At the June 1 townhall meeting in Folsom, there was not enough time to answer all of the submitted questions.  Please find below the remaining questions (copied verbatim) and the Congressman's answers.

1.  Why aren’t we drilling domestic oil and natural gas? 

What can you do to make the U.S. energy self-sufficient without increasing energy cost?

There are a variety of measures our nation can take to increase American oil production, which will increase supply and therefore reduce the price of gasoline. According to the Bureau of Land Management and the Manifest Information Management System (MIMS), the total amount of American oil currently closed off to drilling and exploration to American energy users is 116 billion barrels. That's enough oil to supply 65 million cars for 60 years. 

At the same time, increasing production is not an instant fix, because beginning production takes time.  However, because much of the recent price increase is due to futures markets that predict what the price of oil will be, even the prospect of increased production will have some near-term effect.  Also, the time it takes for increasing American energy production to impact gasoline prices should not be an argument against those measures—market forces such as higher foreign demand for oil, especially from India and China, are unlikely to cease.  For example, as Fareed Zakaria points out, by 2025 there will be an additional 100 million cars on Chinese roads.

While Americans face a struggling economy and unstable energy prices, our country should not be sitting on 116 billion barrels of oil.  Increasing American energy exploration, including drilling offshore, in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and elsewhere, will increase the supply of oil and therefore lower the price.

Nevertheless, it is clear that these measures must be coupled with significant investment in alternative energy sources.  That is why I have introduced legislation to provide tax incentives for clean energy production with zero greenhouse gas emissions, provide funding for the creation of lithium ion battery for automobiles, make the solar tax credit permanent, and provide incentives for refining alternative fuels.  My proposal is based on the premise that we can reduce green house gases as well as our dependency on foreign oil.

2.  Term limits for Congress and Senate.

Congressman Todd Platts has proposed a constitutional amendment that would limit Senators to serving no more than two full consecutive terms and Representatives no more than six full consecutive terms (which means no one could serve more than 12 consecutive years).  This resolution, H. J. Res. 14, has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, of which I am a member.

 I look forward to evaluating this legislation should the Chairman move it forward for a hearing.  Certainly we in public service must remember that our first responsibility is to our constituents and we should never become so wrapped up in Washington politics that we forget the reasons that prompted us to serve in Congress in the first place.  I will evaluate this proposal in light of our obligation to our constituents.

3.  What is your position on the proposed TANC transmission lines? Thank you.

The proposed Transmission Agency of Northern California (TANC) project would add or replace wires and cables carrying 230 to 500 kilovolts in Colusa, Glenn, and Tehama counties.  The project is supposed to provide new access to renewable energy and increase the capability and reliability of the transmission system in Northern California.  I support efforts to increase our use of renewable energy and measures to lower energy costs for our families.  However, TANC is a California Joint Powers Agency and the project does not run through California’s Third District.  The public comment period closes on July 30, 2009.  To comment, please visit www.wapa.gov/transmission/ttp.htm. 

4. Why is there no questioning of Obama’s eligibility as President?  He is not a natural born citizen – his father is not a citizen – admitted on Obama’s own website.

Contrary to your suggestion, President Obama has faced unprecedented scrutiny over his citizenship status.  In fact, several cases have been filed in federal court related to the issue of his birth certificate.  However, each time the case has made it to the Supreme Court, the Court has refused to hear the case. 

After consulting with the Congressional Research Service, the Office of the Solicitor General of the previous Administration, and the Clerk of the United States Supreme Court, the facts are clear.  President Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961.  His birth certificate is a valid short form certificate commonly issued by states.   The Department of Health in Hawaii does not give its citizens the option to obtain a copy of a long form certificate.  His certificate contains his full name, names of his parents, date, place of birth, sex, and date the birth record was filed.  There was also an announcement at the time of his birth in a local Honolulu newspaper. 

Although I do not agree with many of his policies – particularly with respect to a tripling of the size of the national debt over the next decade in implementing his budget – President Obama is nevertheless the duly elected President of the United States.  Out of respect for the rule of law and the Constitution of the United States, all Americans, regardless of their political beliefs, should respect this fact.

