Interview with Annie Loyd, Independent for Congress in Arizona’s CD3

Annie Loyd is running for Congress in CD 3 as an Independent. She will be facing incumbent John Shadegg (R) and Democratic challenger Bob Lord in the general election. I sent Annie a questionnaire about her views and positions on the issues that she returned as a PDF that you can download, or read online by clicking the continuation link below.

Annie and I also had a roughly half-hour telephone conversation following up on her answers, and touching on some additional matters, which you can listen to as a podcast.

The full questionnaire is after the click…

Background:

What qualities or habits make one a good elected representative?

1. Have integrity – know when and how to do the right thing.
2. Listen to people; surround yourself with people who challenge you on issues.
3. Read various books on the issues; read news from various sources; have curiosity.
4. Have courage to sift through the issues and stay at the table throughout the negotiations.
5. Be creative – think outside the box and listen to the ideas of others; the world is changing rapidly and a leader must be able to adapt.
6. Communicate – an effective speaker must be willing to present the cold hard facts even when it’s not popular.
7. Have passion – believe in what you’re doing.
8. Inspire others.
9. Offer pragmatic solutions.
10. Be articulate – craft a plan and surround yourself with people who know the issues and can solve the problems.

Who are your role-models for how you want to conduct yourself in office, and why?

1. Elanor Roosevelt – She was chairman of the Human Rights Commission during the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the General Assembly on December 10, 1948.
2. Dorothea Dix – she “simply did whatever would best help people.”
3. Dwight D. Eisenhower – 34th President of the U.S., obtained a truce in Korea and worked relentlessly during his two terms to ease the tensions of the Cold War. He pursued the moderate policies of "Modern Republicanism," pointing out as he left office, "America is today the strongest, most influential, and most productive nation in the world."
4. Lee Iacocca – Among the most widely recognized businessmen in the world.
5. Congresswoman Patsy Mink, who wrote the “Opportunity in Education Act” as an outgrowth of adversities she faced in obtaining her degrees at the University of Hawaii, University of Nebraska and University of Chicago.

Each of these people possess(ed) a leadership style that encompasses/d the qualities stated above.

What is your history of involvement in Democratic politics?
I have worked in politics as a volunteer, paid consultant and staff for more than 20 years in local, state and national campaigns in the field, coordinating, recruiting and organizing volunteers, fundraising and strategizing for Democrats and Republicans.

Why are you an Independent?
I’m a registered Independent because our voices matter and our call for change hasn’t been heard. As Americans, we have a Constitution designed to protect the voice of the people. However, in order for our voices to be heard, we must have the opportunity to speak. We have a participatory democracy that is being silenced by the rhetoric of partisan politics. Trained politicians deliver carefully calculated messages that often fan the fires of fear instead of inspiring the masses to participate in finding the solutions. I’m an Independent because I believe the time has come to elect leaders willing to move us away from fear and toward solutions.

Are you religious, and what is your religious affiliation?
I was raised Catholic and received a Catholic education – I have also been fortunate to have had opportunities to study numerous religions and enjoy a daily personal spiritual practice.

Campaign:

What is your strategy for overcoming the large (~60k+) Republican advantage in CD 3 to beat an incumbent?
Look at the failure of the last seven years of the current administration and the abdication of responsibilities of the Congress. I will continue to talk with the people, walk the district, be engaged in the community and create common goals on which to focus. My goal is to earn the vote.

How are you going to build a campaign to defeat an incumbent without party backing?
The power is with the people, not the parties. The parties are only a participant in the political system; they are not the system itself. We will continue to go to the people, walk the district, talk, be engaged and inspire the people to get engaged.

What kind of reception has your candidacy met with in the state and national party?
Not relevant to our campaign.

What is your ultimate fund-raising goal?
Two million dollars.

Why is your race in CD 3 a good investment of resources by Democrats when CD 1 looks so clearly ready to flip?
Each and every district is important to its constituents. Respecting their right to be heard in the political process does not come from some careful and often misguided political calculus. It comes from leaders willing to risk the energy and resources necessary to win every race.

