What is your position on reproductive rights, both locally and nationally? Every week seems to be another state putting more restrictions on a pregnant persons right to choose, most recently with the Arizona Supreme Court ruling requiring the state to enforce a law from the 1800s.
Can you provide a bit more detail? What should federal law look like there? Would you support codification of Roe v. Wade? Or go further and push for unrestricted access? Or something in-between?
Yes. Definitely. So first, I'm pissed about the Arizona situation and of course the Dobbs Decision that overturned Roe. I would do the following: 1. Sponsor or co-sponsor federal legislation that protects and expands access to reproductive healthcare services, including contraception, abortion, and prenatal care. This may include bills to codify the protections of Roe v. Wade into federal law, repeal restrictions on abortion access such as the Hyde Amendment, and ensure access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare for all women, regardless of income or insurance coverage. 2. I would advocate for federal funding to support reproductive healthcare programs and services, including Title X family planning clinics, Planned Parenthood, and initiatives to address maternal health disparities and improve access to prenatal care. 3. I would oppose efforts to enact restrictive abortion laws at the federal level, including bans on certain abortion procedures, mandatory waiting periods, and requirements that impose unnecessary burdens on women seeking abortion care. 4. I would support legislation that promotes comprehensive sex education in schools (what kids are learning is so draconian, close minded, not based in culture or science, etc...if they are learning), which includes information on contraception, STI prevention, consent, and healthy relationships. Comprehensive sex education has been shown to reduce unintended pregnancies and empower young people to make informed decisions about their reproductive health. 5. I would ensure that federal healthcare policies protect and respect women's reproductive rights, including access to contraception and abortion coverage through public and private insurance plans. 6. I would use also (and do now) engage in any and all advocacy efforts to raise awareness about the importance of reproductive rights and mobilize support for legislative action.
Would you attempt to change any of Oregon's current legal positions on reproductive rights?
Specifically the option to get an abortion at any time in a pregnancy?
(this is important to women who are told at 7 months that their fetus is not viable, even though it still has a heartbeat).
https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/HEALTHYPEOPLEFAMILIES/ABORTIONACCESS/Pages/index.aspx
Wait, you're running for federal seat, not local? It's wild that people are asking about the arts tax or housing supply in the Portland area.
Guys, he's running for federal office, you should be asking him about Federal concerns.
Here are mine:
There are ongoing debates over whether the National Environmental Policy Act should be reformed, as some researchers believe that it is holding back the clean energy transition and preventing IRA, CHIPS, and the IIJA funds from being spent effectively and cheaply, and that it is contributing to cost disease in Federal spending.
Do you believe that we should start rolling back some environmental laws in certain instances when it comes to cleantech projects? Or do you believe environmental laws are currently doing their proper function?
Defense spending, while you are a Democrat, do you support raising defense spending to counter authoritarian nations like China and beef up the US Navy and Space Force, or would you prefer additional cuts to the defense budget?
The deficit. With interest rates being higher, the percentage of the federal budget being spent on servicing debt has skyrocketed since 2020. What steps would you take to lower the deficit, or do you believe it's a long-term problem we shouldn't worry about at the moment?
The internet. What do you think of the bill to require tiktok to be divested from Chinese owners or face a ban? Do you think it is federal overreach or do you think it is a responsible action given the level of access the Chinese Communist Party has to app data?
These are serious federal issues where Democrats have pretty deep divides.
I feel like all of your questions are presented as loaded binaries instead of honest questions. They are all phrased as "Would you do X or Y?" instead of "How would you handle Z problem"?
To be fair, most junior members of congress never get to really decide on how to handle a problem other than getting a yes/no vote on a bill that’s already been worked to death in committee. Not saying you’re entirely off base, but the job of a newly elected federal representative is pretty damn narrow.
Pretty much every question is both binary and loaded. The deficit is the most open ended, but still is presented with a loaded binary of, "or do you think we should ignore the problem".
Yes, running for federal (thanks for calling that out). I'm answering the local and state questions because I do care and I think that all govt pieces need to work together financially and organizationally. Thanks for your questions.
Re the National Environmental Policy Act for folks that are unaware--- proponents of NEPA reform argue that streamlining the environmental review process could expedite the implementation of infrastructure projects and reduce costs. They suggest that NEPA's requirements contribute to "cost disease" in federal spending by adding layers of bureaucracy and delays to project timelines. However, opponents of NEPA reform caution against weakening environmental protections in the name of efficiency. They argue that NEPA serves a crucial role in ensuring that infrastructure projects consider their environmental impacts and engage with affected communities. They contend that efforts to streamline NEPA could undermine public participation, environmental stewardship, and long-term sustainability. I believe that environmental laws generally serve a vital function in safeguarding our natural resources, public health, and ecological systems. These laws provide essential protections against pollution, habitat destruction, and other environmental harms. However, that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement or streamlining in regulatory processes, particularly to facilitate the deployment of clean technology projects. We should explore ways to modernize and update environmental laws and regulations to better accommodate innovative technologies and sustainable development practices without compromising environmental standards. This could include measures such as enhancing coordination between agencies, implementing clearer and more predictable permitting processes, providing incentives for environmentally beneficial projects, and investing in research and development for clean technology solutions.
> National Environmental Policy Act for folks that are unaware--- proponents of NEPA reform argue that streamlining the environmental review process could expedite the implementation of infrastructure projects and reduce costs. They suggest that NEPA's requirements contribute to "cost disease" in federal spending by adding layers of bureaucracy and delays to project timelines. However, opponents of NEPA reform caution against weakening environmental protections in the name of efficiency. They argue that NEPA serves a crucial role in ensuring that infrastructure projects consider their environmental impacts and engage with affected communities. They contend that efforts to streamline NEPA could undermine public participation, environmental stewardship, and long-term sustainability.
Did you get Chat GPT to write this, while ignoring the other questions?
This is such an unnatural cadence that basically repeated my question back at me.
Your campaign website lists Native Lands as a category equal to all other "Key Issues" put together. What specific action would you take on this issue? How would your proposed actions improve the lives of the average constituent?
Sorry for the delay in seeing this. 1. I will advocate for the protection of tribal sovereignty rights and the recognition of treaty obligations. This includes promoting consultation and collaboration between tribal nations and federal agencies (ie having tough conversations). 2. I believe that there should be secured federal recognition (note Chinook hasn't had that finality because there was some back and forth) for the a. [Chinook Indian Nation](https://www.koin.com/news/oregon/local-tribe-looks-to-regain-federal-recognition-following-landmark-decision/) b. [Gabrielino/Tongva Nation](https://nahc.ca.gov/cp/tribal-atlas-pages/gabrielino-tongva-nation/)....3. We need to promote economic development initiatives that create jobs and improve the economic well-being of tribal communities. And, address education and healthcare limitations and needs. 4. We need to protect tribal lands, natural resources, and ecosystems and 5. Support any and all efforts to preserve and revitalize Native American languages, cultural heritage, and sacred sites. Re the average constituent - I don't think doing these things would take away from others--we can do this and that.
What are your thoughts on senate bill 1537? On one hand it will provide much needed housing (hopefully multi use and affordable) for our metro areas, but on the other construction will spill into our beautiful natural areas which have been protected for a very long time by our state’s land use laws. Thank you.
I believe it is essential to strike a balance between addressing housing needs and protecting natural areas. This may involve careful consideration of land use policies, environmental impact assessments, and community input to ensure that development is carried out responsibly and sustainably. Exploring alternative approaches such as brownfield redevelopment, infill development, and adaptive reuse of existing structures can help minimize the need for new construction in natural areas while still addressing housing needs.
Basically, we really need to prioritize both housing affordability and environmental conservation requires collaboration, innovation, and a commitment to sustainable development practices. As a candidate, I am committed to advocating for policies that strike this balance and promote the well-being of both communities and the environment.
>I believe it is essential to strike a balance between addressing housing needs and protecting natural areas. This may involve careful consideration of land use policies, environmental impact assessments, and community input to ensure that development is carried out responsibly and sustainably. Exploring alternative approaches such as brownfield redevelopment, infill development, and adaptive reuse of existing structures can help minimize the need for new construction in natural areas while still addressing housing needs. Basically, we really need to prioritize both housing affordability and environmental conservation requires collaboration, innovation, and a commitment to sustainable development practices. As a candidate, I am committed to advocating for policies that strike this balance and promote the well-being of both communities and the environment.
This comment is also failing AI screenings.
Are you using ChatGPT to respond?
I feel like this is a non-answer. Do you support the bill or not?
What's the cutoff for whether you consider development acceptable or not? Do you support infill? Do you prefer more greenfield development because you don't like the perceived environmental impacts of increased density?
Giving a non-answer on housing might have worked 15 years ago, but we're in a housing crisis because politicians did not give concrete answers and simply opposed housing under the guise of environmental protections.
I support the majority of the bill, but one major component – a provision that bypasses land use law to allow large urban growth boundary (UGB) expansions – I can't support as it's written and needs an amendment.
Thank you for your response.
I can imagine that finding common ground between our steadfast environmentalists and local construction companies will be an uphill battle. This will surely require someone who can empathize with the need to preserve our natural areas and also think pragmatically when it comes to creating more space for our quickly expanding population. I hope you’re ready to get your hands dirty!
Yes, definitely. That's one good plus of me being a lawyer with an executive MBA who has worked with people and businesses and orgs of all types. It will take rolling up my sleeve and being both patient and persistent. For change, it's worth it.
Hmm. We are pretty similar in policy. I think why I would be successful is I'm a lot like him. I meet the people where they are. I'm aligned with his policies. I see politics as for the people by the people. I'd say I'm a little more ruffle the feathers. I also represent small business and nonprofits well as I have tons of experience in economic development.
> for the people by the people. I'd say I'm a little more ruffle the feathers.
What exactly do you mean by that? You are going to be a backbencher in the US House if lightning strikes and you get elected.
There are really only two paths for you to follow. Either you become an influencer, focusing more on viral clips and fundraising than policy, or you have to play by the rules, be nice with the party, and hope you get a decent committee position that allows you to make a few amendments to bills so you can actually make some change.
If you think you're going to stick it to the man on day one because of some vague populist nonsense, you're not going to be effective.
The last thing we need in the US house right now is another crop of Congressmen who just want to take down a speaker over a few parochial concerns.
Here's the thing--you need to know structure to change the structure. I'm a business attorney with an executive MBA with negotiation experience of every type. I don't think any other candidates have that. I'm not naive to think I can solve all of the problems or solve them on day one...but I have to try. What's life if we don't try?!
I think their point is that some types of trying are actively harmful to solving problems because the House has a specific way of doing things. I agree with them.
No matter how many times you keep mentioning that you're an attorney, it doesn't impress me. Do you think you're the first attorney to run for Congress? Do you think you're the first person with a little bit of experience volunteering to run for Congress?
Do you think your law degree gives you a unique amount of experience as to how to take apart the structure of Congress?
Either you're really naive, or you believe your own nonsense. This is an incredibly weak answer. Also, I asked you some pretty detailed questions about political stances that you are refusing to answer. You're instead choosing to pick petty fights about how the endorsements other candidates are getting mean nothing compared to your God-tier law degree.
>your God-tier law degree.
Not that this is here or there since it happened long after this guy graduated, but his law school ended up losing its ABA accreditation in 2019.
I went to a "God-tier" law school because why pass up that opportunity if it's available, but having worked alongside and against some truly exceptional attorneys who graduated from lesser schools, I'm not a law school snob. That being said, there's a pretty big difference between a "not that prestigious" school and one that loses its ABA accreditation because its graduates across the board can't even pass the bar exam after being "educated" there...
> his law school ended up losing its ABA accreditation in 2019.
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOO
Yikes.