5.  What is your position on the Freedom of Conscience Act?

The Taxpayers’ Freedom of Conscience Act of 2009 (H.R. 1233) was introduced by Rep. Ron Paul on February 26, 2009.  The bill would prohibit the use of federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity (including any abortion procedure), irrespective of whether such program or activity is foreign or domestic.

Earlier this year, I voted for the Smith-Stupak Amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill, which would have preserved our present policy of not using taxpayer dollars to fund organizations that provide or actively promote abortions overseas.  Furthermore, I signed a letter indicating my support for continuing restrictions on the use of taxpayer money to support abortions in the 111th Congress. 

Prohibitions on the use of federal funds to promote or pay for abortion have been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in both Rust v. Sullivan and Harris v. McRae. In Harris, the Court found that “it simply does not follow that a woman's freedom of choice carries with it a constitutional entitlement to the financial resources to avail herself of the full range of protected choices.” Moreover, the Court held that such a prohibition is “rationally related to the legitimate governmental objective of protecting potential life.”

In Rust, the Court addressed the issue of using federal funds to promote abortions and determined that “the Government may make a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion, and implement that judgment by the allocation of public funds.”

I agree with the Supreme Court’s holding in the above cases and elsewhere that the federal government does have an interest in the protection of the life of unborn human beings and that this interest may properly be reflected in the way federal tax dollars are spent. 

6. Do you think physicians should be allowed to be conscientious objectors to performing abortions?

As you may know, on December 18, 2008 HHS issued regulations to take effect January 20, 2009 that would protect the conscience of individuals in the medical profession. While federal laws have been on the books to protect freedom of conscience since the 1970s, the new regulations would require recipients of HHS funds to demonstrate their compliance with current federal law and designate the Office of Civil Rights to examine complaints and work to ensure compliance. The regulations do not limit the services provided to women, but instead serve to protect doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals who have religious or moral objections to certain procedures or treatments.

The right to freedom of thought or conscience was recognized by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo, who wrote in Palko v. Connecticut, “Freedom of thought…is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom.” Integral to the freedom of thought is the right to act – or refrain from acting – on the basis of one’s deeply held beliefs.

Freedom of conscience is recognized as a fundamental component of human rights law worldwide. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom…to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

With the advent of an increasing number of morally controversial drugs and treatments, it is my belief that pharmacists and other healthcare professionals should be permitted to opt out of dispensing drugs or performing medical procedures that violate their personal beliefs. The very notion of freedom of choice requires no less.

7.  I don’t really care whether my healthcare is managed by agent bureaucrat or a private for profit bureaucrat. What concerns me is what happens if I can’t find a job that provides healthcare insurance or if I get laid off and can’t find a job for an extended period of time.

While employer-provided healthcare coverage remains the largest source of health insurance, covering 61 percent of non-elderly Americans, many Americans share your concern that they will lose their health insurance if they lose their jobs.  Several proposals have been introduced that would provide alternatives to employer-provided coverage, including a statewide health insurance exchange, or risk pool, similar to the one formed in Massachusetts.  The other alternative is the so-called “public option,” which would be a taxpayer-funded expansion of Medicaid and/or Medicare to encompass more Americans.  This would provide healthcare coverage that is independent of employment; however, the Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees have issued repeated warnings regarding the pending insolvency of the Medicare Trust Fund.

I support the formation of risk pools, or exchanges, through which individuals and families can purchase health insurance, along with a healthcare tax credit, to make healthcare coverage more affordable.  Such a plan could be supplemented by subsidies for those with incomes below a certain threshold, so that access to coverage would be available for all Americans, regardless of income, prior condition, or employment status.

8.  Why can’t we structure healthcare after the military and/or VA health care system?

The military operates two distinct healthcare systems: the VA system, for active duty personnel, and TRICARE, for retired military personnel, as well as some on active duty.  The VA is a closed system, in that its members are required to visit VA doctors and VA hospitals.  While TRICARE does employ military physicians, it relies heavily on outside contracts to provide many services and has become increasingly privatized over the past few years.  TRICARE resembles private healthcare insurance in that members may visit healthcare providers of their choice, but may incur a copayment for doing so.  TRICARE premiums are paid for by the federal government.  As such, it is a single-payer system.

