Janell Hulst
Republican | Washington
Candidate Profile
Leans Conservative
BIOGRAPHY
Name
Janell Hulst
Party
Republican
Election Year
2022
Election
Primary & Secretary of State Special
Race
State Rep., Dist. 23 - Pos. 1
Incumbent
No
Links
EDUCATION
Fresno City College, Fresno, AA, 2006
WORK & MILITARY
Candidate did not provide
AFFILIATIONS
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES HELD
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES SOUGHT
Candidate did not provide
Race
OTHER INFORMATION
QUESTIONNAIRE
RIGHT TO LIFE
Under what circumstances should abortion be allowed?
Extreme or Dire
Abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, should not receive funds from federal, state, or local governments (including Title X grants).
Strongly Agree
I support 'aid in dying' laws which legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia.
Strongly Disagree
ECONOMY
What changes, if any, should be made to the tax code?
Allowance for emergency suspension of taxes, removal of Carbon tax on gas that will be imposed shortly following the election, reduction of general gas tax, removal of long term care tax, lowering of property tax to help the most vulnerable, and providing of other innovative tax breaks that will encourage and bolster innovation and economic stability and growth for businesses, to help sustain us through the crisis of inflation we all are going to be facing.
What government spending would you reduce in order to balance the budget?
I would initially start by addressing the wasteful allowances of the governor's office and present restructuring for L&I and Employment Security Departments, and evaluate the effectiveness and efficiencies of all other departments -- I have no intention of indiscriminate reductions.
Taxpayer-funded public education should be guaranteed through college.
Strongly Disagree
Tech schools & apprenticeships would have greater benefits. Going to straight collet isn't always the answer. Other should not pay for our choice of business endeavors. I worked following High School and then started college at 23, once I knew I wanted to pursue Architecture. I graduated with Highest Honors and an AA, and went on to work in my field, when needing to take a break in education, because I had a child. I now have my own business utilizing my education and work experiences.
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Individuals and businesses should be required to provide services even if it would violate their moral and/or religious beliefs.
Strongly Disagree
That is something that occurs in communistic tyrannical governments. Our government is founded upon the freedom to protect us from that very oppression. Someone should never be forced to do something that goes against their morals OR religion, especially by our government. It conflicts with the very fabric of who we are as a nation of free people.
Under what circumstances can government close churches?
Looking at the constitution, it would appear to me that there are no circumstances in which the government can infringe upon our right to freedom of religion and/or to peacefully gather.
HEALTHCARE
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.
My answer would be that government funded programs tend to fail and end up having severe problems, such as what we are facing with Medicare. I do not believe that universal healthcare in the current healthcare systems is sustainable nor the real solution, but will actually lead to even worse care and exclusion of what the patient truly wants for their own healthcare or any other potential options for care or treatment for patients, outside what the governmental insurance company is willing to pay for or believes should even be an option for the patient. The current healthcare system and the grip of the insurance companies already make it difficult for patients to get the care that they truly want, but rather only what the insurance companies are willing to pay for and dictate to what they believe should be allowable for your care, despite your desires as the patient who's actually receiving the care, or the recommendations of the doctor who you choose to receive care from (or in some cases you were forced to choose them from a small pool). How is that truly a healthy system or an environment for your best health or best health care? Competition is what has a lead our country to success. There should be competition in pricing and options amongst healthcare providers, so that there can be freedom to have a focus on root causes in health, rather than band-aiding of, and knee jerk pushing of, pharmaceuticals as sometimes is our only choice to choose from because of the control of the insurance companies, and in many cases, it does not address the root causes, and some cases end up leading to more problems, and in call for more pharmaceuticals. A lot of the issues we experience in the healthcare systems surrounding affordability, stems from the over-involvement and dictating of insurance companies within the health care facilities. Where there is competition, businesses are healthy, and the consumer benefits as well as the business. Innovation is not found in control, but in freedom to find what really works. Should there be universal health care, any options for freedom of alternative choices or decisions without the control and dictates of the governmental insurance company will never be allowed to happen, and any alternative solutions or opportunity for competition will never be allowed the opportunity to take root or even be a discussion. Anyone who has had to utilize the healthcare system, have too experienced some if not all of the "red-tape" issues that the insurance companies create, some of which I have touched on, whether they are private of governmental. Our health is our most valuable resource in our life and in our society. The last thing we need, is to have our government dictating to us in how we should be allowed to receive care for our health. Everyone should have the freedom to choose who they wish to receive health care from, and what kind of care the receive, as well as a doctor should be free to provide the type of care they feel is best for the patient, and not what is dictated by an insurance company that makes dictates, not based on what's best for the patient, but what's best for the insurance company. Freedom from the control of the insurance companies upon our healthcare systems would be a better solution than complete control of a governmental one.