Democrats and Republicans are investing in this campaign because they want solutions and someone who is willing to take action in their community – not just talk about where the “easy win is.” It’s about caring about the issues and the people affected by the issues, not the political analysis or paralysis by the parties. It’s time for action. The people want a representative that inspires them, cares about them, is accountable to them, is responsible with the trust they place in them when the representative is elected. It’s about serving the people.

Do you personally know any current or former members of Congress or Congressional staffers? Are any of them advising your campaign?
Yes, and I’m grateful for their support.

Will you name all the other advisers to your campaign?
Yes, we will make an announcement of our advisors later this fall after the upcoming local elections.

In Office: 

If you are elected, what committee assignments will you seek, and why?
Education and the Workforce – education, with a particular focus on math, technology and science and the integration of arts, culture and physical education is critical to developing a strong and vibrant workforce and creating healthy competition in this global economy

Energy and Commerce – implementing alternative energy strategies and improving trade agreements is the key to our new job growth, particularly in Arizona.

Government Reform – balancing the budget and addressing the astronomical debt must begin with reforming the exceptional size of our current governmental structure.

Homeland Security – immigration, border security, rights of privacy are dividing issues to Arizonans and requires immediate action and effective, efficient solutions.

Small Business – Arizona replaced longtime leader Nevada as the fastest-growing state in the union during the 12 months ended July 1, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The population of the Grand Canyon State grew 3.6 percent during that period. Nevada grew by 3.5 percent.

Veterans Affairs – a systemic issue that has gone virtually unaddressed is the inhumane treatment of our veterans. We cannot continue to ignore their needs.

Are there any caucuses or organizations you plan to join if elected, i.e. Blue Dogs, DLC, Out of Iraq caucus, etc?
I will seek participation and/or membership in LSOs, caucuses or organizations that pool their resources to pursue common legislative goals.

What will be your top priorities for constituent service?
Our core principles guiding our constituent services will be:

• Accessibility
• Responsibility
• Transparency

Are you planning on making any voluntary pledges about your conduct while in office?
I will work diligently to uphold the Constitution; and have integrity and presence.

What do you see as your greatest areas of expertise as a policymaker?
My greatest area of expertise is my education on the issues and my open-mindedness for creative pragmatic solutions. As an effective public speaker, I have the ability to articulate and create avenues of productive dialogue resulting in action being taken with the interest of the common good. From my experience, I know that making changes that have sustaining and positive impacts require a willingness to create solutions that involve working with many different groups of people with a multitude of agendas, a willingness to seek out the facts, listen and fight for what is right.

Foreign Policy:

What is your experience and education in the conduct or foreign policy, national security, and military affairs?
Foreign Policy: I’ve had the fortunate opportunity to work with men and women that have traveled to the United States to learn about political leadership and development. While I have remained in the United States to work, I am fortunate to be surrounded by people with extensive experience and expertise from working with individuals such as Mother Teresa, his holiness the Dali Lama, Nelson Mandela, with organizations from USAID, OXFAM, and the United Nations to working on issues from the South African Truth and Reconciliation Hearings, child soldiers, HIV/AIDS, conflict resolution, human trafficking, micro-credit lending, water projects and in regions from Pakistan, India, Israel, Palestine, Afghanistan, Ghana, Indonesia, to the Honduras, Mexico, Russia, Peru, Uzbekistan, and Spain. I have a comprehensive understanding of the intricacies and the process of coalition building and the necessity for comprehensive multilateral strategic solutions requiring all leaders – religious, education, political, business, scientific and military – to participate in developing the best plan.

National Security: in my capacity as a “social architect,” radio talk show host and community builder, I have participated in extensive discussions and received an exceptional diverse education on the demands of national security, the role of the military, civil servants and private citizens.

Military Affairs: I have wonderful lifetime friends and colleagues that have served and retired from the military and are advisors for the campaign. Growing up in a community close to the SAC Air Force Base in Rapid City, South Dakota, I had more than 12 years of experience with military personnel and their families. I had staff and friends that served during the Gulf War and in Bosnia, and are currently serving. Additionally, while working to raise funds for our military personnel that have returned stateside, I’ve witnessed the extreme toll on our military personnel, their families, friends and community. Furthermore, I’ve had the opportunity to visit the Pentagon and converse with many military personnel.

