Mediaboss Marketing

Farmworkers near Fresno, Calif., pick paper trays of dried raisins off the ground and heap them onto a trailer in the final step of raisin harvest on Sept. 24, 2013. Gosia Wozniacka/AP hide caption

Farmworkers near Fresno, Calif., pick paper trays of dried raisins off the ground and heap them onto a trailer in the final step of raisin harvest on Sept. 24, 2013.

Federal reforms for farmworkers are in the works following a blockbuster human trafficking case out of Georgia late last year. That case highlighted loopholes for abuse in the federal visa program that provides workers to farms and meat processing plants.

In a letter sent to Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., earlier this month, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said the department is preparing to take the first step toward creating a rule reforming the H-2A and H-2B nonimmigrant worker visas.

The letter comes alongside others sent to Ossoff throughout May from the Labor and State Departments in response to his questions about steps the federal government is taking to protect farm and food system workers.

Ossoff wrote to the agencies in March following the indictment of two dozen defendants in a multi-year human trafficking case in Georgia that found the defendants allegedly defrauded the government of over 70,000 H-2A visas forcing hundreds of workers to illegally work on Georgia onion farms. The case reignited advocates' push for increased labor protections among America's essential farmworkers.

In the Georgia case, dubbed Operation Blooming Onion, the working conditions were described as "modern day slavery" as workers faced wage theft and physical abuse and were illegally transported; two died due to heat exposure. According to an indictment, 24 farm labor contractors and recruiters allegedly demanded workers pay illegal fees, held their identification documents hostage, required physically demanding work for little or no pay and housed workers "in crowded, unsanitary, and degrading living conditions." According to the indictment, workers were threatened with deportation and violence while the defendants profited $200 million.

"The commitment that I have received to engage in new rulemaking suggests that in response to my inquiry they are planning to undertake reforms to protect the human rights of migrant farmworkers in the United States," Ossoff told NPR in an interview, adding he still wants to see what specific rulemaking the agency plans to make.

Currently, farmers and ranchers are able to resource the H-2A visa program if they need workers to perform seasonal or temporary agricultural labor so long as they can prove that they were not able to hire a domestic worker, among other requirements. While H-2B visas are considered "nonagricultural," nurseries, meatpacking and seafood processing plants use them across the country.

The demand for agricultural workforce visas has been steadily on the rise as producers face continued labor shortages, even before the pandemic. Most recently, the Labor Department noted the number of H-2A visas has more than tripled since 2012.

Employees with these kinds of agriculture labor visas make up a small portion of the overall agriculture labor force, nearly half which is estimated to be made up of undocumented workers, according to the Labor Department. But abuses still occur even through the legal federal program aimed at providing labor.

Over 70 percent of DOL investigations find workplace violations, with 30 percent of investigations finding employers have committed five or more violations, according to a report from the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, which analyzed DOL data.

Though the case in Georgia is among the most extreme, since the start of the Biden administration, the DOL's Wage and Hour Division, one of the branches that investigates workplace abuses, has concluded 573 H-2A investigations, resulting in over $9 million in back wages for more than 10,000 workers. Additionally, the agency has assessed over $8.8 million in civil money penalties for H-2A violations, according to the DOL letter written to Ossoff by WHD Acting Administrator Jessica Looman.

According to Mayorkas in the letter, the proposed rulemaking process, which could still take years, would address some of the biggest issues brought to light in Operation Blooming Onion, such as workers being overcharged and issued illegal fees for visas and facing salary shortages.

In addition, Mayorkas said the department is looking for ways to improve oversight of the H-2A program and improve workers' participation in investigations. The move is also in line with President Joe Biden's campaign promises to strengthen protections for farmworkers, while waiting on Congress to move forward with immigration reform.

DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Continue reading here:
DHS tells Sen. Jon Ossoff it will reform the agricultural visa program. - NPR

After each of the repeated mass shootings that now provide a tragic backbeat to American life, the same doomed dance of legislation quickly begins. As the outraged demands for action are inevitably derailed in Congress, disappointed gun-control advocates, and perplexed ordinary citizens, point their fingers at the influence of the National Rifle Association or the intransigent opposition of congressional Republicans. Those are both legitimate factors, but the stalemate over gun-control legislation since Bill Clintons first presidential term ultimately rests on a much deeper problem: the growing crisis of majority rule in American politics.

Polls are clear that while Americans dont believe gun control would solve all of the problems associated with gun violence, a commanding majority supports the central priorities of gun-control advocates, including universal background checks and an assault-weapons ban. Yet despite this overwhelming consensus, its highly unlikely that the massacre of at least 19 schoolchildren and two adults in Uvalde, Texas, yesterday, or President Joe Bidens emotional plea for action last night, will result in legislative action.

Thats because gun control is one of many issues in which majority opinion in the nation runs into the brick wall of a Senate rulethe filibusterthat provides a veto over national policy to a minority of the states, most of them small, largely rural, preponderantly white, and dominated by Republicans.

David Frum: Americas hands are full of blood

The disproportionate influence of small states has come to shape the competition for national power in America. Democrats have won the popular vote in seven of the past eight presidential elections, something no party had done since the formation of the modern party system in 1828. Yet Republicans have controlled the White House after three of those elections instead of one, twice winning the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. The Senate imbalance has been even more striking. According to calculations by Lee Drutman, a senior fellow in the political-reform program at New America, a center-left think tank, Senate Republicans have represented a majority of the U.S. population for only two years since 1980, if you assign half of each states population to each of its senators. But largely because of its commanding hold on smaller states, the GOP has controlled the Senate majority for 22 of those 42 years.

The practical implications of these imbalances were dramatized by the last full-scale Senate debate over gun control. After the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Connecticut, the Senate in 2013 voted on a measure backed by President Barack Obama to impose background checks on all gun sales. Again assigning half of each states population to each of its senators, the 54 senators who supported the bill (plus thenSenate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who opposed it only for procedural reasons) represented 194 million Americans. The remaining senators who opposed the bill represented 118 million people. But because of the Senates filibuster rule, which requires the backing of 60 senators to move legislation to a vote, the 118 million prevailed.

The outcome likely would not differ today. Last year, the House passed legislation to expand and strengthen background checks. But it, too, has been blocked by a Republican filibuster in the Senate.

That impassable opposition reflects the GOPs reliance on the places and voters most deeply devoted to gun culture. Polling last year by the Pew Research Center found that the share of Republicans who live in a household with a gun (54 percent) far exceeds the share of Democrats who do (31 percent). (In all, Pew found that four in 10 adults live in a house with a gun and only three in 10 own one.) A 2020 Rand Corporation study found that the 20 states with the highest rates of gun ownership had elected almost two-thirds of the Senates Republican lawmakers (32 of 50) and comprised about two-thirds of the states that President Donald Trump carried in the 2020 election (17 of 25). In an almost mirror image, the 20 states with the lowest rates of gun ownership had elected almost two-thirds of the Senates Democratic lawmakers (also 32 of 50) and comprised about two-thirds of the states Biden won (16 of 25). The 20 states with the lowest rates of gun ownership have more than two and half times as many residents (about 192 million) as the states with the highest gun-ownership rates (about 69 million). But in the Senate, these two sets of states carry equal weight.

In their opposition to gun control, Republicans in Congress clearly are prioritizing the sentiments of gun owners in their party over any other perspective, even that of other Republican voters. The Pew polling found that significant majorities of Americans support background checks (81 percent), an assault-weapons ban (63 percent), and a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines (64 percent); a majority also opposes concealed carry of weapons without a permit. Majorities of Republicans who dont own guns shared those opinions, as did Democratic gun owners, by even more lopsided margins. Even most Republicans who do own guns said in the polling that they support background checks and oppose permitless concealed carry (which more red states, including Texas, are authorizing). Despite all of this, Republican elected officials, in their near-lockstep opposition to gun control, have bent to groups like the NRA in equating almost any restrictions as a sign of disrespect to the values of red America.