Expanding the VA system on a national scale to cover uninsured civilians would pose certain challenges, including the creation of federally-run hospitals and a federal healthcare provider network.  Moreover, choice of physician and hospital remains a high priority for most Americans, and a healthcare system modeled after the VA may not offer sufficient options.

If the United States were to adopt a single-payer, universal healthcare system, it would likely bear some resemblance to TRICARE.  As with the expansion of the VA system, however, there are challenges to adopting a nationwide system modeled on TRICARE, including the most basic question of how to pay for such a system.  Many Americans, myself included, have concerns about the sustainability and quality of care available through a single-payer system.  As healthcare costs increase, as they inevitably will, keeping such a system solvent will likely result in exorbitant tax increases or rationing of healthcare services, or both.

My preference would be to enact reforms that increase access and affordability, while allowing Americans to choose a healthcare coverage plan that meets their needs.  Above all, we must be careful not to sacrifice quality as we pursue these goals.

9. Do you feel the illegal immigration topic will pass for illegal immigrants to become legal with Obama in office and what do you plan on doing to prevent it?

The United States Constitution in Article 1 Section 8 places the responsibility for the regulation of immigration with Congress.  It is my belief that as a sovereign nation we must meet this responsibility and regain control over our borders.  I have always supported legislation that improves our borders. In the 110^th Congress, I introduced the Border Security and Immigration Reform Act. The bill would have authorized funding for 6,000 additional border patrol officers and 1,000 workplace inspectors over the next two years.  It would have also provided for the expedited removal of illegal aliens.

To enforce our borders, it is essential that we take the necessary action to de-magnetize the attraction of unlawful employment in the United States. As one of the authors of the employer sanctions provisions in our immigration law, I strongly support their use and the need for increased enforcement. A central element of such an enforcement regime must be a reliable employment verification system.

There are many suggested approaches to dealing with the presence of that group of illegal aliens who have established roots in our communities.  As I look at any proposal, I will oppose any bill brought to the floor of the House that includes what I consider to be an amnesty provision.  My major concern relates to the fact that there are millions of legal immigrants who wait years in order to obtain permanent residence and citizenship.  It violates both fairness and respect for the law to allow those who have entered our country illegally to “cut in the front of the line” through the adoption of an amnesty provision.

10.  Do/will you support reinstatement of the provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act and support the total repeal of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000?

On November 12, 1999 President Clinton signed into law the Financial Services Modernization Act which repealed parts of the Glass Steagall Act which was enacted in 1933.  The effect of altering this depression era law was to allow banks to affiliate with investment banks and insurance companies.   After the signing of the bill Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers (who currently heads the National Economic Council) said “the American financial system takes a major step forward toward the 21^st Century—one that will benefit American consumers, business and the national economy.”  The impetus for both Administration and congressional support of the repeal was that the American financial sector was at a competitive disadvantage vis a vis foreign institutions which were not bound by financial product limitations. 

Some commentators have argued that the repeal of the provisions at issue in Glass Steagall played a role in bringing about the current collapse of our financial system.  In response to this point President Clinton has stated “But I have really thought about this a lot.  I don’t see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis.”  In support of the former President’s view the point has been raised that were it not for the repeal the collapse could have even been worse.  For example, if J.P Morgan Chase had not been able to acquire Bear-Stearns we may have had another bankruptcy like Lehman Brothers, which many observers see as one of the precipitating factors in the collapse of the financial sector.

In my view, I think that the Congress has the responsibility to carefully examine this question to determine if there were in fact any connections between the Financial Services Modernization Act and the recent collapse of our financial sector.  It is important for the Congress and the Administration to get it right rather than to merely react to theories which may or may not be valid.  It should not merely be a question of more regulation but also smarter regulation.  Furthermore, the actions of some banks in setting up Special Investment Vehicles where transactions were not reflected in their balance sheets should also be closely scrutinized as a part of this oversight responsibility.

The question concerning the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 is also an important one as Congress considers financial services regulation.  The principal concern here is whether credit default swaps contributed to the collapse of the financial services industry and the consequent recession.