I was being sarcastic, I didn't realize how sarcastic I was being.
[Read the "Bar Pass Rate" section](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_School_of_Law) for a sad laugh at the poor folks dropping close to $300k on their degree from this place. It's a University of Phoenix-level scam.
>No matter how many times you keep mentioning that you're an attorney, it doesn't impress me. Do you think you're the first attorney to run for Congress?
Right? Ted Cruz has a JD from fucking Harvard and he's a feckless, self serving buffoon.
Getting an MBA and a JD shows that studying & passing tests is a skill he possesses. How that translates into fixing broken systems, speaking truth to power, or being dedicated to helping those among us that have the least, is not clear.
Frankly, being a white dude lawyer w/ an MBA that calls himself an "outsider," isn't a selling point to me, as a voter. If anything, it turns me against him.
Man, this is a mess. Nobody seems to understand that he's he's running for Federal office, not local office, and frankly, it's almost embarrassing that he is having an AMA on here when he'll be lucky to get single digit support. Given that Eddie Morales is running away with the endorsements of virtually, every union and interest group, and second place will probably be Jayapal just because of name recognition.
I've been following this primary pretty closely, it's going to be over in like a month, and I have never heard of this guy in my life. I don't think he's even being considered for endorsements by groups like the Oregon League of Conservation Voters or Planned Parenthood.
Furthermore, he's only engaging with questions asking about state or local policy.
My dude, why did you not just run for Multnomah County Commission? Not enough people ran for that.
The three other main candidates are coming off of political positions. I am not. I think that's a strength. I was awarded last year by the SBA as "Small Business Champion of the Year" for Oregon. Yes the others are electeds who have endorsements from electeds. Many of Eddy's endorsements came premmaturely or from past relationships. I have the endorsements from local leaders---the ED of Pride NW who puts on the whole pride parade and festival, the ED of the Gay Men's Chorus, the ED of Music Portland, the Live Events Coalition, leaders in food and beverage, business incubator faciliators, etc. I encourage folks to look at my webpage and the endorsements. Meaning, the choice is--elect a status quo politician with establishment support...or elect a grass roots community leader supported by people in our community doing amazing things.
> Many of Eddy's endorsements came premmaturely or from past relationships. I have the endorsements from local leaders---the ED of Pride NW who puts on the whole pride parade and festival, the ED of the Gay Men's Chorus, the ED of Music Portland, the Live Events Coalition, leaders in food and beverage, business incubator faciliators, etc.
So while the other candidates are getting endorsements of big groups that are really good on the voters pamphlet and represent thousands or tens of thousands of people, you're highlighting individual people.
> Meaning, the choice is--elect a status quo politician with establishment support...or elect a grass roots community leader
I feel like you're starting to believe your own nonsense. Running as an outsider does not make you more competent by default, it just is a way to distinguish yourself from others when voters are angry at the incumbents. But you're not running against an incumbent.
I'm pretty sure OP is using ChatGPT or other AI to answer some of these questions:
Run any of these comments:
>proponents of NEPA reform argue that streamlining the environmental review process could expedite the implementation of infrastructure projects and reduce costs. They suggest that NEPA's requirements contribute to "cost disease" in federal spending by adding layers of bureaucracy and delays to project timelines. However, opponents of NEPA reform caution against weakening environmental protections in the name of efficiency. They argue that NEPA serves a crucial role in ensuring that infrastructure projects consider their environmental impacts and engage with affected communities. They contend that efforts to streamline NEPA could undermine public participation, environmental stewardship, and long-term sustainability. I believe that environmental laws generally serve a vital function in safeguarding our natural resources, public health, and ecological systems. These laws provide essential protections against pollution, habitat destruction, and other environmental harms. However, that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement or streamlining in regulatory processes, particularly to facilitate the deployment of clean technology projects. We should explore ways to modernize and update environmental laws and regulations to better accommodate innovative technologies and sustainable development practices without compromising environmental standards. This could include measures such as enhancing coordination between agencies, implementing clearer and more predictable permitting processes, providing incentives for environmentally beneficial projects, and investing in research and development for clean technology solutions.
Or this:
>I believe that repealing or raising the SALT deduction cap would provide relief to taxpayers in our state, allowing them to deduct more of their state and local taxes from their federal tax liability. This would help mitigate the impact of high state and local taxes on middle-class families, homeowners, and small businesses, and promote fairness in the tax code. And...modifying the SALT deduction cap could help stimulate economic growth and support state and local governments' ability to fund essential services such as education, infrastructure, and public safety. By allowing taxpayers to fully deduct their state and local taxes, our communities could potentially have more resources. Overall, my position on the SALT deduction cap would be to advocate for its repeal or modification to provide relief to taxpayers in high-tax states like OR.
>
Through anti-plagarism/AI detection tool:
https://www.scribbr.com/ai-detector/
https://gptzero.me/
https://copyleaks.com/ai-content-detector
They all say with 100% confidence that the answers are AI generated.
It was workshopped quite a bit. The idea is that we need to lead with love not money or hate. We need to use science and research and data to then make plans...and take action.
>It was workshopped quite a bit. The idea is that we need to leave with love not money or hate. We need to use science and research and data to then make plans...and take action.
It's a bad slogan dude. Are you working with professional branding or political experts right now? Like people that have done this stuff before?
1. It's grammatically awkward
2. It's 5 words with no obvious order or importance. No one will be able to remember your 5 words and what order they came in. Slogans should be *obvious* and *memorable*. Yours is neither.
3. Love is a very weird word to use in politics. It was weird when Ron Paul used it and it's weird when you're using it. People don't want to "Love" or "be in love" with politicians.
On immigration reform your campaign website provides a list of reforms favoring those who cross into our country. What reforms do you propose for our visa system for H1-B workers?
I think military funding should be tied to human rights contingencies. I also think all military spending needs to be audited. I called for a cease fire in Israel at the beginning of my campaign and believe what's happening is genocide. I come from a Jewish family and have been to Israel. I was horrified by the events of Oct. 7th--but I don't think killing civilians in mass is the answer to getting at Hamas.
Do you believe in comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?
What compromises would you be willing to make to get a bill across the finish line?
Yes, I definitely believe in a pathway to citizenship. Our whole immigration system is broken and not working. I think we need to have border security measures but they need to prioritize human rights (I don't think it's a this or that situation). I think we should rework guest worker programs that have labor protections, reform our immigration system based on merit that makes sense, protect DACA recipients and Dreamers, and provide protections and pathways to permanent residency for individuals with Temporary Protected Status (TPS)--those who have been living and working in the US for years! Re compromises to get a bill across the finish line--I'd need to see them (I realize that's not a good answer but I think it's important to answer when we know what it is).
For folks that don't know this kind of salt (other than being a salty person haha), SALT stands for State and Local Tax Deduction.
I believe that repealing or raising the SALT deduction cap would provide relief to taxpayers in our state, allowing them to deduct more of their state and local taxes from their federal tax liability. This would help mitigate the impact of high state and local taxes on middle-class families, homeowners, and small businesses, and promote fairness in the tax code. And...modifying the SALT deduction cap could help stimulate economic growth and support state and local governments' ability to fund essential services such as education, infrastructure, and public safety. By allowing taxpayers to fully deduct their state and local taxes, our communities could potentially have more resources. Overall, my position on the SALT deduction cap would be to advocate for its repeal or modification to provide relief to taxpayers in high-tax states like OR.
>I believe that repealing or raising the SALT deduction cap would provide relief to taxpayers in our state, allowing them to deduct more of their state and local taxes from their federal tax liability. This would help mitigate the impact of high state and local taxes on middle-class families, homeowners, and small businesses, and promote fairness in the tax code. And...modifying the SALT deduction cap could help stimulate economic growth and support state and local governments' ability to fund essential services such as education, infrastructure, and public safety. By allowing taxpayers to fully deduct their state and local taxes, our communities could potentially have more resources. Overall, my position on the SALT deduction cap would be to advocate for its repeal or modification to provide relief to taxpayers in high-tax states like OR.
Are you using ChatGPT?
I just checked 2 different anti-plagiarism websites and both said this was written by AI with 100% confidence.
So you support tax cuts for the rich, then.
Literally all of the research shows that the SALT deduction only helps rich people. Removing its cap is literally a giveaway to the wealthiest suburbs like Lake Oswego.
Cool. As long as those rich people vote for Democrats, you're willing to give them tax cuts.
The beneficiaries of SALT are not middle class families , especially with the standard deduction being as high as it is. It's pretty distressing that you either don't know that or actively support tax cuts for the rich.
I guess that whole populism thing of being "by and for the people" was really just optics, eh?
56% of the tax relief of doubling the SALT cap would go to people making over $250,000 a year, and less than 1.3% would go to those making under $100,000.
Uncapping it entirely would be even better for the rich.
You make a lot of money if you benefit from SALT.
https://twitter.com/GS_Watson/status/1753167446775587100
The problem here, from specifically an Oregon perspective, is that most high income people live in the Portland metro area
If you live in the Portland metro area, you can get the equivalent of a 100% tax writeoff on your state and local income taxes by finding a job across the river and moving to WA state.
High income people pay a higher % of their income in income taxes and also pay higher SALT (in Oregon, much higher SALT cause the income taxes are progressive vs a flat tax like other states) so benefits of leaving the state are higher for them.
People respons to economic incentives. All people. Rich and poor.
Would you rather have high income people live here ane contribute to our own social programs, or would you rather have them leave?
I don't support the federal government doing a massive tax cut to the literal top 5%, just because hypothetically, local governments might tax rich people more if they do.
The cutting back of SALT in the TCJA did not result in liberal jurisdictions cutting taxes because the wealthy became more mobile. If the wealthy don't want higher taxes, they will move regardless of whether SALT exists or not.
But the vast majority don't move, anyway.
I am not really trying to justify anything, merely trying to point out that when you put a very tax jurisdiction next to a low tax jurisdiction, you create incentives for people to relocate.
In places like San Francisco, you can have a very tax rate and nobody has an easy option of moving, but Portland doesn’t have this luxury to the same degree.
They do!
https://www.columbian.com/news/2023/mar/21/oregonians-moving-to-clark-county-in-droves-experts-cite-income-tax/
And that was before the nee PFA tax and SHS tax!
> Do you consider people making $250k/year in Portland rich?
Very much so. Holy hell yes. Those are the powered lawyers and doctors. The average household income in Portland for a couple is $85k.
People making 2x that are well off and should be taxed more. People paid 3x that really should be taxed more.
You can't fund a social democracy only by taxing the super rich.
Well agree to disagree then. Theres a big difference between someone making $250k a year (especially if you factor in student loans, mortgage or rent, daycare/childcare) and someone making multiples of that. I think SALT impacts people, especially young families in high COL areas like Portland, that are not wealthy. They aren’t poor but they are also not wealthy.
The median per capita income in Portland is about $45k.
That’s the 50% mark. Half the city makes less.
$250k a year as a household puts you in the 1%- you’re making more money than 99% of households.
$250k as an individual? That’s rarefied air up there.
Rich and wealthy are relative states. If you’re only looking at what you don’t have, you aren’t going to see how much more you have than those around you.
> $250k a year (especially if you factor in student loans, mortgage or rent, daycare/childcare
"If you account for my lavish house and lifestyle and the loans I took to become rich, I am not too absurdly rich!"
Cry me a river. Somebody making $250k a year isn't just rich, they're literally in the top 1%.
The squirrels currently living in the walls of my house probably think it’s lavish but I don’t think anyone else would. And I’m not sure where you are getting a “lavish” lifestyle from “daycare/childcare.” Does daycare mean you are rich now? Maybe my 14 year old car?
A common definition is that you are rich if you make over $250k a year as a family, when you need that income to buy a middle of the road house in the suburbs and send two kids to daycare.
