It is the duty of the state to rise up to the level of the people, not the duty of the people to rise up to the level of the state. As individuals triumph over their own challenges, the collective resilience paves the way for the State to surmount its own obstacles. Therefore, government should be both responsive and adaptive to the needs and aspirations of its citizens, rather than expecting the citizens to adjust to the standards or expectations set by the government. The State, is a servant of the People, with the duty to elevate itself to the standards and values of the populace it serves. The Declaration of Independence states, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted…”; the Founders envisioned the purpose of government was to protect, respect, and ensure our rights – specifically those of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. This was then and continues to be today a radical idea, that the reason for the creation of government was for the securement of people’s life and liberty, so then the people themselves could pursue their own happiness, and that their individual pursuit (guided by wisdom) would inevitably create good conditions for the whole. This philosophy is pragmatic, non-prescriptive, and approaches a solution to mankind’s greatest problems from the bottom-up, where a simple set of rules from a simple starting point then leads to complexity. Not only must challenges be overcome from a bottom-up approach rather than top-down, but also, we must all have the same attitude that the challenges we face are absurdly complex, and that addressing the complexity of these issues and their potential solutions is how we begin to differentiate bad ideas from good ones; where the better solutions focus on simple rules, rather than complex edicts.

We need to agree on certain principles, and a discipline to guide us. Following “decision from authority” style thinking is the antithesis to this approach. The obstacle then becomes: how do we root out the overly proscriptive ideas, that are wrong or incomplete, and how do we challenge and refute either new or well-established bad ideas? The solution is to think like an engineer, which requires a paradigm shift about what it is we do, and how we do it; particularly what it is perceived Congress does, and how it does it. From the perspective of a policy educated software engineer, writing code and writing public policy is similar. We write a policy, and then the policy gets executed in ways we might not have imagined. The complexity of the systems we deal with are too vast for one to grasp in their entirety. Albeit, there are differences, code can be deterministic, meanwhile the outcomes of policy are not – hence all the more we must acknowledge the vast complexity of policymaking. Engineering is ultimately about problem solving, specifically as applied to both code and policy – we need to view it as design engineering. This approach is one that has historically found both efficient and economic solutions to immensely complex problems, it’s a philosophy that every problem has a solution, one that can be found through implementation of a proper culture.

 It seems too often we assume an excessively optimistic level of precision to public policy solutions, but the complexity of the systems makes this impossible. Instead, we need a new approach, one based on American pragmatism, often realistic and pessimistic, an approach rooted in incremental change – with step-by-step empiricism, adaption, learning, and experimentation. This begins with admitting – we may not know everything, and that we may be wrong in what we think we know. Although our egos, infatuated with self-flattery, struggle with the idea, we must treat all ideas and solutions with radical skepticism – testing each one to how things might go wrong. We cannot legislate for every possible scenario, our system of Common Law neither works this way, nor was it intended to. Our laws must be designed in such a way where they can “fail safely.” There is a certain allure to the idea of a plan, that we can solve these problems knowing everything in advance, but in the beginning, we know the least we will ever know about the problem; Steinbeck’s famous wisdom, “The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry” demonstrates the falsehood of excessive optimism in our planning. No matter how diligently we plan, we cannot account for all the complexity, especially considering our current partisan risk, and Conway’s Law; an idea that all organizations that design a system, in our case public policy, will produce a design whose structure is a copy of the organization’s communication structure. What does this mean for Congress? In a divided, partisan Congress, any produced solution will inherently not take into account the other side because there is no communication between sides, all the more producing ball-of-mud solutions, out-of-control debt, unintended consequences, and increased fear of making any changes. Unfortunately, the same applies to the divide in Congress, it stems from the structure of the divide in the general population, we call each other derogatory terms, we believe the worst of each other, we reject redeemability, and in our disdain for each other we feel righteously vindicated to condemn forgiveness as an acquiesce to injustice – mercy and grace have become akin to backing oppression. Instead, we need to improve our communication between each other with active listening, radical skepticism, reasoned logic, and as ironic as it might sound – open-minded compassion; only then can we progressively approach solutions, analyzing what steps bring us closer, and which take us farther away from our goals, discarding what doesn’t work and keeping what does work – creating an evolutionary approach to problem solving. We must begin with the assumption that we know almost nothing, but that through small iterative approaches we can make useful progress, or else, we risk truly terrifying failures, since large projects, if they go wrong, can threaten the existence of the society that undertakes them.