Even though the NRA has weakened institutionally, its influence inside the GOP has been magnified by the reconfiguration of American politics along geographic lines. When Congress, during Clintons first term, created the national background-check system through the Brady Bill and later approved a ban on assault weapons (which has since expired), significant numbers of congressional Democrats representing rural constituencies opposed the legislation, while significant numbers of Republicans with big suburban constituencies supported it. But three decades of electoral re-sorting has significantly shrunk both of those groups. As a result, when the House passed its universal-background-check bill in 2021, only eight Republicans voted for it, while just a single Democrat voted against it.

Clint Smith: No parent should have to live like this

The Senates small-state bias is impeding legislative action on other issues on which Americans broadly agree, including climate change, abortion, and immigration. As with gun control, polls consistently show that a majority of Americans support acting on climate change, oppose overturning Roe v. Wade, and back comprehensive immigration reform, including offering legal status to undocumented immigrants (especially young people brought into the country by their parents). The House has passed legislation reflecting each of those perspectives. The Senates inaction on these issues again reflects the outsize influence of those states with the highest gun-ownership rateswhich also tend to be those enmeshed in the fossil-fuel economy, with high shares of culturally conservative white Christians and low shares of immigrants.

If there is any hope for congressional action on gun control in the aftermath of the Uvalde tragedyor another mass shooting in the futureit almost certainly will require reform or elimination of the filibuster. Otherwise, the basic rules of American politics will continue to allow Republicans to impose their priorities even when a clear majority of Americans disagree. The hard truth is that theres no way to confront Americas accelerating epidemic of gun violence without first addressing its systemic erosion of majority rule.

View original post here:
The Real Reason America Doesn't Have Gun Control - The Atlantic

Our fact-check on President Joe Bidens claim about mass shooting deaths rising after the assault weapon ban expired in 2004 sparked a generally well-informed debate from a variety of viewpoints, particularly on reddit.

After a draft Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade leaked, our explanation of the legislative options drew a couple of comments about the power of the Supreme Court.

We also heard from you about the Republican charge that Democrats seek an open border with Mexico. And, we read some broader reflections about the number of outlandish Facebook claims that we take the time to check.

On that last point, well just note that we check claims that are getting a fair bit of traffic. So, maybe some people skip right over these posts, but other people are definitely reading them.

Biden on the assault weapon ban of 1994

The claim: "When we passed the assault weapons ban, mass shootings went down. When the law expired, mass shootings tripled." Mostly True

One person wrote, "If theres no strong evidence that a ban made a change in numbers of mass shootings, then whats the point? Correlation means nothing without strong evidence, so this entire article is just misleading. Im all for making new policies to prevent deaths and other mass shootings, but Id rather those policies be based on facts and empirical data and not unsubstantiated and misleading data."

Another added, "This is frustrating because 'Mostly True is about the fact stated by the quote, but most people are interpreting it as transitive to the implication of the quote. To wit, it is mostly true that expiration of the ban caused the rise in shootings. (And so we should bring back the ban to cause shootings to declinewhich also plays to our intuition: fewer guns = fewer mass shootings, right?) But even the fact check article clearly states that no studies have found a causal link between the ban and the fall in shootings. Theyve only found a correlation."

And a third person wrote, "I'm really curious what different metrics people are using for mass shooting events. Because this often sourced website says there were 4,600 mass shootings since 2013, while this report is only counting 500 events for the entire period from 1994-2013. That's a massive disparity, and I think any report should have these qualifications described front and center anytime we're comparing one report to another, since it could make a massive difference at how the data appears."

