Mary Larkin'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.
Mary Larkin refused to tell citizens where she stands on any of the issues addressed in the 2010 Political Courage Test, despite repeated requests from Vote Smart, national media, and prominent political leaders.
Issue Positions
For Presidential and Congressional candidates who refuse to provide voters with their positions, Vote Smart has researched their public records to determine their likely responses. These issue positions are from 2010.
- Despite exhaustive research, Vote Smart was unable to find information about this candidate's position.
- Despite exhaustive research, Vote Smart was unable to find information about this candidate's position.
- Despite exhaustive research, Vote Smart was unable to find information about this candidate's position.
- Despite exhaustive research, Vote Smart was unable to find information about this candidate's position.
- Despite exhaustive research, Vote Smart was unable to find information about this candidate's position.
- Mary Larkin. Issue Position: Fixing the Education System. "I was speaking recently to a teacher at my daughters' school who said that things have really changed for the worse in the last few decades. She said it was continually getting harder to offer a good education. Their budget has been reduced, but more than that, the government and union regulations imposed on them make it very difficult. She felt the unions, and I quote, "had done a lot for the teachers personally, but really weren't helping improve education". In addition, in many states including California, there are many children entering the schools that don't speak English. This takes extra time to overcome that disadvantage and distracts from teaching math, spelling, history, etc. I don't want these kids to fall through the cracks and I also don't want them hurting the quality of education for those who already speak the language. I would support offering an accelerated English class for new students that don't speak the language that they must attend before or as soon as they enter the school system. It could be on Saturdays and use the already existing school facilities. Kids would have to bring their own lunches (I don't think that is too much to ask). It would not have to take more than 6-12 months to get them fluent. Maybe we could hire private educators outside of the union so it would not have to cost so much. Then the teachers could focus more on making sure all the children got an equally effective lesson each day and they wouldn't be slowed down by teaching to basically, two levels of students." (votesmart.org)
- Mary Larkin. Issue Position: Protecting the Environment. "Protecting the environment is a worthy goal and should be approached with balance and sensible planning. We all want a clean, beautiful, natural environment to enjoy. There is not much that I appreciate more than trees and pristine mountains towering over a sparkling lake. I would die fighting before I'd let us destroy all of nature or close us off from it (see Agenda 21 on my Scary Stuff page). However, sometimes a tree must fall and development is going to happen. That does not make humanity parasitical; it makes us part of life on earth. (Don't make up your mind about me yet; hear me out to the end please.) There is still work to be done towards decreasing pollution and I am confident we can find solutions. Knee jerk reactions requiring faith rather than logic are not going to help the environment or the people who are struggling to survive. We have been bamboozled by the largest scam the world has ever known. Crooks passing themselves off as environmental warriors are destroying the common sense we had in order to make money or a name for themselves. There is now so much evidence (including their own words) that "Global Warming" was rigged that I don't know why we still have to have this conversation." (votesmart.org)
- Mary Larkin. The Right to Bear Arms. 25 June 2010. "It's really a no-brainer; if you make guns illegal then only the criminals will have guns. There have been so many studies done that now prove that gun control not only doesn't stop violence but it leads to an increase in crime, that now even the governmnent has to acknowledge it. What I love about the article below is that it also shows our government's wonderful ability to jump on the band wagon and turn anything into a financial opportunity (see comment that 'more thorough research on the topic is needed' =translation: 'Give us more of your hard earned taxpayer dollars to study the obvious'). See also the 'necessary' expansion of government required. Remember the old movie The Blob? It was about a nameless, faceless monstrosity that devoured everything and everyone in its path (you see where I'm going with this right?)" (artemisunleashed.com)
- Mary Larkin. Issue Position: Health Care Reform. "Regarding the Health Care Bill Congress is trying to pass (excuse me, just passed); basically my position is NO THANK YOU!! We need tort reform and free market solutions and freedom to choose from everyone out there providing an insurance option. We need to be able to pick from a selection of health insurance options that suit us specifically (or none at all if we choose!). Some health care options include services that many people are not interested in like accupuncture. Of course you pay additional for these extras even if you don't want them. If you can design the insurance you think you can live with and get rid of the excess you can bring the price down. We are currently not offered these choices because of government regulation of the industry. We can bring prices down tremendously if Big Government gets out of the way! We do NOT need government taking over the health care industry. It will be trememdously expensive and ineffective. There will be rationing; there has to be. The government will not be able to afford everyone who will want their help. I wonder who will be denied? Are you willing to bet it won't be you? Is that the kind of society you want to live in? Isn't that worse than what we have now? Anyone who thinks that the government wouldn't let us suffer and will make sure this doesn't happen doesn't understand government and doesn't know much about history. Say goodbye to your privacy also (it's in the bill!)." (votesmart.org)
- Despite exhaustive research, Vote Smart was unable to find information about this candidate's position.
- Swanson, David. 2010. Corrente: 46 Congressional Candidates Oppose War Spending. 23 May 2010. "Forty-six congressional candidates and 17 activist organizations released a statement on Monday opposing any more funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and inviting more candidates, incumbents, and organizations to sign on. The 46 candidates include 16 Libertarians, 15 Democrats, 14 Greens, 1 Independent, and thus far 0 Republicans (and more may be added to the website by the time you read this). Forty-two are candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives, and four for the Senate. They do not all agree with each other on many topics, including their reasons for opposing war spending. But they all back this short statement: 'The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost Americans over $1 trillion in direct costs, and over $3 trillion altogether. At a time when our national debt exceeds $13 trillion, we can no longer afford these wars. It's time for Congress to reject any funding except to bring all our troops safely home'...Mary V. Larkin, CA-17, Monterey, Libertarian." (www.correntewire.com)
- Mary Larkin. Issue Position: U.S. Military Action. "I do not support coddling our enemies. The world is full of tyrants and always has been. We have to be prepared to defend ourselves. However, invading other nations is not making us any friends. It is a bad idea and very expensive. How many billions of dollars have we spent on Iraq and Afghanistan? Does anyone really believe what we are doing will make a difference? My feeling is that we are now being played for fools. We are giving countries the incentive to produce terrorists. When we determine that terrorists are coming from a Middle East country, what ends up happening? They get money from us; lots of money. Recently Yemen decided that it needs money too. Who is next? Don't we see where this is leading us? It is costing us too much and making us a target. Do we want our children to live in fear of being blown up on the way to grandma's? What kind of world do we want to live in?" (votesmart.org)
Vote Smart does not permit the use of its name or programs in any campaign activity, including advertising, debates, and speeches.