Are you willing to commit to vote only to end the war and bring our troops home, and not to prolong or fund the war any further except as may be necessary to redeploy the troops out of Iraq once you are in office?
I support the following statement from Lieutenant General William E. Odom, former Director of the National Security Agency U.S. Army (Ret.), “No effective new strategy can be devised for the United States until it begins withdrawing its
forces from Iraq.”

I believe this is a defining question for what it means to be an Independent. Many Democrats want to pull out all the troops and many Republicans want to stay the course. It is time to purposing a comprehensive new strategy. This is not an up or down vote or a simple “yes” or “no” answer. We are dealing with the lives of thousands of people. I believe this question requires reframing.

The occupation (as it is viewed in the region) of Iraq is wrought with untold human sacrifices, chaos and confusion and will require a political solution, not just a military solution. In the words of Lee Iacocca, “Stay the course? You’ve got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic … you can’t call yourself a patriot if you’re not outraged.”

We have unleashed great unrest in this region as a direct result of our actions. We have a responsibility to change the course of our direction and participate with the International Community in finding a solution and a path for reconstruction by Iraq with our support. This includes necessary security, particularly in the northern region of Iraq. I’m committed to immediately and decisively voting to reduce the number of our troops in Iraq knowing that taking immediate action to reduce our status as an occupying force will change the course of others. I am committed to ensuring that we are not perceived as an occupying force in Iraq, as is currently the case.

This effort requires a comprehensive multilateral political strategy. Existing funds must be reallocated to adequately fund the needs of the military and the solutions will require all leaders – religious, education, political, business, scientific and military – to participate in developing the best plan. I am committed to having absolute accountability for the funds currently allocated to reconstruction.

Will you allow the privatization of Iraqi oil fields?
It is not for us to allow or disallow the privatization of Iraqi oil fields. It’s up to the Iraqis. The future of our greatest job growth and sustainability of our economy rests in the research, development and creation of our new energy resources. We can do this.

What is the proper role of Congress in the conduct of foreign policy?
The proper role of Congress in the conduct of foreign policy was laid out 231 years ago in the Constitution:

Article I Clause 7(1) – all bills for raising revenue must begin in the House.
The Congress is responsible for taxes, duties, imposts, excises, borrowing and paying debt, defense, general welfare found in Section 8 Clause (1) of the Constitution. Many of these issues have direct import for foreign affairs. Congress regulates commerce with foreign nations Section 8 Clause (3) and makes a uniform rule of naturalization Section 8 Clause (4). Congress also has a very large role in the military e.g. to define and punish piracies and felonies on the high seas and offenses against the law of nations Section 8 Clause (10), to declare war and make rules concerning capture on land and water Section 8 Clause (11), to raise and support armies but not to make appropriation for armies more than two years Section 8 Clause (12), to provide and maintain a Navy Section 8 Clause (13), to make rules for the government and regulation of land and Naval forces Section 8 Clause (14), to calling out the militia (15) and organize, arm and discipline the militia Section 8 Clause (16).
Congress must regain its role and authority as directed by the Constitution.

What do you see as America’s proper role in world affairs?
America should be good ambassadors; responsible, environmental stewards; leaders in protecting human rights and in environmental and climate change issues, good citizens to our global neighbors and discover creative methods to resolving conflicts.

What lessons have you learned from the invasion of Iraq that you would apply in Congress?
Information not ideology must be the basis of the open debates. Americans want and can handle the facts. The House needs accurate, fact-based information on which to base decisions. It is absolutely essential that strong military actions are debated openly. As we have seen in Iraq, the consequences to our military, their families, the nation and our reputation in the world are so grave and significant, that we must act with prudence and sensibility.

Furthermore, military actions must include political solutions supportive of the development of education and infrastructures and the stabilization of economies.