It is somewhat ironic that although Warren Buffet a few years ago referred to these derivatives as “weapons of financial destruction,” the Treasury Department under Secretary Summers opposed regulating them.

It is evident that although they serve a legitimate purpose as originally conceived (e.g. to protect bondholders and to protect farmers against price swings), derivatives turned our financial markets into a casino.  Some estimate the derivatives market at $60 trillion but the reality is no one actually knows.  The difficulty is that contracts are taken out on contracts at multiple levels—many of which are held by third parties removed from ownership of the underlying asset which is being insured.

Chairman Peterson of the Agriculture Committee has held hearings on the question of regulating the derivatives market.  In following the hearings, it has become apparent that a consensus for the regulation of derivatives has developed around the need for transparency.  In this regard, it would be necessary for these contracts to be cleared through an exchange much like that which takes place with commodities futures.  Furthermore, if derivatives are in fact intended to serve the function of insurance, it is my view that like insurance, derivative contracts should be required to be supported by collateral. 

11.  Firstly, we appreciate that you looked into and subsequently co-sponsored HR 1207. Senator Sanders has introduced a companion bill in the Senate, and with 179 co-sponsors in the House, what factors do you think are keeping any senators from co-sponsoring the legislation?

H.R. 1207 is the Federal Reserve Transparency Act.  This legislation would eliminate restrictions on the General Accountability Office (GAO) audits of the Federal Reserve and open Federal Reserve (Fed) operations to enhanced scrutiny. 

I have co-sponsored this important legislative initiative. In the past I have had some concerns about the Congress injecting itself into the operation of the Fed in a fashion which could compromise its independence from political influence.  It is a matter of great importance that monetary policy not be conducted in a manner which serves partisan objectives rather than the objective of a stable price level.  Perhaps the Senators are also weighing this consideration before co-sponsoring the Senate companion bill. 

However, over the last year the Fed has become enmeshed in the public policy process, and along with the Treasury Department has become involved in the restructuring of our financial system.  There is thus no valid argument against H.R. 1207 relating to the need to maintain the independence of the Fed.

In fact, it is my belief that the Fed should be subject to the same transparency requirements that we would expect of any public agency.  An institution which has such a significant impact on our economy should be subject to a commensurate level of scrutiny.  It is also my conviction that the Federal Reserve Transparency Act is an important element of our responsibility in the Congress to take action to ensure that the necessary level of oversight is exercised to ensure that the public interest is being served.  In this regard, recent allegations about potential conflicts of interest within the New York Fed concerning Goldman Sachs are perhaps the most compelling case for this important legislation.

12. Due to the major debt being incurred in Washington, what is the outlook for ruinous inflation (like the Carter years)? We are just entering retirement.

According to the Congressional Budget Office the national debt will double to a level of $17.3 trillion by 2019.  This avalanche of government deficits and debt is one reason long-term interest rates, including mortgage rates, are on the rise.

Although I do not engage in economic forecasting, Kenneth Rogoff, the former Chief Economist for the International Monetary Fund, and currently an economics professor at Harvard University, recently warned that the ultimate outcome of the current growth in the level of debt will be higher levels of inflation in the future. 

As a policymaker, it is my view that we must not let this scenario come to pass.  Although I support short term infrastructure spending on roads, bridges and waterways as a means of assisting job growth, as the economy begins to recover it will be essential for the Congress to reduce spending levels.  I did not support the stimulus package which came before the House of Representatives because it had more to do with growing government over the next decade than it did with growing the economy this year and the next. We must not build structural deficits into the budget baseline which go far beyond the question of economic recovery.  Again, as soon as the economy begins to recover it is essential for Congress to take decisive action to reduce future government spending. 

At a time when the retirement plans of many Americans have been devastated by the collapse of our financial system it would be inexcusable for policymakers to add insult to injury by allowing a further erosion of their future. 

13.  As one of your constituents I support reform of health care as soon as possible. What is your position and do you think that a single payer system to truly standardize cost can be done this year?  What is your position on the single payer health care strategy?  Does acceptance of campaign funds from insurance companies affect the decision of how to vote on specific health care proposals?