There are plenty of examples of draconian, top-down legislation, perhaps set out with good intentions, resulting in horrific unintended consequences. One globally historic example is The Great Chinese Famine that lasted from 1959 to 1961, it was a period in China’s history that resulted in the deaths of millions of people. Social, political, and environmental policies implemented during the Great Leap Forward played a key role in the famine. The aggressive collectivization of agriculture, in an attempt to rapidly industrialize and transform China into a socialist society, disrupted traditional farming practices, leading to inefficiencies and a significant drop in agricultural productivity. The Four Pests Campaign, launched in 1958 as part of the larger Great Leap Forward, aimed to eliminate pests that were believed to be harmful to crops and public health. The targeted pests were rats, flies, mosquitoes, and sparrows. Sparrows, in particular, were considered pests because they were thought to consume large quantities of grain seeds. The attempt to eliminate sparrows, however, had an unintended consequence. It disrupted the ecological balance, as sparrows played a crucial role in controlling insect populations. With the sparrows gone, insect populations surged, causing widespread damage to crops. The absence of sparrows, which were natural predators of crop-eating insects, resulted in an ecological disaster and contributed to a massive decline in grain harvests. The combination of misguided agricultural policies, forced collectivization, and the ecological imbalance caused by the Four Pests Campaign created the perfect storm for a catastrophic famine. China’s attempt at improving its society resulted in 15 million to 45 million excess deaths, or perhaps 5% of its population.

Today, in America the same ill-fated attempts at social, political, and environmental policy are ongoing. An overly optimistic perspective, devoid of rationalism, pragmatism, and incremental change is the root cause; if we continue down this road, we will inevitably encounter a similar situation to that of China’s Great Famine. One such irrationally optimistic idea to solve environmental challenges, for example, would be to shut down all oil production, while mandating a switch to alternative fuel sources or electric batteries in all consumer vehicles. Such an idea is obscenely optimistic, and not taking into account the complexities of both the issues and the solutions. An alternative to address air pollutants would be to fund reforestation efforts, the planting of trees and other plants into local communities; or, to address alternative energy needs would be the subsidization of research grants to fund fusion energy projects. Another such bad idea would be the centralization of healthcare services under federally provided insurers; centralizing any traditionally decentralized activity is again not taking into account the entire complexity of the issues and the solutions. An alternative would be funding exercise programs to encourage a more physically fit population – which in turn should alleviate some of the stress on private healthcare systems; or, subsidizing local food consumption over mass-produced processed foods in school lunches and in the general population, in order to reduce food related health issues that also stress private healthcare. These alternative solutions are only a few simple examples of how we can compartmentalize an issue into small, cohesive units that can be addressed, rather than overhauling decentralized, complex systems with a centralized and yet more bureaucratic systems. This alternative creates a separation of concerns, modularity, and loose coupling of solutions to what is proposed where monolithic approaches attempt overly optimistic, grandiose ideas to overly complex systems – the former approach saves us from unmitigated risk.

Only in addressing the issue of complexity, putting aside our own egos to admit we don’t know the exact answers, and only implementing piece-meal legislation, to promote incremental learning, will stave off catastrophe. Albeit, the challenges do remain, but only by taking a fundamentally different approach to the legislative process will we be able to avoid unintended consequences of good intentions.  As such, as Representatives, we should scrutinize bills that do not follow a single-subject rule – regardless of the party, authority, or issue it supposedly originates from. This philosophy is in conjunction with our own states single-subject rule in Arizona’s constitution. Our state constitution is a great example of a system that has implemented good engineering practice into a rule that promotes transparency, prevents logrolling, and ensures that legislators and the public can easily understand the content and purpose of proposed legislation. Not only would this help maintain the integrity of the legislative process by requiring bills to be focused and coherent in addressing specific issues, but also prevents the passing of excessively optimistic solutions that would result in detrimental, unintended consequences. Some might argue gridlock is the bane of our government, but instead we should agree with Hamilton that, “the main ill that besets us is an excess of legislation.” The gridlock is not intended to stifle solutions, but instead improve them like iron sharpening iron.