Why should we follow or promulgate international law or undertake treaties?
Again, the Constitution has already answered that in Article VI (2) by stating that treaties made shall be the supreme law of the land. It is simply folly to think that we can live with an isolationist principle in today’s ever shrinking world. If we are to engage in the world, then we must do it with treaties that regulate a host of matters. To promote the general welfare of the US, we need to promote peace in the world, which we do through international law.

Should the US participate in international efforts to create a mandatory regime to control carbon emissions to address global warming?
Mandatory is a strong imposing word. I believe what you are implying in your question is: should we subject ourselves to arbitrary carbon control rules handed down by some external regime. I recommend leading rather than following. We need to help develop a responsible carbon model respective of both environmental and economic needs. Any controls need to be made in concert with overall economic development plans. We live in an interdependent world, where the effects of each person’s actions touch everyone else. Education, as it relates to environmental concerns in all countries, plays the biggest role in making informed decisions that will benefit the world environment.

How do we best address the threat of terrorist attack on our citizens and allies?
First: what do the experts say?

Prevention of radicalization and recruitment must become central to the government’s security strategy. We take a criminal justice approach for crimes or attempted crimes of violence. We take a justice approach for prevention of future attacks. But allowing and condoning torture and locking up suspects without charges have damaged America’s image at home and abroad. Theses actions have also undermined confidence in the police and security services, jeopardizing the tip-offs and other cooperation that are crucial to successfully policing terrorism. Iraq is a good example where the Independent viewpoint, free from the party lines, will have much more flexibility to propose creative, long overdue and viable solutions. Are we teaching peace? Are we budgeting for teaching peace? Billions of people look to the U.S. as a model for freedom and justice. People want peace. How are we modeling this for the world? Strengthening our domestic first responders — the firemen, the policemen — will give us the ability to identify and limit violence in the United States. A focus on disaster preparedness increases the empowerment of the public and their ability to participate in solutions and not just be stuck in an overreaching fear of the unknown.

We need to “win the battle of hearts and minds” if we are to prevail against terrorism. Accomplishing this goal depends on adopting a new approach to countering terrorism, based on policing and the criminal justice system. This approach should uphold rather than undermine human rights, and thus reaffirm that our fundamental values are stronger than those who wish to harm us.

With respect to allies, we continue to work together recognizing input from all. The best defense will be worldwide concerted efforts, in education, in being the leader of coordinated efforts to get people the basics. This requires a multilateral effort that includes leaders of all the stakeholders from all sectors of society from education (the scholars and historians), economics, to energy, health care including psychologists and military and governmental agencies.

People want to be heard. Or they want to control. Many people who think they want to control actually will be OK if they are heard and allowed to dialogue with others. We need a long range plan to create dialogue. There is no quick fix. But there needs to be a start, NOW. We certainly spend enough money on traditional efforts that have failed dismally. We’ve been at war now longer than WWII. Do we understand what the terrorists want? What do the experts say? What do the terrorists want other than to annihilate us? What projects are we funding worldwide that have a positive effect?

In the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower, “Though force can protect in emergency, only justice, fairness, consideration and cooperation can finally lead men to the dawn of eternal peace.”

Is it ever acceptable to use torture or extraordinary rendition for the purpose of outsourcing torture to combat terrorist threats?
No. It is well known that the information obtained is not reliable. It then justifies others doing the same to us. It not only brutalizes the victim, it brutalizes the oppressor as well and thus lowers all of us to the level of medieval barbarians.
Our torture of others begets torture of our men and women if they’re captured. That’s what the Geneva Convention accords were all about. We model to the world an Abu Ghraib situation and Guantanamo and we have put our people at grave risk.
The following is taken from a brief filed with the European Court of Human Rights that deals with torture historically: “Only criminal responsibility protects the fundamental values of personal integrity, life and dignity. Only criminal responsibility has the function of prevention and deterrence. Only criminal responsibility speaks to the harm not only to the individual but to the society by State authorities using and condoning torture and ill-treatment.”

