A: Our real solution to the deficit is to end the Bush-Obama recession. Reductions in spending provide enormous savings, which may very well overwhelm the need for adjustments in the tax code. Those adjustments do need to be made, including asking the wealthiest to contribute their share, and giving breaks to the middle class and the poor, who are paying way too much. We defend social programs--we cut boondoggles (like healthcare waste) and dangerous military spending, Will the cuts exceed the need to increase taxes? The back of the envelope says that they should.
A: We advocate both, obviously. But the reductions in spending should be focused properly--not on cutting social programs--but instead on downsizing the military, bringing the troops home, and moving to a prevention-based health care system. Those provide enormous savings and reductions, which may very well overwhelm the need for adjustments in the tax code. We defend social programs.
A: Yes; we're proud that we were the first gubernatorial campaign in that race to support same-sex marriage, in the first state to legalize same-sex marriage.
Q: I recall that Robert Reich supported same-sex marriage early in that race.
A: Yes, but we were earlier. Reich came out initially for civil unions. He did later support gay marriage, but after our campaign
A: We don't need to be arming state militias, for example. We are not counting African-Americans as 3/5 of a human being like at America's founding. And we don't tell women to stay in the kitchen and not be seen or heard or represented democratically. There are some things we have improved upon, but there are some rights that we declared--freedom not only from aristocracy but also from corporate rule. Here in New England at the time of America's founding, we had the British East India Company's aristocracy. We threw off rule by the 1% then--that has now crept back into our system. In that sense we're going back to founding principles, by moving toward a democratic revival in this country.
A: To my mind, the issue here is not so much national versus local; the issue is more one of child-centered learning, and learning for lifetime education as opposed to teaching to the test. We focus on student needs, not corporate needs.
A: Our philosophy is to move things to the grassroots level; to move power to the grassroots from the government. It's a decentralization philosophy. At the national level, we should focus on preventing abuse of education rules.
A: Unfortunately, charter schools draw down on funding for our public schools, and they siphon off the more capable students and their families. At the same time they concentrate the real social problems in th public schools, which is guaranteed to collapse our public system from within. The advantages of charters ought to be features of all public schools: family engagement, additional resources and budget, and so on.
A: We're pretty clearly on record here for renewables--this is a win-win, not only for our economy and the environment, but also for national security. This makes expensive wars for oil obsolete - this has a double yield for our economy.
We want to look at public transportation options as well as the means of a sustainable food supply AND the sources of energy. Put those together with physical exercise integrated into our community life and you drastically undercut Homeland Security costs.
For every job that exists in the fossil fuel sector you can create three jobs in the renewable sector. This is a bonanza for job creation as well.
A: By protecting natural resources, we are protecting humanity. Humanity is completely screwed, very soon, if we fail to protect these resources. They should be used sustainably for the benefit of humanity. The environment and the economy are interdependent--they are not at odds with each other. In order to have a prosperous economy, you need to have the healthy environment to support it: for energy, for food, and for other aspects. The idea that they're pitted against each other is a concoction of misinformation from those who exploit the environment. We allow them to exploit the environment at our own peril, as we see from everything from air pollution and its health impact, to water shortages, to flooding, to extreme storms. These are not just happening in the Third World: we are beginning to pay the price for this very misguided, short-term, short-sighted exploitation of the environment.
A: On that scale, a multilateralist. We cannot afford to be the unilateral policemen of the world enforcing our own interest. We are a member of a very integrated world community and world economy and we need to behave accordingly.
A: I wouldn't use the term "illegal immigration" because human beings are not illegal. The wave of undocumented immigrants resulted from the passage of NAFTA, which was as harmful to economies south of our border as it is to our own economy. People have come here who have lost their jobs, who can no longer support their families, particularly as we have destroyed the economy in South America by dumping agricultural products, as developed by NAFTA. That's where the real solution lies--renegotiating these treaties which have been harmful to American workers as much as they've been harmful to workers in other countries.
A: For us, it's about building and adapting for the future. There were great thing in our founding--we do need to protect our rights as defined by the Constitution. Those rights are perishing quickly right before our very eyes, with the extremely anti-civil-liberties positions adopted by the Obama administration. But while there are great things from America's founding, there are also not-so-great things. We need to be selective about what we worship in the past. We don't need to be arming state militias, for example. We are not counting African-Americans as 3/5 of a human being like at America's founding. And we don't tell women to stay in the kitchen and not be seen or heard or represented democratically.
A: By reducing the 30% waste of healthcare spent on CEO salaries and wasteful bureaucracy. Streamline that and you have $400 billion in savings every year, and you can provide quality comprehensive healthcare for everyone. Add to that doing away with medical inflation, which is the biggest driver of rising healthcare cost. According to some economists, we could do way with the national debt simply by moving to a cost-effective healthcare system. There are trillions to be saved over the next decade by moving to a streamlined administrative system such as Medicare-For-All.
A: The government should be the provider, basically, but a quasi-government public entity, not necessarily the federal government directly. Definitely not the private sector. We should be broadening Medicare to reduce the outrageous waste of healthcare dollars--30% is now squandered on advertising, CEO salaries, and a very bloated wasteful bureaucracy.
A: We are a nation of immigrants--and immigrants are a critical component of our economy. In Alabama, their tomato industry collapsed to the tune of billions of dollars when they passed very harsh anti-immigrant laws and the immigrants left town. That state learned the hard way how valuable the immigrant sector was to their economy. And that's true nationally. The real solution is:
A: I don't want to have a pathway to citizenship for drug dealers or criminals, of course. But we should fight for human rights for all immigrants. The Canadian border is a reasonable model for what our border should look like -- at least, the Canadian border before the modern [post-9-11] era.
A: The chemistry between our campaign and the Occupy movement is a fruitful dialog. They came from a place that we completely agree with. American politics is predatory; we agree with them 100% on that issue. They largely aren't aware of alternative politics.
Q: Do you see an electoral future for the Occupy movement like the Tea Party took up?
A: As I've gone around and introduced myself, we've been welcomed with open arms and established a very good relationship with each of the Occupy sites we visited. As they increasingly are forced out of public spaces and have to use other tools, they are indeed looking more closely at electoral politics. I've been very gratified to see them on several occasions taking a stand on disavowing any interest in the corporate-sponsored Democratic and Republican Parties.
The above quotations are from AmericansElect questionnaire by OnTheIssues.org.
Click here for main summary page.
Click here for a profile of Jill Stein.
Click here for Jill Stein on all issues.
Jill Stein on other issues:
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
Click for details -- or send donations to:
1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140
(We rely on your support!)