WinWithBill-Issues-Other

All of my policies are driven by progressive values, tempered by conservative means.

Huh? Yeah, you heard me right.

To me, "progressive values" are about two things:

1) government has an important role to play in meeting human needs; and 2) those with more, have a responsibility to those with less.

To me, "conservative means" involve three things:

1) government has to pay for the good it does, with balanced budgets; 2) government should only do what works, and should do it well; 3) markets often work better than government in meeting needs.

It is my observation that many conservatives share many of the values we have as progressives. They simply have a different philosophy about how to pursue them, and which institutions can best attain them. We can work toward common ground.

Our democracy is drowning in dirty money. We snicker at developing countries where bribery is part of doing business. Here, we do it in the light of day, "in front of God and everyone."

The entrenched, two-party monopoly has given our government a "bipolar personality disorder."

A dysfunctional government turns out bizarre legislation harmful to our long-term interests. People are so divided, they can't think straight, can't talk to each other.

We have to clean up the system and open it to all. With a little creativity, and a lot of resolve, we can do this in ways that still uphold our 1st Amendment free speech rights.

We need to move to a healthy, multiparty democracy, with guaranteed voting rights, equal ballot access, proportional representation, instant runoff voting, and real campaign finance reform.

This will invigorate our democracy and open it to broader participation and higher quality debate.

The two incumbent parties do not like these reforms, because it will end their monopoly on our political system. But, it is our democracy, not theirs.

Electoral reform and media reform go hand in hand. The same corporate interests that own the two parties, also own the media.

An informed public is the only sure base for a healthy democracy.

Everyone agrees that trade is good. It is good for our economy, our security, and our humanity.

However, as a society, we need to carefully look at every trade policy, treaty, and deal -- to see who bears the costs, as well as who reaps the benefits.

I oppose NAFTA, CAFTA, and any approach to trade which fails to take into account any standards for labor, the environment, human rights, critical industries, or our balance of trade.

It is not enough just to get cheaper goods for those who have a job and can afford to buy them, or for businesses that are politically well-connected or big enough to profit from these deals.

We have to look at the costs to our society as a whole, and balance these against the benefits, as well as how we insure that these costs and benefits are fairly shared by everyone.

This requires an open process, with representation from all interested groups at the table.

Our dependency on foreign oil and other dirty fuels is wreaking havoc with our security, our economy, and the environment.

It is funding terrorism, and leading us into unjust war. We simply cannot continue on this course.

I support an aggressive development program for alternative energy technologies, similar to the Apollo space program that went to the moon in ten years.

In doing so, we must be vigilant to not let it become a form of corporate welfare for political favoritism, or let it get tied up in a bureaucracy.

We have some experiences to learn from -- the NASA program, the NIH, and others -- both, for what has worked, and what has not. We also have a rich history of venture capital and university labs development and licensing programs.

The core technologies that come from this project will be owned by the people of the United States, for licensing to businesses on a royalty basis. This will be our oil, our national wealth.

My economic policies are about one thing -- jobs, good, decent-paying jobs for everyone.

The free market has always been the key to job growth in our country. However, markets need rules to work properly for the benefit of all.

Too often, political influence has corrupted these rules -- unfairly favoring investors, over working families. These unfair rules have led to "corporate welfare" and a devastating loss of jobs.

I reject the "trickle-down" economic theories of the two major parties, and will only support legislation that shows a clear tie to job creation. The working family has been "trickled" on long enough.

In particular, I will oppose trade deals that continue to ship our jobs overseas, and run up a deficit in our balance of trade. Instead, I will support restoring the productive capacity of our economy.

I will oppose all incentives and other giveaways that merely increase the wealth of our richest citizens on the false pretense of helping our economy. Any such bill must be tied to jobs to have my support.

I will support all steps toward a decent living wage for householders -- and other measures, like earned income credits -- to lift all families out of poverty. No one who works in this country should be poor.

Finally, I also will insist on universal, comprehensive healthcare coverage for every citizen. We cannot have true job security and freedom without it.

How we care for the poor among us is the truest measure of a society. More than gross domestic product, per capita income, or military power.

"The Rich Man and Lazarus" parable makes it clear that we are accountable for wealth, and how we use it. No one in the richest nation on earth should ever go without the "basic necessities" of life -- food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, education.

This is not only a moral imperative, but also a practical consideration. Poverty is expensive. We pay the price in increased crime and prison costs, lost contributions to society, and many other ways. People are always our best investment.