How can the United States help to bring peace and stability to the Middle East, and Israel/Palestine in particular? Do you have any strong views on the nature of the relationship between America and Israel?
What do the experts say? Education. Get the voices of moderation out in front and fully support those voices. The political card is huge in the Middle East debate. Each party member is bound by their party position. The Middle East is another good example where the Independent viewpoint, free from party lines, will have much more flexibility to propose creative, long overdue and viable solutions.
We have to listen to the experts and people working in the region and answer their call to take a strong stand for the two state solution. Safety and security must be cornerstones in the comprehensive plan of how to get this accomplished, which has already been laid out by many.

This is supported by statements made by one of the many experts, Marc Gopin, the James H. Laue Professor of Religion, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution, and the Director of the Center on Religion, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution at George Mason University’s Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution:

“The strategy is to encourage leaders, even belligerent ones, into gestures — which they want to be seen to be open to — in order to shift the ground beneath them politically. For if the gestures attract some positive reaction from their populations this will, in turn, give these leaders the political space to give less belligerent orders, to carry out peace accords to the letter, rather than without serious intentions. This will provide the grease in the wheels of the security efforts underway to control terrorism. This represents an indispensable adjunct to traditional diplomacy and security negotiations and is the only way to reach cease-fires and peace accords in the present climate.

“It should be stated that leaders in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, to take an example, stated several times in private to me and to others that they were ready for such gestures but that third parties in the United States at the highest levels failed to encourage them to do this. True or not, it suggests at least the possibility that opportunities may have been missed in the past, but point to a promising opening for a different future. Perhaps if these leaders are encouraged to engage in such gestures by American authorities through public speeches it will have the desired impact.”

Would you agree that nuclear proliferation and the threat of nuclear armed terrorism is central aspect of our national security? Discuss your views on the proper strategy for America.
Arms reduction is in the best interest of everyone. It is time to change the paradigm from confrontation to dialog. Transforming economies based on arms production to economies that can sustain their population and allow them to grow in peace.

Where is the economic component in the long range world view? The rise in terrorism should cause us to rapidly increase our commitment to decreasing nuclear proliferation. Common sense leads logically to believe that decreasing the numbers of weapons of mass destruction in existence decreases the ability for terrorist to acquire them. Simultaneously, we must act proactively to reduce the radicalization of individuals that succumb to terrorists’ ideologies.

I support the decision made at the beginning of June when the House Appropriations Committee cut the nuclear weapons budget proposed by the Bush Administration by $630 million and increased support for nuclear non-proliferation programs by nearly $1 billion.

Again, Independents can support solutions that aren’t forced upon by their party.
I disagree with the decision on December 18, 2007, when the president signed H.R. 5682 and undermined global efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. After talking with many people in Arizona, I believe the words spoken decades ago by Dwight D. Eisenhower speaks to the desire of the people today as it did then, “The United States  strongly seeks a lasting agreement for the discontinuance of nuclear weapons tests. We believe that this would be an important step toward reduction of international tensions and would open the way to further agreement on substantial measures of disarmament.”

Civil Liberties/Government Power:

Is it acceptable to suspend habeas corpus for some classes of people to fight international terrorism?
No. The Constitution Article I (9)(2) states that “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

Habeas Corpus tracks back to the 13th century and was first written into English Common Law in 1679! Thomas More posed the questions, “If you tear down all the rules to get the devil – behind what will hide in order to protect yourself when he turns on you?” It flies in the face of our inherent sense of decency.

This is neither a case of rebellion or invasion and habeas corpus should never have been suspended as it was and is against the Constitution.

Should the NSA program of floating wiretaps on citizen’s international communications be legalized by Congress?
No.

Does the program violate FISA?
Yes.

Should the so-called PATRIOT ACT be repealed in part or entirely?
We handed out a license to abuse the rights that are guaranteed to Americans by passing the Patriot Act. Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Can you explain why Congress is concerned about the firing of certain USAs by the Justice department?
I believe you are referring the firing of the U.S. attorneys by the Justice Department. The concern of the House Democrats is that several administration officials may have broken the law during the multiple firings of U.S. attorneys specifically that senior White House and Justice Department aides involved in the removal of nine U.S. attorneys last year may have obstructed justice and violated federal statutes that protect civil service employees, prohibit political retaliation against government officials and cover presidential records. There are multiple concerns: that firings were politically motivated, not performance based and were based on ideological preferences versus the rule of law.

