forms should be resisted. The steps taken will depend on the threat posed. I cannot specifically propose an action without knowing the threat.

Strongly Disagree

Israel makes decisions concerning their own security, and we should not dictate to them, or any country, how they do so. In the cases of genocidal actions, the United States should voice our objections clearly. Perhaps become involved if asked to mediate. Dictate policy, no.

Strongly Disagree

Israel makes decisions concerning their own security, and we should not dictate to them, or any country, how they do so. In the cases of genocidal actions, the United States should voice our objections clearly. Perhaps become involved if asked to mediate. Dictate policy, no.

Neutral

The question is: Do we Close the border or Control the border. Past history has shown that isolationism is not a good policy. The US and Texas were built with immigrants. Of course, we do not want to have criminals or terrorists freely entering the country/state, but we also cannot isolate ourselves from the world. The current immigration process requires extensive reshaping, which would go a long way to resolving the current crisis.

Neutral

The question is: Do we Close the border or Control the border. Past history has shown that isolationism is not a good policy. The US and Texas were built with immigrants. Of course, we do not want to have criminals or terrorists freely entering the country/state, but we also cannot isolate ourselves from the world. The current immigration process requires extensive reshaping, which would go a long way to resolving the current crisis.

People wanting to immigrate to the US. The current immigration process is broken and needs to be re-worked.

People wanting to immigrate to the US. The current immigration process is broken and needs to be re-worked.

Disagree

Those values exist in more than "Judeo-Christian religions". They are codified in religious texts, yes, but they exist outside of the Judeo-Christian religion. As for "our form of limited government", that has been slowly eroded to the point that our form of government is approaching "unlimited government". Individual liberty needs to be returned to the people, the individual. Government should exist to protect those liberties, not dictate what an individual is "allowed to do".

Disagree

Those values exist in more than "Judeo-Christian religions". They are codified in religious texts, yes, but they exist outside of the Judeo-Christian religion. As for "our form of limited government", that has been slowly eroded to the point that our form of government is approaching "unlimited government". Individual liberty needs to be returned to the people, the individual. Government should exist to protect those liberties, not dictate what an individual is "allowed to do".

Strongly Disagree

Government should NOT dictate such things.

Strongly Disagree

Government should NOT dictate such things.

Strongly Disagree

CRT is fundamentally flawed.

Strongly Disagree

CRT is fundamentally flawed.

Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations; Do No Harm; Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; Return respect with respect, Honor with honor, protection with protection. Throughout history, there have been many foundational philosophies which are valid to describe my spiritual beliefs.

Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations; Do No Harm; Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; Return respect with respect, Honor with honor, protection with protection. Throughout history, there have been many foundational philosophies which are valid to describe my spiritual beliefs.

Strongly Disagree

We require a license to drive, we are required to identify ourselves to enter into business transactions. Voting is a right of every citizen, every citizen should identify themselves as citizens to cast their vote.

Strongly Disagree

We require a license to drive, we are required to identify ourselves to enter into business transactions. Voting is a right of every citizen, every citizen should identify themselves as citizens to cast their vote.

Eliminate the flawed computer voting machines. Add "Ranked Choice" voting to ALL ballots. Eliminate bars to candidates being on the ballot. Current laws require paying filing fees to offset "primary elections". Non-duopoly candidates are not, in most cases, subject to primary elections and the filing fees go into the "general fund" to be funneled to non-third-party candidates.

Eliminate the flawed computer voting machines. Add "Ranked Choice" voting to ALL ballots. Eliminate bars to candidates being on the ballot. Current laws require paying filing fees to offset "primary elections". Non-duopoly candidates are not, in most cases, subject to primary elections and the filing fees go into the "general fund" to be funneled to non-third-party candidates.

Not necessarily. Domestic security can be affected by racism, but I would not define it as a "threat to domestic security".

Not necessarily. Domestic security can be affected by racism, but I would not define it as a "threat to domestic security".

Strongly Disagree

This is a subject/option which WILL cause divisiveness in current society. One example was importation of Irish immigrants as slaves or indentured servants. Reparations are a bad idea in the first place, basing them on race will create strife in society.

Strongly Disagree

This is a subject/option which WILL cause divisiveness in current society. One example was importation of Irish immigrants as slaves or indentured servants. Reparations are a bad idea in the first place, basing them on race will create strife in society.

Similar to earlier "Either/Or" questions, I have to reject both options. The balance is somewhere in the middle, and we need a more "free-market" approach to this issue. In the first place, government regulations cause, in most cases, excessive cost and negative effect.

Similar to earlier "Either/Or" questions, I have to reject both options. The balance is somewhere in the middle, and we need a more "free-market" approach to this issue. In the first place, government regulations cause, in most cases, excessive cost and negative effect.

Neutral

In some cases it is useful, in others not really useful and possibly harmful. Fracking should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. In a free-market situation, companies who employ fracking without proper care would be subjected to consumer pressure and lost revenue. This would be more effective than government enforcement.

Neutral

In some cases it is useful, in others not really useful and possibly harmful. Fracking should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. In a free-market situation, companies who employ fracking without proper care would be subjected to consumer pressure and lost revenue. This would be more effective than government enforcement.

To protect the rights of the individual from the depredations of the masses. Without the checks on the populace, an individuals rights could, and likely would, be over-ridden by the "majority". The inalienable rights of the individual should NOT be subjected to the will of the majority, otherwise they are not "rights", they are "privileges". The Duty of government is to prevent the abrogation of one persons' rights by another, to enforce the laws accepted by the populace, and to intervene on behalf of the populace in the affairs between nations.