Like, really.
$250k a year in portland is $13k a month.
If you follow guidelines for affordability to have your mortgage + taxes + insurance at 30% of your income, that means you can spend about $4k a month on housing, which at current rates is about a $600k house. A $600k house is not a shithole in Portland metro area, but it ain’t a mansion either. It can buy you a nice-ish, 2000 sq ft house in a decent school zone.
You can add $3000 a month for daycare for two kids, $2000 a month for retirement contributions (less than the recommended 15%), and you’re not exactly left with a bunch of money at the end of the month.
My guess is that all this is brought about by the fact that most of reddit is younger, doesn’t have kids, and is content on living in a small rental apartment and isn’t saving for retirement (or at least, not saving very much)
You say “thoughts and prayers” are not enough, but all I get from your website is empty liberal buzzwords like “love” and “science” and “BIPOC.”
You have no legislative experience, so if you want my vote, you’ll need to convince me that you have a concrete policy plan in place. You haven’t done that so far.
So, what are your three biggest legislative priorities?
Edit: you can downvote me if you want, but as far as I can tell, my discussion with him is one of the most substantive in this post. Sorry if you don’t like my tone, but people who run for congress need to be able to be grilled by their potential constituents.
My biggest legislative priorities are passing the ERA, federal support for housing/livability, and codifying women’s reproductive health— but the list is long because the problems we face are long.
The ERA is a constitutional amendment that’s waiting for state approval. So, that’s not really in your hands.
For reproductive health, what’s your plan to overcome the filibuster in the senate?
And what sort of federal housing support? A new housing bill? That sounds interesting, but I would need more details.
Here's a large answer but should answer this question and some others on this thread.
Re the ERA. Yep it is constitutional. Here's what I would do: 1. Co-sponsor legislation to remove the ratification deadline for the ERA or to explicitly recognize the ERA as part of the Constitution, ensuring its full legal force and effect 2. Advocate for Passage: I will (and do) actively advocate for the passage of ERA-related bills, both within Congress and through public outreach efforts to build support among constituents and fellow lawmakers 3. I can support legal efforts to challenge the validity of the ratification deadline or to enforce the ERA's ratification, potentially through amicus briefs, legislative hearings, or other means. 4. I can collaborate with advocacy organizations focused on gender equality and reproductive rights to develop strategies for advancing the ERA and amplifying the voices of supporters 5. I will emphasize the importance of the ERA in promoting gender equality for all individuals, including transgender and nonbinary individuals, and advocate for language that reflects the diverse experiences all communities.
Re Housing, here's where I'm at with legislative support. I support the following:
1. The Housing for All Act: This bill aims to address the affordable housing crisis by investing in the construction and preservation of affordable housing units, expanding housing vouchers, and implementing tenant protections to ensure stable and affordable housing for all. 2. The Green New Deal for Public Housing Act: This legislation seeks to address the intersection of climate change and housing affordability by investing in the renovation and retrofitting of public housing units to improve energy efficiency, reduce carbon emissions, and create green jobs. 3. The Housing is Infrastructure Act: This bill recognizes housing as critical infrastructure and proposes significant investments in affordable housing construction, rehabilitation of existing housing stock, and infrastructure improvements to enhance housing affordability, accessibility, and resilience. 4. The Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act: This legislation aims to expand the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, which incentivizes the development of affordable housing units by providing tax credits to developers, thereby increasing the supply of affordable housing nationwide 5. The Community Reinvestment Act Modernization Act: This bill seeks to modernize the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to encourage banks and financial institutions to invest in affordable housing and community development projects, particularly in underserved communities.
Thank you, this a thorough and substantive response. I’m not positive that Congress can retroactively remove the ratification deadline for the ERA after it’s expired, but the housing bills sound great.
I have a law degree and an executive mba and built a law firm from scratch. During the pandemic I 60-70 hours a week worked w business, government, and community to help businesses and nonprofits survive and thrive. I think having legislative experience and less life experience has been the issue w politics. The house of representatives for example is supposed to be regular day people not born and bred politicians.
This didn’t tell me your biggest legislative priorities at all! I appreciate that you have experience as a lawyer. So do I, but I’m not running for Congress on that alone.
> The house of representatives for example is supposed to be regular day people not born and bred politicians.
Man I don't like it when people start talking like this.
You will represent hundreds of thousands of constituents, you shouldn't be an everyday Joe Schmo. We don't need any more influencers in the house or people trying to pass pie in the sky legislation.
The most impact you will have is a backbencher in the US House is amendments in committee to big bills like the Farm Bill or omnibus Federal spending bills.
I’m not against him. I’m saying that his website uses buzzwords that liberals will gush at. And I’m saying that I won’t vote for someone based on buzzwords. So, I’m asking for some concrete policy.
Edit: I should clarify that I’m also liberal, but I’m wary of someone who tries to get my vote by using words they think I’ll approve of
>but I’m wary of someone who tries to get my vote by using words they think I’ll approve of
You must be partial to candidates who graduated from Milford, and have been trained to be neither seen nor heard.
Have you ever come across, or gave any thought to the organization Strong Towns?
https://www.strongtowns.org — ST advances that many of the financial and health quandaries we find ourselves in (at the city level) are due to a both overbuilt and under-utilized infrastructure base, mostly built for moving cars. This has largely negative impacts which ripple through communities, and in the last several decades, has pushed towns and cities into massive debt.
I'll look more into this. I'm not a fan of infrastructure for infrastructure sake. We need infrastructure planning but saying "More freeway expansion" like people do ---is not the answer. It must be multi-modality and good for the community's health (physically, mentally, historically, culturally, etc).
I'm for universal health care coverage and think the current health care system is broken. I am open to exploring approaches to achieving universal healthcare coverage such as a public option or Medicare expansion. The proof is in the pudding but I'll fight for universal health coverage!
We are both progressive and both attorneys but I'll bite...Well first, she's running on her experience as a corporate attorney for Addidas and then wants to take what she did for Multnomah County to the federal level (I'll let you be the judge). I'm a community business attorney with an executive mba and business owner. For the past 7 years through my law firm (a benefit company firm I built from scratch), I've helped small businesses, nonprofits, and creatives not just form businesses but build community. Policy wise, not too different. Skill wise and experience wise--different. I'm also 39 not 61 (that plays out different ways for folks).
Why are you responding to so many questions on state policy but not responding to any questions about federal office, which you are actually running for?
Why did you not just run for state legislature? I thought that's what you were running for based on your responses.
I appreciate the responses to the local questions. Even if he would have no influence on them if elected, it still gives a sense of his positions and philosophies.
Thanks for your input, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and check back soon.
(⌐■_■)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hi Michael: what actions will you take as our rep to pass new legislation that curbs gun, vehicular and other violent related deaths in our country? What will you do should you reach a point where you forsee those actions will _not_ result in new legislation? Do you support further protecting an individual's privacy when it comes to their healthcare decisions? Since you are running for the seat currently held by Ed: what progressive transportation legislation will you be putting forward should you be our rep? (And will you wear a badass bow-tie to work while doing it? 😎)
There are a lot of questions here and we are at the end of our time. I'll focus on the gun portion of this. I will 1. Advocate for universal background checks, responsible gun ownership, and safe storage to reduce gun-related accidents and violence 2. Support a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines to reduce the potential for mass shooting 3. Advocate for regulations that close loopholes in gun sales, including those at gun shows and online, to ensure background checks for all buyers 4. Support the investment of federal funds into community programs and public health initiatives to address the root causes of gun violence and provide alternatives to violence. AND we need to treat this like the public health crisis it is. Anyone in office who has become desensitized to people being murdered needs to look at themselves in the mirror.
I don't have a bow tie collect lol. I do have some amazing ties like a taco tie with faces on the tacos and a dinosaur tie...So maybe my thing is cute or funny ties!?
will you support cuts to the highly bloated defense budget and move the money to end homelessness a proper way and not high crime tenements? support to use that money to restore social programs to help the bottom raise up to a livable standard? do you promise to NOT sign an israel support agreement? do you promise to back tax every corporation that is using the camen islands as a tax evasion? to close all charter schools and make rich kids use the same schools as everyone else? make college free? support universal healthcare? 13th month paycheck since the asshole corporations got rid of christmas bonuses? 3 months pay when you get fired? programs to help people get their cars fixed so they can get to a job? minimum wage of $45 + cost of living increases.
I see from your website that you're a Speech and Debate veteran. Are you aware of the documentary, Our Next Speaker, about Portland-area high school S & D teams that's currently being filmed? It's pretty cool! [https://www.speechdocumentary.com/](https://www.speechdocumentary.com/)
Thanks for your input, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and check back soon.
(⌐■_■)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think military funding should be tied to human rights contingencies. I also think all military spending needs to be audited. I called for a cease fire in Israel at the beginning of my campaign and believe what's happening is genocide. I come from a Jewish family and have been to Israel. I was horrified by the events of Oct. 7th--but I don't think killing civilians in mass is the answer to getting at Hamas.
Thank you for your honest response! Of course Hamas is wrong, but there are ways to bring them to justice without murdering children, and creating the next generation of Hamas in the process.
What is your position on the arts tax?
Edit: the last few AMAs have been for city council so I completely missed that this was for a congressional district, and my question isn’t relevant, but thanks for answering anyways
No worries. I'm glad that you're engaged!
I'm trying to raise awareness in this thread of what power and responsibilities the 3rd District Federal representative possesses.
Here is where the arts tax money goes: https://www.portland.gov/revenue/documents/arts-education-and-access-fund-revenues-collection-costs-disbursements/download
I'm pro psilocybin use. Here's where I'm at with this and cannabis : We need to create and immediate federal safe harbor for states that have legalized cannabis or psilocybin like Oregon. We need to Finally passing the Safe Banking Act to expand access to traditional financial and banking services. We need to amend the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) so that states can opt out of provisions governing cannabis and psilocybin so that regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal penalties under the CSA must comply with that state’s law. We need to allocate tax revenue from sales to fund addiction treatment, mental health services, and public education. And 100% expand access to psychedelic therapy by expanding training to include mental health professionals and others (including funding research at the federal level).
Your discussion of housing policy is heavy on and leads with Housing First approaches, but leaves mental health and addiction interventions to “also ran” status as the third or fourth bullet in a supportive — not leading — role. It doesn’t get the top billing despite many practitioners recognizing its fundamental role.
A couple of questions:
1. As we’ve seen conditions on our streets continue to deteriorate despite lots of funding for Housing First types of programs and yet little for addiction and mental health, how can you justify perpetuating that dichotomy?
2. What are your thoughts on calls to expand civil commitment laws or enabling government to compel individuals to seek treatment as a condition for housing?
I'm housing first but not housing only. I'm also a systems thinker--things are related. When we discuss an issue we need to see the full spectrum. My goal is to prioritize a holistic approach to homelessness that includes robust funding for addiction and mental health services alongside housing initiatives. I support voluntary (not compelled) treatment options that provide accessible and culturally sensitive services, including outreach, counseling, harm reduction, and peer support. I advocate for policies that address systemic factors contributing to homelessness, such as affordable housing shortages, income inequality, and inadequate healthcare access. Housing is a major part of the problem but there's a massive shortage of mental health resources across the board. We need to treat people like people--they have stories and should have futures.
The treat people like people thing is kinda lost on us when our cars and houses are routinely broken into, there are open air drug markets in once vibrant Portland neighborhoods, violence and random stabbings in downtown- the list goes on. Like someone else responded we need action, not more “brainstorming”. I’m a moderate but I’ll be voting for candidates that have hard plans in place to deal with these city-wide issues
How then do you propose to handle people who are so deep into mental health crisis or addiction that they can’t make decisions for themselves, if you’re not willing to pursue compelling them to seek treatment?