Under what circumstances (if any) should a government, school, or employer be allowed to require vaccinations?
Everyone should have the right to refuse any medical procedure or medicine they do not wish to have, and to make decisions that are based upon what they think is best for their own health. Everyone should in turn, have the right to choose to risk taking a medication or undergoing a medical procedure should they so choose to, if they believe that is what is best for their own health. No one should ever be forced to take a medicine they do not wish to have, or be denied from choosing to take a medicine they believe is for the good of their own health. The reality is, there is no basis for forcing another person to take a vaccination: if someone is concerned about contracting something, they have the right and ability to receive a vaccination for whatever it is they are concerned about contracting, or another person spreading to them. The reality is, whether or not someone takes a vaccination, doesn't determine whether or not the vaccination of another person will work. That is actually contradictory to the definition and purpose of what a vaccination is. Therefore, forcing a vaccination upon another is not realistic or necessary for another person's protection, because the other person can choose to receive that vaccination if they are concerned for their own health regarding. One person should never be forced to risk their own health on the basis that it is for the betterment of another's health or risk there of. That too, is contradictory.
NATIONAL SECURITY
What should the United States do to help eradicate the threat of Islamic terrorism?
An eradication of a threat, is not realistic or humanly possible.
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 issues between countries is between them. And it is wrong for us to assume we know the issues that they face, or that we should attempt to control their decisions for their borders. Their national security issues are their own, just as ours our own, and it would be wrong for another country to attempt to control our decisions regarding our borders. My concerns are focused on what is occurring within my own state and for our own survival through inflation, and supply and food shortages.
IMMIGRATION
The U.S. should do more to physically secure the southern border.
Strongly Agree
The unchecked open border has brought in an influx of millions of people, and increasing and perpetuating human trafficking, drug smuggling, and illegal weapons activity and the has caused havoc in the communities close to the border. The inhumanity that is occurring because of the open border and illegal activity is increasing the amount and prevalence of victims through the human smuggling cartels, as people are abused and taken advantage of by the cartel promising free entry into the US.
Who should be allowed to immigrate to the U.S. and under what circumstances?
Those who go through the process legally. There are already defined circumstances that are accounted for and allowed legally. As I stated above, the prevalence of abuse and human trafficking, drug smuggling, and illegal weapons and gang activity is due to the lawlessness occurring at the border, and that is increasing exponentially because of the message of lawlessness at the US border and free entry in. It has created a dire and terribly egregious humanitarian crisis that would never be occurring, should the laws and rules for coming into the US (as there are for other countries) were being enforced appropriately. People who are hearing the message of freely getting across the border into the US, are willing to risk putting themselves into the criminal and humanitarianly abusive hands of the cartel and suffering horrendous abuses that otherwise, they would they would never risk possibly finding themselves in that position. By not having boundaries in place and proper order, there has been a stage set for criminal activity that is hurting the ones being allowed to break our laws and enter in illegally, and encouraging the growth of terribly abusive criminal individuals and organizations to prey upon those who are willing to risk and take advantage of the opportunity to get into the US uninhibitedly. Something that the federal government officials should have foreseen.
EDUCATION
I support school choice, including voucher programs, tax credits, charter schools, private schools, and home schools.
