Dan Schaefer's Issue Positions (Political Courage Test)
On The Ballot: Running, Democratic for State House (MO) - District 97
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.
This candidate has responded to a Political Courage Test in a previous election. As a continued effort to provide the American public with factual information on candidates running for public office, these archived responses are made available here.
Missouri State Legislative Election 2024 Political Courage Test
| Pro-choice | a) Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation? | ||
| Yes | b) Do you support legalizing abortion when the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape? | ||
| Yes | c) Do you support the prohibition of public funds (e.g. Medicaid) for organizations that perform abortions? | ||
| I do support public funds for organizations when they perform abortions that are deemed medically necessary or are the result of rape or incest. I do not support public funds when abortions are conducted as a lifestyle choice. | |||
| No | a) In order to balance the budget, do you support limiting state government spending on social programs (e.g. SNAP, TANF)? | ||
| No | b) Do you support a decrease in income taxes in order to promote economic growth? | ||
| No | c) Do you support a wealth tax in order to pay for public programs in your state? | ||
| The "Laffer Curve," developed by economist Arthur Laffer, identifies a peak point where there is a balance between tax revenue and economic growth. For decades, conservatives have argued that we're on the "front side" of the curve, where reducing taxes increases economic growth. In some cases, the conservatives were right, but in most cases, they were wrong. I believe that, in general, we're on the "backside" of the curve, where reducing tax revenues reduces economic growth and produces a tremendous wealth gap. That being the case, I'm always willing to closely examine the data to ascertain what side of the Laffer Curve we're on, but my past experiences give me a personal bias toward believing we're on the backside of that curve more often than not. Therefore, in general, I do not support a decrease in income taxes to promote economic growth. I do not know what "public programs in your state" means. Assuming you're referring to social programs, I do not support a "wealth tax" to pay for them. However, I support a more progressive tax structure overall that will yield additional revenue for the general fund, which would be distributed among many programs, not just "public programs in the state." | |||
| No | a) Do you support capital punishment for violent crimes? | ||
| No | b) Should an individual under 18 accused of a violent crime be prosecuted as an adult? | ||
| Yes | c) Do you support the enforcement of federal immigration laws by state and local police? | ||
| No | d) Do you support the use of private prisons? | ||
| No | e) Do you support mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders? | ||
| No | a) Do you support state government spending as a means of promoting economic growth (e.g. grants, tax incentives)? | ||
| No | b) Do you support reducing state government regulations on the private sector (e.g. for business or the environment)? | ||
| Yes | c) Do you support an increase of the minimum wage in Missouri? | ||
| No | d) Do you support government spending on affordable housing projects in Missouri? | ||
| No | e) Do you support the legalization of gambling on sporting events in Missouri? | ||
| My years in sales have taught me that only weak salespeople reduce prices when the going gets tough. Instead of focusing on tax breaks and incentives to attract businesses to Missouri, we should focus on selling our value. We have excellent recreation areas throughout the state, making it attractive to families wishing to move to a Midwest wonderland. Missouri sells itself short whenever it provides tax incentives, cuts regulations, etc. We don't need to compromise on our values to attract business; we need to sell our values! Regarding affordable housing, I'm only against it because I fear it doesn't solve the housing problem in Missouri. If elected, I will make it one of my top priorities to disincentivize institutional investors from buying unlimited homes, only to rent them out at exorbitant prices, turning Missouri into a renter state. This is a nationwide issue, and despite attempts by people like Senator Sherrod Brown to halt it (the "Stop Predatory Lending Act"), this issue persists. At the very least, I can help shut down this predatory practice in Missouri, making housing more affordable to young couples wishing to build equity while raising a family. Finally, regarding gambling, the legalization of gambling has traditionally been a shell game. I lived in California when they unveiled the lottery with ads that read, "The schools win!" The problem is that any revenue made from the lottery indeed went to the schools, but then the general tax revenue funds that normally went to the schools were shifted elsewhere. In the end, the schools didn't see a dime of additional revenue. | |||
| Yes | a) Do you support adopting federal education standards (e.g. Common Core) in Missouri? | ||
| No | b) Do you support state funding for charter schools? | ||
| Yes | c) Do you support increasing teacher salaries AND/OR benefits in Missouri? | ||
| Yes | d) Should immigrants in the United States who graduate from Missouri high schools be eligible for in-state tuition at public universities, regardless of immigration status? | ||
| I am dead-set against charter schools, and I do not like using school vouchers to implement "school choice." It's all a ruse for rich corporations to get money out of our education system. I recognize that our public schools need a lot of work - they are behind, and we need to redouble our efforts toward improving them. But history has shown that public schools in the U.S. have profoundly shaped our nation's success and yielded the most innovative nation the world has ever seen. Privatizing our schools can only destroy what has served us well for nearly 200 years. Regarding immigrants, I'm all for allowing them to attend public universities with in-state tuition, provided that they become U.S. citizens before they graduate. I do not want us to invest in educating an individual only to see him or her leave the country after graduating. | |||
| No | a) Do you support state funding for the development of renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind, geo-thermal)? | ||
| No | b) Do you support state governments allowing permits for drilling on public lands? | ||
| No | c) Do you support increasing state funding for clean drinking water initiatives? | ||
| Though I strongly support the development of renewable energy sources, I feel it should be funded by the Federal government, not the state. The state can still be involved in renewable energy R&D but with federally granted money. Although I oppose drilling on public lands, every situation requires careful consideration. I might be convinced of its necessity, but it would be a steep hill to climb. I also support funding for clean drinking water initiatives, but I feel it should be subsidized through federal grants, not state money. Polluted water often flows over our borders from neighboring states, which is a federal issue. It's a state problem, but I believe it is a federal responsibility. | |||