I think we all agree as to the need for healthcare reform.  We need to improve access for the uninsured, we need to offer more choice so that individuals and families can have a plan that meets their unique needs, and we need to get costs under control so that healthcare will be affordable.  And we must pursue these goals while improving quality of care and encouraging innovation in both prevention and treatment of disease.  While we agree on the basic goals of reform, the questions of how to get there remain.  In my view, while a single-payer system may offer the appearance of increasing access to care, the reality is that where we have implemented single-payer healthcare in this nation, namely through Medicare, we now have an unfunded, fiscally unsustainable liability that jeopardizes access to quality care, especially as the percentage of the population eligible for Medicare expands.  Many of the problems endemic to the Medicare system lie in the enormous federal bureaucracy that necessarily grows out of a nationwide single-payer system.  As I have stated earlier, I support empowering Americans to purchase the healthcare coverage that best meets their needs.  This will require the creation of a health insurance market, or exchange, that is not dependent on employment, as well as a healthcare tax credit that will allow Americans to purchase coverage through the exchange.

Rather than expanding a bloated system already on the verge of insolvency, it is my view that today’s healthcare reform must offer viable, innovative solutions that will meet our shared objectives. 

I am looking to reforms that will give Americans greater access, not only to healthcare coverage, but to healthcare providers.  I have always held that healthcare decisions should be made within the physician-patient relationship, which means reducing the layers of bureaucracy that interfere with that relationship, whether insurance company bureaucracy or governmental bureaucracy. 

14.  When you consider the enormous cost that the current health care system places on businesses – small and large – why won’t you support the President’s plan to help ease this burden and provide healthcare for 46 million Americans who currently have no access?

As I have stated previously, there is little disagreement that we need healthcare reforms that will increase access to healthcare coverage for uninsured Americans.  I agree that employer-based healthcare is not only tremendously expensive, but also leaves many individuals and families without health insurance coverage, should they lose their employment.  I support the idea of a healthcare tax credit that would allow Americans to purchase coverage that meets their needs through statewide health insurance exchanges.  The tax credit would be supplemented or replaced by a subsidy to assist low-income or jobless individuals and families in purchasing coverage.  This would provide both access and portability, while giving Americans the opportunity to choose the coverage that is right for them.

15.  What can we do to STOP universal healthcare?

In less than 150 days, the President has taken control of: the housing industry, the banking industry, the auto industry. This is too much, too fast. How can we stop nationalized health care? I agree we need health care reform, but not President Obama’s takeover.

First, we must be clear as to how we define universal healthcare.  I would support a plan that offered universal access to healthcare coverage by providing a tax credit with which Americans can purchase a health insurance plan that meets their needs.  If, on the other hand, universal healthcare is defined as a federally-sponsored, one-size-fits-all approach that is mandated for every American, I would be opposed to such an approach – as would many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. 

16. The American College of Physicians representing more than 126,000 internists, residents in training and medical students advocates: (1) universal access to care; (2) increasing the number of primary care practitioners. Please sign on to co-sponsor HR 2350 Preserving Patient Access to Primary Care Act of 2009.

As you may know, my father was both an internist and cardiologist who practiced medicine for more than 40 years.  In a very real sense, he was a primary care physician.  I have spoken with many physicians and other healthcare providers in my District and I share their concern about the dearth of primary care practitioners across the nation, especially as we move closer to expanding healthcare coverage for more Americans.  This is a concern that has been raised in the discussion over healthcare reform and I would expect to see specific provisions addressing the need for more primary care physicians in healthcare reform legislation.  With that in mind, I will review HR 2350.

17. What will happen to my earned insurance? Under President Obama’s Health care plans, what will happen with the healthcare insurance I currently have as a retired state employee?

A common concern regarding a so-called “public plan” is the effect it will inevitably have on private plans, particularly employer-based plans.  Employers may have little incentive to offer healthcare coverage to their employees if, for example, Medicaid is expanded to include all families at or below five times the federal poverty level, or $110,000, as has been proposed. 

Many of my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, want to ensure that Americans who are satisfied with their current healthcare coverage are able to keep it. 

