In a world where the pace of environmental change is increasing exponentially, and where droughts are becoming more and more prevalent and unpredictable, and the cost of environmental change is still largely unknown, we must take the necessary steps to ensure we are better prepared for the changes that our current climate are facilitating. This includes being more mindful, on a federal level of our energy and water use. In 1979, President Carter had 32 solar panels installed on the white house to set an example for American people amidst the national energy crisis at that time. In 1986, President Reagan ordered that the solar panels be taken down. Years later we are in a time of environmental crisis, and we need to take permanent action. President Obama has done so by ordering that solar panels be re-installed on the white house. Administration officials expect the system will convert sunlight into 19,700-kilowatt hours of electricity a year. According to The Associated Press, that would save a typical Washington, D.C.-area household $2,300 on its electricity bill annually. Additionally, the solar hot water heating system could save an additional $1,000 a year. We are finally taking the first steps we need to lead Americans to be more environmentally conscious.

        I believe the best way to lead is by example. By making federal buildings more ecologically friendly wherever possible, we are leading by example and will influence home and business owners to take steps to help our environment as well. Solar energy is better for the environment, and better for the economy. Let’s decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and create jobs while fostering a more sustainable energy system. I have supported several solar power projects in Santa Barbara, including those installed at the Public Works Motor Pool Facility, and I plan to bring this experience with me to congress to further improve environmental conditions. The goal is to have all federal buildings using solar powered energy and greywater irrigation systems by 2030. In President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, he proposed that we reduce our overall carbon dioxide emissions by 32 percent by 2030. I agree that we need to regulate carbon pollution and set clear limits, but this is not enough. I propose that we begin to lead by example at the federal level so that home and business owners can see the positive impact that emissions reduction has on the environment, and on the economy.

        The federal government is the largest energy consumer in the U.S. economy. In 2009, President Obama imposed sustainability goals for the federal government by asking agencies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions from sources such as building energy use and fuel consumption by 28 percent by 2020. The installation of solar panels on all federal buildings will fast track this process by increasing the use of renewable energy and thus decreasing fuel consumption. Currently, there are approximately 445,000 federal buildings in the United States. The heating, cooling, and operation cost of these buildings is roughly an annual cost of 7 billion dollars, which is footed by taxpayers. Based on an average amount of sunlight, solar panel installation can save up to 50 percent of energy costs. By making federal buildings energy-efficient and ecologically friendly, we can reduce the cost to taxpayers by up to 3.5 billion dollars a year. Additionally, the installation of renewable and sustainable equipment in federal buildings can eliminate the equivalent of 235 million barrels of oil use over the next decade. It is evident that the installation of solar panels is not only environmentally necessary, but it is also economically necessary.

        Greywater irrigation systems conserve fresh water by reusing unsoiled water from household sinks, washing machines, and other sanitary water runoff. Installing these systems can provide an estimated 30% reduction in water usage. I propose grey water irrigation systems be implemented in all federal buildings by the year 2030. In addition to conserving water, the lower need for sewage treatment systems and lessened energy use from chemical pollution treatment helps to achieve a more ecologically sustainable development. By using American companies throughout the installation process, the adoption of grey water systems, alongside the usage of solar panels, will stimulate the economy by creating thousands of job opportunities. Installing grey water irrigation systems will also have tremendous positive impacts on the environment. The average-size household uses 243 gallons of water per day. A grey water system can reuse 50-80% of this water for irrigation, saving up to 50,000 gallons of water each year, which translates to savings of roughly $400 per year.

        The first step to begin the process of making existing federal buildings more sustainable is to source out American solar production companies to work with.

This will create American jobs and stimulate the local economy, while decreasing our dependency on foreign oil. We will work alongside companies that manufacture solar panels in America, and source their materials from American companies as well. Projects like this can generate over 20,000 jobs for Americans. The implementation will begin by equipping all federal buildings with solar panels providing 50 percent of their energy needs by 2020. Once we have begun the process of installing solar panels on federal buildings, we will begin to install grey-water irrigation systems. This will reduce water usage by 30 percent, conserving millions of gallons of fresh water annually. The use of greywater irrigation systems will be fully implemented into all federal buildings by 2025. The cost of full installation of a pumped system ranges from $1,000-$4,000. With average water savings of $400 annually for an average sized system, water bill savings will offset the installation cost of greywater systems within a decade. On top of installing grey water systems at the federal level, we must incentive their use in households and businesses. We must then expand the use of solar panels to generate all electricity needs for federal buildings by 2030.

Generally, the cost per watt of a solar energy system decreases due to economies of scale when more solar panels in a system (and a higher overall wattage level) are purchased. With affordable solar solutions from Solar Energy USA, a small 4 solar panel system that has a total power output of 1,120 watts (1.12kW) costs $7.20 per watt while a larger 24 panel system that has a total output of 6,720 watts (6.72kW) costs $4.75 dollars per watt. A large megawatt (MW) array can be priced as low as $3 dollars per watt.

        The results of incentivizing renewable energy practices can be very successful. Germany, the global leaders of per capita solar power capacity, has achieved their success by incentivizing solar energy on the supply side. The rapid solar power expansion that Germany experienced was due to their feed-in tariff policy, which pays solar energy producers a set amount for the energy they produce under long-term contracts. Such incentives along with leading by example and using renewable practices at the federal level will lead us in the right environmentally. This plan will demonstrate the commitment that we have to our planet, generate American jobs, save taxpayers money, and influence individuals to take on the responsibility to be environmentally conscious in a proactive way.

