Paul Garver'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.
California State Legislative Election 2010 Political Courage Test
| Pro-choice | a) Do you consider yourself pro-choice or pro-life? | ||
| No | b) Should abortion be legal only within the first trimester of pregnancy? | ||
| Yes | c) Should abortion be legal when the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape? | ||
| Yes | d) Should abortion be legal when the life of the woman is endangered? | ||
| No | e) Do you support requiring parental notification before an abortion is performed on a minor? | ||
| No | f) Do you support requiring parental consent before an abortion is performed on a minor? | ||
| Yes | g) Do you support sexual education programs that include information on abstinence, contraceptives, and HIV/STD prevention methods? | ||
| No | h) Do you support abstinence-only sexual education programs? | ||
| i) Other or expanded principles | |||
1) State SpendingIndicate what state funding levels (#1-6) you support for the following general categories. Select one level per category; you may use a number more than once.2) State TaxesIndicate what state tax levels (#1-6) you support for the following general categories. Select one level per category; you may use a number more than once.3) Budget StabilizationIndicate which proposals you support (if any) for balancing California's budget.
| Greatly Increase | a) Education (higher) | ||
| Maintain Status | b) Education (K-12) | ||
| Maintain Status | c) Environment | ||
| Maintain Status | d) Health care | ||
| Maintain Status | e) Law enforcement | ||
| Slightly Increase | f) Transportation and highway infrastructure | ||
| Maintain Status | g) Welfare | ||
| Slightly Increase | a) Alcohol taxes | ||
| Maintain Status | b) Cigarette taxes | ||
| Slightly Decrease | c) Corporate taxes | ||
| Slightly Increase | d) Gasoline taxes | ||
| Maintain Status | e) Property taxes | ||
| Slightly Decrease | f) Sales taxes | ||
| Maintain Status | g) Income taxes (low-income families) | ||
| Maintain Status | h) Income taxes (middle-income families) | ||
| Maintain Status | i) Income taxes (high-income families) | ||
| Greatly Increase | j) Other or expanded categories | ||
| Yes | a) Tapping into California's "rainy day" fund | ||
| Yes | b) Issuing the early release of certain non-violent offenders | ||
| Yes | c) Instituting mandatory furloughs and layoffs for state employees | ||
| No | d) Reducing benefits for Medicaid recipients | ||
| Yes | e) Privatizing certain government services | ||
| We need to change our spending priorities. In 1980 we spent seven times as much on higher education as we did on prisons. Now, we spend more on prisons. We spend more keeping a person in prison than we would sending them to Harvard. In general, non-violent criminals should be sentenced to community service rather than prison. | |||
| Every major oil producing state taxes oil pumped from their soil--except California. Oil companies and the politicians who represent them claim this will cost jobs and increase the price of gasoline. But the price of oil is set by the world market--so this tax can't be passed on. If we taxed at Alaska's rate we would raise nearly $5 billion dollars each year. And since most oil companies in California are not based here this would be new money coming in to stimulate our economy and create thousands of new jobs. Californians should be outraged we aren't doing this. | |||
| It is almost criminal that we have not been taxing oil at the well head as I described above. The only reason to be against that is you own an oil company--or you're a politician owned by an oil company. Privatization should not include public safety, e.g, police, fire, prisons. We should not sell off our assets and lease them back for short term gain and long term loss. Pension reform is essential to avoid eventual bankruptcy. No public employee should be eligible for a $100k pension or start receiving their pensions at age 50 as some can now. | |||
e) Do you support limits on the following types of contributions to candidates for state government?
