Liberal in the Land of Conservative

Yes. Many are quick to blame government when something goes wrong and conclude that the answer is to pass more funding cuts. I think we need to focus on making sure we have the resources necessary to prevent problems from materializing in the first place.

Yes. It’s important that Washington supports the work being done in our legislatures and city halls. I would’ve voted against the 2006 budget reconciliation bill because it benefited the super-wealthy at the expense of everyone else. The billions spent on tax breaks for the rich would’ve been put to far better use by investing in infrastructure and our safety net programs and by helping states and communities better serve their residents.

Yes. I would also have voted "No" on the recent federal budget reconciliation bill.

I oppose the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. As a tax lawyer and banker, I know from experience that the overwhelming majority of the benefits from the Bush tax cuts went to those who didn’t need the help in the first place.

I oppose the full repeal of the estate tax for millionaires and will work vigorously to close the loopholes big corporations exploit while working Americans pay more than their fair share.

As congressman, I won’t even consider so-called “across-the-board” tax cuts until we’ve leveled the playing field for the Middle Class and provided much needed funding for critical programs like SCHIP, Social Security, the prescription drug program, etc.

I support rolling back the Bush tax cuts-the theory of the Bush administration has always been that the problems stem from the wealthy not having enough money. We know this "trickle-down" theory is flawed and I oppose any expansion of the tax cuts and any additional tax cuts for the wealthy. I will support any tax incentives that value middle class citizens over corporations.

Yes. Absolutely.

The balanced-budget amendment is simply a scheme devised by people like Michele Bachmann, who’s co-sponsoring it in the House. They have no interest in seeing government make much-needed investments in health care, education and our infrastructure. To paraphrase Grover Norquist, they’re trying to shrink government to the point where it can be drowned in a bathtub. Then they have the gall to wonder why it doesn’t work after Hurricane Katrina or the Interstate 35-W bridge collapse.

I have been an outspoken critic of President Bush’s SCHIP veto, even though I don’t think the legislation passed by Congress went far enough. Today more than 9 million children in America – including 85,000 here in Minnesota – are uninsured. The expanded SCHIP legislation that Michele Bachmann opposed would’ve reduced that number by half. That’s a good start, but we must do better.

I support universal health care coverage and would ultimately like to see a single-payer system implemented. For the time being, the largest employers, like Wal-Mart, should be required to provide health care for their workers. Smaller employers, the self-employed, unemployed and uninsured should be able to buy health care with tax credits and through coverage pools that help keep costs down (similar to the plans advanced by some Democratic presidential candidates).

I support universal, comprehensive health care for all children and adults. We absolutely need universal heath care for everyone. Besides being a tremendous public health risk, having individuals who are uninsured also puts our businesses and industry at risk because the cost of insuring workers is too high. We need to have a system that everyone is paying into at a reasonable rate, and a way to prevent people from using our emergency rooms as their primary care facility. I think President Bush's veto of SCHIP was unconscionable. For someone to talk about family values, they need to support legislation that supports and protects families.

Yes. The Bush drug plan has simply roped seniors into a broken system. It’s really a plan for the big pharmaceutical companies rather than the customers. The federal government must absolutely use its purchasing power to negotiate lower prices from the manufacturers.

As a tax attorney, I have drafted more than a hundred defined-benefit plans, and several hundred defined-contribution plans. I know DB plans are much better public policy. Retirement plans can be difficult to understand, and I think most importantly, employees need to be educated about the differences so they can demand better plans, and in congress, I would be in a unique position to do that.

Critics cite cost control, but the fact is DB plans are not difficult to budget. The employer must put in the actuarially appropriate amount to produce the defined benefit upon retirement. Critics cite lack of portability, but this can be mitigated. Additionally, many public-sector employees are not covered by Social Security, so their DB plans must be preserved.

I would encourage all legislation to support DB plans, and would encourage unions and all employees to support these plans as well. I think we can go beyond “stopping the erosion” and that there are things congress can do to tax-incentivize small and large businesses to create DB plans.

First, I will oppose expansion of defined contribution programs.

Second, I will work to protect Social Security. It's a promise we have made to the people who have paid into it and the people who will continue to pay into it, that it will be there for them in their retirement. Also, I would work to make sure the federal Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation is fully funded and that companies are paying their fair share to ensure employee pensions.

By pushing privatization, the Bush administration and Michele Bachmann have tried to change Social Security from a defined-benefit plan to a defined contribution plan, injecting unnecessary risk and instability into the most important retirement plan we have. There is no better defined benefit plan than Social Security and this program must be preserved and strengthened.

Yes. In an effort to save money, the Bush administration has simply created more problems. Outsourcing/contracting-out leads to inefficiencies and a complete lack of accountability that didn’t exist when government was in full control of administering these programs. Moreover, the wages and benefits provided by public employment make for better public policy.

I strongly support the Employee Free Choice Act and won’t hesitate to stand with workers in their efforts to organize. I will also strongly oppose any legislation that would make it more difficult to organize in the future.

Yes. I am proud of the support I have from organized labor and I have and will continue to fight for workers' right to organize.

The general principles behind campaign finance reform are fine. As we all know, there’s far too much money in the system. But grassroots efforts by labor and related groups have been unfairly targeted. I think we need to review McCain-Feingold, and close the loopholes the corporate interests are exploiting while relaxing restrictions on people-powered efforts.

I strongly oppose efforts to restrict legitimate political activity by those who stand in opposition to the agenda of organized labor. I support the rights of people to organize around no only their own rights in the workplace, but around political ideas and issues that are central to the welfare of their membership.