| Yes | a)Do you support limiting campaign contributions from corporations, unions, and individuals? | ||
| Yes | b) Do you support the use of an independent or bipartisan commission for redistricting? | ||
| Yes | c) Do you support requiring a government-issued photo identification in order to vote at the polls? | ||
| Yes | d) Do you support automatic voter registration? | ||
| Yes | e) Do you support the implementation of ranked choice voting in Missouri? | ||
| I recognize that requiring everyone to have a government-issued photo ID may be difficult in many cases. Therefore, I suggest we give people an alternative to allow the polling place access to a photo ID system. For example, I should be able to walk into a polling place, declare my name, and sign the log, and the poll workers can access a computer with a picture of me. It's the same process I go through when I enter my gym. I support limiting campaign contributions, although this may violate the 2011 SCOTUS decision on Citizens United. Nevertheless, I would support any effort to implement such a limitation. | |||
| No | a) Do you generally support gun-control legislation (e.g. red flag laws, closing the boyfriend loophole)? | ||
| Yes | b) Should background checks be required on gun sales between private citizens at gun shows? | ||
| Yes | c) Do you support the right to concealed carry in Missouri? | ||
| A lot of clarification is in order here: First of all, I do not support gun control. I support gun regulation. It may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but there is a big difference as far as I'm concerned. The government should not control our weapons any more than it should control our cars; however, the government - being "of the people" - should regulate the discharge of guns to adhere to regulations designed to protect citizens. The right for citizens to be free from harm overrides the right of a person to discharge his or her weapon. Part of this regulation involves safely storing weapons to keep them out of children's hands. Those who want a gun for protection can lock it in a safe that's activated by fingerprint, which would allow access within 10 seconds during a tragic circumstance. Also, those people known to be high-risk should not be allowed to have guns. This is no different than automobile regulation, where people who have failed to show proficiency with their vehicles are not licensed to drive. Secondly, background checks must be implemented on all gun sales, including private sales and gun show sales. I would support any government effort to establish a readily accessible system to validate background checks on anyone. People who wish to purchase a gun may pay a nominal fee to be pre-cleared by local law enforcement for gun possession. This would greatly simplify background checks during gun shows or private gun sales. Finally, I support concealed carry permits, provided the holder has demonstrated sufficient proficiency, responsibility, and safety. Again, this is not unlike having an advanced driver's license, where some are qualified to drive different types of vehicles after being sufficiently screened. I am a strong believer in the Second Amendment, especially the clause that reads, "A well regulated militia." Regulation is built into the Second Amendment, and we should use it. | |||
| Yes | a) Should the state government increase funding for treatment facilities to combat opioid abuse? | ||
| Yes | b) Do you support a government-run (e.g. single-payer) healthcare program such as Medicare-for-All? | ||
| Yes | c) Should an individual have the right to choose to die (e.g. those with a terminal illness) through euthanasia? | ||
| Yes | d) Do you support mandating vaccinations (e.g. for school or employment)? | ||
| Yes | e) Do you support expanding paid family AND/OR medical leave benefits (e.g. maternity leave)? | ||
| Yes | f) Should the government be able to regulate the cost of prescription drugs? | ||
| Yes | g) Do you support banning gender affirming care for transgender individuals under the age of eighteen? | ||
| Regarding gender-affirming care for people under the age of eighteen, I support everything up to permanent changes to the person's body until they are eighteen. If a boy identifies as a girl or vice versa, they should be accommodated in their expression as much as possible, but without permanent changes to their body. Also, trans-athlete sports are an exception. Students who identify as transgender should not be able to participate in sports that are differentiated between boys and girls. Such competition does more significant harm to non-trans students, so it should, therefore, not be allowed. I also support gender-neutral bathrooms and locker rooms for students who identify as a different gender than their birth. | |||
| Yes | a) Do you support inclusion of sexual orientation in Missouri's anti-discrimination laws? | ||
| Yes | b) Do you support the inclusion of gender identity in Missouri's anti-discrimination laws? | ||
| Yes | c) Do you support greater efforts by Missouri's state government in closing gender, racial, and other wage gaps? | ||
| Women's rights are under attack in Missouri. Assuming Amendment 3 passes in this November's election, it will not halt the assault on women's rights. Many people confine this discussion to the topic of abortion; however, it goes way beyond abortion. Much debate is taking place regarding limiting women's rights and freedoms. I will not stand for this. The supermajority in our legislature, therefore, needs to be broken so that women in Missouri are treated with respect and dignity, no matter their life choices. Public education is also under attack in Missouri. Under the banner of "school choice," large corporations are betting heavily that they can privatize our education system and, therefore, have access to billions of dollars of education money. For the past 20 years, schools in Missouri have continued to decline. The causes for this decline include underfunding, incompetence, and negligence. This decline was intentional - it was designed to clear a path for big businesses to offer a novel solution with charter and private schools. What they offer in reality is a further decline in our educational performance. We must redouble our efforts to fix our current public school system and restore Missouri to one of the highest academic achievers in the nation. Finally, labor unions are under constant attack. Nationwide, unions have fallen from 20% of the workforce in the 1980s to 10% today. Coinciding with this decline is an increasing wealth gap. The correlation between these two statistics is not coincidental. Our current state government continues to undermine unions, cutting away at their bargaining power and threatening them with "Right to Work" laws. This is unacceptable and must be stopped. Unions formed the backbone of the middle class, and as they fall, so too will the middle class. |
Vote Smart does not permit the use of its name or programs in any campaign activity, including advertising, debates, and speeches.