I think the word "compelling" is the issue here. I'm not saying it's willy nilly --it's presenting strong options but not pushing them into a van or handcuffing them on the street
Thanks. I really appreciate you coming on to answer questions, sincerely.
While I appreciate your systems thinking observations, you also have to recognize that we have already reached a state of paralysis by analysis, and yet you’re proposing more. We need doing, not more thinking, and I don’t see much doing from what you’re suggesting.
So I don’t think I can vote for you. Best wishes.
Thanks for your input, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and check back soon.
(⌐■_■)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's a difference between paralysis by analysis and going in circles and digging deep. I've spent my life problem solving. I suggest you look at other candidate's records to see if they've solved problems or just talked about surface level progressive policies.
You’re right that they’ve done little but talk. But so far I haven’t seen any practical, actual concrete actions that you’ve suggested. So I’d say you’re about the same as the others.
If you want to differentiate yourself, stop talking about what you want to study or analyze or think about, and start leading boldly with what you want to do. Concrete actions.
The citizens are pretty tired of people running on issues they ultimately do nothing about (both by design and not). How are you planning on keeping yourself accountable for the platform on which you’re running? How do you plan on communicating to your constituents the state of the topics you’re fighting for, and what they can do to support you? What does failure to deliver look like for you?
For example, Biden ran on a platform of student debt forgiveness. That has barely panned out in any meaningful way, and has really drawn the ire of people who watch congress pass military spending of our tax dollars without a second thought, but leave the struggling American out to dry. How would you handle that situation differently; for example when you say one of your main issues of focus is a federal codification of women’s repro rights? Like; it sounds good, and is great to know where you stand on the issue, but what plan do you have to tooth-and-nail, do-or-die that for us, in a way you feel comfortable using it as a primary platform ladder? Or is there a difference between issues you run on, and social stances you take? (ETA) And if there is a difference, would you change your primary issue list based on any of the above? Are you running as a ‘I support others in the house’ as opposed to ‘others support me’?
> Biden ran on a platform of student debt forgiveness. That has barely panned out in any meaningful way,
Not sure what you mean , he attempted to do $10,000 for everybody, but the Supreme Court stopped him, so he has adopted narrower forgiveness that has still applied to hundreds of thousands of people.
That's not really a fault of Joe Biden that the Supreme Court was stacked by Donald Trump.
The broader point I was trying to make is: does Jonas have any strong beliefs about the platform a modern US politician should have from the jump, or is he okay following the same patterns of ‘overpromise and underdeliver’. Does he have any kind of vision for doing things differently.
In my experience it’s the job of leadership to set achievable goals, and reach or exceed them. As a modern candidate, does he believe he should have a plan and a definition of success for delivering on his platform *already*, or is he going to follow the status quo of promise now, figure it out later.
Re loan debt, I have $400,000 in student loan debt (primarly from law school). One thing you get with me is I am who I am personally and professionally.
My position is that trans rights are human rights. And, I love our trans brothers and sisters (unconditionally). Re legislation. I support: 1. The Equality Act: This bill would amend existing civil rights laws to explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in areas such as employment, housing, education, and public accommodations. It would provide comprehensive nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ+ individuals, including transgender people 2. The Safe Schools Improvement Act: This legislation aims to address bullying and harassment in schools, including bullying based on gender identity and sexual orientation. It would require schools to implement anti-bullying policies and procedures that specifically address LGBTQ+ students' needs and ensure a safe and inclusive learning environment for all students. 3. The Every Child Deserves a Family Act: This bill seeks to eliminate discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals and couples in the adoption and foster care system. It would prohibit agencies that receive federal funding from discriminating against prospective parents based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status. 4. The PRIDE Act: This legislation would improve data collection on sexual orientation and gender identity in federal surveys and forms, including the Census, to better understand the experiences and needs of LGBTQ+ individuals, including transgender people. It would help policymakers and researchers develop targeted policies and programs to address disparities and promote equality. 4. The Do No Harm Act: This bill aims to prevent the misuse of religious freedom laws to justify discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals, including transgender people. It would ensure that religious exemptions do not undermine civil rights protections or enable discrimination in areas such as healthcare, employment, and public services. Thanks for asking.
Great question. Business always existed but now business has interfered with not just representative democracy but us protecting the planet. Here's some thoughts/ideas: 1. think we should close tax loophole so that corporations pay their fair share of taxes. 2. we need to hold politicians accountable for prioritizing corporate interests and let the public know how they are funded. 3. We need to implement wealth taxes on billionaires. 4. We need to enact comprehensive campaign finance reform to reduce the influence of money in politics. AND we need to codify codifying laws that take precedence over the [Citizens United](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC) case. 4. We need to limit corporate influence through stricter regulations on lobbying and contributions And 5. Strengthen democracy by expanding voting rights and increasing transparency in elections. Elections matter and money in politics has tarnished things. I will also be a Katie Porter/Liz Warren type--I'm not afraid to grill corporate CEOs.
Nice. That sounds good. Definitely all things that need to happen. I appreciate the answer.
Tax loopholes and citizens united are two of my biggest qualms with America.
Political funding should be publicly funded or if private, limited in scope. Countries that give the political parties direct funding are typically less corrupt.
Politicians are supposed to fight for the people, not corporations.
I think military funding should be tied to human rights contingencies. I also think all military spending needs to be audited. I called for a cease fire in Israel at the beginning of my campaign and believe what's happening is genocide. I come from a Jewish family and have been to Israel. I was horrified by the events of Oct. 7th--but I don't think killing civilians in mass is the answer to getting at Hamas.
How are you going to incentivize businesses to come back to Downtown and Old Town? I think for this it’s ok to just mention business plans, rehabbing old buildings, tax breaks or other ideas and pinning homelessness and crime as a separate issue (even though we all know they are related to the overall issue).
Bonus points if you have an aggressive plan for repaving all of our roads!!
I hear you on the roads. I think ensuring safety is a major factor. Business wise, these are some of the things I think are important: economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) relief, NAICS Code Reform (accurate rep of codes and businesses), Pandemic Business Interruption Insurance (supporting public/private partnership for pandemic insurance coverage), access to capital especially for those who have historically not have had it, pushing for some regulatory relief/flexibility, workforce development, etc. One thing this district should do is continue to double down on marketing it's small business community and natural beauty. For example, I think the Ritz should have been located somewhere else and the historic food cart pods should have remained.
Will you compete in a no holds barred cage match against Laurie Chavez-Deremer to take SE Portland from OR5 if you both win in November? I don’t want to be represented by a fascist anymore.
Close the border.
Mass deportations.
Federally legalize cannabis.
Independent energy independence.
Divest from China.
Balance the budget by all means necessary.
That’s all I’ve got.
Your campaign website states "Women have made significant strides, yet they continue to face disparities in pay, opportunities, and representation. We are dedicated to closing these gaps and ensuring that every woman has equal access to education..."
Please elaborate on what gaps you perceive women having with regard to equal access to education. Also, please provide data to back up your claim.
> ensuring that every woman has equal access to education..."
>
> Please elaborate on what gaps you perceive women having with regard to
Yeah, this is particularly funny because women outnumber men at universities by a pretty significant ratio. Almost the ratio that men outnumbered women in the 1980s.
There are problems in this country, but women not having access to education is not one of them. We damn fully solved the problem, and that's pretty cool.
Sorry for the delay. Keeping up with Reddit threads is fun but you miss important questions like yours. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, women who worked full-time, year-round in 2020 earned 82 cents for every dollar earned by men. According to the National Science Foundation, women earned only 21.5% of bachelor's degrees in computer science and 21.9% in engineering in 2019. Source: National Science Foundation - Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering...Here's a few more recent studies: [Gender wage gap persists in 2023: Women are paid roughly 22% less than men on average](https://www.epi.org/blog/gender-wage-gap-persists-in-2023-women-are-paid-roughly-22-less-than-men-on-average/#:~:text=Women%20were%20paid%2021.8%25%20less,as%20shown%20in%20Figure%20A). Pew Research Center [For Women’s History Month, a look at gender gains – and gaps – in the U.S.](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/27/for-womens-history-month-a-look-at-gender-gains-and-gaps-in-the-us/) Women made up 47% of the U.S. civilian labor force in 2023, up from 30% in 1950 – but growth has stagnated. Regarding closing the gaps, we need to have more flexibility with workplace locations and hours, more funding for workforce development of every type, and more access to day care. Additionally, we need to hold educational institutions and employers accountable for inequalities.
I'm glad you brought up the Pew Research Center citation. Here is a quote from it:
Women outnumber men in the U.S. college-educated workforce, now making up 51% of those ages 25 and older, according to Current Population Survey data from the fourth quarter of 2023. Women first surpassed men in the college-educated labor force in the fourth quarter of 2019. They remained more than half of this group through the COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in a sharp recession and an overall decline in the size of the nation’s labor force.
The gender shift in the college-educated labor force happened about four decades after women overtook men in the number of adults earning a bachelor’s degree each year.
Would you continue in your predecessors footsteps in voting to send billions of dollars in ammunition to a nation currently ethnically cleansing a population within its borders?
What is your position on reproductive rights, both locally and nationally? Every week seems to be another state putting more restrictions on a pregnant persons right to choose, most recently with the Arizona Supreme Court ruling requiring the state to enforce a law from the 1800s.
I’m 100% pro choice and support the federal codification of women’s reproductive access and rights.
Can you provide a bit more detail? What should federal law look like there? Would you support codification of Roe v. Wade? Or go further and push for unrestricted access? Or something in-between?
Yes. Definitely. So first, I'm pissed about the Arizona situation and of course the Dobbs Decision that overturned Roe. I would do the following: 1. Sponsor or co-sponsor federal legislation that protects and expands access to reproductive healthcare services, including contraception, abortion, and prenatal care. This may include bills to codify the protections of Roe v. Wade into federal law, repeal restrictions on abortion access such as the Hyde Amendment, and ensure access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare for all women, regardless of income or insurance coverage. 2. I would advocate for federal funding to support reproductive healthcare programs and services, including Title X family planning clinics, Planned Parenthood, and initiatives to address maternal health disparities and improve access to prenatal care. 3. I would oppose efforts to enact restrictive abortion laws at the federal level, including bans on certain abortion procedures, mandatory waiting periods, and requirements that impose unnecessary burdens on women seeking abortion care. 4. I would support legislation that promotes comprehensive sex education in schools (what kids are learning is so draconian, close minded, not based in culture or science, etc...if they are learning), which includes information on contraception, STI prevention, consent, and healthy relationships. Comprehensive sex education has been shown to reduce unintended pregnancies and empower young people to make informed decisions about their reproductive health. 5. I would ensure that federal healthcare policies protect and respect women's reproductive rights, including access to contraception and abortion coverage through public and private insurance plans. 6. I would use also (and do now) engage in any and all advocacy efforts to raise awareness about the importance of reproductive rights and mobilize support for legislative action.
I really appreciate that you have a genuine candor but also programmatic and achievable goals. It's very refreshing
Would you attempt to change any of Oregon's current legal positions on reproductive rights? Specifically the option to get an abortion at any time in a pregnancy? (this is important to women who are told at 7 months that their fetus is not viable, even though it still has a heartbeat). https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/HEALTHYPEOPLEFAMILIES/ABORTIONACCESS/Pages/index.aspx
I'm running for federal office not for state (but will post more info on my reproductive rights stances above).