| Yes | a) Should California hold a constitutional convention to rewrite the state constitution? | ||
| Yes | b) Do you support changing the requirement for state budget passage from a two-thirds vote to a majority vote? | ||
| Yes | c) Do you support limits on the number of terms for California governors? | ||
| Yes | d) Do you support limits on the number of terms for California state legislators? | ||
| Yes | 1) Individual | ||
| Yes | 2) Political Action Committee | ||
| Yes | 3) Corporate | ||
| Yes | 4) Political Party | ||
| Yes | f) Should candidates for state office be encouraged to meet voluntary spending limits? | ||
| Yes | g) Do you support requiring full and timely disclosure of campaign finance information? | ||
| Our political system is essentially one of institutionalized corruption. Politicians represent the money sources that got them elected--not the people who elected them. We need public funding of campaigns. Arizona has a model system. Elected officials there can to do their job--instead of spending two-thirds their time raising money for the next election. The cost for public funding would be paid back ten-fold as politicians would no longer have to pay back special interests. This could be as transformative to our political system as ending the monarchy was in 1776. Let's take away special interests' stranglehold on our elected officials. | |||
| No | a) Do you support capital punishment for certain crimes? | ||
| Yes | b) Do you support alternatives to incarceration for certain non-violent offenders, such as mandatory counseling or substance abuse treatment? | ||
| Yes | c) Should the possession of small amounts of marijuana be decriminalized? | ||
| No | d) Should a minor accused of a violent crime be prosecuted as an adult? | ||
| No | e) Should a minor who sends sexually-explicit or nude photos by cell phone face criminal charges? | ||
| f) Do you support the enforcement of federal immigration laws by state and local police? | |||
| a) Some people deserve to be executed. But our judicial system isn't perfect and it's unacceptable to execute an innocent person. Maintaining death row costs $140 million per year. That's more than $250 million per person executed (13 since 1976). Is it worth a quarter billion to execute one person? This money would be better spent elsewhere, like on education. e) In some rare cases, yes. f) If an illegal alien is a victim of a crime, local police should disregard their status. If they are arrested for a crime, local police should turn them over to federal authorities. | |||
| Yes | a) Do you support reducing government regulations on the private sector? | ||
| Yes | b) Do you support increased state funding for job-training programs that re-train displaced workers? | ||
| No | c) Do you support expanding access to unemployment benefits? | ||
| Yes | d) Do you support providing financial incentives to the private sector for the purpose of job creation? | ||
| Yes | e) Do you support increased spending on infrastructure projects for the purpose of job creation? | ||
| No | f) Do you support providing direct financial assistance to homeowners facing foreclosure? | ||
| No | g) Do you support suspending the sale of bonds that would finance the California high-speed rail? | ||
| Many of these questions cannot be answered yes or no. For instance some private sectors like financial institutions obviously need more regulation--banks should not have been allowed to give 120% loans or liar loans with no proof of income. What sort of increased access to unemployment benefits are we talking about--to whom, for how long? Financial institutions that loaned money to homeowners who were not qualified should probably be made to lower the principal on a case by case basis. Taxpayers money should not be involved. | |||
| No | a) Do you support national education standards? | ||
| Yes | b) Do you support requiring public schools to administer high school exit exams? | ||
| No | c) Do you support using a merit pay system for teachers? | ||
| Yes | d) Do you support state funding for charter schools? | ||
| Yes | e) Do you support the state government providing college students with financial aid? | ||
| Yes | f) Should illegal immigrants who graduate from California high schools be eligible for in-state tuition at public universities? | ||
| National education standards result in teaching for tests, not for education. School days are too short in California. Students who are not getting A's and B's should be required to stay for remedial education. Assessing teacher effectiveness is important but merit pay for good teachers is a waste of money--they're already teaching effectively. Instead we should analyze why these teachers are effective and help them spread their model to assist less effective teachers. Bonuses for improvement of the school as a whole, may provide incentive for those teachers who are effective to help educate their less effective colleagues. | |||
| Yes | a) Do you support state funding for the development of alternative energy? | ||
| No | b) Do you support state funding for the development of traditional domestic energy sources (e.g. coal, natural gas, oil)? | ||