Has President Bush or any of his Administration committed impeachable offenses?
Yes. Bruce Fine — a conservative constitutional law expert who served in the Justice Department during the Reagan administration and as general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission has been affiliated with conservative think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation — has identified impeachable offenses of the executive branch. “The Constitutions separation of powers is too important to be discarded in the name of expediency,” Bruce Fine.
Some of the stated impeachable offenses as outlined by Bruce Fine and others are:

1. Assertion by President Bush that when collecting foreign intelligence no other branch can tell the President what to do.

2. Assertion by President Bush that the Congress and or judges can’t say that intercepting emails, phone calls, opening regular mail or breaking into our homes is illegal.

3. That there has been an abuse of presidential powers seeking to obstruct a legitimate Congressional investigation by a preposterous assertion of executive privilege by example of Sarah Taylor and Harriet Myers in regards to the district attorney firings.

4. President Bush has asserted that it is legal and appropriate to gather intelligence, declare enemy combatant status, kidnap people and place them in dungeons abroad in secret without disclosing anything to Congress or the people.

Of course, the House has the responsibility to call forth Impeachment hearings and it is for the Senate to hear the case as a jury and decide if these offenses amount to impeachable ones or not. However, in this exceptionally polarized partisan political climate, it is difficult to see how the case for impeachment can be reasonably, appropriately and responsibly presented including the necessary hearings and eventual decision without getting politically entangled in partisan politics. Leaving to question what happens to all these powers that have been conveyed through the lack of accountability to the next Republican or Democratic president and Executive Branch of the U.S. government in 2009.

Should we close the prison at Guantanamo bay? the so-called CIA blacksites? Any military prisons elsewhere in the world?
Yes, all of them.

Are Presidential signing statements that purport to interpret or even nullify some provisions of laws passed by Congress acceptable to you? If not, what are you planning to do about it as a member of Congress?
They are absolutely unconstitutional. Article II of the Constitution outlines the powers of the president and nowhere does it state that he has the right to make law. He can only veto the law if he disagrees but he cannot change the law once it has come to his desk. The Constitutional separation of powers must be restored. This is not a partisan issue, this is an American issue. I will act responsibly and uphold the Constitution.

Are you concerned about the conduct of elections in America? What should we do to address any concerns you have?
Yes. A paper receipt for each ballot cast is a basic necessity for ensuring transparency, accountability, strengthening election security and raising public confidence in the election process. It is essential that we have a means of transparency and accountability in our elections. Strengthening the election security procedures raises public confidence in the election process.

It is essential that we work diligently to strive for all Americans eligible to vote to be registered and actively participate as voters in our democracy.

Properly trained poll workers and election officials are absolutely critical to the quality of the election process along with continued evaluation and improving the policies, procedures and practices of elections and election officials.

Do you believe that people should have equal rights in marriage regardless of sex or sexual orientation?
People should have equal rights. Period.

Domestic Affairs:

What are your most urgent priorities in domestic affairs?
Education, jobs, health care and energy.

We run a chronic trade deficit with the rest of world. What can Congress do to address that problem?
Article I, Clause 8(1) – Congress is responsible for taxes, duties, imposts, excises, borrowing and paying debt, defense, general welfare. Many of these issues have direct import for foreign affairs. Congress regulates commerce with foreign nation.

Most other countries and their governments “go to bat” for their economic generators, In America, our economic generators are small businesses and/or entrepreneurs. We must re-allocate funds to support the successful and necessary work of the SBA. Providing leadership and direction based on real information not ideology that is realistic, global and pragmatic in its long and short term vision, is the place we begin.

Additionally, we must recognize the fracturing of U.S. and multi-national corporations that rely on businesses of varied size and capacity to be the cog in the wheel of innovation, creation, development, sales and distribution. Obviously, consideration of our “benefits” packages, wages, health care, environmental and global impacts must be taken into consideration.

We are hemorrhaging good paying jobs. What can the federal government do to remedy that?
At the risk of sounding redundant it begins with convening the stakeholders and seeking a comprehensive multilateral solution. Get out of the box. Regulation, tax incentives, small business and entrepreneur support is a beginning. Creating a Small Business/Entrepreneurial “Congress” once again would be a great way to begin to address this problem.