The Founders of American government neither predicted industrialization, electrification, plastics, nor many technological advancements we have today – but they did understand the infallible, unchanging root of human nature, and so they set in place a system, with such seemingly simple rules; three documents, consisting of less words than any novel, and yet one marvels at the complexity that has arose out of them. Not as though it were any revelation, but only a reminder, any solutions to our current challenges must coincide with these documents, and truly if one loves our government as our own – then we would rather forfeit our lives to preserve these documents, than to keep our lives but lose any bit of the documents. What good does it do us to gain all the power in the world, yet lose any bit of our foundational message? The approach set forth in this writing may be the only way we preserve the integrity of the Founders’ intentions, it might be the only way we stave off social, political, and economic violence; which history has taught us, will result in the loss of all our rights regardless of our striving to keep them.

In all, we must not act out of fear, instead we should have both courage and faith in our foundational pillars, that they are built out of solid rock, not brittle sand. Our Founders took to establish a structure of government that prevents both singular demagogues and unruly masses from initiating excesses of legislation that harm the entire nation. All too often, the promotion of fear is pushing people to isolation, partisanship, and ultimately violence; which only begets more fear, which leads to more violence – albeit, the centralization of rule making power under the Executive branch, along with the militarization of police does pose a systemic risk. Regardless, only a deep understanding of the rock-solid foundations of our government, the faith to face both the unknown and the dangerous, and the courage to have a radical skepticism of everything we are told – by any and all authority – will prevent more violence, the loss of all of our rights, and the buildup of tyranny. This approach can lead us to some hope that things will turn out alright in the end, as long as we rule our passions with reason, engage in courageous dialogue, and admit with honesty the truth, that we don’t know the answers, that we are relatively powerless – but that with incremental, empirical steps we can reach an answer, and that no threat besides the fear and hate we hold in each one of our own hearts can destroy us.

In 2020, the federal government collected $3.4 trillion in revenue. In the same year, Congress budgeted $7 trillion in combined discretionary, mandatory, and interest spending. By November 2023 the national debt approached $34 trillion. Therefore, as a nation we spend more than we earn, and we owe much more than that. Anyone one of us who balance our own budgets know we can’t sustain this for too long. Yet established powers have long benefited from the imbalance, and us small seeds have born the drought brought on by older roots.

Not only do we spend more than we earn, but also the value of what we earn is diminishing. Our currency’s value is derived from the trust and confidence people have in the government that issues it. The U.S. dollar has no intrinsic value. Albeit, both the strength of the U.S. military and the stability of the U.S. economy contribute to the confidence in the U.S. dollar. Furthermore, the U.S. dollar holds a unique position as the world’s primary reserve currency. In the post-World War II era, the U.S. dollar became the primary international reserve currency. Now many countries hold significant reserves of U.S. dollars, and international transactions, particularly in commodities like oil, are often denominated in dollars. Therefore, at least for now, the global demand for dollars contributes to its strength, but its reserve status is precarious with foreign governments initiating plans to move away from the U.S. dollar and the introduction of cryptocurrencies across world markets. 

When abroad it becomes self-evident the power the U.S. dollar holds. Go to Colombia, one can make purchases for 1/10th the price one could in The States. The U.S. Dollar’s purchasing power allows U.S. nationals to live like royals in many foreign countries. Also, the dollar’s value inspires many to travel here only to work and send the money abroad. This powerful economic might to move both goods and nations across borders is the backbone of our international power.

It was the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 that pegged most major currencies to the U.S. dollar, which, in turn, was pegged to gold. However, by the late 1960s, the system was under strain due to the imbalance between the amount of U.S. dollars in circulation and the U.S. gold reserves. The U.S. dollar transitioned from a gold-backed currency to a fiat currency, one not back by any precious metals, in the 1970s. This shift allowed for more flexibility in monetary policy and exchange rates but also introduced new challenges, such as the potential for currency volatility and the need for effective economic policy coordination among countries. 