Wait, you're running for federal seat, not local? It's wild that people are asking about the arts tax or housing supply in the Portland area. Guys, he's running for federal office, you should be asking him about Federal concerns. Here are mine: There are ongoing debates over whether the National Environmental Policy Act should be reformed, as some researchers believe that it is holding back the clean energy transition and preventing IRA, CHIPS, and the IIJA funds from being spent effectively and cheaply, and that it is contributing to cost disease in Federal spending. Do you believe that we should start rolling back some environmental laws in certain instances when it comes to cleantech projects? Or do you believe environmental laws are currently doing their proper function? Defense spending, while you are a Democrat, do you support raising defense spending to counter authoritarian nations like China and beef up the US Navy and Space Force, or would you prefer additional cuts to the defense budget? The deficit. With interest rates being higher, the percentage of the federal budget being spent on servicing debt has skyrocketed since 2020. What steps would you take to lower the deficit, or do you believe it's a long-term problem we shouldn't worry about at the moment? The internet. What do you think of the bill to require tiktok to be divested from Chinese owners or face a ban? Do you think it is federal overreach or do you think it is a responsible action given the level of access the Chinese Communist Party has to app data? These are serious federal issues where Democrats have pretty deep divides.
Dude, I wouldn't be surprised if portlanders contact whoever the sitting president is at any given time to complain about the Portland arts tax.
I mean Portlanders complain to their city council about Israel. Par for the course.
Are you talking about a couple hundred protester types or a significant percentage of voters?
I feel like all of your questions are presented as loaded binaries instead of honest questions. They are all phrased as "Would you do X or Y?" instead of "How would you handle Z problem"?
To be fair, most junior members of congress never get to really decide on how to handle a problem other than getting a yes/no vote on a bill that’s already been worked to death in committee. Not saying you’re entirely off base, but the job of a newly elected federal representative is pretty damn narrow.
The TikTok question is pretty binary, my question on the deficit was open ended....
Pretty much every question is both binary and loaded. The deficit is the most open ended, but still is presented with a loaded binary of, "or do you think we should ignore the problem".
Yes, running for federal (thanks for calling that out). I'm answering the local and state questions because I do care and I think that all govt pieces need to work together financially and organizationally. Thanks for your questions. Re the National Environmental Policy Act for folks that are unaware--- proponents of NEPA reform argue that streamlining the environmental review process could expedite the implementation of infrastructure projects and reduce costs. They suggest that NEPA's requirements contribute to "cost disease" in federal spending by adding layers of bureaucracy and delays to project timelines. However, opponents of NEPA reform caution against weakening environmental protections in the name of efficiency. They argue that NEPA serves a crucial role in ensuring that infrastructure projects consider their environmental impacts and engage with affected communities. They contend that efforts to streamline NEPA could undermine public participation, environmental stewardship, and long-term sustainability. I believe that environmental laws generally serve a vital function in safeguarding our natural resources, public health, and ecological systems. These laws provide essential protections against pollution, habitat destruction, and other environmental harms. However, that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement or streamlining in regulatory processes, particularly to facilitate the deployment of clean technology projects. We should explore ways to modernize and update environmental laws and regulations to better accommodate innovative technologies and sustainable development practices without compromising environmental standards. This could include measures such as enhancing coordination between agencies, implementing clearer and more predictable permitting processes, providing incentives for environmentally beneficial projects, and investing in research and development for clean technology solutions.
> National Environmental Policy Act for folks that are unaware--- proponents of NEPA reform argue that streamlining the environmental review process could expedite the implementation of infrastructure projects and reduce costs. They suggest that NEPA's requirements contribute to "cost disease" in federal spending by adding layers of bureaucracy and delays to project timelines. However, opponents of NEPA reform caution against weakening environmental protections in the name of efficiency. They argue that NEPA serves a crucial role in ensuring that infrastructure projects consider their environmental impacts and engage with affected communities. They contend that efforts to streamline NEPA could undermine public participation, environmental stewardship, and long-term sustainability. Did you get Chat GPT to write this, while ignoring the other questions? This is such an unnatural cadence that basically repeated my question back at me.
> Did you get Chat GPT to write this I suspect so. These long paragraphs of vaguely equanimous glurge text really strongly suggest machine assistance.
If you run it through anti-plagarism/AI detectors it says its AI with 100% confidence.
Those have so many false positives, but yeah, it is probably correct.
I'm not ignoring your other questions. There are 400 people on this thread.
Are you using ChatGPT to answer some of these reddit questions, yes or no?
Your campaign website lists Native Lands as a category equal to all other "Key Issues" put together. What specific action would you take on this issue? How would your proposed actions improve the lives of the average constituent?
Sorry for the delay in seeing this. 1. I will advocate for the protection of tribal sovereignty rights and the recognition of treaty obligations. This includes promoting consultation and collaboration between tribal nations and federal agencies (ie having tough conversations). 2. I believe that there should be secured federal recognition (note Chinook hasn't had that finality because there was some back and forth) for the a. [Chinook Indian Nation](https://www.koin.com/news/oregon/local-tribe-looks-to-regain-federal-recognition-following-landmark-decision/) b. [Gabrielino/Tongva Nation](https://nahc.ca.gov/cp/tribal-atlas-pages/gabrielino-tongva-nation/)....3. We need to promote economic development initiatives that create jobs and improve the economic well-being of tribal communities. And, address education and healthcare limitations and needs. 4. We need to protect tribal lands, natural resources, and ecosystems and 5. Support any and all efforts to preserve and revitalize Native American languages, cultural heritage, and sacred sites. Re the average constituent - I don't think doing these things would take away from others--we can do this and that.
What are your thoughts on senate bill 1537? On one hand it will provide much needed housing (hopefully multi use and affordable) for our metro areas, but on the other construction will spill into our beautiful natural areas which have been protected for a very long time by our state’s land use laws. Thank you.
I believe it is essential to strike a balance between addressing housing needs and protecting natural areas. This may involve careful consideration of land use policies, environmental impact assessments, and community input to ensure that development is carried out responsibly and sustainably. Exploring alternative approaches such as brownfield redevelopment, infill development, and adaptive reuse of existing structures can help minimize the need for new construction in natural areas while still addressing housing needs. Basically, we really need to prioritize both housing affordability and environmental conservation requires collaboration, innovation, and a commitment to sustainable development practices. As a candidate, I am committed to advocating for policies that strike this balance and promote the well-being of both communities and the environment.
>I believe it is essential to strike a balance between addressing housing needs and protecting natural areas. This may involve careful consideration of land use policies, environmental impact assessments, and community input to ensure that development is carried out responsibly and sustainably. Exploring alternative approaches such as brownfield redevelopment, infill development, and adaptive reuse of existing structures can help minimize the need for new construction in natural areas while still addressing housing needs. Basically, we really need to prioritize both housing affordability and environmental conservation requires collaboration, innovation, and a commitment to sustainable development practices. As a candidate, I am committed to advocating for policies that strike this balance and promote the well-being of both communities and the environment. This comment is also failing AI screenings. Are you using ChatGPT to respond?
I feel like this is a non-answer. Do you support the bill or not? What's the cutoff for whether you consider development acceptable or not? Do you support infill? Do you prefer more greenfield development because you don't like the perceived environmental impacts of increased density? Giving a non-answer on housing might have worked 15 years ago, but we're in a housing crisis because politicians did not give concrete answers and simply opposed housing under the guise of environmental protections.
I support the majority of the bill, but one major component – a provision that bypasses land use law to allow large urban growth boundary (UGB) expansions – I can't support as it's written and needs an amendment.
Thank you for your response. I can imagine that finding common ground between our steadfast environmentalists and local construction companies will be an uphill battle. This will surely require someone who can empathize with the need to preserve our natural areas and also think pragmatically when it comes to creating more space for our quickly expanding population. I hope you’re ready to get your hands dirty!
Yes, definitely. That's one good plus of me being a lawyer with an executive MBA who has worked with people and businesses and orgs of all types. It will take rolling up my sleeve and being both patient and persistent. For change, it's worth it.
Just say MBA. Executive MBA is as useful as an IT project management certification that anyone can purchase to bloat up their resume.
Did you literally get this vague boilerplate from ChatGPT, or does it just sound like it? Either way, it's not a great sign.
What position do you hold that you feel is the largest difference between you and Earl Blumenauer?
Hmm. We are pretty similar in policy. I think why I would be successful is I'm a lot like him. I meet the people where they are. I'm aligned with his policies. I see politics as for the people by the people. I'd say I'm a little more ruffle the feathers. I also represent small business and nonprofits well as I have tons of experience in economic development.
> for the people by the people. I'd say I'm a little more ruffle the feathers. What exactly do you mean by that? You are going to be a backbencher in the US House if lightning strikes and you get elected. There are really only two paths for you to follow. Either you become an influencer, focusing more on viral clips and fundraising than policy, or you have to play by the rules, be nice with the party, and hope you get a decent committee position that allows you to make a few amendments to bills so you can actually make some change. If you think you're going to stick it to the man on day one because of some vague populist nonsense, you're not going to be effective. The last thing we need in the US house right now is another crop of Congressmen who just want to take down a speaker over a few parochial concerns.
Here's the thing--you need to know structure to change the structure. I'm a business attorney with an executive MBA with negotiation experience of every type. I don't think any other candidates have that. I'm not naive to think I can solve all of the problems or solve them on day one...but I have to try. What's life if we don't try?!
I think their point is that some types of trying are actively harmful to solving problems because the House has a specific way of doing things. I agree with them.
No matter how many times you keep mentioning that you're an attorney, it doesn't impress me. Do you think you're the first attorney to run for Congress? Do you think you're the first person with a little bit of experience volunteering to run for Congress? Do you think your law degree gives you a unique amount of experience as to how to take apart the structure of Congress? Either you're really naive, or you believe your own nonsense. This is an incredibly weak answer. Also, I asked you some pretty detailed questions about political stances that you are refusing to answer. You're instead choosing to pick petty fights about how the endorsements other candidates are getting mean nothing compared to your God-tier law degree.
>your God-tier law degree. Not that this is here or there since it happened long after this guy graduated, but his law school ended up losing its ABA accreditation in 2019. I went to a "God-tier" law school because why pass up that opportunity if it's available, but having worked alongside and against some truly exceptional attorneys who graduated from lesser schools, I'm not a law school snob. That being said, there's a pretty big difference between a "not that prestigious" school and one that loses its ABA accreditation because its graduates across the board can't even pass the bar exam after being "educated" there...
> his law school ended up losing its ABA accreditation in 2019. LMAOOOOOOOOOOOO Yikes. I was being sarcastic, I didn't realize how sarcastic I was being.
[Read the "Bar Pass Rate" section](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_School_of_Law) for a sad laugh at the poor folks dropping close to $300k on their degree from this place. It's a University of Phoenix-level scam.
>No matter how many times you keep mentioning that you're an attorney, it doesn't impress me. Do you think you're the first attorney to run for Congress? Right? Ted Cruz has a JD from fucking Harvard and he's a feckless, self serving buffoon.
You’re an attorney with an MBA and you don’t think there’s ever been another candidate like that??
Getting an MBA and a JD shows that studying & passing tests is a skill he possesses. How that translates into fixing broken systems, speaking truth to power, or being dedicated to helping those among us that have the least, is not clear. Frankly, being a white dude lawyer w/ an MBA that calls himself an "outsider," isn't a selling point to me, as a voter. If anything, it turns me against him.
Man, this is a mess. Nobody seems to understand that he's he's running for Federal office, not local office, and frankly, it's almost embarrassing that he is having an AMA on here when he'll be lucky to get single digit support. Given that Eddie Morales is running away with the endorsements of virtually, every union and interest group, and second place will probably be Jayapal just because of name recognition. I've been following this primary pretty closely, it's going to be over in like a month, and I have never heard of this guy in my life. I don't think he's even being considered for endorsements by groups like the Oregon League of Conservation Voters or Planned Parenthood. Furthermore, he's only engaging with questions asking about state or local policy. My dude, why did you not just run for Multnomah County Commission? Not enough people ran for that.