The defining characteristics of second-stage enterprises for the Arizona Companies to Watch program are: annual revenue or working capital of between $750,000 and $100 million, 10 to 100 employees, and the “intent and capacity to grow.”

The 2007 Arizona Companies to Watch (pdf) provide a glimpse of Arizona’s entrepreneurial engine at work. The 50 companies selected in 2007 generated $1.6 billion in revenue over the past five years. In the last four years, their revenue has increased by 213 percent with a 135 percent increase in the number of employees. That translates into an annual revenue growth rate of 33 percent and an annual employee growth rate of 24 percent.

This is where our greatest job growth is coming from; we have significant opportunity in this market sector.

Do you support NAFTA/CAFTA? Should we extend or renegotiate such trade agreements?
Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1993, the rise in the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico through 2002 has caused the displacement of production that supported 879,280 U.S. jobs. Most of those lost jobs were high-wage positions in manufacturing industries. The loss of these jobs is just the most visible tip of NAFTA’s impact on the U.S. economy. In fact, NAFTA has also contributed to rising income inequality, suppressed real wages for production workers, weakened workers’ collective bargaining powers and ability to organize unions, and reduced fringe benefits.

The North American Free Trade Agreement took affect on January 1, 1994.
NAFTA opponents – including labor, environmental, consumer and religious groups – argued that NAFTA would launch a race-to-the-bottom in wages, destroy hundreds of thousands of good U.S. jobs, undermine democratic control of domestic policy-making and threaten health, environmental and food safety standards.
NAFTA promoters – including many of the world’s largest corporations – promised it would create hundreds of thousands of new high-wage U.S. jobs, raise living standards in the U.S., Mexico and Canada, improve environmental conditions and transform Mexico from a poor developing country into a booming new market for U.S. exports.

More then a decade later, the data clearly shows the damage NAFTA has brought for millions of people, businesses and the local and national governments in the U.S., Mexico and Canada.

The same interests who supported NAFTA are pushing to expand it to include 31 more countries in Central and South America through the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). In 2005, Congress voted to extend NAFTA to five Central American countries through the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), and the current administration is seeking to add Peru and Colombia to the list as well.

The solution seems obvious to me – our trade agreements require a fresh perspective that involves all of the current and potential stakeholders to participate in negations to create future agreements promoting short- and long-term healthy, sustainable economies that consider the human, economic and environmental impact on local and global communities.

What can Congress do to increase the standard of living of the average American family?
Improve our system to provide quality education for our children and adults returning to school. Offer good, accessible and affordable health care and child care. Additionally, supporting the significant economic/job generation by second-stage enterprises is essential.

Do you support a single-payer national health care system? If not, how would you propose to ensure every American gets the health care they need?
This is not a simple “yes” or “no” answer. It is in our economic, social and political interest to ensure access to healthcare for every American. It is time we evaluate restructuring the way we pay for healthcare. Companies and individuals will be able to use the money they already spend to purchase a healthcare plan that best suits their individual needs. For long-term efficiency, we must take a new approach to our health care and the quality of our lives.

I believe it is necessary to reframe the question. Even if we went to a single-payer system, we are not addressing the systemic issue inherent within the health care system. After extensive dialogs, research and hundreds of conversations, we have identified the core issue to be our health care delivery system, in other words we must go beyond the currently proposed solutions.

My mother received her Masters Degree in nursing and was the first lay director of the school of nursing at St Joe’s Hospital in Phoenix, Arizona. I spent innumerable hours with my father and my family during my father’s illness before he died. Having been active with my family, friends and working with Hospice and a variety of other organizations, I have spent many hours in hospitals and doctors’ offices over the years addressing a variety of medical situations. Through my experiences and many conversations, I believe we have to reach beyond the current solutions that have been proposed and find a more comprehensive solution.

