Revision history for UnderstandingIssuePositions
Additions:
**VoteEasy Question:** Do you support targeting suspected terrorists outside of official theaters of conflict?
Deletions:
Additions:
**VoteEasy Question:** Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions?
Yes: Supporters generally feel that federal regulation of emissions, through either a carbon tax, a cap-and-trade system, or other means can be used as a means of limiting greenhouse gas emissions. This desire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is generally driven by the belief that humans are impacting the environment for the worse through these emissions - leading to climate change.
Yes: Supporters generally feel that federal regulation of emissions, through either a carbon tax, a cap-and-trade system, or other means can be used as a means of limiting greenhouse gas emissions. This desire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is generally driven by the belief that humans are impacting the environment for the worse through these emissions - leading to climate change.
Deletions:
Yes: Supporters generally feel that federally mandated emissions regulations, through either a carbon tax, a cap-and-trade system, or other means can be used as a means of limiting greenhouse gas emissions.
Additions:
Context: The Keystone XL pipeline has become a particularly divisive issue because it deals with the trade offs between the benefits of increased oil production and energy independence versus the risks of ruining the important National Natural Landmark of the Nebraskan Sand Hills as well as other environmental concerns. The Keystone XL pipeline is intended to create a more direct route with a higher carrying capacity between the tar sands of Hardisty, Alberta and the oil production and distribution capabilities of Illinois, Oklahoma, and Texas. Additionally, the Keystone XL pipeline would pass through Baker, Montana where American produced oil from the Bakken oil fields could then be transported south for processing. However, this path also runs through the environmentally fragile Sand Hills region of central Nebraska. As such, there has been much discussion about the path the Keystone XL pipeline.
**VoteEasy Question:** Do you support building the Keystone XL pipeline?
Yes: Supporters generally feel that the U.S. should increase its production of oil as much as possible. Supporters cite that the U.S is a net importer of oil, placing it in a strategically disadvantageous position. Supporters also note the potential for American jobs and the positive national security implications of shifting away from reliance on unfriendly or unstable regions for domestic energy needs. Also, the Bakken oil fields are currently extracting oil at a faster rate than they can transport it out of the region to refineries. Proponents generally feel that the benefits of increased oul production and job creation outweigh the risks to the environment.
No: Opponents generally consider the risks of building and running the Keystone XL pipeline through the Sand Hills the over top the Ogallala aquifer is too great in comparison to the potential benefits. Some would support the pipeline expansion if only there was a different route, others point to the fact that there is already a pipeline running from Hardisty to Oklahoma, just on a more round about route. The opposition also points to the Keystone XL pipeline's transportation of oil from the Canadian tar sands (generally considered to be a very dirty fuel type) as going against any directive towards clean energy.
**VoteEasy Question:** Do you support building the Keystone XL pipeline?
Yes: Supporters generally feel that the U.S. should increase its production of oil as much as possible. Supporters cite that the U.S is a net importer of oil, placing it in a strategically disadvantageous position. Supporters also note the potential for American jobs and the positive national security implications of shifting away from reliance on unfriendly or unstable regions for domestic energy needs. Also, the Bakken oil fields are currently extracting oil at a faster rate than they can transport it out of the region to refineries. Proponents generally feel that the benefits of increased oul production and job creation outweigh the risks to the environment.
No: Opponents generally consider the risks of building and running the Keystone XL pipeline through the Sand Hills the over top the Ogallala aquifer is too great in comparison to the potential benefits. Some would support the pipeline expansion if only there was a different route, others point to the fact that there is already a pipeline running from Hardisty to Oklahoma, just on a more round about route. The opposition also points to the Keystone XL pipeline's transportation of oil from the Canadian tar sands (generally considered to be a very dirty fuel type) as going against any directive towards clean energy.
Deletions:
**VoteEasy Question:** Do you support reducing restrictions on offshore energy production?
Yes: Supporters generally feel that the U.S. should increase exploration of oil/gas where such activities are currently off-limits. Supporters cite that the U.S is a net importer of oil, placing it in a strategically disadvantageous position. Supporters also note the potential for American jobs and the positive national security implications of shifting away from reliance on unfriendly or unstable regions for domestic energy needs.
No: Opponents generally feel sufficient federal land is currently open to oil/gas exploration. Opponents cite the potential inaccessibility of domestic reserves and the potentially limited impact of domestic resources on domestic prices (as they are tied to the world market).
Additions:
**VoteEasy Question:** In order to balance the budget, do you support increasing income taxes on any tax bracket?
Deletions:
Context: Various polls show that many Americans think the war in Afghanistan is a "lost cause" or that the United States should no longer be involved. Increasing dissatisfaction with the war could by explained by an increased death toll caused by heavy fighting and a recent surge of troops. While many hoped that an increased presence of American troops would serve to stabilize some of the more dangerous areas of Afghanistan, activities of the Taliban and al-Qaeda in the region has increased. President Obama announced a plan to withdraw American troops in July 2011, and NATO has begun to transition control from their forces to the Afghan military with an estimated completion date of 2014.
**VoteEasy Question:** Do you support United States' combat operations in Afghanistan?
Yes: Supporters generally feel that military action has and will be effective for bringing members of al Qaeda to justice, preventing terrorism, and promoting regional stability. Supporters argue that victory is crucial to the national security of the United States.
No: Opponents generally feel that military action in Afghanistan is not the most effective strategy for preventing terrorism and promoting regional stability. Some feel that involvement in Afghanistan is not crucial to the national security of the United States. Opponents also argue that the financial and personnel cost to the U.S is too great.
Context: According to President Obama's fiscal year 2012 budget proposal, the Department of Defense budget will account for $671 billion, roughly 20 percent of the total budget. In late 2010, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform released its recommendations, saying in part "any serious attempt to reduce the deficit will require deliberate, planned reductions in both domestic and defense spending." The commission specifically recommended "cutting both security and non-security spending," establishing and enforcing spending caps in both areas, "requiring the President to establish annual limits for war spending," and "establishing a disaster fund to budget honestly for catastrophes." Some caution a rush to cut defense spending, noting the United States must maintain a strong defense in the face of two wars, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation.
**VoteEasy Question:** In order to balance the budget, do you support reducing defense spending?
Yes: Supporters advocate for reductions in military and national defense spending as a means of balancing the federal budget. Supporters claim that defense expenditures account for a significant portion of discretionary spending and must be addressed as part of a larger deficit reduction plan.
No: Opponents object to reductions in military and national defense spending as a means of balancing the federal budget. Opponents suggest that reducing defense spending could result in a weakened national defense and/or military.
**VoteEasy Question:** In order to balance the budget, do you support increasing income taxes on at least one tax bracket?
Additions:
+Note from Kristen 9/2014- support for the Parental Rights Amendment (or state equivalents) suggests a "no" answer