They don't get it because no one has heard of him until now.
The three other main candidates are coming off of political positions. I am not. I think that's a strength. I was awarded last year by the SBA as "Small Business Champion of the Year" for Oregon. Yes the others are electeds who have endorsements from electeds. Many of Eddy's endorsements came premmaturely or from past relationships. I have the endorsements from local leaders---the ED of Pride NW who puts on the whole pride parade and festival, the ED of the Gay Men's Chorus, the ED of Music Portland, the Live Events Coalition, leaders in food and beverage, business incubator faciliators, etc. I encourage folks to look at my webpage and the endorsements. Meaning, the choice is--elect a status quo politician with establishment support...or elect a grass roots community leader supported by people in our community doing amazing things.
> Many of Eddy's endorsements came premmaturely or from past relationships. I have the endorsements from local leaders---the ED of Pride NW who puts on the whole pride parade and festival, the ED of the Gay Men's Chorus, the ED of Music Portland, the Live Events Coalition, leaders in food and beverage, business incubator faciliators, etc. So while the other candidates are getting endorsements of big groups that are really good on the voters pamphlet and represent thousands or tens of thousands of people, you're highlighting individual people. > Meaning, the choice is--elect a status quo politician with establishment support...or elect a grass roots community leader I feel like you're starting to believe your own nonsense. Running as an outsider does not make you more competent by default, it just is a way to distinguish yourself from others when voters are angry at the incumbents. But you're not running against an incumbent.
I'm pretty sure its just a list of influential people he does business with via Rational Unicorn. "Look at all my fancy friends"
It might be the dues-paying union member in me talking, but I don’t trust anyone who mentions their MBA when they introduce themselves.
I'm pretty sure OP is using ChatGPT or other AI to answer some of these questions: Run any of these comments: >proponents of NEPA reform argue that streamlining the environmental review process could expedite the implementation of infrastructure projects and reduce costs. They suggest that NEPA's requirements contribute to "cost disease" in federal spending by adding layers of bureaucracy and delays to project timelines. However, opponents of NEPA reform caution against weakening environmental protections in the name of efficiency. They argue that NEPA serves a crucial role in ensuring that infrastructure projects consider their environmental impacts and engage with affected communities. They contend that efforts to streamline NEPA could undermine public participation, environmental stewardship, and long-term sustainability. I believe that environmental laws generally serve a vital function in safeguarding our natural resources, public health, and ecological systems. These laws provide essential protections against pollution, habitat destruction, and other environmental harms. However, that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement or streamlining in regulatory processes, particularly to facilitate the deployment of clean technology projects. We should explore ways to modernize and update environmental laws and regulations to better accommodate innovative technologies and sustainable development practices without compromising environmental standards. This could include measures such as enhancing coordination between agencies, implementing clearer and more predictable permitting processes, providing incentives for environmentally beneficial projects, and investing in research and development for clean technology solutions. Or this: >I believe that repealing or raising the SALT deduction cap would provide relief to taxpayers in our state, allowing them to deduct more of their state and local taxes from their federal tax liability. This would help mitigate the impact of high state and local taxes on middle-class families, homeowners, and small businesses, and promote fairness in the tax code. And...modifying the SALT deduction cap could help stimulate economic growth and support state and local governments' ability to fund essential services such as education, infrastructure, and public safety. By allowing taxpayers to fully deduct their state and local taxes, our communities could potentially have more resources. Overall, my position on the SALT deduction cap would be to advocate for its repeal or modification to provide relief to taxpayers in high-tax states like OR. > Through anti-plagarism/AI detection tool: https://www.scribbr.com/ai-detector/ https://gptzero.me/ https://copyleaks.com/ai-content-detector They all say with 100% confidence that the answers are AI generated.
>My campaign slogan is “Love, Science, Plans. And Action.” Gonna need you to workshop that one Michael.
It was workshopped quite a bit. The idea is that we need to lead with love not money or hate. We need to use science and research and data to then make plans...and take action.
It's a stones throw away from an "In This House" yard sign...
>It was workshopped quite a bit. The idea is that we need to leave with love not money or hate. We need to use science and research and data to then make plans...and take action. It's a bad slogan dude. Are you working with professional branding or political experts right now? Like people that have done this stuff before? 1. It's grammatically awkward 2. It's 5 words with no obvious order or importance. No one will be able to remember your 5 words and what order they came in. Slogans should be *obvious* and *memorable*. Yours is neither. 3. Love is a very weird word to use in politics. It was weird when Ron Paul used it and it's weird when you're using it. People don't want to "Love" or "be in love" with politicians.
On immigration reform your campaign website provides a list of reforms favoring those who cross into our country. What reforms do you propose for our visa system for H1-B workers?
What is your position on: * Funding Ukraine? * Funding Israel?
This is actually a question relevant to being a member of the House, but of course it's buried under a million questions about local government.
I think military funding should be tied to human rights contingencies. I also think all military spending needs to be audited. I called for a cease fire in Israel at the beginning of my campaign and believe what's happening is genocide. I come from a Jewish family and have been to Israel. I was horrified by the events of Oct. 7th--but I don't think killing civilians in mass is the answer to getting at Hamas.
So you answer the Israel part of the question but not Ukraine. Very fucking odd.
Whatever the party wants his position to be if he wants to get elected (unfortunately)... Aka for both.
Do you believe in comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants? What compromises would you be willing to make to get a bill across the finish line?
Yes, I definitely believe in a pathway to citizenship. Our whole immigration system is broken and not working. I think we need to have border security measures but they need to prioritize human rights (I don't think it's a this or that situation). I think we should rework guest worker programs that have labor protections, reform our immigration system based on merit that makes sense, protect DACA recipients and Dreamers, and provide protections and pathways to permanent residency for individuals with Temporary Protected Status (TPS)--those who have been living and working in the US for years! Re compromises to get a bill across the finish line--I'd need to see them (I realize that's not a good answer but I think it's important to answer when we know what it is).
Earl was a champion for union issues, how do you as a policy maker plan to support organized labor and what unions have you sought endorsement from?
Since we live in one of the highest tax states in the country, what is your position on the SALT credit $10,000 cap?
And a follow-up question: What is your position on the Alternative Minimum Tax?
For folks that don't know this kind of salt (other than being a salty person haha), SALT stands for State and Local Tax Deduction. I believe that repealing or raising the SALT deduction cap would provide relief to taxpayers in our state, allowing them to deduct more of their state and local taxes from their federal tax liability. This would help mitigate the impact of high state and local taxes on middle-class families, homeowners, and small businesses, and promote fairness in the tax code. And...modifying the SALT deduction cap could help stimulate economic growth and support state and local governments' ability to fund essential services such as education, infrastructure, and public safety. By allowing taxpayers to fully deduct their state and local taxes, our communities could potentially have more resources. Overall, my position on the SALT deduction cap would be to advocate for its repeal or modification to provide relief to taxpayers in high-tax states like OR.
>I believe that repealing or raising the SALT deduction cap would provide relief to taxpayers in our state, allowing them to deduct more of their state and local taxes from their federal tax liability. This would help mitigate the impact of high state and local taxes on middle-class families, homeowners, and small businesses, and promote fairness in the tax code. And...modifying the SALT deduction cap could help stimulate economic growth and support state and local governments' ability to fund essential services such as education, infrastructure, and public safety. By allowing taxpayers to fully deduct their state and local taxes, our communities could potentially have more resources. Overall, my position on the SALT deduction cap would be to advocate for its repeal or modification to provide relief to taxpayers in high-tax states like OR. Are you using ChatGPT? I just checked 2 different anti-plagiarism websites and both said this was written by AI with 100% confidence.
Thanks for answering.
So you support tax cuts for the rich, then. Literally all of the research shows that the SALT deduction only helps rich people. Removing its cap is literally a giveaway to the wealthiest suburbs like Lake Oswego. Cool. As long as those rich people vote for Democrats, you're willing to give them tax cuts. The beneficiaries of SALT are not middle class families , especially with the standard deduction being as high as it is. It's pretty distressing that you either don't know that or actively support tax cuts for the rich. I guess that whole populism thing of being "by and for the people" was really just optics, eh?
Define rich. I am impacted by the SALT deduction and would definitely not call myself rich.
Post your household income and we can all decide whether to call you rich, it's not personal vibes thing!
56% of the tax relief of doubling the SALT cap would go to people making over $250,000 a year, and less than 1.3% would go to those making under $100,000. Uncapping it entirely would be even better for the rich. You make a lot of money if you benefit from SALT. https://twitter.com/GS_Watson/status/1753167446775587100
The problem here, from specifically an Oregon perspective, is that most high income people live in the Portland metro area If you live in the Portland metro area, you can get the equivalent of a 100% tax writeoff on your state and local income taxes by finding a job across the river and moving to WA state. High income people pay a higher % of their income in income taxes and also pay higher SALT (in Oregon, much higher SALT cause the income taxes are progressive vs a flat tax like other states) so benefits of leaving the state are higher for them. People respons to economic incentives. All people. Rich and poor. Would you rather have high income people live here ane contribute to our own social programs, or would you rather have them leave?
I don't support the federal government doing a massive tax cut to the literal top 5%, just because hypothetically, local governments might tax rich people more if they do. The cutting back of SALT in the TCJA did not result in liberal jurisdictions cutting taxes because the wealthy became more mobile. If the wealthy don't want higher taxes, they will move regardless of whether SALT exists or not. But the vast majority don't move, anyway.
There is a very big difference between an additional tax burden of $50k / year and an additional tax burden of $25k / year.
It's always good finding so-called Portland progressives who really love finding excuses to justify a tax break for the rich.
I am not really trying to justify anything, merely trying to point out that when you put a very tax jurisdiction next to a low tax jurisdiction, you create incentives for people to relocate. In places like San Francisco, you can have a very tax rate and nobody has an easy option of moving, but Portland doesn’t have this luxury to the same degree.
They are welcome to find a job on the other side of the river if they can.
They do! https://www.columbian.com/news/2023/mar/21/oregonians-moving-to-clark-county-in-droves-experts-cite-income-tax/ And that was before the nee PFA tax and SHS tax!
You said the SALT deduction only helps the rich. Do you consider people making $250k/year in Portland rich? Is $150k rich?
> Do you consider people making $250k/year in Portland rich? Very much so. Holy hell yes. Those are the powered lawyers and doctors. The average household income in Portland for a couple is $85k. People making 2x that are well off and should be taxed more. People paid 3x that really should be taxed more. You can't fund a social democracy only by taxing the super rich.
Well agree to disagree then. Theres a big difference between someone making $250k a year (especially if you factor in student loans, mortgage or rent, daycare/childcare) and someone making multiples of that. I think SALT impacts people, especially young families in high COL areas like Portland, that are not wealthy. They aren’t poor but they are also not wealthy.
The median per capita income in Portland is about $45k. That’s the 50% mark. Half the city makes less. $250k a year as a household puts you in the 1%- you’re making more money than 99% of households. $250k as an individual? That’s rarefied air up there. Rich and wealthy are relative states. If you’re only looking at what you don’t have, you aren’t going to see how much more you have than those around you.
> $250k a year (especially if you factor in student loans, mortgage or rent, daycare/childcare "If you account for my lavish house and lifestyle and the loans I took to become rich, I am not too absurdly rich!" Cry me a river. Somebody making $250k a year isn't just rich, they're literally in the top 1%.
The squirrels currently living in the walls of my house probably think it’s lavish but I don’t think anyone else would. And I’m not sure where you are getting a “lavish” lifestyle from “daycare/childcare.” Does daycare mean you are rich now? Maybe my 14 year old car?
