Voter’s Edge Illinois
Conozca la información antes de votar.
Presentado por
MapLight
November 8, 2016 — Illinois Elección General
Estados Unidos

U.S. House of RepresentativesCandidato para Distrito 5

Photo de Vince Kolber

Vince Kolber

Republicana
Entrepreneur, Civil Leader: RESIDCO's Founder and Chairman
Use tab to activate the candidate button. Use "return" to select this candidate. You can access your list by navigating to 'My Choices'.
Para obtener más información a fondo sobre este candidato, siga los enlaces de cada pestaña en esta sección. En la mayoría de los lectores de pantalla, puede presionar Regresar o Ingresar para entrar a una pestaña y leer el contenido.
El candidato(a) proporcionó información.
Agradezca al candidato por compartir su información en Voter’s Edge.

Mis 3 prioridades principales

  • Keep Chicago and America Safe
  • Tax Reform for Economic Growth
  • Protect our Culture and the Rule of Law

Experiencia

Experiencia

Profesión:Entrepreneur, Civil Leader: RESIDCO's Founder and Chairman
Chairman, RESIDCO (1982–current)

Educación

Booth MBA University of Chicago, Economics and Finance (1978)
University of Pennsylvania Wharton BS, Finance and Economics (1974)

Actividades comunitarias

Board of Directors, Big Shoulders (2012–current)
Board of Directors, Truth in Accounting (2013–current)
Board of Directors , Open the Books (2012–current)

Biografía

 

Vince Kolber

Candidate for Congress (IL – 5)

 

Independent Outsider

 

Entrepreneur, Civic Leader, Husband, & Father

Vince Kolber is an entrepreneur, civic leader, husband & father who has called the 5th congressional district home for his entire adult life. Vince Kolber’s personal story matches the hopes, dreams and aspirations of his future constituents.

 

Born of Polish immigrant stock, Vince learned the values of hard work and family that immigrants bring to here, home of the American Dream. The youngest of three brothers, Vince learned honesty and integrity at an early age. Vince was raised to be a good listener, to value the opinions of others and to seek opportunities to serve the community.

 

Vince started his first job as a young boy, cleaning dog kennels before rushing home to deliver the evening paper. Vince worked his way through school as a short order cook, janitor and truck driver, among many jobs.  Vince would say: “I did whatever I could to support myself, be successful, stay out of debt and make my parents proud.”   In Congress my goal is to create good-paying jobs through tax reform and economic growth, protect seniors and working families, and to ensure a better future and increase opportunity for every family and young adult in the 5th congressional district.”

 

Vince left his boyhood home of West Seneca, New York, to attend Wharton, the business school at the University of Pennsylvania. Vince then earned his MBA from the University of Chicago, attending school at night while working as a banker.   He launched his own equipment leasing business focused on the transportation industry during one of the most difficult periods of 1982.   Vince is the founder and principal of RESIDCO, which has supported the creation, expansion and maintenance of thousands of jobs here at home and across the country.       Through RESIDCO he has served the Railroad and Airline industries and has helped them rise from the most difficult circumstances of bankruptcies.  Today both industries are on solid ground and have bright futures.  This successful experience of creating growth in the most difficult of circumstances makes him uniquely qualified to confront the same problems facing Illinois and America.

 

Vince serves on the board of Little Sisters of the Poor and has always been active in his local community. Vince is a significant supporter and board member of the Big Shoulders Foundation, which provides support to Chicago’s most needy inner city parish schools . Vince chaired the board of directors a St. Genevieve, a mostly Hispanic K-8 school on Chicago’s West Side.

Vince is running for Congress on a platform of job creation, government living within its means, eliminating waste, fraud and abuse, ending crony capitalism and corporate welfare while eliminating tax breaks for the privileged few in favor of lower tax rates for all.   Most importantly, Vince will help keep Chicago and America safe and work to protect our culture and the rule of law.   Vince offered bold solutions as an entrepreneur which created a brighter future for the industries he served.  He is offering bold solutions and a brighter future to the people of the 5th district he is seeking to serve.  With your help, Vince Kolber will be elected Illinois’ newest congressman.

