Darguth
06-03-2012, 02:07 PM
Hey all, so I'm likely moving back to my home state of Michigan soon but to a Congressional District other than the one I grew up in (MI-11). So I started doing some research on the GOP candidates and sent off an email with a series of policy questions to candidate Brian Hetrick. He's going up against incumbent Rep. Mike Rogers who introduced CISPA.
I thought I'd share his responses with the rest of our MI forum-goers so they can see it and make some conclusions for themselves. This probably belongs in the Michigan sub-forum but I'd request the mods let this float around for just a little while to get some traffic and then we can shunt it.
Thanks!
Now, here is the email I sent out, I'll put his responses in bold:
--------------------------
Hello Mr. Hetrick,
My name is [Wouldn't You Like to Know]. I was born and raised in Livonia, MI. For the past year, however, I’ve been living and working in New Orleans, LA but in just a few weeks I’ll be returning to Michigan and would likely move to either Howell or Brighton in the new 8th Congressional District.
I’ve recently become politically active and was quite involved in the GOP Presidential Primary and Caucus activities here in Louisiana, working very long hours as a volunteer. I am also not a fan of Rep. Mike Rogers, viewing him as a status quo politician out to serve his own interests and the interests of the GOP establishment over the interests of his constituency. I am particularly concerned with his introduction of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) bill, which I believe to be an unnecessary, unconstitutional, and dangerous intrusion into the privacy of American citizens. I'm also very concerned by the large sums of corporate donations he accepts for his campaigns.
It is because of these reasons that I am writing to you. I find commonality with your platform as expressed on your campaign website. Such as reform and simplification of the tax code (including a full elimination of the IRS), offering privatized alternatives to federal programs like Social Security, spending tax dollars to bailing out taxpayers rather than corporations, and your more nuanced and less-partisan stances on healthcare and immigration. I would like to hear your thoughts and stances on other topics important to me, if you would be willing, so that I can ascertain if your candidacy is one that I could support and actively promote.
1.) In your section on the topic of immigration on your campaign website you mention the need for a requisite national- or state-issued identification card. What would you propose the purpose of such an ID card would be and how would it function? I am dubious of such a proposal because I do not believe American citizens should have to live in fear of “having their documentation/papers in order” at all times. Perhaps, though, I am misunderstanding your stance and I would like to give you an opportunity to clarify.
First let me say that I am against all "big brother" type policies. I am a GM employee and for years I avoided purchasing GM vehicles with Onstar for the obvious reasons. I avoided Instant Messaging when it first came out at the ridicule of my friends. My wife, also a MSU grad like yourself, recently started a new job. They required a copy of her actual Social Security card and driver's license. I vaguely remember having to do the same thing when I started with GM 15 years ago. My position is that employeers must have a method to identify legal citizens who are permitted to work in this country. Wether it is a driver's license, Social Security card or an e-verify card we are all tracked in one way or another wether we want to or not. If you are a legal citizen of the United States there is no reason to "live in fear" as you say. I think all illegal immigrants should be "living in fear" - fear of deportation.
2.) What are your views on our nation’s current foreign policies and if given the chance how would you propose we might alter or modify them, and why? Particularly what are your views on the following:
a. The War on Drugs, both domestically and internationally;
I'm open to ideas on this one. Domestically, I don't have much objection to legalizing marijuana. I think give it a try and tax the bejesus out of it. Internationally, the Mexican government has lost control of thier police force in ways we cannot supplement or control.
b. The War on Terror, both in our declared war in Afghanistan as well as undeclared conflicts such as our drone campaigns in multiple nations;
Modern warfare is nothing like it was in WW2, Korea or Vietnam. These days, the enemies we are hunting aren't necessarily state sponsored and wearing uniforms. I believe we need to use technological advances in warfare to the extent that they can identify and kill the enemy. I approve of the drone strike technology we are using now. I believe the same human error exists wether we have boots on the ground or eyes in the sky.
c. What are your thoughts on foreign aid, both humanitarian and military aid;
I believe that the United States has some foreign humanitarian responsibility to show our respect for life and empathy toward other countries that aren't blessed with the wealth the U.S. possesses. But I also strongly believe that we need to take care of our own first. As a resident of LA, you probably have personally seen some of the poorest areas of our country. I believe that our aid in the US should start with a strong educational system. I believe the system is broken and that education provides opportunities for people to take advantage of all the opportunities we have in our great Country.