To protect the rights of the individual from the depredations of the masses. Without the checks on the populace, an individuals rights could, and likely would, be over-ridden by the "majority". The inalienable rights of the individual should NOT be subjected to the will of the majority, otherwise they are not "rights", they are "privileges". The Duty of government is to prevent the abrogation of one persons' rights by another, to enforce the laws accepted by the populace, and to intervene on behalf of the populace in the affairs between nations.

Moderate

My views are Libertarian.

Moderate

My views are Libertarian.

Other than my website, I have nothing to add here.

Other than my website, I have nothing to add here.

No

No

My job as representative of Tx HD 136 will be to represent my constituents, NOT to vote my personal conscience or beliefs. So long as a bill does not violate the Texas or US constitutions, regardless of how I personally view the proposed legislation, I will vote according to my constituency. My personal priorities are to reduce and if possible remove property taxes. I also want to revamp education and education funding to focus on the child, not the building. There are multiple options which have been proposed and I want to hear from people on how they would want the education of their children to proceed. I also have a strong agenda item to remove and restrict government involvement into peoples daily lives. One of these areas are victimless crimes, such as cannabis possession. In fact, the billions spent each year on the failed "war on drugs" should be re-directed to other areas. One which would likely be more effective is recovery efforts from dangerous drugs and rehabilitation. Regulations surrounding alcohol and tobacco should be applied to the "illegal drugs" equally. This would be more effective than the current war. Restrictions on government, and reduction of government, are key items on my agenda. I want to return to the foundations upon which this State and this Country were built: Individual Liberty. We did not fight for our freedoms just to turn them over to an all-powerful central government. The individual should be the arbiter of their fate and path. Decisions and actions have consequences, both positive and negative. The individual should decide if they are willing to face the consequences of their actions, not government. If an individual violates the rights of another, government should be the control point, and step in at that time.

My job as representative of Tx HD 136 will be to represent my constituents, NOT to vote my personal conscience or beliefs. So long as a bill does not violate the Texas or US constitutions, regardless of how I personally view the proposed legislation, I will vote according to my constituency. My personal priorities are to reduce and if possible remove property taxes. I also want to revamp education and education funding to focus on the child, not the building. There are multiple options which have been proposed and I want to hear from people on how they would want the education of their children to proceed. I also have a strong agenda item to remove and restrict government involvement into peoples daily lives. One of these areas are victimless crimes, such as cannabis possession. In fact, the billions spent each year on the failed "war on drugs" should be re-directed to other areas. One which would likely be more effective is recovery efforts from dangerous drugs and rehabilitation. Regulations surrounding alcohol and tobacco should be applied to the "illegal drugs" equally. This would be more effective than the current war. Restrictions on government, and reduction of government, are key items on my agenda. I want to return to the foundations upon which this State and this Country were built: Individual Liberty. We did not fight for our freedoms just to turn them over to an all-powerful central government. The individual should be the arbiter of their fate and path. Decisions and actions have consequences, both positive and negative. The individual should decide if they are willing to face the consequences of their actions, not government. If an individual violates the rights of another, government should be the control point, and step in at that time.

Disagree

The level of responsibility entrusted to Law Enforcement is higher than that of individuals, and requires a higher level of control and decision making. Police officers are in positions of "authority", and with authority comes "responsibility". If an officer violates or goes beyond that responsibility, they should be held accountable. In much of the Texas penal code, there are "defenses to prosecution", and perhaps those can be enhanced in circumstances, but not qualified immunity.

Disagree

The level of responsibility entrusted to Law Enforcement is higher than that of individuals, and requires a higher level of control and decision making. Police officers are in positions of "authority", and with authority comes "responsibility". If an officer violates or goes beyond that responsibility, they should be held accountable. In much of the Texas penal code, there are "defenses to prosecution", and perhaps those can be enhanced in circumstances, but not qualified immunity.

Disagree

Again, the question asked does not address the real issue. Militarizing law enforcement has cost a lot, and expanded department budgets. Redirect THOSE funds to mental health programs, yes, but not from "police departments" en masse. The purpose of law enforcement is enforcement, and secondarily, prevention. They prevent by being visible. Military forces do not enforce or prevent, they suppress and attack. Unmarked cars do not enforce, they suppress and extort.

Disagree

Again, the question asked does not address the real issue. Militarizing law enforcement has cost a lot, and expanded department budgets. Redirect THOSE funds to mental health programs, yes, but not from "police departments" en masse. The purpose of law enforcement is enforcement, and secondarily, prevention. They prevent by being visible. Military forces do not enforce or prevent, they suppress and attack. Unmarked cars do not enforce, they suppress and extort.

None. One person is not qualified to dictate to another what they "require" to feel safe.

None. One person is not qualified to dictate to another what they "require" to feel safe.

Strongly Disagree

If this becomes our baseline, then everyone who has been killed in traffic accidents, or by alcohol, or by construction tools can sue the maker/manufacturer/seller of the item used. This removes the individual responsibility for improper use of an inanimate object, and places it on an individual or company who had no control over the use of the object. This would not be right, fair, or just in any way.

Strongly Disagree

If this becomes our baseline, then everyone who has been killed in traffic accidents, or by alcohol, or by construction tools can sue the maker/manufacturer/seller of the item used. This removes the individual responsibility for improper use of an inanimate object, and places it on an individual or company who had no control over the use of the object. This would not be right, fair, or just in any way.