Preguntas y Respuestas

Preguntas de Chicago Sun-Times (18)

What is your biggest difference with your opponent(s)?
Respuesta de Vince Kolber:

Mike Quigley (“MQ”) is a follower and I, Vince Kolber, am a proven leader.    I left the high tax and spend New York State of my birth and came to Illinois following a Wharton economics degree and achieved an MBA from University of Chicago.  MQ has only known Illinois for upbringing and education including, like so many in Congress, a law degree.  MQ has narrower perspective as a result.  Having worked outside the country and implemented business transactions on five continents my horizon is broad.    Having started many companies, created many jobs and risked my own resources investing in transportation equipment my problem solving skills are highly developed.   MQ has only ever worked for government and has never created a single job.  Congress has few job creators like myself and way too many governmental lawyers like MQ.   I am an independent outsider who takes no financial support from any organized political party, lobbyists or direction from any political machine.  MQ is beholden to his party for support, the K street lobbyists and Nancy Pelosi.   Having achieved success in the equipment-leasing, railroad and airline industries all of which which have experienced enormous financial difficulties over decades, I have demonstrated an ability to achieve a bright vision going forward out of the most difficult circumstances.     MQ is broke.  He sleeps in his Congressional office and he is one of the most personally indebted members of Congress.  I have made the term limit pledge to go to Congress to represent constituents, solve problems and go home.  MQ is career politician whose main motivation is to stay in power.  Without term limits, there is no time limit to accomplish that to which you commit.   Countless small businesses and I have suffered from the laws of Congress, while MQ exempts himself such as in the case of Obamacare.  I have significant experience and expertise in understanding financial statements, a rare skill in Congress.    MQ has little such expertise, except in government where standards are weak.    I am seeking office because I understand the immediacy of the fiscal problems exacerbated during MQ’s nearly eight years in office.  MQ, while acknowledging the enormity of our federal fiscal issues believes a calamity is still decades away and is not motivated to lead reform.  I have committed my own resources and leadership to saving inner-city schools.   MQ believes in more government as the solution to our problems that inundates us with thousands of pages of laws, regulations and more taxes as his voting record proves.  I am the exact opposite seeking to get government out of our lives so that ordinary Americans may flourish through freedom, more jobs, opportunity, prosperity, and a civil society.  MQ’s track record is a legacy of debt – nearly $10 trillion more over his 8 years in Washington.   My track record is that of a successful private sector job creator who is calling out the immorality of our generation leaving its enormous debt to the next.

Congress has declined to formally authorize America’s undeclared war against ISIS. Should Congress take a vote to authorize the use of military force against ISIS?
Respuesta de Vince Kolber:

The Use of Force authorization upon which Obama is conducting limited military engagement against ISIL is 15 years old and left over from the Bush administration.  That authorization is outdated and addressed far different circumstances as ISIL was not in existence at that time.  This administration set a bad precedent by failing to obtain a new or renewed authorization at their outset in 2009 and then after the emergence of ISIL.  A President waging a war against a sworn enemy needs to go to Congress in special joint session and explain in a declaration why such a profound step is necessary.  This not only brings the attention of Congress to the crisis but most importantly the American people who are called upon to make sacrifices of life, limb and financial resources.  A new President should come to Congress and make the declaration of war against ISIL with a comprehensive coordinated strategy to degrade and vanquish ISIL.  Once communicated to the American people and our allies, Congress should then act.    Lacking such leadership voting at this time or before such a declaration be made would be unadvisable.

More generally, what should Congress do to reduce the threat of ISIS abroad and at home? 
Respuesta de Vince Kolber:

The threat of ISIL abroad and at home is a highly integrated and complicated question. More recently we have had an increase of terrorist attacks including San Bernardino and Orlando this year and the use of a truck as a lethal weapon in France.   Abroad we are seeing a reduction of ISIL forces in Syria and Iraq from a high of 30,000 to a force now around 20,000. Simultaneously ISIL forces are growing in Libya and now number more than 5000.   Without the complete vanquishing of ISIL forces we can expect them to migrate to other uncontrolled territories as they are pushed out of Syria and Iraq. Total destruction of ISIL forces is the only assured way of eliminating this threat in the future. Yet the resources needed for ISIL to conduct terrorist attacks in the West are relatively small.   So as they are  forced out of Iraq for example or another location they will tend to emphasize terrorist  attacks in the West including here in America.  Therefore this complicated situation remains a threat to American security. The existing committees within Congress are perhaps not the best position to understand this enemy and how to vanquish radical Islamist terrorists.  Right now we need a unique commission with the cooperation of the executive branch and Congress to seek out all branches of the government for information about this continuing threat to our national security. This information once brought to Congress and the American people will give us the understanding we need to commit ourselves to vanquishing ISIL completely and permanently.