Strongly Agree
Competition is important and healthy, in all business sectors. Education is a business and should be treated as such. The money should follow the students to ensure that there is competition and incentive to give our children the best education, that we the people pay for, whether we want to or not, and therefore should require that we in turn see a good return on our investment into the future of our state, through the education of the next generation.
VALUES
Judeo-Christian values established a framework of morality which is necessary for our system of limited government.
Strongly Agree
That is the historically accurate basis of our country, that also was the articulation of those who formed our country. No one is forced to have to believe in it, but it is the basis upon which our government is limited, and our rights and values are respected amongst one another, no matter our religion or values are. the value of freedom and the right to choose for yourself wha you want to belief and how to live your life are safeguarded under those values and framework.
I support adding gender identity as a specially protected class in non-discrimination laws.
Strongly Disagree
Gender is already a protected under non-discrimination laws. Whether or not you identify as one or the other, doesn't change the non-discrimination laws.
Marriage is a God-ordained, sacred and legal union of one man and one woman. No government has the authority to alter this definition
Disagree
Washington state government already has redefined marriage. Per our US constitution, if someone chooses to belief in their own religion, or lack thereof, that encompasses marriage outside of the union of a man and woman, then the government should not prevent that. So as long as a religion doesn't inflict abuse upon a child or animal, or other moral laws. It would seem to be unconstitutional to inhibit, based upon a religious bias.
I agree with Critical Race Theory (CRT) which asserts that the institutions in the United States are fundamentally racist.
Strongly Disagree
It is not realistic that institutions are set up to be racist. Especially when we have civil rights laws that protect against discrimination on the basis of color. The fact is that racism is an issue of an individual person, not an institution. It is not plausible that all the US institutions would therefore even be able to exist. The theory is weak and not factual. If it were so, why are so many of our governmental institutions lead up by people of ALL colors?
Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
I am a Christian. I believe in free choice to believe as you wish - just as how God has laid it out for us all, the right to choose to believe Him or not to - and to respect others opinions, boundaries, and differences of.
ELECTIONS AND VOTING
People should be able to vote without photo identification.
Strongly Disagree
How will you then determine whether that person is legally allowed to vote incur elections or not???
What laws would you propose to change present voting practices?
I would propose going back to person, one day elections, and getting rid of the particular machines that have been shown to be of concern to both political parties, because of each parties own investigations over the last decade and complaints regarding. I would propose new processes to ensure accurate voter rolls and registrations. I would also propose regular audit strategies for all elections, to ensure all processes are being followed and fixed if there are any potential issues found.
EQUALITY
Is racism a threat to domestic security in the United States? Why or why not?
The attempt to create division though means of racism is a problem in our society right now, not racism itself. The potential for a domestic security threat because of racism, would only be because of the perpetuation of this attempt to bring this division through race, through making statements that people of a certain color are now automatically racists because of the color of skin that they are born with -- which is a racist statement in and of itself. I do not believe it will escalate to the level of a domestic security issue, but none the less, is definitely an issue of trampling upon civil rights protections, that need to be nipped in the bud, and not allowed to perpetuate and expand into further discrimination or abuses based upon skin color.
Reparations should be given to people on the basis of race.
Strongly Disagree
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
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.
My view is to look at what is for the best of the people, so that the people can decide what's best for themselves, be it regulations or be it affordable, feasible, realistic options. A narrow minded approach is not the solution. Expanding upon options and investigating into those is. An assessment of the issues and plausible solutions is the route that should be taken; not the heavy focus on unnecessarily punishing the people through taxation that does't actually benefit the environment at all, nor regulating an industry to force it out of business. Where there are solutions, there will be industry and an excitement for it, especially if it is for the benefit of our environment and the economy. To allow the government to restrict our options of available environmentally safe and sustainable solutions is not what's best for the people. There should be a creation of an open market for competitive solutions that are environmentally friendly. Focuses should be on enabling the expansion and availability of those. What would be best for the people and the health of our environment and our economy, would be the competition of the industry through the availability of options and the promotion therefore of those options - especially for the enablement of the development of the industries. Sometimes regulations are not the answer, but finding the solitons are -- and that's where we need to be focusing our attentions on in protecting our environment.