The leaked Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling

We published many stories and fact-checks about abortion and Roe v. Wade. A reader told us, "In your assessment of the proposed Supreme Court ruling, you neglected to point out that Congress is the law-creating body in this country, with the confirmation of the sitting president. It was never the purpose of the Supreme Court to create laws, therefore making Roe v. Wade not law at all. I would guess that 90% of the citizens are not aware of this important fact."

Another person wrote that our article, "Why Democrats control of the White House and Congress isn't enough to pass law protecting abortion," neglects another obstacle in codifying Roe: "Codified laws are subject to review by the Supreme Court, just as they review precedent. Democrats may pass a law that may be challenged, and the Supreme Court could rule it unconstitutional and strike it. The Supreme Court deserves its name."

Open borders

The claim: Republican Senate candidate Blake Masters said, "Democrats want open borders so they can bring in and amnesty tens of millions of illegal aliens thats their electoral strategy." False

A reader said, "Immigration reform proposals from Democrats often are a compromise of creating a pathway to citizenship where undocumented immigrants who are already here can get citizenship, but only after a decade or more of waiting to get a green card, and then close to another decade of waiting after that. I guess you could call that amnesty in a sense. But it's not open borders, and the proposals also often pair that amnesty with much tougher enforcement of undocumented immigration and the border."

On strange claims

We check all sorts of claims, and no question, some are way out there. Like COVID-19 is a synthetic version of "snake venom." Or, evil forces are spreading through remdesivir, the COVID-19 vaccines and drinking water to "make you a hybrid of Satan." And, "Breaking: Democrats introduce bill to put Americans in quarantine camps."

We suspect that claims like these were on this readers mind when he said, "I've noticed that many, many statements you are now fact-checking are so bizarrely improbable they read more like The Onion. It is a sad state of affairs when you are having to fact-check stuff even more ridiculous than an alien weed-whacker abducted my front lawn. Are people really so credulous now?"

And more in a policy vein, this reader complained, "I supported PolitiFact for a while, during the absurd statements of the last few years. But, it appears mostly focused on fact-checking the most absurd extreme positions and statements. Most outstanding government social issues are complex and the details matter. Not just a buzzword or slogan that is right or wrong. I would be very supportive of a site that offers complex highlights of complex government or social issues."

Here is the original post:
Mailbag: The Uvalde shooting and gun control, Roe v. Wade, open borders, and more - PolitiFact

In Buffalo, New York, last week, a lone gunman brutally murdered ten people and injured three more in one of the deadliest racist massacres in recent American history.

The shooter appears to have put out a large manifesto as a twisted justification for the killings. His abhorrent ramblings concluded that there was a replacement of white Americans by people of color, and that it must be stopped. This racist ideology led him to choose Buffalo, a town comprised of mostly black Americans.

Some drew comparisons of his racist justification to the fear of many Americans that they will be replaced by immigrants. According to one poll, one in three Americans believes an effort is underway to replace native-born Americans with immigrants for electoral gains. While there are differences between this concern and the Great Replacement theory, they do share some frightening similarities.

Although we wont dig into the politics too much, we will show why the Great Replacement theory is dangerous.

Immigrants are often morally conservative, even though they strongly tend to vote for Democrats. For instance, in 2019, 53 percent of Hispanic immigrants reported themselves as Democrats or leaning that way; 39 percent said Republican or leaning that way.

Some analysts say their Democratic leanings are because they dont feel welcomed by the Republican party. Others say its because immigrants normally come from socialist countries and Democrats will give them more government support. Still others say its because Democrats are lenient on immigration.

One of the biggest political conundrums is a chicken before the egg question. Do immigrants vote for Democrats because of their immigration policies? Or, do Democrats open up the borders because they know immigrants will vote for them?

The latter interpretation has been picked up by many controversial pundits. Some raise concerns to goad Republicans to vote to keep America from changing its demographics and giving more power to the Democrats. (Its hard to see, personally, why this strategy is favored over simply trying to win immigrants over to the conservative side.)