Donald Trump has called for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration. Do you support such action? What restrictions, if any, do you support on the admission of Muslims into the United States? 
Respuesta de Vince Kolber:

Refugee vetting procedure in these times of heightened terrorism reminds us how critical this type of due diligence is to national security.  Yet refugees seeking asylum provides the USA an opportunity to offer our free and open society to the politically oppressed of the world while encouraging our culture which invites diversity.  The State Department, Homeland Security as well as Health and Human Services each play a role in vetting and ultimately receiving refugees once accepted. These agencies are responsible to insure that no refugee be permitted access without sufficient back ground investigation.  Enforcement of existing laws should take precedent over contradicting Executive Policy Directives with the exception of national security emergency orders.  Customs officials, border guards and agency specialists should have access to state of the art technology and intelligence.    These departments   should insure accepted refugees are recorded on all available identification tools. This would include full physical identification data, including blood typing and DNA, upon entry. This would be maintained at a data bank able to be resourced by state and local authorities in addition to specified federal agencies.  Congress should play a role in overseeing these procedures and should always take the posture of testing whether the procedures are sufficient.   And in those cases where a country of origin has unreliable vetting information refugee admittance may be temporarily banned.

Illinois has a history of taking in those asylum seekers and those displaced by conflicts across the globe over many decades.    Trump paints a broad stroke with a temporary ban on all Muslim immigration and that ban reflects a real concern that our ability to vet Muslim’s from all countries may be limited.  Most notably Syria is where so many prospective immigrants are seeking to escape.  Bruce Rauner’s call to temporarily suspend refugees from Syria is prudent.  While we know the vetting process for refugees into the US is fulsome as discussed earlier in the question on refugee vetting, Rauner and Trump should be concerned.   Syria is in a state of civil war. It is chaotic as Bashar al-Assad is using chemical weapons against his own people and ISIL operatives from Iraq base themselves inside Syria.  This enables these radical Islamist terrorists to pose as refugees and infiltrate Europe and America.  Who can be confident that any reliance upon vetting information from Syria today would be advisable in making a recommendation to allow a Syrian refugee into Illinois?   Trump proposes a wider net and until we win this war or we can be confident that we really know where Muslim immigrants are coming from the temporary ban should be implemented in the name of keeping America safe.

The United States’ nuclear deal with Iran turned one year old on July 14, 2016. Should the deal be maintained as it is, revised or scrapped completely? What is right or wrong with the Iran deal? And should the next president feel bound by it?
Respuesta de Vince Kolber:

The administration’s credibility on the Iran nuclear deal is largely eroded.  There is strong bi-partisan support for the policies which are meant to prevent the USA from ever negotiating with terrorists or for paying ransom.  There has been strong bi-partisan support for Israel, our most important ally in the Mid-East.  Major agreements with foreign governments, particularly ones effecting National security involving nuclear capabilities and global peace, are considered Treaties.  The USA has many Treaties around the globe involving legal, criminal information, domestic threat information and trade all which rise to the categorization of being considered a treaty.  Yet, in this case, the Administration failed to categorize the Iran Nuclear Deal a “treaty”.  This would have required the Iran Nuclear Deal to be reviewed in the Senate.   Therefore we, the American people, were denied the opportunity to have our experts conduct a careful review and provide us with transparency on why the Senate would consent or not. 

Recently, we have learned that the USA sent $400 million converted into Swiss Francs & Euro paper currency on the very day the Iranian government subsequently released four American hostages.  Iran is progressing its development of ballistic missiles.  Iran is a State sponsor of terrorism where “death to America” and “death to Israel” is promoted in their streets. We ignored Israel’s strongly held view against the Iran Nuclear Deal.   It is daunting given the tripping of four major policy imperatives how this Iran Nuclear Deal was in the interest of America or our allies as we sent $150 billion back to Iran.  It will be up to our next President to deal with this unfortunate debacle.  I would still subject the agreement to Senate review.   There is a threat at the expiration of this Iran Deal, a decade or more out, that ran will have enough nuclear material and a missile system to deliver a lethal charge. Iran is already entering into a multitude of trade agreements across the Globe including major US corporations.  New leadership would need to re-engage our allies in implementation of sanctions, because American sanctions alone would only hurt us and allow our allies to trade with such a rouge state as Iran.  My Opponent in July voted against the Iran Accountability Act and the related Financial System Protection Act, which were designed to better police and control our relationship with IRAN and limit the Iran deal of last year.   Now we have just learned that there more surreptitious flights of cash to Tehran after the hostage exchange and amounted to more than $1 Billion. 