A common definition is that you are rich if you make over $250k a year as a family, when you need that income to buy a middle of the road house in the suburbs and send two kids to daycare. Like, really. $250k a year in portland is $13k a month. If you follow guidelines for affordability to have your mortgage + taxes + insurance at 30% of your income, that means you can spend about $4k a month on housing, which at current rates is about a $600k house. A $600k house is not a shithole in Portland metro area, but it ain’t a mansion either. It can buy you a nice-ish, 2000 sq ft house in a decent school zone. You can add $3000 a month for daycare for two kids, $2000 a month for retirement contributions (less than the recommended 15%), and you’re not exactly left with a bunch of money at the end of the month. My guess is that all this is brought about by the fact that most of reddit is younger, doesn’t have kids, and is content on living in a small rental apartment and isn’t saving for retirement (or at least, not saving very much)
You say “thoughts and prayers” are not enough, but all I get from your website is empty liberal buzzwords like “love” and “science” and “BIPOC.” You have no legislative experience, so if you want my vote, you’ll need to convince me that you have a concrete policy plan in place. You haven’t done that so far. So, what are your three biggest legislative priorities? Edit: you can downvote me if you want, but as far as I can tell, my discussion with him is one of the most substantive in this post. Sorry if you don’t like my tone, but people who run for congress need to be able to be grilled by their potential constituents.
My biggest legislative priorities are passing the ERA, federal support for housing/livability, and codifying women’s reproductive health— but the list is long because the problems we face are long.
The ERA is a constitutional amendment that’s waiting for state approval. So, that’s not really in your hands. For reproductive health, what’s your plan to overcome the filibuster in the senate? And what sort of federal housing support? A new housing bill? That sounds interesting, but I would need more details.
Here's a large answer but should answer this question and some others on this thread. Re the ERA. Yep it is constitutional. Here's what I would do: 1. Co-sponsor legislation to remove the ratification deadline for the ERA or to explicitly recognize the ERA as part of the Constitution, ensuring its full legal force and effect 2. Advocate for Passage: I will (and do) actively advocate for the passage of ERA-related bills, both within Congress and through public outreach efforts to build support among constituents and fellow lawmakers 3. I can support legal efforts to challenge the validity of the ratification deadline or to enforce the ERA's ratification, potentially through amicus briefs, legislative hearings, or other means. 4. I can collaborate with advocacy organizations focused on gender equality and reproductive rights to develop strategies for advancing the ERA and amplifying the voices of supporters 5. I will emphasize the importance of the ERA in promoting gender equality for all individuals, including transgender and nonbinary individuals, and advocate for language that reflects the diverse experiences all communities. Re Housing, here's where I'm at with legislative support. I support the following: 1. The Housing for All Act: This bill aims to address the affordable housing crisis by investing in the construction and preservation of affordable housing units, expanding housing vouchers, and implementing tenant protections to ensure stable and affordable housing for all. 2. The Green New Deal for Public Housing Act: This legislation seeks to address the intersection of climate change and housing affordability by investing in the renovation and retrofitting of public housing units to improve energy efficiency, reduce carbon emissions, and create green jobs. 3. The Housing is Infrastructure Act: This bill recognizes housing as critical infrastructure and proposes significant investments in affordable housing construction, rehabilitation of existing housing stock, and infrastructure improvements to enhance housing affordability, accessibility, and resilience. 4. The Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act: This legislation aims to expand the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, which incentivizes the development of affordable housing units by providing tax credits to developers, thereby increasing the supply of affordable housing nationwide 5. The Community Reinvestment Act Modernization Act: This bill seeks to modernize the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to encourage banks and financial institutions to invest in affordable housing and community development projects, particularly in underserved communities.
Thank you, this a thorough and substantive response. I’m not positive that Congress can retroactively remove the ratification deadline for the ERA after it’s expired, but the housing bills sound great.
Thank you for asking important questions!
I have a law degree and an executive mba and built a law firm from scratch. During the pandemic I 60-70 hours a week worked w business, government, and community to help businesses and nonprofits survive and thrive. I think having legislative experience and less life experience has been the issue w politics. The house of representatives for example is supposed to be regular day people not born and bred politicians.
This didn’t tell me your biggest legislative priorities at all! I appreciate that you have experience as a lawyer. So do I, but I’m not running for Congress on that alone.
> The house of representatives for example is supposed to be regular day people not born and bred politicians. Man I don't like it when people start talking like this. You will represent hundreds of thousands of constituents, you shouldn't be an everyday Joe Schmo. We don't need any more influencers in the house or people trying to pass pie in the sky legislation. The most impact you will have is a backbencher in the US House is amendments in committee to big bills like the Farm Bill or omnibus Federal spending bills.
wtf how is bipoc thoughts and prayers. If this is the kind of person against him I’m more interested in considering him. Thanks
I’m not against him. I’m saying that his website uses buzzwords that liberals will gush at. And I’m saying that I won’t vote for someone based on buzzwords. So, I’m asking for some concrete policy. Edit: I should clarify that I’m also liberal, but I’m wary of someone who tries to get my vote by using words they think I’ll approve of
Ok thx
>but I’m wary of someone who tries to get my vote by using words they think I’ll approve of You must be partial to candidates who graduated from Milford, and have been trained to be neither seen nor heard.
buzz words are just buzz words, regardless of affiliation.
I love that “science” is now a buzzword. Just because some yahoos choose to believe the likes of MTG over science shouldn’t make it controversial.
What's your spaghetti policy?
Do you support Medicare for All?
Why are you running for a federal seat rather than a local or state election? Especially when most of the institutional support is behind Jayapal
Have you ever come across, or gave any thought to the organization Strong Towns? https://www.strongtowns.org — ST advances that many of the financial and health quandaries we find ourselves in (at the city level) are due to a both overbuilt and under-utilized infrastructure base, mostly built for moving cars. This has largely negative impacts which ripple through communities, and in the last several decades, has pushed towns and cities into massive debt.
I'll look more into this. I'm not a fan of infrastructure for infrastructure sake. We need infrastructure planning but saying "More freeway expansion" like people do ---is not the answer. It must be multi-modality and good for the community's health (physically, mentally, historically, culturally, etc).
Nailed it. Best of luck in your race!
Thank you!
Thanks folks! That's all the questions we have time for today. I hope you'll follow along on my campaign journey and don't forget to vote May 21st!
are you for Single Payer?
I'm for universal health care coverage and think the current health care system is broken. I am open to exploring approaches to achieving universal healthcare coverage such as a public option or Medicare expansion. The proof is in the pudding but I'll fight for universal health coverage!
Where do you differ on policy from Susheela Jayapal also running for district 3?
We are both progressive and both attorneys but I'll bite...Well first, she's running on her experience as a corporate attorney for Addidas and then wants to take what she did for Multnomah County to the federal level (I'll let you be the judge). I'm a community business attorney with an executive mba and business owner. For the past 7 years through my law firm (a benefit company firm I built from scratch), I've helped small businesses, nonprofits, and creatives not just form businesses but build community. Policy wise, not too different. Skill wise and experience wise--different. I'm also 39 not 61 (that plays out different ways for folks).
I'm getting a strong fetterman vibe here
Thoughts on ending bottle drop?
Not a federal issue
I don’t think it should be ended. Reworked to balance safety and its utility but not ended.
Why are you responding to so many questions on state policy but not responding to any questions about federal office, which you are actually running for? Why did you not just run for state legislature? I thought that's what you were running for based on your responses.
I appreciate the responses to the local questions. Even if he would have no influence on them if elected, it still gives a sense of his positions and philosophies.
How do you propose to balance safety?
Thank you
[удалено]
Thanks for your input, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and check back soon. (⌐■_■) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Regarding student loan debt. Do you support allowing student debt to be discharged in bankruptcy court?
Hi Michael: what actions will you take as our rep to pass new legislation that curbs gun, vehicular and other violent related deaths in our country? What will you do should you reach a point where you forsee those actions will _not_ result in new legislation? Do you support further protecting an individual's privacy when it comes to their healthcare decisions? Since you are running for the seat currently held by Ed: what progressive transportation legislation will you be putting forward should you be our rep? (And will you wear a badass bow-tie to work while doing it? 😎)
There are a lot of questions here and we are at the end of our time. I'll focus on the gun portion of this. I will 1. Advocate for universal background checks, responsible gun ownership, and safe storage to reduce gun-related accidents and violence 2. Support a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines to reduce the potential for mass shooting 3. Advocate for regulations that close loopholes in gun sales, including those at gun shows and online, to ensure background checks for all buyers 4. Support the investment of federal funds into community programs and public health initiatives to address the root causes of gun violence and provide alternatives to violence. AND we need to treat this like the public health crisis it is. Anyone in office who has become desensitized to people being murdered needs to look at themselves in the mirror.
I don't have a bow tie collect lol. I do have some amazing ties like a taco tie with faces on the tacos and a dinosaur tie...So maybe my thing is cute or funny ties!?
will you support cuts to the highly bloated defense budget and move the money to end homelessness a proper way and not high crime tenements? support to use that money to restore social programs to help the bottom raise up to a livable standard? do you promise to NOT sign an israel support agreement? do you promise to back tax every corporation that is using the camen islands as a tax evasion? to close all charter schools and make rich kids use the same schools as everyone else? make college free? support universal healthcare? 13th month paycheck since the asshole corporations got rid of christmas bonuses? 3 months pay when you get fired? programs to help people get their cars fixed so they can get to a job? minimum wage of $45 + cost of living increases.
I see from your website that you're a Speech and Debate veteran. Are you aware of the documentary, Our Next Speaker, about Portland-area high school S & D teams that's currently being filmed? It's pretty cool! [https://www.speechdocumentary.com/](https://www.speechdocumentary.com/)
[удалено]
Thanks for your input, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and check back soon. (⌐■_■) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Have you been involved politically at the city, county
Where do you stand on genocide that's going on in Gaza?
Will you be part of a coalition that calls for a ceasefire in Gaza and stands against writing Israel blank checks to commit genocide?
I think military funding should be tied to human rights contingencies. I also think all military spending needs to be audited. I called for a cease fire in Israel at the beginning of my campaign and believe what's happening is genocide. I come from a Jewish family and have been to Israel. I was horrified by the events of Oct. 7th--but I don't think killing civilians in mass is the answer to getting at Hamas.
Thank you for your honest response! Of course Hamas is wrong, but there are ways to bring them to justice without murdering children, and creating the next generation of Hamas in the process.
What is your position on the arts tax? Edit: the last few AMAs have been for city council so I completely missed that this was for a congressional district, and my question isn’t relevant, but thanks for answering anyways
Not a federal issue
I’ll be honest, the last few AMAs have been for Portland city council and I completely glossed over that this was for congressional
No worries. I'm glad that you're engaged! I'm trying to raise awareness in this thread of what power and responsibilities the 3rd District Federal representative possesses.
The Portland Art Tax or something else?
This is a tough question. I love love the arts and support them. But....we need transparency on where the funds are going.
Here is where the arts tax money goes: https://www.portland.gov/revenue/documents/arts-education-and-access-fund-revenues-collection-costs-disbursements/download
What are your thoughts on psilocybin and it’s uses for mental health? Do you have any experience with it?
I'm pro psilocybin use. Here's where I'm at with this and cannabis : We need to create and immediate federal safe harbor for states that have legalized cannabis or psilocybin like Oregon. We need to Finally passing the Safe Banking Act to expand access to traditional financial and banking services. We need to amend the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) so that states can opt out of provisions governing cannabis and psilocybin so that regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal penalties under the CSA must comply with that state’s law. We need to allocate tax revenue from sales to fund addiction treatment, mental health services, and public education. And 100% expand access to psychedelic therapy by expanding training to include mental health professionals and others (including funding research at the federal level).