More than any other modern democracy on Earth, America’s epidemic of senseless gun violence is significantly worse and occurs more frequently than any other advanced nation. Each and every day in America, approximately 289 people are shot, 86 die, 30 are murdered, 53 commit suicide, 2 die accidentally and 1 is shot in a police intervention.  This level of gun violence affects over 1,000 people, including families, children, co-workers, neighbors and bystanders.
Rather than maintaining the status quo and allowing Washington’s lack of action to persist, it is high time that we, as a nation, finally take real steps to address this issue head-on. That is why today I am proud to unveil my 10-point plan to drastically reduce gun violence across America.

Below is my 10-point plan:

1) $10 Billion for National Gun Buyback Program

There are over 300 million guns in the United States. That is enough for every man, women, and child to have a gun of their own. Frankly, in my opinion, that is far too many. 1.7 million children live in a home with an unlocked and loaded gun— and every single year far too many American children are killed or wounded due to unintended accidents with unlocked guns and end up hurting themselves or someone else. It is time we do something to keep our children and neighborhoods safe.

That is why I am proposing a nation-wide gun buyback program funded by and run by the federal government. My plan invests $10 billion into this program and tasks the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to follow the model of existing gun buyback programs that will take millions of guns off of America’s streets. Compared to the $50 billion per year spent on the F-35 fighter plane that doesn’t even fly, a $10 billion gun buyback program can and should be part of the solution to our nation’s growing gun violence epidemic. A program of this size – averaging $100 for handguns, rifles and shotguns, and $200 for assault weapons – will eliminate an estimated 1/6 of guns in circulation. That equates to roughly 50 million guns off of America’s streets.

This concept of a gun buyback program is something I’ve worked on locally, and have had enormous success with in partnership with the Santa Barbara Police Department and the Santa Barbara Coalition Against Gun Violence. Beyond Santa Barbara, this model has been wildly successful in other cities across the nation. Since Los Angeles initiated its gun buyback program in 2009, it removed 13,700 guns from the streets and its crime rate index decreased from 325.7 to 251.3. To put that in perspective, the average U.S. crime rate index is 294.7. Now it’s time to take this successful model and apply it nationally. The “no questions asked” voluntary nature of a buyback program will help us protect our neighborhoods not only from legal guns, but illegal ones as well, and likely can and will save millions of lives.

2)  Background Checks on all Gun Sales

We need to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. In order to do so, we need to increase restrictions on who can own a gun as well as implement stricter regulations when it comes to background checks on all gun sales. We need to increase screening for criminals, especially those who have been convicted of stalking or of domestic violence against a dating partner. This would greatly decrease violence against women and take dangerous guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals.

We also need to increase screening for those who suffer from mental illness. We need to expand the restriction of persons buying guns beyond people who have been hospitalized as inpatients. I support extending the opportunity to mental health professionals to advise that certain mentally ill and unstable people are  prohibited from purchasing guns. Psychiatrists and other mental health professionals know if a patient is stable enough to handle the responsibility of owning a gun, and they should have the authority to recommend that certain mentally ill and unstable patients be prohibited from owning guns for a specified period of time, after which the individual may be re-evaluated.

Moreover, right now private sales of guns-from one gun owner to another- is largely unregulated. People can purchase guns online or at a gun show without a background check. This puts thousands of guns in the hands of potentially dangerous people who should not own a gun. It also puts licensed gun sellers at a grave disadvantage. I believe those who are responsible and play by the rules should not be punished. In Congress, I’ll push for legislation that requires a background check is completed every time someone buys a gun. That means banning unlicensed private gun sales, permanently closing the gun show loophole and requiring that in every gun sale the purchaser is mandated to go through a rigorous background check, especially when it comes to new online sales.

Under current federal law, if a background check is not completed within three days of the attempted gun purchase, the sale can proceed nonetheless. This is simply unacceptable. There are safeguards in place to make sure that guns are used safely and stay out of the hands of people who intend to use them maliciously. We need to reinforce our gun laws by extending waiting periods to ensure the proper background check is thorough and fully completed.

In addition, there are currently no mandatory background checks on gun dealership employees. This is unsafe and contradicts any safeguards in place for the sale of guns. Those selling guns should be held to the same standards as those buying guns to ensure that all transactions are legal and background checks are accurately completed.

3) A Comprehensive Ban on Assault Weapons

I believe strongly in a comprehensive ban on assault weapons. Assault weapons are in reality military weapons and totally unnecessary in the hands of average Americans and on our streets.  A wide-ranging ban on these deadly weapons would greatly decrease gun violence across the US. In 2004, the U.S. Senate declined to extend the pre-existing assault weapons ban even though gun violence had dropped drastically since the measure took effect. We must renew our commitment to instituting the federal assault weapons ban proposed by U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, and ensure that some of the tougher measures included in California’s assault weapons ban are included in the legislation to make it more comprehensive. In Congress, I will be a staunch advocate for this legislation.

4) Ban High-Capacity Magazines

High-capacity magazines are typically classified as any gun magazine with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of bullets. Magazines containing over ten rounds can kill more people at a time and translates to greater amount of stray bullets fired. They cause innocent bystanders to be caught in the cross-fire and are designed to maximize kill rates. They should be kept on the battlefield and off America’s streets. Here in California, as well as several other states, we have instituted bans on high-capacity magazines. We ought to make this common sense state law nationwide, and I plan to push for it in Congress.

5) Crack Down on Gun Trafficking   

Guns are often bought and sold illegally, which can counteract any gun safety regulations in place. Currently there is no clear and effective path established to punish gun traffickers. One way to crack down on gun trafficking is to limit the amount of guns purchased per month to inhibit “straw purchasers” – those who buy guns in bulk then resell them on the streets- from illegally selling guns. In Congress, I will work on making gun trafficking a federal crime so that we can develop effective ways to further de-incentivize and punish these criminals.