Preventative care is the best way to reduce future costs and ensure continued coverage for all. The current system addresses the most expensive entry into healthcare i.e. treating patients after they have become sick or injured. Rather than continue on with this “sickcare” system, true healthcare acts through health education, long-term relationships with healthcare providers, and access to regular mental healthcare as a deterrent to the diseases responsible for most of our healthcare costs: heart disease, diabetes, cancer and addiction.

It is time to place the emphasis on public health – promoting individual responsibility and working in cooperation with our health care professionals in the prevention of disease and the promotion of health within the population as a whole — versus treatment medicine, which focuses on restoring health to chronically or acutely ill individuals.

We have established a forum that is seeking input from all the stakeholders for transforming our healthcare system. Their initial recommendations are:

1. Affordable insurance for every citizen.
2. Primary care with free market mechanism.
3. Mental health parity.
4. Need for efficiency and quality in our health care delivery system.
5. Creation of a patient centric information and delivering system.
6. Increase research funding to identify cost-effective alternative/complimentary therapies compared to pharmaceutical-based intervention.

How can we address the coming large current account deficits in Medicare and Social Security?
First, this needs to be fully investigated and the truth exposed as to what the truth is. Second we must ensure the stability of Medicare and Social Security and create transparency, accountability and responsibility in regards to the delivery of the systems and communication of the information about the systems.

Do you support unions, and how would enhance the ability of labor to join in unions?
I support labor unions that are comprised of people working together to solve problems, building stronger workplaces and empowering the voice of working individuals and families. I support empowering workers with a voice on the job about safety, security, pay, benefits — and about the best ways to get the work done.

However, I am not supportive of strong-arm tactics on either side of the equation. I strongly believe it is an underpinning in our culture to support the freedom to organize. I would have supported the Free Choice bill that was just defeated in Congress.

Additionally, it is important to remember that unions have provided some of the greatest, most efficient, training and apprenticeship programs in our country that are vital to the infrastructure and quality of America whether it is in design, manufacturing, construction, or throughout the trades.

Looking at the current budget of the federal government, where should we reduce spending significantly?
Our commitment to increasing our infrastructure through an economy based in military spending seems to be the best place to start. Moving from a war-based economy to a creative, innovative and sustainable economy makes a lot of long-term fiscal common sense.

Is our current illicit drug policy working? How would you change our priorities and strategy, if at all?
By the government’s own standards we are not winning the war on drugs. Illicit drugs are cheaper and purer than they were two decades ago. We spend close to $40 billion a year fighting the war on drugs some estimates believe it to be about one trillion dollars. We lock up about two million people with more than 75 percent of them related to alcohol or drug use/abuse and, according to expert analysis, we have not reduced the quantity of drugs or the consumption of drugs. A study by the RAND Drug Policy Research Center found that treatment is 10 times more cost
effective than interdiction in reducing the use of cocaine in the United States. Education and incarceration budgets compete for the same dollars, from 1987 to 1998 state spending on corrections increased by 30% while spending on higher education decreased by 18.2%. State prison budgets are growing twice as fast as spending on public colleges and universities.

In a response to the growing methamphetamine problem in Arizona, the governor convened 700 stakeholders and determined that it is essential to engage every sector of local communities through community coalition building to employ an environmental approach to address the meth problem and to build successful community efforts through broad, diverse participation by all sectors of the community including, but not limited to, law enforcement, first responders, prevention and treatment professionals, the faith community, medical services, social services, businesses, elected officials and neighborhood activists.

It is time Congress seeks the engagement of and learns from the experience of our local communities about the fiscally responsible, effective solutions that are working and support those local efforts.

What changes to our system of taxation would you support?
Before changing taxes, we must evaluate the financial infrastructure of this country. The American people have not been given the facts. They have been provided with political rhetoric, and ideology not accurate information. Income inequity is rising. American companies are fracturing, small businesses are struggling daily.

Final comments:

Here are some first steps:

• Education must be a national priority;
• A commitment to research and development;
• Setting national standards and supporting local control of curriculum for education;
• Supporting and encouraging individuals to value themselves by taking responsibility for better health through preventative care;
• Support for local community development;
• Education in disaster preparedness;
• Honest and painstaking evaluation based on information and not ideology.