As far as legal immigrants, there was a ratio of 5.8 native-born babies to 1 new American from naturalization in 2020. Additionally, illegal immigrants dont illegally vote in detectable numbers.

That said, there are plenty of reasonable conservative arguments for more strictly enforcing current immigration laws and there are also arguments for and against making immigration easier. These conservative political beliefs are not necessarily the same as replacement theory.

But, there are other sinister ways this outlook on immigration can easily be twisted.

The Great Replacement theory is one put forward by a right-wing French thinker named Renaud Camus. The ideology was touted by the New Zealand gunman who killed over fifty people. On the surface, Camus rejects violence but uses strong language condemning nonwhite immigration.

The theory has been widely condemned as racist, xenophobic (bigotedly fearful of other cultures), and unfactual. I have discussed the idea that Europe is becoming more Muslim, but I pointed out that a Muslim majority is not a sure conclusion and that the vast majority of Muslims are assimilating, with entirely peaceful intentions. The philosophy of the Great Replacement is baseless and fearmongering, and most everyone (conservatives included) rejects it.

However, a similar conservative talking point is that the government is allowing immigrants in to replace native-born Americans for electoral gain. In America, the view that somebody is purposefully flooding the US with immigrants to take away your influence can be twisted to mean white people are being replaced by people of color. Christians must outright reject racist notions which would call anyone lesser for their skin color or ethnicity.

As Christians, we must be extremely careful that worldly philosophies like these dont creep into our thinking. Dr. Jim Denison dismantled the QAnon conspiracy theories, though they are still propagated to this day. Sadly, people prone to believing conspiracy theories are also prone to believing the Great Replacement theory.

If we say I cant believe these people from such-and-such a place are coming in! I barely even recognize this country anymore. It used to be a Christian nation, then we are dangerously close to Christian Nationalism and a whole host of other unbiblical ideas.

Indeed, if there are racial undertones in your political worries, it also becomes racial prejudice, an evil sin that God hates.

As Christians, we should be asking: Is this political idea making me less loving toward immigrants or another ethnicity? Is my political leaning making me fear immigrants first before I move to love them?

If so, we should take a long, careful look at whats really driving our thoughts, because those ideas are antithetical to Gods word.

This can be unnecessarily confusing, and at worst, intentionally misleading to conflate the conservative positions on immigration with this more sinister replacement theory. Both the left and right are guilty of confusing this phrase. Many media outlets accuse Republicans of using replacement language to talk about immigrants, while Republicans deny that its the same as the Great Replacement and that it has no racial undertones.

Even as we debate the issue of immigration, we must strive for clarity and truth. We should be wary of those who use replacement language, and we should also be wary of those who say more restrictive immigration is automatically the same as the Great Replacement theory.

Many characterize immigrants as a burden on society. In general, this could not be further from the truth. Economically, immigrants lead to billions of dollars in growth as a labor force, especially because of their unskilled labor.

Regardless of whether they are useful to our society, as Christians we should recognize immigrants (sojourners) as part of the least of these the Bible exhorts us to love (Matthew 25:40, Zechariah 7:910). If your church is close to where refugees are being resettled or immigrants are moving, we encourage you to get involved in serving them.

As Christians, we must make sure to tear down any prejudiced feelings about such people made in Gods image.

And, the good news is that around two-thirds of Americans believe that diversity makes the US stronger.

Our political allegiance on these issues should always be secondary to and informed by our primary one: loving our neighbor and caring for the immigrant.

For those on the left, take care that you are not only relying on the government to help others. The governments activity or inactivity doesnt prevent you from helping those in need. In fact, the mandate to love our immigrant neighbors applies to you as equally as it does to conservatives.

For those on the right, take care not to let inflamed rhetoric of them and they and the deplorables cloud compassion or hide an immigrants humanity. And do not let unfounded fear take hold so that youre led to prejudice.