6) Strengthening the National Instant Criminal Background Check System

We need to maintain accurate records to ensure that our background checks do not let any vicious criminals fall through the cracks.  Since its creation in 1998, the National Instant Criminal Background System (NICS) has blocked the sale of firearms to over 2 million prohibited purchasers. But we need to make sure that States continue to submit up-to-date records and that there is universal regulation across all 50 States.  We need to ensure that all 50 States send mental health records to the NICS.  Currently very few States do so.  Therefore a mentally ill person prohibited from purchasing a gun in California can go to Nevada or New Mexico and easily purchase a gun. In Congress, I will work to ensure that the federal government retains handgun sales’ records to more effectively investigate gun crimes and help prevent prohibited purchasers from possessing weapons.  

7) Keeping Guns Out of Local Neighborhood Schools & College Campuses

California State Senator Lois Wolk proposed gun legislation this year that aims to ban individuals with concealed weapon permits from bringing firearms onto local K-12 neighborhood schools or college campuses without specific permission from school or college campus officials. With the exception of law enforcement, I strongly support this measure and believe it can and should be adapted nationwide.

8) Regulating Production of Guns & Materials from 3-D Printers

With America’s ever-evolving technology, we must remain vigilant and work to ensure that these new technologies do not undermine or skirt our laws. Increasingly, the invention of 3-D printers are allowing consumers to print almost any product imaginable, including guns and gun materials. In Congress, I plan to enact tough regulations to ensure that any print-sale of guns or gun materials goes through a licensed gun dealer and passes through vigorous screening and background checks just the same as physical licensed gun retailer would for their sales.

9)   Toughening Sales of 80 Percent Receivers

An increasingly dangerous item is the 80 percent receiver, which is a receiver that is 80 percent or less complete, meaning it still requires final steps of assembly of the necessary parts, available in a kit, to complete the gun through machining and welding to finalize, activate and functionally use the gun. Because of this, the 80 percent receiver is not considered to be a receiver in the eyes of the federal law. As a result of this non-firearm status, 80 percent receivers may be bought and sold freely in the marketplace. This loophole enables anyone to build a gun in their garage without a background check and without a serial number on the gun—making the gun virtually untraceable. This is precisely the gun that was used at the Santa Monica City College shooting not long ago. As these materials are becoming ever-more accessible for sale online, there are now YouTube videos showing consumers how to assemble a gun from these parts.  In Congress, I will work to enact tough laws that either completely end or severely limit the sale of 80 percent receivers.  For limited sales, I will work to ensure that purchasers go through the same rigorous background checks listed in my plan above, that products are sold with a serial number and are trackable, and that any purchases go through a thorough process and are in full compliance of these new, tough federal laws.

10) Temporary Seizures of Guns from Dangerous Individuals

In the wake of the devastating 2014 Isla Vista shooting massacre here in the Central Coast, California passed one of the most forward-thinking gun violence prevention policies aimed at averting a similar act from ever occurring again. The state’s AB 1014 law empowers law enforcement officers and/or family members to request from a court the implementation of a restraining order on an individual who poses a danger or threat to themselves or others and bars them from purchasing or being in possession of a firearm for 21 days or more.  The case may then be reviewed by the court. I believe this common sense law should be used as a model and applied nationwide, but that it should also include an element of mental health services for the individual in question, to ensure they receive adequate treatment, and don’t harm themselves or others at the time or in the future.

On January 17, 2014, Governor Jerry Brown, announced a Drought State of Emergency. Droughts are cyclical – the exceptional drought California is experiencing now will end one day, to be followed by another. We need to think long term when it comes to ensuring reliable and clean water supplies. In Congress, I will bring my experience as Mayor during this drought to tackle these complex issues head-on at the federal level by working to establish more long-term water conservation and supply policies that ensure Californians and all Americans can afford and have access to clean drinking water, and the water supplies necessary to support and sustain our rich agricultural and tourism industries.

The City of Santa Barbara addressed its water supply needs by enhancing our conservation efforts while also aggressively expanding our water supply options through the City’s recycled water treatment facility and re-commissioning its desalination plant. We led the way during this exceptional drought as one of the 5 Top Water Conservation Areas throughout California.

In the year 2015, women are still struggling for full equality, whether it’s in the workplace, in their paychecks,  or over their own decision-making about their healthcare. This Congress has actually been turning back the clock on women’s rights, not forward. The best way to fight back against this extremist agenda is to elect more women to Congress who will champion our rights and work to ensure full equality for women and girls. Today, women represent only 19% of the members of the United States House of Representatives and Senate in Washington, DC. It is imperative that we strive towards gender equity in our nation’s Capitol.

My entire professional career has focused on providing women the capacity to reach their full potential. As a human resources professional for over twenty years, I’ve worked on a variety of employment-related policies, such as pay equity, access to quality health care and child care options, and preventing sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace. In addition, having worked at Planned Parenthood in human resources management for over a decade, I’ve seen first-hand how important their mission is in providing women and their families access to quality health care and education.

Congress needs to stop restricting women’s reproductive health, and finally— once and for all— give women unequivocal equality in America: regarding their own body, their health, their education, and their careers. We need to pass the Equal Rights Amendment once and for all. These are paramount issues for me and I will champion them as a member of the House of Representatives. Specifically, I will focus on the following national policies:

GENDER EQUITY IN THE WORKPLACE

Equal Pay

Women deserve equal pay for equal work. Currently women earn $0.75 to every $1 that men earn to perform the same job, with single mothers and women of color being hit even harder by the wage gap. This is unacceptable. I am a strong advocate for equal pay for women throughout all industries. Receiving lower wages for equal and oftentimes more work is not only insulting, but discriminatory.  We can no longer stand idly by and allow this to happen. It is about time that Congress stands up for women and prohibits institutional discrimination, and I will focus on this issue as a member of the House of Representatives.

