Mark Pitrone's Issue Positions (Political Courage Test)
Key
Official Position: Candidate addressed this issue directly by taking the Political Courage Test.
Inferred Position: Candidate refused to address this issue, but Vote Smart inferred this issue based on the candidate's public record, including statements, voting record, and special interest group endorsements.
Unknown Position: Candidate refused to address this issue, or we could not infer an answer for this candidate despite exhaustive research of their public record.
Additional Information: Click on this icon to reveal more information about this candidate's position, from their answers or Vote Smart's research.
Other or Expanded Principles & Legislative Priorities are entered exactly as candidates submit them. Vote Smart does not edit for misspelled words, punctuation or grammar.
Mark Pitrone has provided voters with clear stances on key issues by responding to the 2020 Political Courage Test.
Ohio Congressional Election 2020 Political Courage Test
| Pro-life | Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation? | ||
| In my opinion, based on my understanding of basic biology and biblical texts, all corporeal life begins at conception. Without life, there can be no growth. As soon as the first cell division occurs, life is PROVEN to exist. I hold a Th.B and am an ordained minister. | |||
| No | In order to balance the budget, do you support an income tax increase on any tax bracket? | ||
| No | Do you support expanding federal funding to support entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare? | ||
| I do support shifting funds from other departments/programs, either by reducing or eliminating other programs or departments of government. | |||
| Yes | Do you support the regulation of indirect campaign contributions from corporations and unions? | ||
| If corporations/unions/other entities are in support of a candidate, why would they not proudly acknowledge their support? Of course, the corp/union may wish to openly support one candidate/program while 'hedging its bet' by supporting the opposing candidate 'on the down low'. I would personally give the duplicitous entity its $$$ back, if such duplicity came to my attention. | |||
| No | Do you support increasing defense spending? | ||
| As things seem to stand at this moment, there is no need to increase defence spending. Roughly $800B/yr. should be MORE than sufficient. Now, if we were to be forced to engage in a knock-down, drag-out fight for our existence, that story would change in a heart-beat. | |||
| No | Do you support federal spending as a means of promoting economic growth? | ||
| Yes | Do you support lowering corporate taxes as a means of promoting economic growth? | ||
| Both of these options are much more complicated than a "Yes/No" option can adequately answer, and 100 words are not enough. Economic growth MAY be spurred by federal spending, but what area of the economy would be targeted and for what spending? And who profits by it? I believe the federal government is MUCH too profligate in its spending in areas in which it really has no business. Article 10, Bill of Rights. Economic growth will very likely be enhanced by lowering corporate taxes, giving those corporations more resources to spur growth by research and development of new products/services. | |||
| No | Do you support requiring states to adopt federal education standards? | ||
| The the federal Dept. of Education has created MOST of our educational deficiencies across the board. We've gone from the top towards the middle of the world's educational rankings over the last 41 years. I am for the elimination of the federal Dept. of Education and to return education standards to the localities/states. Education is best handled locally. The closer to the student, the better. My 4 children were all home-schooled and have all done quite well. | |||
| No | Do you support government funding for the development of renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind, geo-thermal)? | ||
| No | Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions? | ||
| If renewable energy were as inexpensive and as effective as fossil fuel and nuclear generated energy, it would have no need for government funding and would already have taken over the market. 'Pop-science' notwithstanding, greenhouse gas emission is not causing 'global warming' anymore than it caused the 'next ice-age' in the 1970s. Pop-science 'fear-mongering' isn't helping anything. | |||
| No | Do you generally support gun-control legislation? | ||
| What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you NOT understand? Only convicted felons should have any restrictions placed on their rights. And, depending on the heinousness of the crime, those restrictions might be lifted upon full completion of the sentence, including parole time, if applicable. | |||
| Yes | Do you support repealing the 2010 Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare")? | ||
| The only reason my wife and I were able to 'keep your doctor' and 'keep your health insurance' was because I am retired from the US Navy and my insurance is already funded by the Veterans Administration as a CONTRACTUAL TERM of my service. ACA 2010 generally made things worse for the poor. The market will make health insurance MUCH more affordable for most people. | |||
| Yes | Do you support the construction of a wall along the Mexican border? | ||
| Yes | Do you support requiring immigrants who are unlawfully present to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship? | ||
| If the so-called 'immigrant' breaks our law by entering our country illegally, he is an 'illegal alien' and already a felon. This in NOT the way to 'emigrate'. All 4 of my grandparents emigrated here to; 1] become Americans through assimilation, and 2] to raise children who would be proud Americans. My grandparents left Italy/Sicily [pa] and Ireland/UK [ma] to become AMERICANS. If an immigrant wants to move here to make our country like the one they left behind, they are NOT the people we need or want here. | |||
| No | Should the United States use military force to prevent governments hostile to the U.S. from possessing a weapon of mass destruction (for example: nuclear, biological, chemical)? | ||
| Yes | Do you support reducing military intervention in Middle East conflicts? | ||
| We can use other means to prevent hostiles from getting WMDs. Now, IF they develop them AND use them against US, we have every right to destroy them by whatever means WE see fit. We need to get our military out of local fighting. We may need to maintain some forward military presence in the region which could then be used as staging areas far enough away to be un-intimidating, but close enough to keep bad actors wary. | |||
| Yes | Do you generally support removing barriers to international trade (for example: tariffs, quotas, etc.)? | ||
| There could be circumstances that would warrant erecting such barriers, but, generally, no. | |||
| 1] Generally shrinking the federal government to Constitutional limits; 10th Amendment - only powers SPECIFICALLY given to the federal government in the Constitution are valid federal powers. 2] Repeal 1913; specifically the 16th [Income Tax] and 17th [direct election of Senators] Amendments and the Federal Reserve Act. These changed the US from a Republic to a Democracy. Senators used to represent the States' governments in Congress. Now they are just "at large" Representatives of the People. 3] Federal income tax was unconstitutional [Art.1, sect.9, para.4]. I, therefore, favor an Article 5 Convention of States to propose Amendments to the Constitution. |
Vote Smart does not permit the use of its name or programs in any campaign activity, including advertising, debates, and speeches.