I don't know if I'm educated enough to state a direct stance on foreign aid without the inside knowledge of other members of Congress. We have many complex relationships around the world but when situations like what is happening in Pakistan occur, I think we need to cut them off, at least temporarily, for them to understand we are serious about taking out terrorists wherever they hide.
d. What do you view as the proper role and function of the United Nations, if there is one, and what should be America’s involvement with such a global body;
In my opinion, any conclusion or declaration from the United Nations doesn't contain any real "bite." The US imposes its own economic sanctions or declaration of humanitarian policies with or without UN approval just as any other state is capable. I think the UN is a forum for nations to cite their gripes with the world and if enough nations agree then a resolution may or may not do a darn bit of good but it is a forum to convey a message. I think it's time for another nation to host the gatherings and for the US to stop throwing so much wasted money at an institution that isn't effective.
3.) What are your feelings on the counter-terrorism measures we have enacted over the last decade? Specifically the TSA, the PATRIOT Act, Guantanamo Bay, sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA of 2012, and counter-cyber-intelligence bills like CISPA?
As I stated in your first question, I am against all things "big brother." After 9/11 we were all scared, and Congress took a big swipe at our freedoms with the PATRIOT act. The PATRIOT act is over-reaching and needs to be phased out. The TSA was supposed to provide better security by being common across all airports. I have traveled through many airports and I am frustrates at the lack of commonization of procedures. All the TSA accomplished was the expansion of another governmental department and more government bureaucracy. Guantanamo Bay needs to be shut down. Either try these terrorists in a court or let them go. I do not believe in indefinite detention methods used at Gitmo and as prescribed in section 1021 of the NDAA. We have means of tracking these terrorists. If they go back to their old ways, we need to take them out. As I mentioned above, I'd have no problem with a drone strike or two.
I was asked about CISPA by another voter in the district and this is how I responded to him:
To me this bill is another attempt of our Government to gather information on its citizens. The statement in the bill that gives me most concern is on page 3. Lines 1-3 state that intelligence may only be shared “consistent with the need to protect the national security of the United States.” That specific wording is too broad in my opinion and leaves the potential for misuse and abuse of power. I believe this bill leaves the door open for invasions of privacy that amount to surveillance of U.S.citizens.
My view of government is one that protects its citizens without the invasion of privacy and without tromping on the 4thAmendment of our Constitution. The Constitution gives Government the power to “provide for the common defence” of our nation.In my opinion, that does not mean defense from a cyber-attack that crashesFacebook’s website for a few hours.
4.) What are your views on a governmental (municipal, state, or federal) definition of marriage?
I do not object to same sex unions. My only problem, as minor and symantic as it may be, is using the word "marriage" when referring to same sex unions. To me the word "marriage" itself is one based in history and religion. While it may make no difference to some religions persons, I believe the word "marriage" should be refered to as a union between a man and a woman. I would ask the LGBT community to come up with their own word for same sex unions and how they would prefer to be addressed but otherwise I would not descriminate any legal rights between the two. I am against any constitutional amendment. Michigan had a ballot referendum on the issue several years ago and changed the state constitution. The people have spoken in Michigan and I believe that is the end of the matter.
5.) What is your stance on the proper role and oversight of the Federal Reserve?
I'll be completely honest with you. I don't know much about what the Federal Reserve does besides control the interest rates that banks pay and that my savings account pays back squat. The quantative easing has allowed me to refinance my home mortgage at a low rate and save me money but at the same time devalue the dollar and make the price of oil more expensive. I have heard the arguements throughout the presidential debates but I am not currently educated enough on the topic to answer you. I am a Ron Paul fan so I take his opinion on the gold standard seriously but I'm certainly not going to google a few sites to try and form an opinion to answer your question in 5 minutes. I need to do some homework.
6.) What is your view on the legitimacy and morality of Roe v. Wade, and would you actively strive to legislate abortion?
I am a Catholic. While I would never condone or approve of anyone in my family having an abortion, I do not believe in forcing my religious beliefs on the entire United States. I have a one year old son. I have seen ultrasounds near 10 weeks that show a baby with arms, legs, fingers, toes, and a beating heart. There is no doubt in my mind that what I see is human life. I believe Roe V Wade is the law of the land and most polls throughout the decades have shown about a 2 in 3 approval of a woman's right to choose. While I would not actively strive to legislate abortion I would not be opposed to limiting it in reasonable ways. I believe each person needs to be accountable and responsible for thier actions. I would be willing to vote to limit abortions to less than 20 weeks of gestation. This allows time for full genetic testing to look for chromosomal abnormalities; tests that are 100% conclusive and not just a doctors opinion or a calculated risk factor. While my wife and I have good paying jobs with decent health care coverage, there are millions in the US that do not. Taking care of a disabled child is a challenge that many people do not have the skills to perform nor the economic means to do so.
-----------------------
Not a perfect candidate. I don't particularly care for his eagerness to support the drone campaigns for starters. I also wish he had a firmer pro-life stance and a better understanding of the Fed (though he does point to Ron Paul's leadership and insights on the Fed, and I tried to give no direct clue that I was a RP fan). All-in-all though I think it would be better to support him than Rogers.