It has been this allowance in unstable, runaway policy that has brought our nation to where it is. The Phoenix metro-area has felt it. Our average rent in 2018 was $815 for a one-bedroom, only five years later in 2023, rent for a one-bedroom goes for $1,467 – an 80% increase, or a yearly inflation rate of 16%. These are small figures to the powerful, but to us renters they are burdensome. We will own nothing, and be happy; but we’re not happy. We might love the desert’s beauty, but an economic desert is painful. Despite recent inflationary increases, what is most perilous is instability, with the a central bank able to manipulate much of the supply and demand mechanisms – the stability of the dollar is out ultimately out of the control of elected representatives. In one moment we might be under inflationary pressures, in the next we might experience deflationary pressures – it’s the instability that can increase distrust in the U.S. dollar; thus weakening it further, which then creates more pain for common people.

We have been brought to this tightening chokehold due to both the monetary and the fiscal policy of the federal government, Congress, and the Federal Reserve. We’ve been held down by campaigns of demoralization, destabilization, crisis, and a normalization to a sense of resignation. Recently people on both sides of the political spectrum have revolted in grand fashion against these campaigns; burning down police stations, and invading capitals. One must judge neither group, violence is the voice of the repressed, yet their violence must be condemned. Instead, a voice must be given, heard, and it must elicit a reaction. With the “middle-class” weakening, despite the power of our dollar, and the relative purchasing power of households to that of many economies; the last margins of economic, social, and political stability are fraying. There is anxiety amongst us, spurred on by real threats of inflation, economic instability, debt levels, political uncertainty, the global economy, and a potential loss of the worlds reserve currency status. Combating these threats requires a courageous, outsider, and defiant attitude to the status-quo.

Therefore, in these times of economic uncertainty, it is imperative that we prioritize fiscal responsibility and ensure the long-term financial well-being of our nation. As a candidate running for federal office, I am committed to implementing prudent financial policies that focus on cutting unnecessary spending and working towards a balanced budget. By scrutinizing government expenditures and eliminating inefficiencies, we can reduce the burden on taxpayers and lay the groundwork for a more sustainable economic future. It’s time to make the tough decisions required to bring our budget back into balance, fostering economic stability and securing a prosperous future for generations to come.

Let’s face it, Eisenhower was right when he warned against the Military Industrial Complex. Arguably, since 1776 the US has only been at peace for 17 years. Ironically enough, although I’m an immigrant, my grandfather when he was in the Colombian military fought alongside Americans in The Korean War. He rarely talked about it, but the experience left undeniable scars on his psyche. 

When listening to veterans their stories follow a pattern. They often genuinely believed the were defending their country, to only years later feel humiliated by the incompetence of their government, and the revelation they may have fought a war justified on lies, with the real pretense being it was an effort to make wealthy men wealthier. 

These veterans often suffer not only from exposures to chemical, biological, and nuclear toxins, but also to both psychological and physical trauma. They then get looked down upon by bureaucrats at institutions like the VA. Albeit, fraud is inherent to human nature, and bureaucrats have a job to prevent fraud, but when honest veterans are given the run around – the entire military community suffers. 

The Vietnam, Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan wars were started for supposedly noble causes. Infamously, the Iraq War was propagated due to lies of a hidden nuclear weapon arsenals, but after thousands of US soldiers, millions of innocent lives lost, and trillions spent – there were were no nuclear weapons. Nobody went was punished for the lie, but thousands to millions suffered. 

Notably, there is a difference between long-term wars of choice to maintain occupation, and wars of necessity to maintain national sovereignty. Wars of occupation transfer wealth from the taxpayer to the military industrial complex, and provide no sustainable national defense benefit. Long-term massive wars of occupation are fundamentally different from precision tracking and elimination of terrorists and efforts to stabilize a region. The former provide a net loss, the latter provide a net benefit. 

At the end of the day, as a candidate running for federal office, I am committed to supporting our veterans by ensuring they receive excellent, modern services that honor their sacrifices. Our veterans have bravely served our nation, and it is our duty to provide them with the care and support they deserve. I will advocate for increased funding for veteran healthcare, mental health services, and job placement programs. By investing in state-of-the-art facilities, technology, and comprehensive support systems, we can ensure that our veterans have access to the best possible care and resources as they transition back into civilian life. It is imperative that we uphold our commitment to those who have endured so much, and I will tirelessly work to enhance and modernize the services available to veterans.