This is my policy. Next to working families, I stand with the poor. Together, we support investing our national wealth in helping people improve their lives.

I realize we have tried some things that did not work. This does not mean we stop trying. It means we must try harder, do better, find what works.

The best anti-poverty program is a good job. Politicians and pundits like to say this a lot. Then, they go on passing more tax cuts for the rich, and ripping the underbelly out of our economy -- telling us this creates jobs. This is not true. It does not.

Only policies directly targeted to creating good jobs, are likely to create good jobs. This is common sense. A child could understand it.

Meanwhile, we are still responsible to our neighbors without good jobs. They have as much claim on the American dream as you and me.

The federal government has a responsibility to secure our borders. This means all of our borders -- Canada, Mexico, and our thousands of miles of coastline.

We should bring our troops home from around the world and deploy them to protect our borders. This is what other countries do with their military forces.

Once we secure our borders, we can have an honest discussion on what to do about the people who came into this country under the old, broken system.

Immigration is primarily an economic, social, and cultural issue. How many new people can we absorb in our country, and under what circumstances?

Therefore, the most important voices on immigration should be employers, organized labor, and the state and local communities most affected by this influx of people. Families and kindred ethnic groups already here are also important voices in this discussion.

I do not accept the argument that illegal immigrants are doing work Americans do not want to do. If you pay enough money, offer decent benefits, and treat people well -- anyone will want these jobs. What we do with illegal immigration is to distort the balance of "supply and demand" in favor of employers. This ends up lowering wages and benefits for all workers.

I oppose discriminatory laws like the RealID act and the Sensenbrenner bill, and attempts to build a wall around our nation. Walls make bad neighbors.

I also oppose laws that would make people criminals who entered this country looking for jobs, or people who provide them with humanitarian services. But, I do support laws that would make it a felony crime for employers to knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

We should enforce our workplace laws -- such as minimum wage, health and safety, and the right to organize -- on behalf of all workers, including guests and immigrants. Industries with high illegal immigrant workforces should come under special scrutiny. This would remove incentives to hire illegal workers.

In fixing the special problem we now have with illegal immigration from Mexico, we should always remember this. None of the 9/11 hijackers came through Mexico. Neither did Timothy McVeigh. We face many risks.

We need to keep this in perspective. We are talking about good people here, working families, our friends and neighbors. They have become part of our life.

In the "Declaration of Independence" that established this country, our founders understood the importance of "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind" and made this the basis of our first foreign policy.

Somehow, along the way, due to the arrogance of wealth and power, we seem to have lost sight of this important -- one might say, "self-evident" -- truth.

It is time to return to first principles, including a recognition that the opinions of those living on the rest of this planet -- our allies, as well as our foes -- really do matter. What other people think of America and its actions is an important part of our national security, and can no longer be ignored except at great peril.

The single biggest thing we can do to increase our security is not to build new and better bombs, but to build a new and better foreign policy. If people respect us, and our values, they will be less likely to attack us.

Unfortunately, our foreign policy too often has been based on protecting narrow American "interests" rather than promoting our American values. American interests, like military domination, global corporations, and oil. Instead of American values and ideals, like freedom, democracy, and human rights for all.

We need to stop playing one side against the other in fueling deadly conflicts, and instead start taking a stand for constructive peace and reconciliation. We need stop being the biggest arms dealer in the world, and instead start leading the way in wise and generous humanitarian aid.

Look at all the good will we generated with our military helping other countries recover from earthquakes, tsunamis, and other natural disasters. Contrast this with the enmity we have stirred up with our aggressive actions in Iraq.

Once we begin to show that we really do have a "decent respect" for others, and regain our first principles, America will shine as a beacon of democracy, freedom, and concern for all. People will want to be with us, not against us.

A healthy environment is the basis for a healthy economy. It is time we stopped thinking about environmental quality as a "cost" to business.

I see environmental services and technology as an opportunity, a new business sector for our economy, just as other technologies have been.

We should become a world leader in this new business sector, improving the quality of our lives, and creating high-paying jobs. The way to do this is setting and enforcing the highest environmental standards and practices in the world.

Air and water quality are two of the most basic environmental concerns. Both of these are severely affected by our energy habits. To have a sound environmental policy, we must also have a strong energy policy for clean, renewable fuels.

Protecting wildlife and wilderness areas is another side of environmentalism. Although I personally love our wilderness, I recognize there are times when these values can come into conflict with critical economic needs.

In such conflicts, my policies generally will favor jobs and meeting our economic needs -- over the preservation of nature that we love so much. However, I will only support practices that minimize the impact on our wilderness environments.