The forty-third President of the US, George W. Bush, was a Republican and conservative. He led the country through 9/11 and the Great Recession. And, contrary to popular expectations, he tried to pass a great deal of immigration reform. These reforms were a middle ground that did not allow amnesty but also did not require mass deportations, etc. His desire was to see America stronger through a large, diverse immigrant population.

Its clear that his heart for immigrants remains. In a beautiful work that unites across the aisle, Out of Many, One: Portraits of Americas Immigrants, tells the stories of forty-three American immigrants he personally knew, loved, and respected. For each, Bush created an oil-paint portrait and includes it along with their story.

He writes, At its core, immigration is a sign of a confident and successful nation. . . . We must always be proud to welcome people as fellow Americans. Our new immigrants are just what theyve always been people willing to risk everything for the dream of freedom.

Former President George W. Bushs outspoken faith, love of immigrants, and art give a beautiful example of how American Christians can respond to immigration (even if they hold conservative beliefs).

The Great Replacement is a theory deeply rooted in fear and prejudice that has no place in Gods kingdom. And while there is room for disagreement on immigration law, Gods law on how we are to value those made in his image is beyond debate.

Lets learn to have healthy conversations about how to best love immigrants, both through politics and through our ministry.

Read the original here:
Why the Great Replacement theory is dangerous - Denison Forum

After losing several bids for office in the past two decades, and finally winning a seat on the Douglas County Commission in 2020, Danny Tarkanian is now challenging longtime incumbent Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV) in a primary for Nevadas only safe Republican congressional district on the basis that during his time as congressman, Amodei has not done enough for District 2.

As Amodeis most well-known contender, Tarkanian has criticized many of the incumbents votes, especially his support of the most recent $1.5 trillion omnibus bill, which included preserving funding for Planned Parenthood as part of reauthorization of the federal Violence Against Women Act, $13.6 billion for Ukraine and nearly $11.5 million for 10 Nevada-based projects.

Tarkanian, who sat down with The Nevada Independent last week for a wide-ranging interview, said that in just over a year as county commissioner, constituents have praised him, even stating that nobody's ever [stood up for them] before in the county commission.

And while Tarkanian strongly identifies with former President Donald Trumps America First ideals, he said he does believe in working across the aisle, quoting late Sen. Harry Reid that politics is the art of compromise.

It's about persuasion and that's how you get things done, he said. You don't get that done by calling people names and demeaning them and going on down on national TV and trying to say the worst things about somebody.

The District 2 Republican primary will be between Amodei, Tarkanian and Brian Nadell, a professional poker player who previously ran for District 3 in Southern Nevada. Tarkanian filed for candidacy on the last day of the filing period in March, which gave him just two weeks to fundraise. He raised nearly $132,000 in the first three months of the year just $20,000 less than Amodei raised in the first quarter of 2022 but Amodei still has a significant fundraising advantage over Tarkanian.

During the interview, Tarkanian weighed in on everything from rapid inflation and the economy and health care to immigration. Below are highlights from the discussion:

On running for Congress

Asked why he deserved to be elected over Amodei, Tarkanian suggested that Amodei had been anything but a conservative voice for the very conservative District 2.

In describing his candidacy as one based off America First principles, Tarkanian also criticized votes from Amodei that included support for an immigration compromise that involved a path to citizenship for DREAMers; support for border security money for the Middle Eastern country of Jordan, and his initial support for a House impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump (though Amodei later opposed the actual articles of impeachment).

The thing about Mark is, he's a likable guy, and I like Mark he's a fun guy to be around, Tarkanian said. But his votes aren't representative of the people and CD2, and I believe very strongly in these types of conservative principles.

However, Tarkanian said his descriptions of Amodeis voting record did not amount to criticism of that record, and said instead that he was making a distinction between himself and his opponent.

I'm not criticizing him, I'm exposing his votes, informing the voters of his votes compared to mine, Tarkanian said. Ive not one time said anything personal about Mark. I like Mark as a person.