Should the United States build a physical wall along our nation’s entire border with Mexico? Should a “path to citizenship” be created for the millions of people already living here without proper documentation? Would you support legislation to prevent the deportations of so-called “Dreamers” — youth who came to the U.S. illegally as small children with their parents?
Respuesta de Vince Kolber:

Our lack of border security is a continuing disgrace to who we are as a country and a persistent undermining of the rule of law.  It is a national security risk.  Immigrants who come legally are the first to cheer when leadership for border security speaks out. It is inhumane to allow illegal border entry because Mexican criminal element preys upon the innocent and not only encourages them to break our laws but will often attack, abuse and rob those seeking entry.   My opponent was blessed to be in a party for his first two years in office who had control of the White House, Senate and Congress. What did they accomplish on border security and immigration reform? Nothing.  A “wall” has become a maligned metaphor for what should certainly encompass a physical barrier where such barriers are effective (as in the southern California border corridor).   We must integrate barriers with electronic security systems, regular stations and quick response land based and air capable units (manned and drones).  Both “catch and release” and “sanctuary cities” must be eliminated.   Release from “holding facilities” must be contingent upon the host country accepting and paying for extradition upon threat of withdrawal of its visa, trade privileges, or US aid. We need to locate military bases along the border with Mexico or at least conduct regular military training exercises in tight proximity.  Once the border is secure immigration reform measures such as the Dreamer provision may become more acceptable to the American people.

Federal judges in July ruled against voter identification laws in Wisconsin and Texas, concluding that they disproportionately impact minority voters and violate the U.S. Voting Rights Act. Should voters be required to show a photo ID when voting? And should the federal government have a say in this, or is it strictly a matter for the individual states to decide? 
Respuesta de Vince Kolber:

The Voting Rights Act, while critical in protecting access to the ballot box in respect of all Americans regardless of race, color, creed, sexual identity etc., should not be a barrier to common sense and or create aversions to our right to vote. I have served as an election judge in the fifth Congressional District. The Act does not explicitly outlaw identification of the voter by a means such as a State issued photo ID or even a utility bill. But the courts have concocted decisions to the contrary.    This has added to confusion in the interpretation of the resulting rules as to which circumstances you may ask someone for identification.  This creates acrimony in the voting place.  The focus on proper voter identification takes our eye off the ball of preventing theft at the ballot box as has occurred so often in our local history.   In an age were identity theft is commonplace we would be wise to revisit the 1965 Act.   Because we have Federal elections which generate more turnout over time this issue should be resolved at the Federal level so we can have harmony in the voting place all across America.

Should all or certain federal public lands, including national parks, wildlife refuges and forests, be given to states to control? Do you support the opening of public lands and the outer continental shelf to exploration for oil and other fossil fuels, even if those resources are not immediately developed? 
Respuesta de Vince Kolber:

Certainly such a broad mandate of transferring all public lands national Parks wildlife refuges and forests to states to control is imprudent. Could certain of those national resources be transferred to states to control under particular circumstances? The answer is yes. Because of the visual plight on the landscape there is an aversion to drilling nearer the shoreline. Yet close in with less drilling depth poses less risk to the environment. If possible should exhaust drilling possibilities close in before opening public lands in the outer continental shelf. We have the private sector to congratulate on bringing America to oil and natural gas independence.  Federal permitting time frames on public lands while reduced in recent years is notoriously slow and can take up to a year or more.  State permitting concessions are accomplished in weeks.   We need to speed up the Federal process or face reality that more Federal lands be transferred to State control so long as our EPA laws are respected. 