Increasing Employment Opportunities for Women in Booming Fields

Women lack representation in industries that are vital to the success of America. While women represent 51% of the American population, they represent a mere 19% of Congress members, 4.6% of Fortune 500 CEOs, and in academic circl es, 32.5% of women faculty are in non-tenure track positions compared to 19.6% of men faculty. My Congressional office will include mentorship programs aimed to boost female representation in government and I will champion increased funding for STEM education for young women. I will continue my current practice as Mayor in hiring women on my staff in leadership roles as well as partner with programs for young women and girls, such as Girls Inc., Girl Scouts and local Panhellenic Chapters to inspire young women to take on leadership roles. It is essential that we give women the education and resources they need to compete fairly in booming fields of work.

Paid Parental Leave/Pregnant Women in the Workforce

All parents deserve time off from work to bond with their newborn without fear of losing their job. New mothers need time to recuperate and recover from the strenuous process of giving birth. In addition, after having a baby, women and their families become financially responsible for another human being. This is why paid maternity leave in America is a necessity. It is shameful the way a large number of employers deny parents paid-time-off during parental leave. The United States is the only industrialized nation in the world that does not make paid maternity leave mandatory. Only 11% of private-sector employees receive paid maternity leave.

Unlike in California, there is no federal law that that requires employers to provide sensible accommodations to the needs of pregnant women in the same way they are required to provide employees with mental or physical disabilities. Even employees who follow certain religious beliefs or practices are appropriately accommodated. In an attempt to address the issue, several states and New York City have passed Pregnant Workers Fairness Acts. Unfortunately, a federal version of such an act has been repeatedly turned down. We must outlaw pregnancy discrimination, and that’s why in Congress, I will make it my mission to fight for the rights of pregnant women in the workplace and ensure all women receive paid maternity leave.

ACCESS TO WOMEN’S HEALTHCARE

Women’s Reproductive Healthcare

There has been an increasing number of measures that restrict a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her own body. A three-year surge in anti-choice measures throughout the country has closed down a number of clinics, threatened others, and is making it increasingly difficult for women to receive the care they need. A woman’s health care decision should be between she and her doctor, not legislators. Women have the right to make decisions regarding their own bodies. Having worked at Planned Parenthood for over a decade, women’s rights and access to health care are paramount issues for me. Women should be able to make reproductive health care-related decisions in consultation with their medical provider and family — they shouldn’t be dictated by Washington’s politicians. Congress needs to stop restricting women’s reproductive health, and finally— once and for all— give women unequivocal equality in America. In Congress I will fight for a woman’s right to choose.

Funding Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood is one of the leading providers of women’s health care in the country.  I worked for my local affiliate of Planned Parenthood for 11 years, so I know first-hand how much women depend on it – particularly low-income women, survivors of domestic and sexual assault, and young women. Certain lawmakers have made it their mission to abolish federal funding for this vital service, and some politicians in the House of Representatives have even threatened to shut down the government over the issue. But with 97% of services aimed at crucial preventative care such as mammograms and cancer screenings, Planned Parenthood is a desperately needed resource for many aspects of women’s health. We must not allow these politicians to succeed. We must remain vigilant in support of a woman’s right to choose, and ensure that women of all backgrounds are able to access the health care services they need and deserve.

Poverty and Homelessness

Over 70 million women and mothers in the United States live in poverty or are nearing poverty. Among the industrialized countries in the world, America has the largest number of homeless women and children. As the Co-Chair of the U.S. Conference of Mayors Hunger and Homelessness Task Force, I’ve worked with Mayors across the country in finding and implementing programs and practices that work to reduce homelessness. I will work in Congress to secure the needed funding in housing, and supportive services that will help impoverished women become financially independent by providing them with employment opportunities, health assistance, and social security benefits. I will also continue to champion raising the minimum wage.

Inadequate Maternal Health Care

According to the Shriver Report, “The United States has the highest maternal mortality rate among developed nations and ranks 50th among the nations of the world with regard to maternal deaths.” As the world’s leading country, it is unacceptable that medical care for expecting mothers is so poor. We need to ensure the good health and safety of pregnant women in order to reduce maternal mortality rates. I plan to improve the standards of health care for women in all areas.

PREVENTING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Sexual Assault

We need to work as a nation to keep Americans safe. This includes the hundreds of thousands of women and members of the LGBTQ community who face sexual assault, sexual harassment, and rape every year.  While in college, one in five women experience sexual assault, and in many cases, the institutional response has been substandard and insufficient. Lack of funding from the DOJ has caused massive backlogs in the cataloguing and testing of rape kits. As Mayor, however, I worked with Human Rights Watch along with the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office and our local police department to secure better funding for quicker processing of this vital tool. In addition to more funding, we need to improve training of public safety officers to appropriately handle cases of violence against women. As a human resources professional, I have, and continue to provide, sexual harassment prevention training to ensure working women and the LGBTQ community can be productive in a safe working environment.

Sexual assault also affects our women in uniform. Brave women risk their lives in the military fighting adversaries abroad only to be assaulted by their allies at home. In 2014, a survey showed that 20,000 service members said they had experienced at least one incident of unwanted sexual contact in the past year, representing nearly 5 percent of all active-duty women. We need to protect our brave military women by increasing enforcement and ensuring violators are prosecuted. In Congress, I will fight to provide increased counseling and psychiatric services to victims of sexual assault to ensure their wellbeing and safety during and after military service.