Ukraine

As the war in Ukraine drags on and American financial and military support to Ukraine has ramped up Tarkanian said he did not agree with the Biden administrations strategy at all, adding that he believed the White House should have taken a harder stance against Russia.

I don't believe Russia's threats of using nuclear force against us if we came out and supported Ukraine helping to provide them with the military aircraft that they so desperately needed, [and that] was going to cause some type of nuclear crisis, he said.

Still, he would absolutely not support the deployment of American troops to Ukraine as the war continues. The deployment of troops to Ukraine remains broadly unpopular among Nevadans, with a plurality, 44 percent, opposing the idea, according to an April poll from The Nevada Independent and OH Predictive Insights.

Tarkanian also pushed back on a $40 billion aid package for Ukraine passed by Congress earlier this month, arguing both that not enough of the money went toward military support and that much of that spending could have been used domestically instead.

He also suggested that other Western countries, especially the largest economies in Europe, were not doing enough to provide Ukraine with financial and military assistance, and that the largest burden should not be left to the U.S.

I'm all for being the world leader, and trying to get other countries to come together and do the right thing, Tarkanian said. But we shouldn't be the world's police officer, and we shouldn't be the world's bank.

The economy

Amid surging inflation from the ongoing effects of massive pandemic stimulus under both the Trump and Biden White Houses, to supply chain disruptions to the war in Ukraine Tarkanian said that the early federal stimulus was not worth the inflationary pressure now hitting the economy.

When you start talking about what they did to save the economy, there's been hundreds of billions of dollars they've identified as waste and abuse from the COVID handouts that were done, Tarkanian said.

Tarkanian specifically pointed to issues in the Paycheck Protection Program, designed to give federal loans to small businesses forced to close because of COVID and later plagued by fraud or loans given to large businesses.

There, he said, the federal government should have been more selective about which businesses received PPP checks. A basketball gym owned by Tarkanian also received nearly $94,000 across two PPP loans in 2020 and 2021.

Editor's Note: In 2020, The Nevada Independent applied for and received PPP loans.

On the subject of how quickly the Federal Reserve should act on interest rates as a means to tame inflation, Tarkanian deferred, calling it a decision for the Fed.

Let's talk about what has caused this inflation, [the] out-of-control spending by both Republicans and Democrats that have raised our debt to unsustainable levels, he said, specifically referencing votes in favor of federal budget bills by Amodei.

As for sharply rising gas prices, Tarkanian downplayed the role of the war in Ukraine on energy and echoed a common refrain among Republicans, criticizing the Biden administrations environmental policies as a war on gas and oil and so forth.

When we were energy independent [under Trump], where we produced enough energy for ourselves, we didn't rely on Middle East oil, our prices went down, Tarkanian said.

Tarkanian added that he was all for these other alternative sources of energy, referencing renewable energy, but also that we cant destroy our country's economy and allow China to far surpass us by reducing oil and gas leases in the U.S.

As the price of a gallon of gas has creeped toward the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, Tarkanian said he had not looked at the issue closely enough to suggest a precise number for a new minimum, saying instead that he believed you need to pay people more than they are going to get not working.

I think if you want to encourage people to work, you need to make sure they can get paid a decent enough salary, that would be better than receiving unemployment, he said.

Tarkanian also said that not all people earning the minimum wage are the same, and that teenage employees differ from an employee with a family.

If you're talking about somebody who's trying to take care of a family $12 an hour isn't very much, Tarkanian said. And what they're going to do is they're going to stop working and to go on a federal handout, and it's going to cost us more money. So maybe there has to be a tiered system.

Housing

Amid record-breaking rents and affordable housing shortages in Nevada, Tarkanian who used to work in real estate said that raising interest rates should slow down the hike and reduce the cost of housing.

I believe we're going to be heading into recession, he said. When that recession hits, home prices are going to drop.

Tarkanian does not believe that the Fed can do much more, and its a matter of supply and demand.

Education

Tarkanian, who has four children, said he is all for funding education but it should be done the right way through the U.S. Department of Education.