Thoughts from fellow Michiganders?
I thought I'd share his responses with the rest of our MI forum-goers so they can see it and make some conclusions for themselves. This probably belongs in the Michigan sub-forum but I'd request the mods let this float around for just a little while to get some traffic and then we can shunt it.
Thanks!
Now, here is the email I sent out, I'll put his responses in bold:
--------------------------
Hello Mr. Hetrick,
My name is [Wouldn't You Like to Know]. I was born and raised in Livonia, MI. For the past year, however, I’ve been living and working in New Orleans, LA but in just a few weeks I’ll be returning to Michigan and would likely move to either Howell or Brighton in the new 8th Congressional District.
I’ve recently become politically active and was quite involved in the GOP Presidential Primary and Caucus activities here in Louisiana, working very long hours as a volunteer. I am also not a fan of Rep. Mike Rogers, viewing him as a status quo politician out to serve his own interests and the interests of the GOP establishment over the interests of his constituency. I am particularly concerned with his introduction of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) bill, which I believe to be an unnecessary, unconstitutional, and dangerous intrusion into the privacy of American citizens. I'm also very concerned by the large sums of corporate donations he accepts for his campaigns.
It is because of these reasons that I am writing to you. I find commonality with your platform as expressed on your campaign website. Such as reform and simplification of the tax code (including a full elimination of the IRS), offering privatized alternatives to federal programs like Social Security, spending tax dollars to bailing out taxpayers rather than corporations, and your more nuanced and less-partisan stances on healthcare and immigration. I would like to hear your thoughts and stances on other topics important to me, if you would be willing, so that I can ascertain if your candidacy is one that I could support and actively promote.
1.) In your section on the topic of immigration on your campaign website you mention the need for a requisite national- or state-issued identification card. What would you propose the purpose of such an ID card would be and how would it function? I am dubious of such a proposal because I do not believe American citizens should have to live in fear of “having their documentation/papers in order” at all times. Perhaps, though, I am misunderstanding your stance and I would like to give you an opportunity to clarify.
First let me say that I am against all "big brother" type policies. I am a GM employee and for years I avoided purchasing GM vehicles with Onstar for the obvious reasons. I avoided Instant Messaging when it first came out at the ridicule of my friends. My wife, also a MSU grad like yourself, recently started a new job. They required a copy of her actual Social Security card and driver's license. I vaguely remember having to do the same thing when I started with GM 15 years ago. My position is that employeers must have a method to identify legal citizens who are permitted to work in this country. Wether it is a driver's license, Social Security card or an e-verify card we are all tracked in one way or another wether we want to or not. If you are a legal citizen of the United States there is no reason to "live in fear" as you say. I think all illegal immigrants should be "living in fear" - fear of deportation.
2.) What are your views on our nation’s current foreign policies and if given the chance how would you propose we might alter or modify them, and why? Particularly what are your views on the following:
a. The War on Drugs, both domestically and internationally;
I'm open to ideas on this one. Domestically, I don't have much objection to legalizing marijuana. I think give it a try and tax the bejesus out of it. Internationally, the Mexican government has lost control of thier police force in ways we cannot supplement or control.
b. The War on Terror, both in our declared war in Afghanistan as well as undeclared conflicts such as our drone campaigns in multiple nations;
Modern warfare is nothing like it was in WW2, Korea or Vietnam. These days, the enemies we are hunting aren't necessarily state sponsored and wearing uniforms. I believe we need to use technological advances in warfare to the extent that they can identify and kill the enemy. I approve of the drone strike technology we are using now. I believe the same human error exists wether we have boots on the ground or eyes in the sky.
c. What are your thoughts on foreign aid, both humanitarian and military aid;
I believe that the United States has some foreign humanitarian responsibility to show our respect for life and empathy toward other countries that aren't blessed with the wealth the U.S. possesses. But I also strongly believe that we need to take care of our own first. As a resident of LA, you probably have personally seen some of the poorest areas of our country. I believe that our aid in the US should start with a strong educational system. I believe the system is broken and that education provides opportunities for people to take advantage of all the opportunities we have in our great Country.
I don't know if I'm educated enough to state a direct stance on foreign aid without the inside knowledge of other members of Congress. We have many complex relationships around the world but when situations like what is happening in Pakistan occur, I think we need to cut them off, at least temporarily, for them to understand we are serious about taking out terrorists wherever they hide.
d. What do you view as the proper role and function of the United Nations, if there is one, and what should be America’s involvement with such a global body;
In my opinion, any conclusion or declaration from the United Nations doesn't contain any real "bite." The US imposes its own economic sanctions or declaration of humanitarian policies with or without UN approval just as any other state is capable. I think the UN is a forum for nations to cite their gripes with the world and if enough nations agree then a resolution may or may not do a darn bit of good but it is a forum to convey a message. I think it's time for another nation to host the gatherings and for the US to stop throwing so much wasted money at an institution that isn't effective.