Domestic Violence

Domestic violence is a very serious issue, affecting women of all ages. One in three homicide victims is killed by an intimate partner and 24% of adult women have been physically assaulted by a partner at some time in their lives. Congress needs to do its part to address this issue. We need to bring awareness of this growing problem and do our part to stop domestic violence. In Congress, I will work to bring the issue of domestic violence to the public, work to increase funding to women’s shelters, and empower victims to escape violent situations. With greater knowledge and awareness about the issue, we can truly begin to address the problem of domestic violence and bring it to an end.

The Treatment of Women in Prison

Women in prisons are often treated unfairly and subject to sexual assault. In recent years, there have been increasing reports of correctional officers subjecting female inmates to rape, sexual assault, sexual extortion, and abuse during body searches. Women in prison need to be treated in a just and humane manner. In Congress, I will work on improving the screening process of correctional officers so we can ensure that correctional guards will protect rather than harm women inmates.

Human Trafficking/Sex Slavery

Adult women make up the largest group of human trafficking victims, followed by female children. Sex trafficking is a form of modern-day slavery that affects women all over the country and the world. We need to do more to stop human trafficking in the United States. In Congress I will work to increase efforts to prevent women from being sold into this horrendous industry.

The game is rigged.  It's rigged because the rules that we live by are being written by the wealthiest among us.  Everyone acknowledges that.  These policies are not just hammering the poorest among us either.  These policies that favor the wealthy actually hurt America's economy as a whole as evidenced in a report by Standard and Poor's that shows that income inequality is drag on the economy as a whole. (www.globalcreditportal.com)

However, it's not just about money, it's more insidious and cruel than that.  It's the conceit that there is ONLY one version of the American Dream - accumulation of great financial wealth.  It's not just that those with concentrated wealth have their way with certain policy decisions that only they can afford to influence, or that the wealth is disproportionately redistributed to the top.  It's that the rest of America's version of "the American Dream" is being dismissed and disrespected along the way.  We are being remanded to accept the conceit that our simple dreams of being a teacher, a cook, a farmer, a mechanic, a social worker, my dreams, your dreams, our dreams, the variety of American Dreams, the simple dreams that make up the real fabric of society as a whole, our lives are dismissed as irrelevant, unimportant and replaceable.  That if we are struggling financially it's OUR FAULT for choosing to contribute our talents to our communities as a plumber or nurse rather than one of the hedge fund managers that took home over a billion dollars in pay last year.  That if your choice in life is a personally rewarding job that you're uniquely talented for but won't make you rich, your life will be harder.  That if you are a maintenance man or restaurant employee you don't deserve a pension that helps you live out your last days with dignity.  A conceit that argues that it doesn't matter if you are born into poverty or wealth, that access to the American Dream is equal when it unequivocally is not.  That if your vocation calls out to teach children, that you don't deserve a pay raise in the last ten years because it doesn't return any measurable shareholder value.  As an employee who earns $1 for every $373 that their CEO earns, you are not entitled to any meaningful compensation for your contribution to the companies success. 

The American Dream, "the pursuit of happiness", "domestic tranquility" for most people, is about having a meaningful job that provides a decent measure of security, a place to live that is contenting, the time to spend nurturing our children, a positive synergistic relationship with our communities, and compassion for our health and well being as we get old.  Our country has tremendous natural resources that can provide for all of us.  We don't mind that the American dream for some is to spend their time chasing money, but don't take away my dignity or my ability to participate in our community and provide for my family for choosing differently.  Please don't tell me my pursuit of happiness is unworthy or should be discriminated against.  Don't tell me that my contributions to my community are insignificant.  Don't tell me I'm not a patriot because I don't agree with you.  Don't tell me that you need multiple homes and cars and that an apartment in a run down neighborhood is good enough for me and my kids.  Don't tell me that you can do what you want with the air that I breathe.  Don't tell me that our public lands are your personal business opportunity. Don't tell me that your sons and daughters deserve a good education, healthy, nutritious food, and career options and my children must navigate the hurdles of poverty and a misplaced sense of dignity found in crime and incarceration. 

The "American Dream" is not measured in the single metric of money.  The American Dream, our constitutionally proclaimed right to "domestic tranquility", is much broader than that.  That codified freedom, the chance to truly live our lives of our own choosing is threatened.  Most people aren't concerned with making millions of dollars.  We want the true sense of "freedom" to pursue the happiness we were promised in our constitution.  The "American Dream" is plural and we need to make sure it is accessible to all.

The existing campaign financing system encourages enormous amounts of money to be spent in our elections. Every election since 1998 has been more expensive than the one before, with the average cost of a House campaign of more than $1.2 million. That money is corruptive to our democratic process and perverts our political discourse. We as candidates can choose to do better.

It is expected that wealthy Individuals, corporations, SuperPACs, 501(c)(4) non-profit organizations and national and state party committees will spend millions of dollars on advertisements in the upcoming race for the 24th Congressional District. These groups function as independent expenditure organizations and are outside the direct control of the candidates. Independent organizations spent $219 million in 2014, the majority of which were negative advertisements.

The candidates recognize that campaigns for public office have devolved into attacks, smears and outright lies and desire to provide the citizens of 24th Congressional District with an election free of third party independent expenditure advertisements.

The candidates agree that they do not approve of such independent expenditure advertisements and do not want such advertisements to be undertaken by these organizations during the race for the 24th Congressional District. If the candidates are serious about excluding negative advertising in the upcoming campaign, they must be willing to include an enforcement mechanism that runs not only to the third party organizations but to the candidates’ own campaigns.