What changes, if any, to the U.S. tax code do you support and why?
Respuesta de Vince Kolber:

When I ran for Congress in 2014, I called for a reduction of the business tax rate to a 20% flat tax for Small Business, Corporations and Capital.  House Speaker Ryan announcing a plan closely mimicking what I proposed.   We would be ahead today if I had gotten to Congress in 2014 and pushed my plan.  Illinois would have likely saved Walgreens Corporation from merging with the Switzerland based Alliance Boots.   Major corporations structure themselves to reduce exposure to high tax rates in as here in America.  Federal tax revenue from non-voting corporations has grown at the rate of 18% per annum in recent years.  Is there any wonder why so many businesses are moving headquarters and major operations out of America?  Some wonder why so many products are made in China.  One reason is that China imposes no corporate taxes on many of its business.  A US based entrepreneur is unable to compete.  Our federal, state and local rates approach 50% when in China a competitor enjoys a zero rate.  China recognizes the value of job creators who take risk, while here we see risk taking small businesses and corporations as just another potential source of revenue easier to tax than voting citizens.  My opponent has sat idly by as we lose companies out of Illinois and even out of our country.  As a successful businessman I know how powerful and essential lower tax rates are to creating jobs and growth. There are far fewer projects job creators pursue, when they have to absorb 100% of the loss if they are wrong but must forfeit half the gain if they are right.  Lower tax rates enable job creators to re-invest gains, when they have them, to foster growth.

Our tax code is a behemoth, which imposes enormous compliance costs on all business, income earners and consumers.   Our 74,000 pages of tax code and regulations are growing at 8% per year since WWII.  Our economy is barely growing at 1% all and has seldom grown more than 3%.   Such complexity demoralizes small business risk takers who are the real job creators.  Large corporations divert resources for tax and regulatory compliance and this tilts the playing field away from new small business formations.  Serious tax reform is long overdue as the last tax reform was 30 years ago.  Our IRS, with all its complexity, is vulnerable to fraud.  The IRS pays out $150 billion per year in fraudulent tax credits. I endorse Speaker Ryan’s recently introduced “Better Way for Tax Reform”.  It covers over 47 specific changes that will give us a tax code, which will stop sending jobs abroad. It will bring capital in from overseas.  It will ignite economic growth, which will generate even more revenue growth to the Federal government.   We should apply these additional revenues to lessen the burden of our more than $80 trillion of Public Liabilities, which we are immorally transferring to the next generation. 

What are the most important actions Congress can take to ensure the solvency of Social Security?
Respuesta de Vince Kolber:

The expected expenditures of social security exceed the expected program revenue by more than $15.5 Trillion in today’s present value.   Here are three reforms:  1) Life expectancy at the program’s outset in the 1940s was 65.   Social Security at its beginning was established as social insurance therefore eligibility age was set to match life expectancy.   Today male life expectancy is exceeding 76 but eligibility is only 66.  This mismatch means Social Security is now an intergenerational income redistribution scheme.  Therefore, the first and most essential change is to bring the eligibility age into alignment with average life expectancy.  My campaign is built on the immorality of his generation leaving its liabilities upon the next.  For example, the idea that you protect the generation approaching eligibility age over the millennials is immoral.  The bold solution is to raise the eligibility age by three months for members of each birth year by and between 1951 and 1990.  Here are the outcomes by birth year and eligibility age:  1958 – 68; 1966 – 70; 1974 – 72; 1982 – 74; 1990 – 76.   2) The program should be more aggressively structured to encourage eligible participants to defer taking benefits much farther than the current limit of age 70.  & 3) The program could also be means tested with the proviso that any earned benefits paid in but not paid out during one’s life be useable by a beneficiary’s estate to pay estate taxes.

The Republican Party platform defines marriage as between a man and a woman. What is your view? The Obama Administration has issued guidelines to schools, saying they must allow transgender students to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity. What is your view? And do you believe parents of LGBT children should be allowed to force their children into conversion therapy?
Respuesta de Vince Kolber:

Patricia, my wife agrees with me that it would be ok to refer to our relationship for government purposes as a “civil union” notwithstanding the fact that we entered into the sacrament of matrimony at St. Clement’s, a Catholic Church in 1982.  The term “marriage” is used over 900 times in the Internal Revenue Code and doubtless hundreds if not thousands of times throughout other laws and regulations.  So here is a bold solution: replace any and all references to “marriage” in our laws and regulations with the term “civil union”. Define the term civil union as between two people who commit to share their lives in a permanent relationship of fidelity irrespective of opposite or same sex.   This way we leave the traditional use of marriage intact and then refer to the man-woman commitments and other non-traditional person-to-person commitments all as “civil-unions” for government purposes. This approach is the only way we can respect the 1st Amendment.   We keep government out of our bedrooms and we should keep government out of our bathrooms and most importantly keep government out of the parental-child relationship.