| No | c) Do you support providing financial incentives to farms that produce biofuel crops? | ||
| Yes | d) Do you support state funding for improvements to California's energy infrastructure? | ||
| Yes | e) Do you support state funding for open space preservation? | ||
| Yes | f) Do you support enacting environmental regulations aimed at reducing the effects of climate change? | ||
| A carbon tax is the simplest mechanism to ensure that the true cost to the environment is reflected in the price of fuel. Setting a good example is important but it is essential that we be willing to tariff imports from locations that do not share that same burden. Otherwise, we will destroy our economy while doing nothing to save the environment. Carbon and other pollution tariffs may risk a trade war. But what good is free trade if the earth's ability to support us is destroyed? | |||
| Yes | a) Do you support restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns? | ||
| Yes | b) Do you support requiring background checks on gun sales between private citizens at gun shows? | ||
| Yes | c) Do you support allowing individuals to carry concealed guns? | ||
| Yes | d) Do you support requiring a license for gun possession? | ||
| The right to bear arms for self defense is sacrosanct. But clearly, a line needs to be drawn somewhere between nuclear weapons and a revolver. Fully automatic weapons, in my view, are not reasonable for self defense or sport and open carry in cities is inflammatory--in bars it's insane. But people without criminal records should have free access to concealed permits for self defense. Criminals already carry concealed weapons. The law abiding public should be able to be on an equal footing. However, gun safety classes should be mandatory and you should lose your rights if you brandish a weapon. | |||
| Yes | a) Do you support the establishment of a single-payer, publicly-administered health care system for California? | ||
| Yes | b) Do you support a universally-accessible, publicly-administered health insurance option? | ||
| Yes | c) Do you support expanding access to health care through commercial health insurance reform? | ||
| Yes | d) Do you support interstate health insurance compacts? | ||
| Yes | e) Should individuals be required to purchase health care insurance? | ||
| Yes | f) Do you support monetary limits on damages that can be collected in malpractice lawsuits? | ||
| No | g) Do you support legalizing physician-assisted suicide in California? | ||
| Yes | h) Do you support allowing doctors to prescribe marijuana to their patients for medicinal purposes? | ||
| No one who is covered by Medicare wants out of it and everyone just short of medicare age can't wait to be covered. We should expand medicare to include everyone. Go to any heath insurers website and plug in that you're 64--just under medicare age--with no preexisting conditions. They will charge you more than three times what medicare pays in benefits per beneficiary--all of whom are over 65 and nearly all with preexisting conditions. Medicare works. The taxes we'd pay to cover everyone are way less than what we spend on private health insurance premiums now. | |||
| No | a) Should marriage only be between one man and one woman? | ||
| Yes | b) Should California allow same-sex couples to form domestic partnerships? | ||
| No | c) Do you support state funding for stem cell research? | ||
| No | d) Do you support state funding for embryonic stem cell research? | ||
| No | e) Do you support the state's use of affirmative action? | ||
| Yes | f) Do you support the inclusion of sexual orientation in California's anti-discrimination laws? | ||
| Yes | g) Do you support the inclusion of gender identity in California's anti-discrimination laws? | ||
| I'm a scientist and am for stem cell research yet I believe California should not fund research in the manner it did for stem cells. Initiatives need to be required to identify new funding sources rather than merely selling bonds which have to be paid off by an already over committed general fund. This flaw in our initiative system is one reason California is essentially bankrupt. Affirmative action should be based not on race but on socioeconomic considerations. The result may be the same but it wouldn't have the stigma of racial favoritism. Our society should be blind to race. | |||
| 1. Create jobs by stimulating California's economy with an oil extraction tax that can bring in $5 billion every year. This tax can't be passed on so we won't pay it at the pump. Since most oil companies are not based in California it will be new money coming into our state. Why are we letting Big Oil walk away with billions they give every other major oil-producing state? It's an outrage. Kick out those politicians who have represented Big Oil. 2. Curb outrageous pensions. 3. Cut spending on incarcerating non-violent criminals and divert it to higher education. |
Vote Smart does not permit the use of its name or programs in any campaign activity, including advertising, debates, and speeches.