This topic always bring to mind the characters of McMurphy, Chief, and the infamous Nurse Ratched in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest by Ken Kesey. Many read it as a cautionary tale against the abuses of the institutionalized mental healthcare systems. It served as a warning against the dehumanizing practices, abuses of power, and loss of personal autonomy within the system of its time. Kesey prompts readers to critically examine the impact of such systems on the individuals they are meant to help. 

Yet the changes since then haven’t done much to help people either. People who are homeless and struggling with drug addiction often face a complex web of challenges, including mental health issues that, in the past, might have led to institutionalization. Now these people are left on the side of the street, forced to live in tent-communities and often forced to move frequently. They suffer criminal activity including but not limited to theft, robbery, aggravated assault, sexual assault, exploitation, and vandalism.

Despite these challenges, successful models exist that prioritize a comprehensive approach, integrating housing solutions with mental health services, addiction treatment, and community support. These models recognize the interconnected nature of homelessness, mental health, and substance abuse and aim to break the cycle by addressing the root causes of these challenges.

Overall, I am committed to prioritizing mental health and well-being by advocating for increased funding for mental health services and facilities. Our communities deserve access to comprehensive mental health care, and I will work tirelessly to secure resources that support mental health initiatives. This includes funding for mental health clinics, crisis intervention programs, and outreach services to ensure that individuals facing mental health challenges receive the care and support they need. By investing in mental health services and facilities, we can contribute to the overall well-being of our communities, reduce stigma, and create a more compassionate and supportive society for everyone.

Protecting and upholding the fundamental right to free speech is paramount in our democratic-republic. As a candidate for federal office, I am committed to safeguarding the First Amendment rights of every American citizen. Freedom of speech is the bedrock of our nation, allowing individuals to express their ideas, opinions, and concerns without fear of censorship or reprisal. I believe in fostering an environment where diverse perspectives can be heard and debated openly, contributing to a richer and more robust public discourse. While recognizing the importance of responsible speech, I am dedicated to resisting any attempts to infringe upon the constitutional rights that define our democratic values. As your representative in Congress, I will advocate for policies that protect and strengthen the cherished principle of free speech for all.

Term limits on federally elected officials, such as members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, would require a constitutional amendment because the Constitution currently sets the qualifications and eligibility criteria for these offices, and it does not include term limits.

While supporters argue that term limits can prevent the concentration of power and encourage fresh perspectives, opponents contend that elections already serve as a means for constituents to impose term limits through voting. Any effort to impose term limits would require a significant level of political support and consensus, as amending the Constitution is intentionally a challenging process. It can only be passed by either a two-thirds majority vote in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, or by a Convention of States if two-thirds of the state legislatures (currently 34 out of 50) call for a constitutional convention.

Albeit, there are historical examples for term limits, none better than our first president George Washington. His decision to leave the presidency after two terms established a precedent for a self-imposed term limit, which was followed by almost all subsequent U.S. presidents until the passage of the 22nd Amendment in 1951. Washington’s actions set an important standard for the peaceful transfer of power and the avoidance of long-term executive rule, reflecting his commitment to republican principles.

Perhaps these republican principals need new life within the legislative branch when his expressed concerns about the dangers of political factions resonates broadly throughout the country. When voluntarily relinquishing political positions, politicians set a powerful example for the importance of a peaceful transition of power in a democratic republic. Although there is good reason for a reluctance to cede power to a new generation, being ones such as the losing of institutional knowledge, the truth may lie more in how power corrupts – and how greed is inherent to human nature. 

Washington’s voluntary relinquishment of power after two terms was a crucial moment in the early history of the United States. It demonstrated a commitment to the principle of rotating leadership and avoiding the concentration of power in a single individual, reinforcing the idea that public service was a duty rather than a perpetual position of authority. If elected to office, I will constantly bring up the issue to colleagues in Congress, and I will question any politician who lasts more than 2 terms in any single office – as to whether they truly believe in American principals or are there purely for their own self-interest. Ultimately, I would hope the electorate can elect candidates with integrity, and those already in office have the integrity to leave positions when they should.

Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) into law on November 6, 1986. This legislation was a comprehensive immigration reform package that included provisions for both increased border enforcement and, notably, a one-time amnesty program for certain undocumented immigrants.

The amnesty provisions of the IRCA were aimed at addressing the issue of undocumented immigrants who had been living in the United States for an extended period. The primary goals were to provide a pathway to legal status for those individuals and to deter future illegal immigration.

Under the amnesty program, undocumented immigrants who could prove that they had been residing continuously in the U.S. since before January 1, 1982, and met other eligibility criteria, were allowed to apply for temporary legal status. This temporary status could later be adjusted to permanent residency (green card) after a certain period of time.

The amnesty provisions of the IRCA were controversial at the time and continue to be debated today. Some saw it as a compassionate response to the complex issue of undocumented immigration, while others criticized it for potentially encouraging further illegal immigration. The broader IRCA aimed to address various aspects of immigration policy, including employer sanctions to discourage the hiring of undocumented workers and increased border enforcement measures. When it comes to today’s challenges we can learn much from Reagan’s attempt at a solution, and build upon where it failed.

One way to demotivate individuals from illegally migrating here, would be to follow in the footsteps of John F. Kennedy. His work with the Alliance for Progress was a significant initiative during his presidency aimed at fostering economic development and social progress in Latin America. The Alliance for Progress was launched in 1961 as a response to the challenges posed by poverty, inequality, and political instability in the region. Kennedy envisioned this program as a way to strengthen economic and diplomatic ties between the United States and Latin American countries while also promoting social and economic reforms.

Supporting such initiatives may help reduce the reasons why so many immigrants leave their home countries in the first place. Doing so may disinterest potential immigrants from migrating. In part it’s a brain-drain out of these countries that further destabilizes them; which in turn, leads to more migration.

For current DACA recipients a path to citizenship should be established similar to Reagan’s, but tied to initiatives like Kennedy’s Alliance for Progress. Along with addressing issues of cultural divides, and unrealistic expectations many migrants and children of migrants may hold. For example, every DACA recipient with a vision for citizenship must be willing to accept an American identity, one with a hope, faith, and love placed into the American governmental structure, history and values. Anyone who desires citizenship, must believe this country is indeed the city on the hill, and the last light of human hope.

It is imperative to support families by providing diverse and affordable options for preschool education. Access to quality early childhood education is a fundamental building block for a child’s future success. By expanding choices and ensuring affordability, we empower parents to make the best decisions for their children’s early learning experiences. This includes promoting a range of preschool options, such as public, private, and community-based programs, to accommodate the diverse needs and preferences of families. Investing in early childhood education not only sets our children on a path to academic achievement but also contributes to the overall well-being and success of our communities. Let’s prioritize the expansion of affordable and diverse preschool options to give every child the opportunity for a strong foundation and a bright future.

Addressing the critical issue of healthcare in our country, my focus is on implementing comprehensive policies that lower healthcare costs for all Americans while safeguarding individuals with pre-existing conditions. It is imperative to create a healthcare system that is accessible, affordable, and inclusive. By fostering competition among healthcare providers, negotiating fair drug prices, and streamlining administrative processes, we can achieve significant cost reductions. Simultaneously, it is vital to ensure that individuals with pre-existing conditions are not denied coverage or charged exorbitant premiums. A balanced approach that combines market-driven reforms with protective measures will pave the way for a healthcare system that works for everyone, promoting both fiscal responsibility and compassionate care.

As a candidate running for federal office, I believe in the importance of prioritizing English language education. English proficiency is a key factor in ensuring individuals can fully participate in our society, economy, and democracy. I will advocate for increased funding and resources to support English language education programs in schools, with a focus on providing English language learners (ELLs) the tools they need to succeed. By investing in effective language instruction, teacher training, and educational materials, we can empower individuals to acquire strong English language skills, fostering greater inclusivity and opportunity for all. Additionally, I will work to address any barriers that hinder access to quality English language education, promoting a society where language proficiency is an asset for personal and professional growth.