18. What specific idea/regulations are you supporting to help California address the growing number of state residents without healthcare?

I have suggested a number of legislative proposals in this regard.  Let me highlight one of them.  Californians, in particular, have been hit hard by the current economic crisis and have suffered heavy job losses and a corresponding loss of healthcare coverage.  For this reason, I support proposals that create an opportunity for individuals and families to purchase healthcare plans that are not employer-dependent.  Such plans could be paid for through a tax credit, or in cases where there is a loss of income, through subsidy programs. 

19. Will you support the President’s health care principles of (1) access to quality affordable health care for all Americans, (2) reducing costs, and (3) providing choice?

Yes.  These goals are shared by members of Congress, and by most Americans, regardless of political affiliation.  Nevertheless, the question remains as to how to best facilitate these objectives.  In my view, it is essential to increase access to care without increasing government interference in personal healthcare decisions.  For this reason, I support the creation of statewide health insurance exchanges that allow individuals to purchase healthcare coverage that meets their needs, while freeing them from dependence on employer-based coverage.  Exchanges would offer a diverse assortment of insurance plans, with each plan meeting minimum coverage requirements, similar to those available through the Federal Employee Health Plan (see below, for details).  In order to adjust risk and ensure that no one may be denied coverage on the basis of age or preexisting conditions, such a system would necessitate rewarding insurers who provide coverage for high-risk subscribers.  In addition, I support the idea of a healthcare tax credit that will cover the cost of purchasing a basic plan through the exchange, with subsidies available for jobless or low income Americans. 

20. Where do you get your information that technology saves cost? I am a physician and have not seen this. What is the status of a standardized system for medical records?

A RAND Corporation study found that if most doctors and hospitals adopted health IT, potential efficiency savings for inpatient and outpatient care could average over $77 billion per year.  The net potential savings over 15 years, taking into account the initial cost of health IT, could reach $400 billion in efficiency saving alone; health and safety benefits could double the savings.  According to the RAND study, “the largest savings come from reduced hospital stays (a result of increased safety and better scheduling and coordination), reduced nurses’ administrative time, and more efficient drug utilization.”  Moreover, implementation of health IT would result in increased safety and health benefits for patients.  For example, if all hospitals adopted a health IT system, the RAND Corporation found that “around 200,000 adverse drug events could be eliminated each year, at an annual savings of about $1 billion.”

With that said, health IT is expensive for physicians, especially those in private practice, to implement.  Because net savings are initially low, some physicians are reluctant to incur the high cost of adopting health IT systems.  As I review healthcare reform legislation, I will be looking for provisions that facilitate the adoption of health IT, especially for physicians who may not otherwise be able to install such systems.

At this time, there is no single standardized system of electronic medical records.  As recently reported by the American Medical Association, 37 percent of the nation’s hospitals have adopted electronic medical records for clinical documentation; however, only .3 percent are entirely paperless, meaning they have fully integrated healthcare IT.  Because of the tremendous efficiency savings associated with the implementation of health IT, it is likely that we will see proposals to incentivize IT adoption in healthcare reform legislation.

21. What is the difference between “socialized” health care system and a “single payer” system?

Using your specific dictionary, I would define the terms in the following way.  A socialized healthcare system operates through government-run facilities and healthcare providers.  Our VA system, with its federally owned and operated hospitals, is a socialized system, as are the national healthcare systems of Canada and the UK.  A single-payer system, on the other hand, is one in which a single entity pays for healthcare services, which are not necessarily government owned.  Medicare and TRICARE, which rely on contracts with private companies to provide services, are examples of single-payer systems. 

22. How will you address access affordability to healthcare for older adults 50-64?

Access to affordable care is critical for older Americans who are not yet eligible for Medicare, as many of us suffer from pre-existing conditions that may either result in exorbitant premiums or exclusion from eligibility.  For this reason, I support healthcare reform proposals that involve the creation of exchanges, or large risk pools.  Health insurance companies that participate in such exchanges would be prohibited from denying coverage to subscribers based on age or pre-existing conditions.  