Therefore, the candidates, on behalf of their respective campaigns, hereby agree to the following:

    In the event that a third party organization airs any independent expenditure broadcast, including radio, cable, satellite or online advertising, in support of a named, referenced (including by title) or otherwise identified candidate, that Candidate’s campaign shall, within three (3) days of discovery of the advertisement buy’s total cost, duration and source, pay 50% of the cost of that advertising buy to a charity of the opposing candidate’s choice.

    In the event that a third party organization airs any independent expenditure broadcast, including radio, cable, satellite or online advertising, in opposition to a named, referenced (including by title) or otherwise identified candidate, that candidate’s campaign shall, within three (3) days of discovery of the advertisement buy’s total cost, duration and source, pay 50% of the cost of that advertising buy to a charity of the opposed Candidate’s choice.

    In the event that a third party organization airs any broadcast, including radio, cable or satellite advertising, that promotes or supports a named, referenced (including by title) or otherwise identified candidate, that candidate’s campaign shall, within three (3) days of discovery of the advertisement buy’s total cost, duration and source, pay 50% of the cost of that advertising buy to a charity of the opposing candidate’s choice.

    In the event that a third party organization airs any broadcast, including radio, cable or satellite advertising, that attacks or opposes a named, referenced (including by title) or otherwise identified candidate, the opposing Candidate’s campaign shall, within three (3) days of discovery of the advertisement buy’s total cost, duration and source, pay 50% of the cost of that advertising buy to a charity of the opposing candidate’s choice.

    The candidates and their campaigns agree to continue to work together to limit the influence of third party advertisements and to close any loopholes (including coverage of sham ads and websites) that arise in this agreement during the course of the campaign.

America’s educational advantage began to disappear as other countries invested in higher learning. Countries like Argentina, Denmark, Finland, France, Norway, Scotland, Brazil and Germany offer free secondary education while we shifted ever more of the financial burden onto our students. With states and federal government cutting back, the private sector rushed in to finance students with college loans, many of which were backed by our government. Student debt climbed dramatically.


State university systems across the country were forced to raise tuitions to make up for lost revenue from mandated budget cuts, providing the opportunity for private, for-profit colleges to insert themselves into the education marketplace and become a multi-billion dollar industry. Unfortunately, many for profit colleges have questionable recruitment practices, high costs and even higher student loan interest rates. Today, for-profit colleges constitute the highest percentage of student loan delinquencies.

Moreover, universities have had to seek money from private sources which at times, has prejudiced the curriculum or research done at universities so as not to offend corporate donors.  Research that is meant to benefit the public is sometimes skewed in the interest of a corporate agenda. President Lincoln would be dismayed to know that in 2009, Industry funding for sponsored agricultural research outspent the United State Department of Agriculture $822 million to $645 million.  The problem with this is that industry funded research is more likely to find favorable conclusion for the sponsor and this research often guides policy and regulations.  And our universities, for lack of funding, are less able to conduct research on alternative ideas and limits curriculum.

The class of 2015 will graduate with $35,051 in student debt on average. In total, American students are more $1.2 trillion in debt for their time in college, with more than 7 million debtors in default.

Student debt isn’t solely a problem for students and their parents. The massive debt, most of which is owed to our federal government (which makes a “profit” of approximately $12 BILLION a year!), drags our economy down. Young adults struggling with student debt are postponing marriage, childbearing and home purchases. The decline of entrepreneurs trying to start a business correlates with the increase in student debt. Moreover, high tuition costs and student debt is perpetuating and even worsening economic inequality and undercutting the opportunity for upward social mobility, one of the key benefits higher education promises.

Student debt affects career paths, with important social implications. The burden of paying off large college debt tends to discourage students away from needed professions with lower pay scales like social work and health care in lieu of higher-paying jobs in tech and financial services.  A healthy community needs a well rounded workforce.  Before we commit our students exclusively to math and sciences let’s remember that our country was founded on an education that was based solidly on the Liberal Arts.

It makes no sense to place economic barriers to higher education, whether it’s professional or vocational. Clearly, higher education is the key to success in the new world economy for individuals and our country as a whole. A study conducted by the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service found that, for every $1 the State of Virginia invests in higher education, $13 is generated in economic output. That’s a very good investment.

I believe that helping students’ access higher education by taking down financial barriers is a prudent investment in our own future. In addition, I believe that young adults should have some “skin in the game.” To meet both of those needs I propose a coordinated national civil service program.

A National Civil Service Program

Presently, there exists a number of national service programs to assist young men and women with access to higher education as reward for their commitments. Many are federal programs like the AmeriCorps, Peace Corps, National Health Service Corps, and, of course, the military.

This list could easily be expanded to encompass existing qualifying non-profits that range from mentoring programs (I’m still a Big Brother after 35 years), environmental clean up and rescue, social services (from helping the homeless or caring for the elderly, tutoring, and assisting in medical treatment centers) and other fields.

Volunteer programs should be an integral part of our citizenship regardless of one’s socioeconomic background. It fosters the understanding of individual responsibility to our communal well being. Service work is performed primarily by young adults between the ages of 18 and 24. Serving our communities and our country is a profound time for young adults, which, for many, can serve as a “threshold experience” that helps in the transition from youth to contributing member of our society, while exposing volunteers to unique experiences they might not have found on their own.

Twenty six million young Americans working for a minimum period of 500 hours would be an enormous boost toward improving the quality of life across our country, while developing compassion for the least fortunate among us  – something sorely missing in too many of our politicians.

Estimates cite that “making college tuition free” would cost $70 billion. We have the money. It’s a question of priorities. Consolidating federal, state, and local programs that already have significant budgets would be a start. A small tax on stock, bond and derivative transactions could raise as much as $300 billion a year. While some investors may complain, there would most certainly be a good return on investment from a more educated work force and greater general affluence as America rebuilds it’s middle class and achieves further innovation across the business and manufacturing sector.