What is the single most important action Congress can take to reduce U.S. gun violence?
Respuesta de Vince Kolber:

Federal law requires firearm dealers to conduct background checks before selling a firearm and I favor that law and its rigorous enforcement.  Unfortunately, this law is brazenly circumvented through buyers who are “straw purchasers” an illegal step. The law is also circumvented through “private sales” a legal exception which is fraudulently abused.    We should demand comprehensive enforcement of existing laws, which will help keep guns away from criminals and terrorists.  Keeping criminals who use guns to commit crimes in jail is the better solution than requiring law-abiding citizens to forfeit guns.  Gun safety training may be mandated before the issuing of licenses as in the case of hunting and concealed carry situations.  Magazine limits are easily circumvented and purchasers will modify rifles and almost any firearm. Until we have full enforcement of existing Federal gun control laws adding definitional changes such as this or banning “certain rifles” will only create a false sense of confidence.  

The “Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act” would give the Department of Justice authority to keep suspected terrorists on the federal “no fly” list from buying firearms. The bill was voted down in Congress late last year but pushed again in June after the Orlando massacre of 49 people. Do you support or oppose this bill, and why?
Respuesta de Vince Kolber:

The Orlando massacre of 49 innocent people was a horrible tragedy and a preventable one. Lack of leadership in Washington brought about this tragic event.  This assailant was on a suspected terrorist list but removed.   Any act of Congress that would stipulate and restrict suspects from release of any such lists might be a good solution. However in this case it was a failure of Intel intelligence and a failure of the FBI because this perpetrator was on the list investigated and then taken off the list. I will always be suspicious of new laws, which grant more authority when our law enforcement officials have made a mistake in implementing an existing law or regulation. We need to hold the FBI accountable for this event.

Should Obamacare be repealed, left intact, or changed — and if so, how? 
Respuesta de Vince Kolber:

As an employer who has helped support thousands of jobs I can assure you Obamacare is a nightmare. Health care costs have skyrocketed for my company and across the economy.    The mandated one size fits all insurance policy has provisions that offend the conscience of employers like me.   Many workers suffer because the hours are cut back to exempt the employer from offering coverage.  This has led to a “part time” economy where we under employ our work force.  As someone who sits on the Board of the Little Sisters of the Poor here in the 5th Congressional District, I have witnessed how Obamacare threatened to close down their homes for the indigent elderly by imposing a $70 million fine.  These nuns refused to include a provision in their health insurance policies that would cover abortions.  We are hard pressed to find medical professionals and caregivers who favor Obamacare and, to the contrary, are Obamacare’s most arduous opposition. Speaker Ryan’s repeal and replacement plan with its emphasis on patient centered health care would provide relief to the suffocating effect of Obamacare.  The Ryan plan will: make insurance portable, open the insurance market across state lines, protect patients with pre-existing conditions, take the burden off the back of our millennials, provide protection for life and conscience, and implement Medicare reform to make it sustainable.  All these, among many other unique initiatives, will put Americans back in charge of their own healthcare from a re-energized medical community un-leashed from Obamacare’s stifling bureaucracy.

A plan to replace Obamacare, presented by House Speaker Paul Ryan in June, would gradually increase the eligibility age for Medicare, which is now 65. Starting in 2020, the Medicare age would rise along with the eligibility age for full Social Security benefits, eventually reaching 67. Do you support this change in the eligibility age for Medicare? 
Respuesta de Vince Kolber:

Medicare programs (parts A, B, C & D) are drastically unfunded by nearly $48 Trillion. The underfunding of these behemoth social insurance programs overwhelms the totality of our Public Liabilities which with Social Security underfunding and US treasury borrowings exceeds $80 trillion.  The program has proliferated from its modest beginnings 50 years ago.  The temptation for the Federal elected class to continuously expand the benefits as a way to buy votes has always proven an irresistible choice for those seeking office.   The biggest mistake from the beginning was to make these programs defined benefit in nature.  This approach puts the burden of accelerating health care costs on the taxpayer and, I argue, on the backs of our American youth. The infusion of a Federal regime in any part of the economy always has the effect of increasing the costs dramatically in that sector.  This has happened in housing and higher education as well.