3.) What are your feelings on the counter-terrorism measures we have enacted over the last decade? Specifically the TSA, the PATRIOT Act, Guantanamo Bay, sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA of 2012, and counter-cyber-intelligence bills like CISPA?
As I stated in your first question, I am against all things "big brother." After 9/11 we were all scared, and Congress took a big swipe at our freedoms with the PATRIOT act. The PATRIOT act is over-reaching and needs to be phased out. The TSA was supposed to provide better security by being common across all airports. I have traveled through many airports and I am frustrates at the lack of commonization of procedures. All the TSA accomplished was the expansion of another governmental department and more government bureaucracy. Guantanamo Bay needs to be shut down. Either try these terrorists in a court or let them go. I do not believe in indefinite detention methods used at Gitmo and as prescribed in section 1021 of the NDAA. We have means of tracking these terrorists. If they go back to their old ways, we need to take them out. As I mentioned above, I'd have no problem with a drone strike or two.
I was asked about CISPA by another voter in the district and this is how I responded to him:
To me this bill is another attempt of our Government to gather information on its citizens. The statement in the bill that gives me most concern is on page 3. Lines 1-3 state that intelligence may only be shared “consistent with the need to protect the national security of the United States.” That specific wording is too broad in my opinion and leaves the potential for misuse and abuse of power. I believe this bill leaves the door open for invasions of privacy that amount to surveillance of U.S.citizens.
My view of government is one that protects its citizens without the invasion of privacy and without tromping on the 4thAmendment of our Constitution. The Constitution gives Government the power to “provide for the common defence” of our nation.In my opinion, that does not mean defense from a cyber-attack that crashesFacebook’s website for a few hours.
4.) What are your views on a governmental (municipal, state, or federal) definition of marriage?
I do not object to same sex unions. My only problem, as minor and symantic as it may be, is using the word "marriage" when referring to same sex unions. To me the word "marriage" itself is one based in history and religion. While it may make no difference to some religions persons, I believe the word "marriage" should be refered to as a union between a man and a woman. I would ask the LGBT community to come up with their own word for same sex unions and how they would prefer to be addressed but otherwise I would not descriminate any legal rights between the two. I am against any constitutional amendment. Michigan had a ballot referendum on the issue several years ago and changed the state constitution. The people have spoken in Michigan and I believe that is the end of the matter.
5.) What is your stance on the proper role and oversight of the Federal Reserve?
I'll be completely honest with you. I don't know much about what the Federal Reserve does besides control the interest rates that banks pay and that my savings account pays back squat. The quantative easing has allowed me to refinance my home mortgage at a low rate and save me money but at the same time devalue the dollar and make the price of oil more expensive. I have heard the arguements throughout the presidential debates but I am not currently educated enough on the topic to answer you. I am a Ron Paul fan so I take his opinion on the gold standard seriously but I'm certainly not going to google a few sites to try and form an opinion to answer your question in 5 minutes. I need to do some homework.
6.) What is your view on the legitimacy and morality of Roe v. Wade, and would you actively strive to legislate abortion?
I am a Catholic. While I would never condone or approve of anyone in my family having an abortion, I do not believe in forcing my religious beliefs on the entire United States. I have a one year old son. I have seen ultrasounds near 10 weeks that show a baby with arms, legs, fingers, toes, and a beating heart. There is no doubt in my mind that what I see is human life. I believe Roe V Wade is the law of the land and most polls throughout the decades have shown about a 2 in 3 approval of a woman's right to choose. While I would not actively strive to legislate abortion I would not be opposed to limiting it in reasonable ways. I believe each person needs to be accountable and responsible for thier actions. I would be willing to vote to limit abortions to less than 20 weeks of gestation. This allows time for full genetic testing to look for chromosomal abnormalities; tests that are 100% conclusive and not just a doctors opinion or a calculated risk factor. While my wife and I have good paying jobs with decent health care coverage, there are millions in the US that do not. Taking care of a disabled child is a challenge that many people do not have the skills to perform nor the economic means to do so.
-----------------------
Not a perfect candidate. I don't particularly care for his eagerness to support the drone campaigns for starters. I also wish he had a firmer pro-life stance and a better understanding of the Fed (though he does point to Ron Paul's leadership and insights on the Fed, and I tried to give no direct clue that I was a RP fan). All-in-all though I think it would be better to support him than Rogers.
Thoughts from fellow Michiganders?