History is clear: we MUST substantially reinvest in our human resources by publicly investing in higher education.  Tuition reform in conjunction with a new national service program will give our youth and leaders of tomorrow the opportunity for advanced education while learning to invest in their inherited country.  That’s a win/win for all of us.

THE OTHER day I visited with interest (and some dismay) the website for the United States foreign assistance programs.

It claims that our country is planning to devote $33.9 billion in fiscal year 2017 to help foreign countries.

Ignoring the $8.3 billion in military assistance, this still leaves a respectable $25.6 billion dedicated to economic and humanitarian assistance.

Or is it respectable?  Who today is so innocent as not to suspect that much of our so-called economic assistance is really a way of steering the economy, infrastructure and values of a foreign country to render it more exploitable?

It need not be so.  I propose to my fellow Americans an alternative.

The current US population is something over 300 million.  Were each person to contribute a mere 33 cents annually (parents paying the amount for infants and young children), we would easily raise $100 million.

Each year we could single out one amongst the family of nations, and bestow on this nation, as a gesture of pure friendship, some great gift purchased with it.

The first stipulation would be that there are no strings attached.   We seek nothing in return for the gift, except the benefit of the recipient and the honor of making it.

The second is that the gift must have nothing to do with economics or materialist values.  We would wish, rather, to give in the name of eternal friendship between the people of that country and our own.

The most suitable gifts, I suggest, would be libraries, museums, parks, gardens and monuments.  Perhaps there are others, but I personally would not like to see the list extended too far beyond these definite examples of non-material goods.

The figure of $100 million, or perhaps as much as twice that,  would suffice for a truly magnificent gift, yet at the same time is sufficiently restrained as to not seem crass.  By comparison, the new Library of Alexandria, Egypt cost $200 million, the Sifang Art Museum in Nanji, China, $279 million, and the MuCEM of Marseille, $260 million.

I have in mind one historical precedent for this, namely a library for the University of Leuven which the American people (independently of their government) donated to the people of Belgium following World War I.

To consider the premise from the reverse perspective, consider the affection which Americans retain to this day to their French cousins in gratitude for the gift of the Statue of Liberty.

An examination of current foreign aid recipients shows we now favor poor nations and generally ignore more prosperous countries like Japan and Canada.  But in friendship we should not make such distinctions.  If I may, I would like to nominate Japan, a great friend whom we take for granted, as the first recipient.

To merely begin this program would, besides the immediate result of honoring our old friends and making new ones, have the effect of changing history.  It would become immediately apparent to all how easy and, relatively speaking, inexpensive this is, and how much vastly superior it is as a foreign policy than war, competition and exploitation. It would signal nothing less than a turning point in human evolution.  Henceforth the advanced level of our technology and the vast power of collective capital would be matched by our wisdom and charity.

To speed the progress of so worthy an endeavor let some wealthy American — for example,Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, or Mark Zuckerberg — take the first step by supplying, for one year only, some substantial fraction (but not to exceed 50%) of the total.   In return they would go down in history as one of the great benefactors of humanity.

Or let those whose reputations suffer from past errors or partisan connections demonstrate their patriotism and good will to all — a George Soros or the Koch Brothers — by taking the first step.  They will then be applauded by all for their magnanimity.

Ambiguities associated with drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen make it difficult for the public to understand the issues, and for activists to mount effective opposition.

Above all we must not let this confusion distract attention from the basic moral issues and harms.  Therefore, in the face of constant double-talk by government officials, we respond with the potent weapons of simplicity and clear presentation of issues.

To repeat what was said previously, drone strikes are of four kinds:  (1) targeted killings, (2) signature strikes, (3) overt combat actions, and (4) covert combat actions.  The moral issues listed below apply in different degrees to each type of drone strike.

The specific moral harms can be broadly aggregated into two groups, according to seriousness.  We shall name these the top tier and second tier moral issues, respectively.  After presenting the issues, some brief suggestions will be made for how the US might conduct drone strikes — if they are truly necessary — in a more just and moral way.

Top tier issues

• Civilian deaths/casualties. Clearly the most important moral issue is that drone strikes, especially in Pakistan, have killed or injured many innocent civilians.  Serious consideration must also be  given to the gruesomeness of the injuries and manner of death, and the associated effects of this on survivors and relatives of those killed or injured.

• Terrorization. Very plausible reports have circulated concerning the mass terrorization of civilians in the Tribal Regions of Pakistan because of drones.  In some areas, drones, often several at the same time, can be heard constantly, even at night.  Whenever a drone is present, nobody can be sure they will not be killed in the next instant.

• Racism. The civilian-to-militant casualty ratio deemed acceptable by US government officials is evidently very high.  This suggests that the life of civilian Pakistani or Yemeni has comparatively little value in the eyes of the US government.  So high a level of ‘collateral damage’ would be not be accepted were these British, German or French citizens.

• Disregard of religious customs and principles. Particularly questionable is the use of follow-up drone strikes, which attack people who come to rescue or remove bodies from the scene of an initial strike, and strikes directed against funerals of slain militants.  Civilized and decent people have always granted enemies the right to collect and bury the dead.  In any case, a funeral is a religious ceremony, and no moral people would attack another during a religious service. Moreover, the US has launched strikes during its own religious holidays, such as on Good Friday, and on January 1, both holy days for Christians.  It is also reported that drone missiles travel faster than the speed of sound, and therefore kill victims without any advance warning.  If so, this removes the possibility of praying or collecting oneself in the moments before death (however ‘unfashionable’ it may be these days to mention such an issue, it is nonetheless a significant one).