I am a strong supporter of civil rights. Some people think it is okay to restrict our civil rights when the government is under stress. I disagree.

In fact, the main purpose of government in my view is to protect our civil rights. Any government that fails to do this must be removed.

I oppose the Real ID and Patriot acts, warrantless wiretaps, secret arrests, detentions and trials, denial of habeas corpus, and other abuses of power.

I also oppose suppression of dissent by channeling demonstrators into so-called "free speech zones."
The map of America is my free speech zone.

I support pluralism, individuality, freedom of thought, expression and religion, a sense of community, and tolerance and compassion for others.

I oppose the death penalty. It devalues human life, and denies the humanity of us all.

It is also prone to error. Over one hundred people have been released from death row on grounds of innocence in recent years. Others have been executed and later proven innocent.

The death penalty is tainted with race and class bias. It is overwhelmingly a punishment reserved for the poor (95% of the over 3700 people under death sentence could not afford a private attorney) and for racial minorities (55% are people of color).

The death penalty violates our most fundamental human rights. The United States is the only western democracy that still uses the death penalty.

The so-called "war on drugs" is a bad idea. It does not work, and only makes things worse.

We tried this before, in the 1920's, with our failed experiment in alcohol prohibition. Then, as now, it led to an explosion in organized crime and gangs.

We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars trying to make America "drug free" in a misguided focus on using the criminal law system for this end. Yet illicit drugs are cheaper and easier to get.

Nearly half a million people are behind bars on drug charges -- more than all of western Europe (with a bigger population) imprisons for all offenses. The war on drugs has become a war on families, on public health, and on our constitutional rights.

Many of the problems the drug war claims to solve are in fact caused by the drug war itself. So-called "drug-related" crime is a direct result of prohibition's distorting laws of supply and demand. Public health problems, like HIV and Hepatitis C, are made worse by laws restricting access to clean needles.

The drug war is not the promoter of family values that some would have us believe. Inmates' children are at a high risk of educational failure, joblessness, addiction, and delinquency. Drug abuse is bad, but the drug war is far worse.

It is time for us to recognize that drug abuse is a public health issue for the surgeon general, not a public safety issue for the attorney general.

Many people involved with this campaign personally support a woman's right to choose an abortion. However, I have a different position.

The same deep feelings for the sacredness of human life that lead me to oppose the violence of poverty, capital punishment, and war -- also lead me to not support abortion as a form of birth control, and to protect all human life, no matter what the perceived stage or quality.

So, my main approach is to give women more support with such things as family planning, contraception, protection against violence, healthcare, adoption, single-parent assistance, and other services.

I deeply believe in women's rights -- including her right to privacy and control of her own body. Any restriction on abortion imposes on these rights -- because the unborn child lives in her. Restricting her rights is an unavoidable consequence of protecting this unborn life, whom I regard as fully human.

Restrictions on abortion must take into account extenuating circumstances -- such as rape, incest, and risks to the life or health of the mother. These exceptions are no more or less than what our laws allow as excusable in various other settings.

I want a society that truly respects women and children. Part of the social contract that protects the unborn child -- also calls for us to offer that child and its mother a society that provides medical care, counseling, adoption services, single-mother support, and other assistance -- to truly protect and honor life, and maximize the mother's life choices in an unplanned pregnancy.

No woman wants to have an abortion. No woman gets up on January 1 and marks her calendar: things to do this year -- have an abortion.

What they want is to avoid unplanned pregnancies. Another part of the social contract for protecting unborn life is to provide women with full access to birth control, family planning, sex education, social behavior counseling (for men and women), personal security training, and other supports.

Statistics show that less than 3% of abortions are done to protect the health of the mother. What this says to me is that abortion has become a method of birth control after-the-fact. We can do much better than this in helping women protect themselves from unplanned pregnancies.

Taking these steps will do more to protect unborn life than any restrictions we may place on abortion. If abortion becomes illegal in this country, clinics will set up in Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean, with an "underground railroad" type of support and funding system by abortion rights advocates.

So, although I do support measures to limit the legality of abortion, I know this is not the real answer. Moreover, I will not support or associate with any public discourse on this issue that does not show profound respect for women and recognition that other people have differing moral points of view.

It has been my experience that people who are deeply pro-life, in contrast to politicians who crassly exploit this issue, share in this quiet respect.

Equality under the law is a bedrock principle of American life. But now, a rash of discrimination is spreading a dark shadow across our land.