23. I have a disabled daughter on COBRA and when it expires, she will not be able to get health care coverage because of injuries sustained in an auto accident. What help can be given? Also, since she has been off on disability and medically released from her job, she does not qualify for the stimulus package for this year’s COBRA. Is there anything that can be done to include disabled working with the involuntary category versus lumping them into involuntary?

As I am not familiar with the specific details of your individual case, please contact my district office in Gold River at (916) 859-9906.  I am sorry to learn of your daughter’s misfortune and if there is any way that we can be of assistance to you, we certainly want to do so.

24. In regards to the CA state budget shortfall of $21 billion, would you consider asking for federal money to bailout the state so that certain public services would not be cut?

As a general principle of our system of federalism, our state officials must be responsible for the budgetary decisions they make.  This is essential for democratic accountability to function.  If the state legislature and governor follow a course of expansive fiscal policy that is an issue on which the voters of California must make a judgment.  For the federal government to make a commitment that it will “cover” the consequences of the decisions of state lawmakers sets the very notion of federalism and accountability on its head.

Furthermore, it must be understood that the federal government itself is not in any better financial condition than the states.  At the present time the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the federal deficit is likely to be $1.2 trillion for a single year!  Although the tools of both monetary and fiscal policy must be used to bring about economic recovery, if we do not respond to the current crisis in a prudent and careful manner, we may create the conditions for higher inflation and crushing interest rates.  This would likely lead to actions by the Federal Reserve to contract the money supply which could result in a “double dip” recession.

25.  Has it been considered to survey who has positive health care working for them?

You may be interested to know that a December 2008 Gallup Poll showed that 83 percent of Americans say the quality of healthcare they receive is either “excellent” or “good,” while 16 percent say it is “only fair” or “poor.”

26. Given that other parts of the world are surging ahead and making efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. Why is it that you do not support legislation to cap carbon emissions? Specifically, address Mr. Henry Waxman’s bill.

A so-called cap and trade system would establish a regulatory regime of hidden energy taxes which would be passed on to every American.  Anyone who drives a car, turns on a light switch, or buys any product produced with energy will see their family budgets squeezed by the cap and trade proposal.

At a time when our economy is in a serious recession and unemployment is currently in the double digits in the Sacramento region, this is not the time to be planning new schemes which will burden future economic recovery.  Cap and trade is a jobs killer.  It will result in the loss of jobs to countries without such regulatory structures and have a devastating effect on the export of American made products.  Our focus should be on growing the economy rather than growing government.

27. As you know, on April 17^th the EPA decided that six greenhouse gases are a danger to the environment and human health. Given this danger to human health, why do you resist legislation to cap carbon emissions beyond motor vehicles, which are responsible for under a quarter of manmade CO2 levels in America?

As mentioned above, cap and trade is a jobs killer.  However, out of concern for our environment, I have introduced legislation that would provide tax incentives for clean energy production with zero greenhouse gas emissions, provide funding for the creation of lithium ion battery for automobiles, make the solar tax credit permanent, and provide incentives for refining alternative fuels.  My proposal is based on the premise that we can reduce green house gases as well as our dependency on foreign oil.

28. You mentioned that you did not want the government to get between you and your doctor. Isn’t it worse to have the insurance companies who have a conflict of interest in your treatment be between you and your doctor?

I have always held that healthcare decisions should be made within the physician-patient relationship, which means reducing the layers of bureaucracy that interfere with that relationship, whether insurance company bureaucracy or governmental bureaucracy. 

29. Request oversight of the Treasury’s Plan so it does not become a government giveaway to Wall Street investment managers.

From the beginning of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) there has been a need for greater congressional oversight.  In implementing the program the disregard for the Congress must be placed in context to be fully appreciated.  In appealing for TARP funding Secretary Paulson testified in favor of using the money to buy troubled assets, and against the idea of using the funds to infuse capital into the banking system.  After receiving the money, Secretary Paulson used the funds to inject money into the banks and declared that the Treasury would not be buying the bad assets which were clogging the arteries of our financial system.  It should not be asking too much for the actions of Administration officials to parallel their testimony before Congress.   This is no small matter.  It involves more than differences over policy.  It goes to the very heart of the concept of representative government.

The attempt to circumvent this process and casual disregard for what is said before congressional committees