• Secrecy. If the strikes were just and honorable, the US government would conduct them in a transparent way, explaining its procedures and admitting and making restitution for collateral damage.  But the strikes are cloaked in secrecy. The secrecy is, then, evidence that the strikes are immoral:  otherwise the US government would more readily admit them and disclose details.  Moreover, the secrecy is a moral harm itself:  it reduces government credibility, fosters ill-will between nations, and alienates the US government from its own citizens.

• Effects on drone operators. It is wrong for any nation to induce its citizens to act as cold-blooded exterminators of other human beings.  This is utterly incompatible with human nature, and must be producing terrible psychological damage in drone operators.

Second tier issues

• Issues of international law. The drone strikes, especially in Pakistan (where citizens consistently voice their disapproval), are illegal because they violate the sovereignty of other nations. Civilian drone operators are illegal combatants under international law.  Drone attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia constitute a form of undeclared war, which is illegal both under international and US law.

• Issues of democratic principles. All available evidence suggests that most Pakistan drone strikes are what an earlier post termed covert combat actions: they are targeting ordinary militants, not high-level terrorists.  The evidence also suggests that this is done by covert collusion between the US government and conservative factions of the Pakistani government.  Both governments must issue deceptive statements to their respective citizenries to cover things up.  This removes the citizens from oversight and direction of their own lives. In the case of the US, it is also probable that defense contractor lobbying is instrumental in expanding the drone strike campaigns.

• Arms escalation.  Eager use of drones and rapid development of more advanced systems by the US is setting the stage for an international drone arms race.  Especially disturbing is the current development of autonomous drones, which may attack and kill without human input.

• Inhumane treatment of enemy militants.  We are required to show respect for enemies, and to always regard them as human beings; killing by remote control is antithetical to this principle.

• Nonexpedience. The aggressive drone strike campaigns are also immoral because they harm US national security: the strikes produce more new enemies than they neutralize.  They also erode the moral foundations of American society and damage its reputation abroad.  By producing new enemies, and, consequently, potentially new wars, they threaten America’s economy.

• Evasion of responsibility.  The drone strikes (and the global ‘war on terror’ generally), demonstrate a reluctance by the US to admit its own partial responsibility for creating global instability.  The attacks of 9/11 and on the USS Cole in Yemen were morally evil, to be sure.  Yet the US must honestly consider the extent to which it helped provoke the attacks by a long standing policy of crass imperialism.  The US has also been complicit with the illegal efforts of Israel to functionally annex the West Bank territories of Palestine.  These things do not justify the terrorist attacks on the US, but should be considered as mitigating factors in determining our response to the attacks.

• Dishonorable warfare.  When soldiers engage under more or less equal terms, there is potentially a kind of honor associated with warfare.  When one party has an immense advantage, killing becomes mere slaughter, with no trace of honor.

If the US wishes to conduct drone strikes in a more moral manner, then particular attention should be given to the top tier moral issues.  The main requirement is to reduce civilian casualties to an absolute minimum.  This can most effectively be done by limiting the number of strikes, such as by restricting them only to targets who are genuinely direct and immediate threats to US domestic security.  In any case, the CIA and Department of Defense obviously monitor strikes closely, and have data on civilian casualties.  They should routinely report these data (consistent with the Geneva Conventions).  If a strike is deemed genuinely necessary, the US should be able to defend it openly in the court of public opinion.  The US should also issue public statements of regret for civilian casualties, and make restitution.

Once during a political campaign I visited in the same week a conservative Tea Party group and a progressive Democratic caucus, and was struck by the fact that both began their meetings with an earnest recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.  Here are points to consider in favor of making this practice more common today.

1. It is a ceremony, and we need more ceremonies today.

2. Its main point is to publicly affirm ones allegiance to our republic.  The word republic comes from Latin (res publica) which simply means 'the public thing.'  The Pledge of Allegiance expresses ones personal commitment to a nation of people united in affection and purpose.

3. Our common purpose is an experiment in creating a 'land of the free', and, along with this, in forming and improving an effective and just government of the people, by the people, for the people.

4. The flag is merely a visible symbol of the invisible moral and spiritual bond which unites us as Americans.  It is the nature of love to draw together and unite.  The Pledge of Allegiance, then, is a statement of ones love of ones fellow citizens.  Love has nothing to do with boasting, swaggering, aggression, or conquest; it is mistaken to associate the flag with such things.

5. We affirm that we are indivisible.  This is an urgent message in the present times of bitter partisanship and internal strife.  The truth is that is our welfare and very survival depend on our unity, and on recognition that we are, in fact, an indivisible community.  Saying it aloud helps underscore this vital principle in our minds.

6. To recite the Pledge does not, per se, produce excessive nationalism or jingoism.  We have a moral duty to all human beings, in all nations. We strive together as a nation to support the global good.  Working with other Americans we may contribute to humanity better than we can individually.

7. We do not pledge allegiance to the government.  The government is merely an administrative organ of our nation, and serves the American people, to whom we bear our true allegiance. One of our essential duties as Americans is to remain vigilant against oppressive government.  One way governments oppress citizens is by dividing them against each other.  Our solidarity is our best defense against abusive government.

8. It goes without saying that nobody should be or feel coerced to say the Pledge of Allegiance.  Neither should they be required to stand during its recitation.

9. To commence a candidates forum with a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance is especially apt: it helps produce a suitably dignified tone to proceedings and establishes a context of cooperation, mutual respect and trust; it reminds us of the urgent need for unity; it draws us closer to one another as we see that all present are motivated by genuine devotion to country and community. It serves to rededicate us in our common mission to form a more just and virtuous society; with this, our overriding goal, and the value of each individual towards its accomplishment, more clearly in view, we may then approach proceedings in a positive, generous, collegial spirit, and avoid a mere clamoring of opposing factions.