He said more school choice and competition would improve the education system because, as it stands now, wealthier families are the ones able to afford private school.

And I hear the arguments they say, Well, you're going to take money out of the school system, but when you take money out of the school system, youre reducing the size of the classrooms, too, Tarkanian argued.

On his website, he states that Critical Race Theory should be banned from schools and the military.

Immigration

Tarkanians website states that he would never vote to give citizenship to undocumented people, including recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which he doubled down on during the interview. But he also criticized Congress for not being able to agree on immigration reform for people that want to come here and they have jobs that are needed.

I think we could solve these problems if we had people in Washington who really want to solve those problems, he said. I'm not in favor of going out door to door and trying to find people that are here illegally and deporting them I'm also not in favor of giving citizenship to people who came here illegally under any circumstances.

Tarkanian has been outspoken about his position on amnesty, which he defines as crossing into a country and someone grants you citizenship." He added that providing a path to citizenship for undocumented people would be a reward for coming into the U.S. illegally.

Tarkanian also said Congress is not doing enough to secure the countrys borders and coming up with a system that can handle the amount of people seeking asylum.

Abortion

As a Catholic, Tarkanian said he believes life starts at conception and does not support abortion unless the mothers life is at risk, but his faith shouldnt govern what laws are imposed.

And although he believes it is the states job to come up with abortion laws and not the federal government, he said there should be a general consensus abortion policy otherwise people would cross state lines to terminate pregnancies.

He argued that when Roe v. Wade was first handed down, the Supreme Court agreed that a baby could live outside the womb after the second trimester, but with the development of modern medicine, pre-term babies have been able to survive outside the womb earlier.

I believe that if we say that someone dies when the heartbeat ends, then we should say, life starts when the heartbeat starts, he said. And that's what I would push if there was federal legislation.

Tarkanian acknowledged that Nevadans voted to codify a law allowing for legal abortions up to 24 weeks in 1990 and he cant do much about it.

Tarkanian also said he is opposed to taxpayer money going toward Planned Parenthood.

Health care

Tarkanian sharply criticized the Affordable Care Act (ACA) often referred to as Obamacare saying that theres been no act that has made our health care affordable.

Citing his own experience of monthly costs that have increased more than six-fold since the passage of the ACA, Tarkanian said the health law penalized the people that were paying for [private] insurance themselves.

In its place, he said, should be a system that creates competition within the healthcare industry.

If everybody has health insurance, and it's provided for them, either through their employer or through the government or whatever else [hospitals and doctors] don't care how much they brought [prices] up, he said. So there's gotta be some type of way to have some skin in the game where they're having to pay for these costs.

Tarkanian also expressed support for a system modeled more on health savings accounts, and said that pre-existing conditions ought to be covered under a government-subsidized high risk account. And though he cautioned that Medicaid and Medicare are not for everybody, he said that we need to be able to help provide for people who cant afford it themselves.

Regulating Big Tech

Tarkanian said federal antitrust laws should be used to break up some of the largest technology companies, in part to generate more competition in the industry.

Weve got the greatest economy the world's ever seen based upon competition, and when you create just one or two businesses, you don't have that competition, Tarkanian said.

Tarkanian did not give a specific position on Section 230 a provision of federal communications law that governs large swaths of the internet and allows social media sites to operate as platforms, rather than publishers but he did call for people to be held responsible for what they post online and face consequences for lies.

People don't have the courage to put their name behind what they're saying, and then they say it, and it's complete lies, and they hide under the immunity provisions, he said. No, I don't think that's right.

When asked how he would like to see the issue addressed, Tarkanian suggested rolling back anonymity, saying instead that you should have your name out there, you should have your information, you should be verified, that youre a real person.

And then you should be responsible for what youre posting, he said.

See the rest here:
On the Record: House GOP candidate Danny Tarkanian on the economy, health care and immigration The Nevada Independent - The Nevada Independent