|
The questions were prepared by the Leagues of Women Voters of New York State and asked of all candidates for this office.
See below for questions on
Immigration,
Climate Change,
Wars in Iraq/Afghanistan,
Economy
Click on a name for candidate information. See also more information about this contest.
 |
1. What changes to our current immigration policy do you support?
|
Answer from Christopher Gibson:
We must recognize that we are a nation of immigrants and their value-added to this country. First, we must enforce laws already on the books. Second, we must secure our borders. Lastly, we must address employment-related issues related to illegal immigration. We must pursue efforts to eliminate illegal immigration and we must adequately and appropriately enforce existing laws. Current illegal aliens must plead guilty and admit their status. I support such initiatives as a program to require admission of guilt, a fine levied for breaking the law and required background checks and employment verification before able to reapply for work related entry for a set time period. Those illegal aliens convicted of a crime must be deported immediately and prohibited re-entry so taxpayers do not finance their prison stays. We must secure our border with the continuation of an already-begun and funded border fence and strengthen federal efforts and recognize states' rights to enforce their laws.
Answer from Scott Murphy:
I am committed to working toward tough, fair, and practical immigration reform that puts taxpayer interests first and meets the needs of our economy. To accomplish these goals, we must secure our borders, crack down on employers who knowingly hire illegal workers, and develop a set of rules that allows undocumented immigrants who are contributing to our society to earn legal status. This system must require individuals who broke the law to pay back taxes, learn English, and go to the end of the line. Finally, Congress should work toward establishing a guest worker program that will allow foreign workers to meet the economic needs of our nation, while also protecting and prioritizing the existing American workforce.
|
2. What legislation do you support to reduce CO2 emissions?
|
Answer from Christopher Gibson:
We must strike the proper balance between jobs and the protection of our precious environment, especially here in the 20th District where we have such natural beauty and assets. First, we must recognize that the cap and trade legislation supported by my opponent is not the answer. It represents a high cost, low value solution that cripples families, farms and small businesses, the backbone of our economy. We must pursue an all-of-the-above domestic energy policy that helps struggling consumers by lowering energy costs and strengthens our nation's energy security by decreasing our dependence on foreign oil. A constructive and productive strategy supports domestic exploration, expands nuclear power, and encourages the use of renewable fuels such as wind, solar, hydropower and biofuels where they make economic sense. It also works to improve energy efficiencies without over burdensome mandates, looks to upgrade our nation's electric grid and supports new technologies that cut consumption.
Answer from Scott Murphy:
I voted to pass landmark energy independence and clean energy jobs legislation, The American Clean Energy and Security Act. Not only would the legislation put us on the path to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent in 2050, but it would also fundamentally increase Upstate New York’s competitiveness and create clean energy jobs right here at home. In fact, even the conservative Heritage Foundation reports that this legislation will save New York consumers $59.5 million in 2012. It is also estimated that this legislation would help to cut the United States’ use of oil by more than 5 million barrels a day in the next 20 years – roughly the equivalent to all the oil we currently import daily from the Middle East and Venezuela combined. By investing in clean energy technology and energy efficiency we will not only make our country more secure, but we will also be more competitive in the global marketplace.
|
3. What timetable would you support for the removal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan?
|
Answer from Scott Murphy:
As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, it is my responsibility to talk to the troops on the ground and to do everything I can to make informed decisions. Earlier this year, I traveled to Afghanistan to meet with our troops and generals on the front lines and to assess the current situation on the ground. In Afghanistan, I am committed to working to achieve the president’s goal of transferring security responsibility to the Afghans and beginning the drawdown of US troops in July 2011. However, success in Afghanistan will require a stronger Afghan government that is able to deny al Qaeda safe haven and crack down on wide-spread corruption. It is important to recognize that our involvement in Afghanistan will likely extend beyond next summer. In Iraq, we have seen recent success with the end of the American combat mission. However, our military involvement in Iraq is not over, and I remain committed to providing the necessary resources and support to our troops.
Answer from Christopher Gibson:
As a 24-year veteran of the US Army, including four combat tours to Iraq, I know firsthand the problems our service men and women face in this theater of operations. I supported the troop surge in Iraq, implemented in 2007, and this concerted effort has led to stability in this critical area of the Middle East. Clearly, Iraq is not a Jeffersonian democracy, but security has greatly improved as the rule of law begins to take hold. As a result, we will begin a draw down of our troops soon. Our central concern in Afghanistan is to prevent al Qaeda from re-establishing a safe haven within its borders. Joint special-operations task forces must continue efforts against the resurgent, potent Taliban and al Qaeda, including in the Afghan-Pakistan border regions where it forms and trains. NATO forces must create an environment suitable for a conditions-based training program to foster levels of professionalism and effectiveness in Afghan forces that will allow our forces to begin coming home.
|
4. Do you support substantial additional federal funding for economic recovery?
|
Answer from Christopher Gibson:
I do not believe in more deficit spending for economic recovery. The economy is the single most important issue in this campaign. Continued federal funding will only sap more resources from the private sector, further increase our debt and deficit, forcing future generations to pay it back. We must move quickly to balance the budget and pay down the deficit so that future generations are not strapped with unbearable interest payments, losing funding priorities and limiting our choices and freedoms. Growth is best achieved by getting government out of the way through lower taxes, streamlined regulations, and lower health care costs. These efforts are the best form of government stimulus and are fare more effective than the failed spending policies supported by my opponent that have brought us to an unemployment rate that hovers close to 10 percent, mounting national debt, and skyrocketing deficits. Private-sector-stimulus by removing impediments to growth and investment are imperative.
Answer from Scott Murphy:
The engine of job creation and economic recovery will always be America's businesses. While I do not believe that we can simply spend our way to a strong economy, I do believe that government can help create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and grow our economy. That is why I support targeted investments in infrastructure, education, energy development, and small business. For example, investments in high speed internet are essential to educating our youth, helping our economy grow, and creating jobs. However, we cannot lose focus on our responsibility to restrain out of control spending. That is why I led the fight to implement Pay-As-You-Go rules, which require Congress to offset the cost of any tax cut or increase in entitlement spending with savings from elsewhere in the budget. In addition, I voted to eliminate nearly $40 billion in wasteful government spending, and have supported efforts to cut and eliminate funding for federal programs.
Responses to questions asked of each candidate
are reproduced as submitted to the League.
Candidates' responses are not edited or corrected by the League.
The order of the candidates is random and changes daily. Candidates who did not respond are not listed on this page.
|
League of Women Voters of New York State Education Foundation, Inc.