Clear and transparent labeling of genetically modified (GM) products is crucial for empowering consumers to make informed choices about the food they purchase. Advocating for clear labels on GM products is not an indictment of the technology itself but rather a commitment to transparency and individual choice. Consumers have the right to know whether the products they buy contain genetically modified ingredients, allowing them to make decisions aligned with their personal preferences and beliefs. Labeling provides an avenue for transparency in the marketplace, fostering trust between consumers and producers. It upholds the principles of informed consent, giving individuals the autonomy to choose what they consume based on accurate and accessible information about the genetic makeup of the products they buy. Clarity in labeling is a fundamental aspect of consumer rights and contributes to a more open and accountable food industry.

Government-provided free photo ID for elections is a commonsense initiative aimed at ensuring the integrity and fairness of our electoral process. Requiring voters to present valid identification helps safeguard against fraud and guarantees that individuals casting their ballots are who they claim to be. By offering free photo IDs, the government addresses concerns related to potential voter disenfranchisement, ensuring that all eligible citizens have equal access to this essential requirement. This measure not only strengthens the security of our elections but also instills confidence in the democratic system, assuring citizens that their votes count and are protected from any attempts at manipulation. In the pursuit of a transparent and accountable democracy, providing free photo IDs is a practical and responsible step forward.

Implementing a five-year ban on lobbyists who have recently served in the federal government is a necessary step towards ensuring the integrity and impartiality of our political system. This measure aims to address concerns about the potential influence of former government officials who transition into lobbying roles, leveraging their insider knowledge and connections for private gain. By imposing a cooling-off period, we create a buffer that helps prevent the undue influence of special interests on government decisions. This policy promotes a more ethical and accountable government, fostering public trust in the democratic process. It underscores a commitment to reducing the revolving door between public service and lobbying, reinforcing the principle that public servants should prioritize the interests of the citizens they serve rather than pursuing personal gains through lobbying activities immediately after leaving government service.

Banning foreign lobbyists from raising money for U.S. candidates is a necessary step to safeguard the integrity of our democratic process. Allowing individuals with foreign interests to fund American political campaigns creates a potential avenue for external influence and compromises the independence of our electoral system. By implementing this ban, we protect the sanctity of our elections and ensure that the priorities of U.S. candidates align with the interests of the American people rather than those of foreign entities. This measure upholds the principle of self-determination and strengthens the trust citizens place in their elected officials, fostering a political landscape free from external manipulation. It is essential to prioritize the transparency and sovereignty of our electoral system, reinforcing the democratic values that form the bedrock of our nation.

Preserving net neutrality is vital for maintaining a fair and open internet. Net neutrality ensures that all online content is treated equally, preventing internet service providers from favoring certain websites or blocking access to others. This principle is fundamental to fostering innovation, competition, and free expression in the digital realm. By upholding net neutrality, we guarantee that users have equal access to information and services, irrespective of their financial resources or the size of the online platform. This approach promotes a level playing field for businesses and individuals alike, encouraging the continued growth and diversity of the internet. Preserving net neutrality is not just a matter of policy; it’s a commitment to safeguarding the democratic ideals that underpin our digital landscape.

It’s high time we address the issue of congressional stock trading and restore trust in our democratic institutions. As a candidate running for federal office, I strongly advocate for a ban on congressional stock trading. Elected officials should be focused on serving the public interest, not exploiting their positions for personal financial gain. Implementing such a ban is a crucial step towards eliminating potential conflicts of interest and ensuring that our representatives are fully dedicated to the well-being of the American people. Let’s prioritize ethical conduct and accountability to strengthen the integrity of our government.

In order to uphold the principles of fairness and prevent undue influence in our political system, I firmly support the implementation of contribution limits. It is essential to establish reasonable caps on campaign contributions to ensure that no individual or entity can exert disproportionate influence over our elected officials. By setting contribution limits, we can promote a more level playing field, where the voice of every citizen carries equal weight in the democratic process. This measure is crucial for safeguarding the integrity of our electoral system and fostering a government that truly represents the diverse interests of the American people.