The overarching reform which would save these programs is to convert them to defined contribution premium support insurance plans. This would enable the Federal government to limit their otherwise runaway growth, which is bankrupting the system.  Medicare Part C and D already operate through third party insurance providers under so called Medicare Advantage Plans.  Reform should move Parts A and B into third party insurance to enable the sun setting of the Federal governments involvement in what is a retail insurance business.  These moves would save billions not only in waste, fraud and abuse but would make the nature of the programs clear to the recipients.  This modern restructure would stimulate market-based competition, dramatically reduce costly and wasteful bureaucracy, eliminate centralized payments, and enhance cost control.  The resulting intense competition on a level playing field will produce more benefit options while encouraging innovation in clinical and care delivery advances.   Any reform should include a proviso and notice to the recipient that in any year the Federal government increases its debt ceiling, a 10% reduction in premium support would ensue.  Medicaid  that addresses the indigent can be saved but put on a pay as you go basis.   I am confident with reforms as described above all these programs will have a better chance of a secure future.  We need to get away from the political cancer that our elected officials promote by promising benefits today and well into the future without solving the real problem, how to pay for the benefits so promised. 

 

 
The GOP platform opposes the use of public funds for Planned Parenthood and other groups that “perform or advocate” abortion. It also opposes funding health care that includes abortion coverage. In contrast, the Democratic Party’s platform called for continued funding of Planned Parenthood and repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which bars the direct use of federal funds to pay for abortion. Where do you stand?  
Respuesta de Vince Kolber:

It is immoral that our Federal Government takes money from millions of tax payers all across America who favor life and then uses it fund abortions or require the funding for abortions be made apart insurance programs as in the case of Obamacare.   The late Illinois Congressman Henry Hyde put in place his Amendment to stop exactly what is happening right now.  Congress levies taxes from those of who favor life and uses that money to: fund Planned Parenthood’s abortion clinics, implement and enforce adaption of abortion paying insurance and to directly pay for insurance that covers abortions.  Henry Hyde was reacting to the outcome of Roe vs. Wade, which became the law of the land affirming a women’s right to choice.  Hyde simply wanted to keep the Federal Government out of a practice which millions of Americans find morally objectionable.   The actions of Congress as indicated above amount to a de facto repeal of the Hyde Amendment.    America would be far better off if those who favor abortions would acknowledge those who favor life by refraining from taxing them to pay for abortions.   Importantly new legislation along the lines of the Hyde Amendment would acknowledge a women’s right to choose while ending Federal encouragement and funding of abortions.   

President Obama has proposed making two years of community college free nationally. Do you support or oppose this proposal? If you support it, how would you have the nation pay for it? 
Respuesta de Vince Kolber:

Making community college free is a bad deal for students and taxpayers.  Community colleges can play an important role in bridging good students after two years into more expensive four-year degree programs and thereby reduce the cost of a four-year degree.

It is important for students and parents to be invested in the cost of college including the taking on debt if necessary as this brings about a higher level of commitment to the outcome of completion and the hopeful utility of preparation for the workforce.  Sometimes college is not the correct path for even bright students and those of lesser academic prowess who may wish to learn a trade.  Training for trade programs should be encouraged.  Community colleges such as those here in Chicago produce less than 20% graduates from all of those that enroll.  This disappointing result may understate some students that transfer to four year programs before completing a two year degree or certificate.   Bureau of Labor statistics projects that only 27% of new jobs for the coming decade will require a four year degree and more than 50% of all new jobs will require no postsecondary degree at all to perform those new jobs.   Yet employers are demanding degrees for administrative assistants because they can.  This is causing large-scale credential inflation.    The Pell grant program already helps those most in need to attend college.  It is inadvisable to put Washington DC in the business of paying fully for two year college programs which have such disappointing track records especially here in Chicago.   Better that we figure out ways to get more people in the trades and technical preparation programs that get them into the work force sooner at less cost and without debt.

College costs have risen at twice the rate of inflation for about 30 years. What is driving this increase and what should be done about it?
Respuesta de Vince Kolber:

According to a recent Federal Reserve Bank (“FRB”) Study, “Credit Supply and the Rise in College Tuition: Evidence from the Expansion in the Federal Student Aid Programs”, the Bennett Hypothesis posed by the former U.S. Secretary of Education William Bennett is valid.   The FRB study suggests that the availability of loans may be a driving factor fueling the increase in tuition prices.  The earlier Bennett’s hypothesis posits the same idea that readily available student loans allow schools to increase tuition prices with no regard to demand elasticity. Combine that with school rankings, which show a partial relationship between prestige and price.   This perpetuates an idea among schools that it is good for them to raise tuition as much as possible as long as there are financial aid programs, which enable students and their parents to pay the ever-escalating tuition for prestige and improved facilities.  According to the FRB Study:  “Estimates indicate that increases in institution-specific subsidized loan maximums lead to a sticker-price increase of about 60 cents on the dollar, and that increases in the unsubsidized loan and Pell Grant, the per-student maximums are associated with sticker-price increases of 15 cents on the dollar and 40 cents on the dollar, respectively.”  Such outcomes are very pronounced and support exactly what Secretary Bennett hypothesized.    It is wrong to sell our next generation a bill of goods about high priced college education and then load them up with debt among other incursion we make against our youth.   I would favor a two-fold approach to these problems.   The first would be to de-emphasize credit availability for student debt without grant substitution and de-emphasize grant availability.  This would keep pressure on educators to deliver more value for less cost, as all of us in the private sector must do to survive.  Provided that the first component of this be implemented to the extent that it would have material effect, I would propose a temporary and limited program of relief for those saddled with student debt after college.  This temporary program would enable an indebted graduate to gain relief of 50 cents for every dollar said participant pays in Federal taxes up to half of an indebted graduates total student debt.  

¿Quién proporcionó dinero a este candidato?

Contribuciones

Dinero total recaudado: $56,165

Principales contribuyentes que dieron dinero para apoyar al candidato, por organización:

1
Employees of Vincent A Kolber
$32,500
2
Employees of Brunswick Corporation
$1,000
2
Employees of CC Industries, Inc.
$1,000
2
Employees of Hcm, Llc
$1,000
2
Employees of Madison Dearborn Partners
$1,000
2
Employees of Morgan Stanley
$1,000
2
Employees of ttg
$1,000

Más información acerca de contribuciones

Por estado:

Illinois 93.59%
New Jersey 1.83%
New York 1.83%
Ohio 1.83%
Other 0.92%
93.59%

Por tamaño:

Contribuciones grandes (97.22%)
Contribuciones pequeñas (2.78%)
97.22%

Por tipo:

De organizaciones (0.92%)
De individuos (99.08%)
99.08%
Fuente: Análisis de datos de la Comisión Federal Electoral de MapLight.

Creencias poliza

Filosofía política

Illinois is hemorrhaging people at the rate of 100,000 per year and red ink at more than $5 billion per year.  The State collectively owes $200 Billion more than it owns.  Civil order is fragile and Chicago public schools continue to fail the least among us.  Yet in Chicago the electorate seems oblivious as it supports the status quo over and over.  Is Chicago ready to rise?

America’s stature in the world has eroded with failed undertakings in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lybia and the Ukraine. Our borders our porous radical Islamic terrorist strike at will.  Like Illinois, America continues to spend $500 billion per year more than it takes in.   America owes $87 trillion more than it owns.  Since 2009 America has borrowed nearly $10 trillion issuing more US Treasury obligations in that short period than over our entire 233 year history up to then.  Our economy is stalling as more people go part time or leave the work force all together.    Our failed political class sells our Nation’s soul by fleecing our young with unimaginable debt accumulation at it pursues its war upon the young and the to-be-born.   Thomas Jefferson warned us that it is immoral for one generation to leave its debt upon the next.  Yet that is exactly where we are today. 

Vince Kolber is an Independent Outsider running for Congress who understands these problems better than most.  He has had enough. Have you?   Vince started and built an equipment leasing company 34 years ago.   His company serves the airline and railroad industries.  He is a job creator and his business supports thousands of jobs in transportation.  Vince has successfully created growth even when the railroads and airlines went bankrupt.   He brought optimism,  discipline with bold & creative solutions to troubled circumstances always focused on the brighter possibilities down the road.   Vince is offering bold solutions to our problems in Illinois and Washington DC such as no Chicago candidate has ever offered.

 Vince is running to make America really grow again and to block the rise of debt that his generation is immorally loading upon the next.  He will bring bold solutions and a better tomorrow for our youth and the least among us. 

 Illinois’s 5th Congressional

Videos (1)

Vince Kolber, the 5th congressional district republican candidate with WGN Radio's Rick Pearson on the Sunday Spin

Información de contacto del candidato

¿Quién más se está postulando?

Comparta este sitio para ayudar a otras personas a investigar sus opciones para las votaciones.

PUBLISHING:PRODUCTION SERVER:PRODUCTION