Janice Schakowsky, Candidate for Congress (9th District)

Candidate Full Name: Janice Schakowsky

Office: U. S. House of Representatives U. S. Congressional District 9

Party: Democrat

Candidate Full Name: Janice Schakowsky

Email Address: news@janschakowsky.org

Web Site: www.janschakowsky.org

Campaign Name: Schakowsky for Congress

Campaign Office Mailing Address: PO Box 5130 Evanston, IL 60204-5130

Phone: 847-372-4382

Survey Questions (Character limit of 2,000 per response)

1. Can the budget deficit be controlled only by spending cuts or does the federal government need to raise more revenue? If you favor more revenue, should there be a general tax hike?

Increased revenues must be part of a balanced approach to restoring economic prosperity and reducing the deficit. Federal tax revenue is at its lowest level since 1950, leaving us without the funds we need to meet urgent national needs from infrastructure upgrades to small businesses assistance, from medical research and improving our schools to maintaining a social safety net. Those investments are needed to put Americans put to work and keep America strong. We need tax reform that simplifies a complicated system but raises sufficient revenues to meet those needs while reducing long-term deficits, while protecting low-income and middle-income families. That is why I support President Obama's call to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% of all households, those with income over $250,000.

The proposal I put forward as a member of the President's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to achieve primary budget balance by FY2015 raised revenues by eliminating tax breaks for high profitable industries such as the oil industry and corporations that outsource profits overseas. I have introduced H.R. 1124, the Fairness in Taxation Act, to establish new rates for income over $ 1million  starting at 45% and rising to 49% for income over $1 billion.

2. Did you favor the 2011 pullout of U.S. military forces from Iraq? Why or why not?

I supported the President's decision to end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home. I voted against the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and I have consistently opposed the war and voted to end U.S. military operations in Iraq. As a founding member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, I have long advocated for the withdrawal of U.S. troops coupled with a surge in diplomatic outreach.

Eight years of warfare, at the cost of almost one trillion dollars and nearly 5000 American lives, emphasized that there is no military solution in Iraq. The war in Iraq stretched our military to the breaking point, distracted us from other security priorities, and threatened our global standing and reputation. Hundreds of billions of dollars of war funding were put on the credit card, driving up our national debt and harming our ability to fund domestic priorities.

I strongly support the President's actions to end the war in Iraq. Although it took far too long, I am pleased that our soldiers are now home. I believe we need to now work to withdraw the thousands of armed private security contractors that remain in Iraq, and work to ensure that all U.S. government security work is done by U.S. government employees and not by private for-profit companies.

3. Do you favor President Obama's planned 2014 military withdrawal from Afghanistan? Why or why not?

I support President Obama's decision to begin to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan. I do not believe that we can achieve our goals in Afghanistan through military means, nor do I feel that further involvement of U.S. troops will improve our national security. I support ending the war and bringing our troops home and have urged the President to accelerate his timeline for troop withdrawal. I concerned by the recent suggestion, by U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker, that the 2014 deadline for the full withdrawal of U.S. troops could be extended. I believe we must bring our troops home as swiftly and safely as possible.

The threats we face in Afghanistan are both real and serious. As we reduce our military footprint in Afghanistan, we need to invest in diplomatic and economic engagement with the Afghan people. Among other priorities, I support increased outreach to Afghan civil society, investment in women, development of infrastructure, and strengthening the rule of law. Instead of focusing our discussion on troop levels, we need to devote greater attention to our diplomatic and humanitarian efforts to build infrastructure and capacity, to fight corruption, and to promote peace and development in Afghanistan.

4. Do you believe there is global warming? If so, is any of it man made and can we do anything about it?

Yes, global warming is real, and yes, it is in large part the result of human activity. We have done some things to mitigate the risks of global warming, but much more can and must be done.

Although the Republican-led House has been resistant to many beneficial environmental policies, action is being taken. The President announced in November the agreement among the auto industry, labor and environmental groups to achieve a 54.5 miles per gallon average fuel economy for their cars by 2025. The 54.5 MPG Standard will allow the U.S. to reduce oil consumption by as much as 2.2 million barrels per day by 2025. That is more than half the oil we import from OPEC. I commend the President for using his authority to set such this attainable yet achievable standard.

We should also take actions to support the growth of energy-efficient technologies and provide consumers with the ability to use them. Doing so will help protect our environment, create jobs, and save money in the long run. Over the next few decades, the green energy sector is projected to be worth trillions of dollars and to create millions of jobs, and we must ensure American companies are able to compete in the worldwide race to create the technology of the future. Through the Department of Energy's Loan Guarantee Program, we have been able to provide innovative startup companies with the capital they need to thrive. Republicans have attacked the entire program as a result of Solyndra's bankruptcy, but the Loan Guarantee Program has been incredibly successful thus far. A prominent group of American venture capitalists wrote just after Solyndra folded that the "nascent clean energy industry needs more than venture capital to succeed." They insist that the Loan Guarantee Program is required to fully promote our green energy economy. Furthermore, the Loan Guarantee Program's sub-4 percent loan default rate compares favorably to almost every other sector of the economy. Unfortunately, the 2012 budget eliminated further funding for the Loan Guarantee Program, but I will work to restore funding for this and other innovative energy programs in next year's budget.

The Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (PTC) has played a critical role in our green energy economy, particularly with the wind industry in Illinois. 100,000 people are employed in the wind industry alone, and much of that growth has resulted from the PTC. Wind energy provided 35 percent of new power capacity in the U.S. over the past four years. The PTC is set to expire at the end of this year, but we cannot allow that to happen. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 3307, which would extend the Production Tax Credit for four years and continue the smart investments made to stimulate job growth in the energy sector.

We need to take our changing climate seriously and work toward a comprehensive program of carbon emissions reduction. I supported H.R. 2454, the cap-and-trade bill in the last Congress, and I believe that is exactly the type of legislation needed to reign in reckless pollution. The EPA recently reported that toxic chemical emissions increased 16 percent in 2010, stemming largely from the hazardous waste management and mining industries. The EPA has developed regulations that would curb those emissions, and this Congress has foolishly decided to take up legislation to prevent EPA from protecting human health and the environment.

5. How will you balance your personal views and beliefs with those of your constituents and the need to compromise for legislation to pass?

In 1990, when I first ran for the Illinois General Assembly, I was asked at a debate if I would vote my conscience or the will of my constituents if those two positions conflicted. After hemming and hawing, I finally said I would vote according to the will of my constituents. That was the wrong answer. On those issues that are truly a matter of conscience  my conscience  I must be true to those core beliefs, vote accordingly, and explain my vote to my constituents. Every two years, they have the opportunity to evaluate my record, and through their own votes to decide whether they wish me to continue to represent them.

Compromise is our business as lawmakers. I have never voted for a major bill that was perfect in my view. I worked on the Affordable Care Act, did the best I could to pass certain provisions like a public option, and then voted for final passage without them. I was on the conference committee for the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act which was a great improvement but not as much as I wanted. I voted for it. That is what we do. That is how we make progress. Unfortunately, we face Republican members who truly believe that "compromise" is a dirty word and will not budge an inch. That is called gridlock.

Click Here to return to the Online Candidates Forum Main Page