Politicians frame this hostility with the "defense of marriage" label, while denying the same benefits of marriage and family to a feared minority.

Randi and I have been married for 35 years. We have seen many marriages come and go -- many wonderful families torn apart, their children scattered. Same-sex marriage had nothing to do with these tragedies.

Everything I have read tells me the two leading causes of divorce are infidelity and financial stress. A commercial media swamps us with soft-core pornography, while a corporate political system tears at our working families with financial stress.

Same-sex marriage is not a threat to marriage between a man and a woman. The blatant sexual content in our commercial media -- TV, movies, and magazines -- is the real threat to marriage.

Likewise, the economic policies of the two corporate parties -- that leave our families without healthcare coverage, throw away our jobs, and rip apart our safety nets -- these are the real threat to marriage and family, not same-sex marriages.

As a person of deep faith, I respect the right of my neighbors to reach their own conclusions about the sanctity of marriage and other sacraments -- and to teach and practice these beliefs in their churches, families, private schools, and other groups.

However, as an American, I disagree that my fellow citizens have a right to sanction discrimination. Any religious entanglement in the definition and rights of marriage and family violate our 1st Amendment rights against an official "establishment" of religion.

At various times in our history, we have had criminal laws -- enforcing proper Sabbath observance (one of the Ten Commandments, by the way); prohibiting use of contraception by married couples in the privacy of their own homes to plan their for their families; and requiring racial discrimination in nearly every area of our public lives. All of these overreaching laws were based on the religious beliefs and convictions of the majority of people at the time. We now recognize all of these laws to be wrong, against our values.

The benefits of marriage and family -- the raising of children, shared property ownership and succession, sick care and hospital visitation, dying care and funeral arrangements, insurance and social security, and countless other rights we take for granted -- belong to all of us, not just to the majority.

I support equal protection of the law for all citizens, including minorities of every classification. This is a matter of civil rights. No more, no less.

As a person of deep faith, I see the state as a far lesser creature -- that should have no part in the power of the church to influence hearts and minds. This means a complete separation between church and state, which is good for both institutions.

This does not mean hostility toward religion. Rather, it means that the government will remain neutral on religious matters, leaving decisions about God, faith, and house of worship attendance in the hands of its citizens. Thanks to separation of church and state, Americans enjoy unparalleled religious freedom.

Governments should not display religious symbols because such actions send the message that the state has a favored religion and that people who do not share this faith are second-class citizens.

However, there is a difference between government and the public square. It is fine for private groups to display religious symbols on government property (as long as this right is the same for all), even though it is not permissible for government to do this.

The federal government has been moving toward a takeover of public education. In my view, its role should be limited to: helping low and middle-income students and school districts with financial aid; and enforcing equal protection of the law in funding.

I reject the so-called "No Child Left Behind" act as another in a line of unfunded federal mandates.

I support full and equal public funding of education. Fifty years after Brown vs. Board of Education, we still have a dual system of "separate but (un)equal" public education funding in this country. I believe this violates the equal protection of the law.

Why should children in Lake Forest and New Trier have greater public educational resources than the same students in Zion-Benton or Round Lake?

I favor statewide funding of public education, with elimination of local property tax financing. Property taxes are too high, and public education is important to the whole state, not just wealthy districts.

I support freedom of school choice, innovation, and school competition. Public funding of education does not mean we need to keep the state monopoly in delivery of educational services. Students, parents, and teaching professionals will be better served with a range of educational choices for their needs.

However, I oppose any measure that directly or indirectly subsidizes private education with public funds. I would not support participation by a school in any voucher program, unless: i) the school has a needs-blind admissions policy; ii) the school agrees to accept the public voucher as full payment for all tuition and other fees; and iii) voucher payments are also available to all public schools on the same terms. This would support an educational system with real student choice and school competition.

I am not aware of any current or proposed voucher program that meets these terms. Existing proposals are merely regressive attempts to undermine public education on behalf of the privileged few -- who can already afford the cost of private schools.

Within these limits, I also support public funding for nonprofit private and religious schools, as well as for home-school families. My only academic requirement is that students must be demonstrating appropriate progress in math literacy, composition, and reading comprehension. Students learn best when they are engaged in something that truly interests them. Let a thousand flowers bloom in our free schools.

Moving away from the "one size fits all" system of state monopoly would actually give us more unity, not less, in our society. Harsh divisions over such matters as intelligent design and evolution, school prayer, and other issues -- take on a whole new, less threatening light, when parents and students are free to choose their own schools.