I believe it is time to reconsider our approach to marijuana by advocating for its rescheduling and revising our outdated drug policies. Our current system has failed to address the modern challenges associated with drug use, focusing on punitive measures rather than effective solutions. By rescheduling marijuana, we can pave the way for more research into its potential benefits and drawbacks, fostering a more informed and evidence-based approach to drug policy. Additionally, it’s crucial to shift our focus from the outdated notion of “boogeymen” associated with drug use to a pragmatic approach that considers public health and harm reduction. Let’s work towards policies that prioritize rehabilitation, education, and addressing the root causes of substance abuse to build healthier and safer communities.

In the past 10 years, lawsuits to settle allegations of misconduct were filed against  +7,600 police officers; +40,000 payouts were made to resolve accusations of wrongdoing at 25 of the largest law enforcement offices; resulting in costs to taxpayers of over $3.2 billion. The threat of a lawsuit hangs over every officer as they conduct their daily work, as much as the threat of the unconstitutional loss of one’s rights exists for civilians who interact with officers. It’s a Catch-22. To only side with civilians would prevent officers from enforcing laws, which will lead to an environment where criminals feel free to commit crime; leading to increased public unease. To only side with officers would prevent civilians from living their day-to-day lives with their due process right intact; leading to public unease. 

Solutions have ranged the gambit from protecting officers more than civilians, to protecting civilians more than officers. We must find a balance. None of us want to live in a world where our due process rights are not protected, but fundamentals of human nature impact both officers and civilians. At the end of the day, we are human, and bound to fail in one way or another. We must strike a balance that allows for failure in both directions, while preserving the soundness of the structure. Considering how government itself is little more than the only entity with the right to use force, officers must have the liberty to use force in the context of their work. Qualified immunity is the legal doctrine in the United States that shields them from being held personally liable for actions taken in the course of their duties. It was established by the Supreme Court in a series of cases and is intended to balance the need for individuals to be able to seek redress for violations of their constitutional rights with the recognition that officers are the primary law enforcement mechanism of the government.

Instead of removing long established legal protections, we should deploy cameras for increased transparency. The power, size, and efficiency of recording equipment has reached a point a camera could be a basic tool of the law enforcement profession – not only to protect officers against lawsuits, but also civilians against the unconstitutional violation of their rights. The cameras should be recording both video and audio only when the officers are interacting with the public. Disdain of a surveillance state should apply both ways, officers should have the liberty to not be recorded in their personal conversations unless those conversations relate the interaction with the public. Automated technology with the use of AI can be deployed into the cameras to better enforce when they begin recording video/audio information.   

Another solution is better training. Specifically, funding must be diverted to better physically training officers in jujitsu, kickboxing, weightlifting, and running. Of course officers must be proficient in the use of lethal weapons, but their own confidence in non-lethal tactics will save both lives and money. Officers must be incentivized to train, and given time to train. Also, paid training may incentives more people to join law enforcement, which may reduce staffing issues caused by increased training requirements. How many times has one seen videos of officers resort to deadly force due to lack of physical skill non-lethal techniques? One death, one lawsuit, is already one to many. 

Recognizing the importance of transparency and accountability in law enforcement, I advocate for the widespread implementation of police body cameras when there is an interaction with the public. These devices serve as a valuable tool to document interactions between law enforcement officers and the public, providing an unbiased record of events. By promoting the use of body cameras, we can enhance public trust, hold both officers and citizens accountable for their actions, and facilitate fair and thorough investigations into incidents. This initiative, along with increased training, aligns with the principles of transparency, justice and expertise; fostering a safer and more accountable environment for both law enforcement and the communities they serve. 

Investing in space travel and establishing a Space Force base in Arizona is crucial for our nation’s technological advancement, security, and economic growth. Arizona’s unique geographical features and expansive landscapes make it an ideal location for a Space Force base, providing strategic advantages for monitoring and safeguarding our nation’s interests from space. By allocating funds to support space travel initiatives and developing a Space Force presence in Arizona, we not only contribute to the protection of our country but also stimulate job growth and technological innovation within the state. This forward-thinking approach ensures that America remains a global leader in space exploration, national defense, and the rapidly evolving space industry. Let’s invest in the future by advancing our capabilities in space and solidifying Arizona’s role in this critical frontier.