I support the use of hydraulic fracking to extract oil and natural gas resources.
Neutral
It needs to be researched into further. It seems the ban on it is based in speculation not occurrences of any events.
ABOUT YOU
What do you think is the general purpose of government?
To protect the rights of the people and fulfill its obligations as thus set forth.
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?
Conservative
Please provide publicly available information, including interviews and media reports, validating your answer to the previous question (other than your website).
You can find information on my YouTube channel, Janell Hulst for the House, where I will be sharing my views and solutions. I have been interviewed on OutLaw Radio, and have other information regarding my views on my FaceBook page, @HusltforWA.
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?
My focus is to ensure that parental and individual rights are secured, and our school systems are protecting all children and not creating discrimination. That accountability for our governmental spending and responsibilities are conducted and clearly defined where there is vagueness, to ensure that our government is actually functioning effectively and efficiently, so that we can focus our resources on areas that need the attention and correction: such as in the homelessness crisis and crime. There is a huge lacking of compassionate support and accountability for those in homelessness, and I have solutions to sustainably correction it. There is a huge epidemic of crime -- largely due to the recent poor legislation that I will fix, but also due to the lack of funding that will need to be established for hiring police. I too will fix that. I have innovative, environmental solutions that are already available, affordable and untapped that are not being looked at -- I will bring forth proposals for those. I also have innovative solutions to preemptively prepare our state for the coming supply and food shortages, and rising inflation. My solutions will encourage industry and help the people to survive through the inflation and supply crisis, rather than being sitting ducks who just fall victim to it. I'm honored to represent our region and to work with the representatives of the other regions, to develop a strong plan to ensure our state doesn't fall in this impeding crisis we are about to be facing, and to bring solutions to the current ones we are in. Now is the time to bring solutions and innovation, that will unite and secure our state, not divide it. I am invested in this beautiful state and will ensure to accomplish what is in the best interest of the people, so that we can ride through this storm, and rise above it, and find ourselves, stronger, united, stable and better for it. Through adversity comes strengthening from perseverance. I have overcome many challenges and hardships, persevered, and come out better and stronger for it. I feel like all my hardships and diligence to see it through, has prepared me for such a time as this - when hard work, determination, innovation, and intellect will be needed to see solutions to fruition, for the growth and protection of our beautiful state of Washington. I hope to earn the respect and vote of the people not based on party lines, but for the unity and solutions I will bring and that I stand for.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE & PUBLIC SAFETY
Police officers should be personally immune from prosecution for conduct consistent with departmental policy (qualified immunity) while on duty.
Strongly Agree
All governmental officials have a personally immunity, other than criminal behavior. The same should be reinstated for police officers.
I support redirecting funds from police departments to mental health and community programs.
Strongly Disagree
If there are not police to enforce the laws, who is going to stop the criminals from pillaging and harming innocent people? The consequences from the lack of funding for our police departments (along with the enablement of criminals from poor legislation) demonstrates what happens when you do not hav splice ot enforce the law -- criminals start to figure it out, that no one is going ot stop them and so crime ensues and innocent people pay at the price for it.
2ND AMENDMENT
What restrictions on gun ownership are needed to protect public safety?
Restrictions on gun ownership does not protect public safety. Gun owners help to ensure public safety for themselves and those around them. It's the criminals who illegally obtain weapons that are the public safety issue. Restricting ownership does nothing to affect criminals in any way.
Victims of gun violence should be able to sue firearms dealers and manufacturers.
Strongly Disagree
The problem is not the gun. Guns do not shoot people or choose to be violent, anymore than a knife doesn't choose to attack someone. The blame for the behavior should be placed on the individual who chooses to do criminal acts, not the gun or the law abiding citizens. The notion would be, as someone getting to sue a car company because of people driving drunk and hurting others. The blame and focus is being placed in the wrong place.