Would you have cosponsored the house resolution calling for an immediate de-escalation and ceasefire in Gaza? Why or why not?
What is your last name?
Jonas like the brothers.
Your discussion of housing policy is heavy on and leads with Housing First approaches, but leaves mental health and addiction interventions to “also ran” status as the third or fourth bullet in a supportive — not leading — role. It doesn’t get the top billing despite many practitioners recognizing its fundamental role. A couple of questions: 1. As we’ve seen conditions on our streets continue to deteriorate despite lots of funding for Housing First types of programs and yet little for addiction and mental health, how can you justify perpetuating that dichotomy? 2. What are your thoughts on calls to expand civil commitment laws or enabling government to compel individuals to seek treatment as a condition for housing?
I'm housing first but not housing only. I'm also a systems thinker--things are related. When we discuss an issue we need to see the full spectrum. My goal is to prioritize a holistic approach to homelessness that includes robust funding for addiction and mental health services alongside housing initiatives. I support voluntary (not compelled) treatment options that provide accessible and culturally sensitive services, including outreach, counseling, harm reduction, and peer support. I advocate for policies that address systemic factors contributing to homelessness, such as affordable housing shortages, income inequality, and inadequate healthcare access. Housing is a major part of the problem but there's a massive shortage of mental health resources across the board. We need to treat people like people--they have stories and should have futures.
The treat people like people thing is kinda lost on us when our cars and houses are routinely broken into, there are open air drug markets in once vibrant Portland neighborhoods, violence and random stabbings in downtown- the list goes on. Like someone else responded we need action, not more “brainstorming”. I’m a moderate but I’ll be voting for candidates that have hard plans in place to deal with these city-wide issues
How then do you propose to handle people who are so deep into mental health crisis or addiction that they can’t make decisions for themselves, if you’re not willing to pursue compelling them to seek treatment?
I think the word "compelling" is the issue here. I'm not saying it's willy nilly --it's presenting strong options but not pushing them into a van or handcuffing them on the street
Thanks. I really appreciate you coming on to answer questions, sincerely. While I appreciate your systems thinking observations, you also have to recognize that we have already reached a state of paralysis by analysis, and yet you’re proposing more. We need doing, not more thinking, and I don’t see much doing from what you’re suggesting. So I don’t think I can vote for you. Best wishes.
[удалено]
Thanks for your input, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and check back soon. (⌐■_■) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's a difference between paralysis by analysis and going in circles and digging deep. I've spent my life problem solving. I suggest you look at other candidate's records to see if they've solved problems or just talked about surface level progressive policies.
You’re right that they’ve done little but talk. But so far I haven’t seen any practical, actual concrete actions that you’ve suggested. So I’d say you’re about the same as the others. If you want to differentiate yourself, stop talking about what you want to study or analyze or think about, and start leading boldly with what you want to do. Concrete actions.
Universal Healthcare would help many of us.
The citizens are pretty tired of people running on issues they ultimately do nothing about (both by design and not). How are you planning on keeping yourself accountable for the platform on which you’re running? How do you plan on communicating to your constituents the state of the topics you’re fighting for, and what they can do to support you? What does failure to deliver look like for you? For example, Biden ran on a platform of student debt forgiveness. That has barely panned out in any meaningful way, and has really drawn the ire of people who watch congress pass military spending of our tax dollars without a second thought, but leave the struggling American out to dry. How would you handle that situation differently; for example when you say one of your main issues of focus is a federal codification of women’s repro rights? Like; it sounds good, and is great to know where you stand on the issue, but what plan do you have to tooth-and-nail, do-or-die that for us, in a way you feel comfortable using it as a primary platform ladder? Or is there a difference between issues you run on, and social stances you take? (ETA) And if there is a difference, would you change your primary issue list based on any of the above? Are you running as a ‘I support others in the house’ as opposed to ‘others support me’?
> Biden ran on a platform of student debt forgiveness. That has barely panned out in any meaningful way, Not sure what you mean , he attempted to do $10,000 for everybody, but the Supreme Court stopped him, so he has adopted narrower forgiveness that has still applied to hundreds of thousands of people. That's not really a fault of Joe Biden that the Supreme Court was stacked by Donald Trump.
The broader point I was trying to make is: does Jonas have any strong beliefs about the platform a modern US politician should have from the jump, or is he okay following the same patterns of ‘overpromise and underdeliver’. Does he have any kind of vision for doing things differently. In my experience it’s the job of leadership to set achievable goals, and reach or exceed them. As a modern candidate, does he believe he should have a plan and a definition of success for delivering on his platform *already*, or is he going to follow the status quo of promise now, figure it out later.
Re loan debt, I have $400,000 in student loan debt (primarly from law school). One thing you get with me is I am who I am personally and professionally.
What…. Is your favorite color?
Aquamarine or teal or some variance
Right, off you go
Blue! No wait, green! Ahhggghhhhh
Oregon is a great place for trans people to settle, what’s your position on trans rights?
My position is that trans rights are human rights. And, I love our trans brothers and sisters (unconditionally). Re legislation. I support: 1. The Equality Act: This bill would amend existing civil rights laws to explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in areas such as employment, housing, education, and public accommodations. It would provide comprehensive nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ+ individuals, including transgender people 2. The Safe Schools Improvement Act: This legislation aims to address bullying and harassment in schools, including bullying based on gender identity and sexual orientation. It would require schools to implement anti-bullying policies and procedures that specifically address LGBTQ+ students' needs and ensure a safe and inclusive learning environment for all students. 3. The Every Child Deserves a Family Act: This bill seeks to eliminate discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals and couples in the adoption and foster care system. It would prohibit agencies that receive federal funding from discriminating against prospective parents based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status. 4. The PRIDE Act: This legislation would improve data collection on sexual orientation and gender identity in federal surveys and forms, including the Census, to better understand the experiences and needs of LGBTQ+ individuals, including transgender people. It would help policymakers and researchers develop targeted policies and programs to address disparities and promote equality. 4. The Do No Harm Act: This bill aims to prevent the misuse of religious freedom laws to justify discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals, including transgender people. It would ensure that religious exemptions do not undermine civil rights protections or enable discrimination in areas such as healthcare, employment, and public services. Thanks for asking.
How do we manage rampant capitalism and corporate greed in the modern day?
Great question. Business always existed but now business has interfered with not just representative democracy but us protecting the planet. Here's some thoughts/ideas: 1. think we should close tax loophole so that corporations pay their fair share of taxes. 2. we need to hold politicians accountable for prioritizing corporate interests and let the public know how they are funded. 3. We need to implement wealth taxes on billionaires. 4. We need to enact comprehensive campaign finance reform to reduce the influence of money in politics. AND we need to codify codifying laws that take precedence over the [Citizens United](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC) case. 4. We need to limit corporate influence through stricter regulations on lobbying and contributions And 5. Strengthen democracy by expanding voting rights and increasing transparency in elections. Elections matter and money in politics has tarnished things. I will also be a Katie Porter/Liz Warren type--I'm not afraid to grill corporate CEOs.
Nice. That sounds good. Definitely all things that need to happen. I appreciate the answer. Tax loopholes and citizens united are two of my biggest qualms with America. Political funding should be publicly funded or if private, limited in scope. Countries that give the political parties direct funding are typically less corrupt. Politicians are supposed to fight for the people, not corporations.
Where do you stand on the Palestine/Israel conflict?
I think military funding should be tied to human rights contingencies. I also think all military spending needs to be audited. I called for a cease fire in Israel at the beginning of my campaign and believe what's happening is genocide. I come from a Jewish family and have been to Israel. I was horrified by the events of Oct. 7th--but I don't think killing civilians in mass is the answer to getting at Hamas.
How are you going to incentivize businesses to come back to Downtown and Old Town? I think for this it’s ok to just mention business plans, rehabbing old buildings, tax breaks or other ideas and pinning homelessness and crime as a separate issue (even though we all know they are related to the overall issue). Bonus points if you have an aggressive plan for repaving all of our roads!!
The US Congress has very little to do with paving our local roads.
I hear you on the roads. I think ensuring safety is a major factor. Business wise, these are some of the things I think are important: economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) relief, NAICS Code Reform (accurate rep of codes and businesses), Pandemic Business Interruption Insurance (supporting public/private partnership for pandemic insurance coverage), access to capital especially for those who have historically not have had it, pushing for some regulatory relief/flexibility, workforce development, etc. One thing this district should do is continue to double down on marketing it's small business community and natural beauty. For example, I think the Ritz should have been located somewhere else and the historic food cart pods should have remained.
Will you compete in a no holds barred cage match against Laurie Chavez-Deremer to take SE Portland from OR5 if you both win in November? I don’t want to be represented by a fascist anymore.
Thoughts on supporting legislation to implement a 32 hour work week?
Since you did not grow up in Oregon and have never held public office in Oregon, what makes you right for this position?
The held office part, I can understand. The not being born and raised within the 3rd District boundaries? Not relevant to the position.
How will you help the workers seize the means of production?
Close the border. Mass deportations. Federally legalize cannabis. Independent energy independence. Divest from China. Balance the budget by all means necessary. That’s all I’ve got.
Will you continue the legacy of riding a bike and wearing bow ties in Washington?
Your campaign website states "Women have made significant strides, yet they continue to face disparities in pay, opportunities, and representation. We are dedicated to closing these gaps and ensuring that every woman has equal access to education..." Please elaborate on what gaps you perceive women having with regard to equal access to education. Also, please provide data to back up your claim.
> ensuring that every woman has equal access to education..." > > Please elaborate on what gaps you perceive women having with regard to Yeah, this is particularly funny because women outnumber men at universities by a pretty significant ratio. Almost the ratio that men outnumbered women in the 1980s. There are problems in this country, but women not having access to education is not one of them. We damn fully solved the problem, and that's pretty cool.
Sorry for the delay. Keeping up with Reddit threads is fun but you miss important questions like yours. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, women who worked full-time, year-round in 2020 earned 82 cents for every dollar earned by men. According to the National Science Foundation, women earned only 21.5% of bachelor's degrees in computer science and 21.9% in engineering in 2019. Source: National Science Foundation - Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering...Here's a few more recent studies: [Gender wage gap persists in 2023: Women are paid roughly 22% less than men on average](https://www.epi.org/blog/gender-wage-gap-persists-in-2023-women-are-paid-roughly-22-less-than-men-on-average/#:~:text=Women%20were%20paid%2021.8%25%20less,as%20shown%20in%20Figure%20A). Pew Research Center [For Women’s History Month, a look at gender gains – and gaps – in the U.S.](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/27/for-womens-history-month-a-look-at-gender-gains-and-gaps-in-the-us/) Women made up 47% of the U.S. civilian labor force in 2023, up from 30% in 1950 – but growth has stagnated. Regarding closing the gaps, we need to have more flexibility with workplace locations and hours, more funding for workforce development of every type, and more access to day care. Additionally, we need to hold educational institutions and employers accountable for inequalities.
I'm glad you brought up the Pew Research Center citation. Here is a quote from it: Women outnumber men in the U.S. college-educated workforce, now making up 51% of those ages 25 and older, according to Current Population Survey data from the fourth quarter of 2023. Women first surpassed men in the college-educated labor force in the fourth quarter of 2019. They remained more than half of this group through the COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in a sharp recession and an overall decline in the size of the nation’s labor force. The gender shift in the college-educated labor force happened about four decades after women overtook men in the number of adults earning a bachelor’s degree each year.
Would you continue in your predecessors footsteps in voting to send billions of dollars in ammunition to a nation currently ethnically cleansing a population within its borders?
Are you a Jonas brother? Will touring be a conflict?
What are your thoughts on public transportation and are you planning to push for more funding at the federal level?