David Ratowitz'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.
David Ratowitz refused to tell citizens where he stands on any of the issues addressed in the 2010 Political Courage Test, despite repeated requests from Vote Smart, national media, and prominent political leaders.
Issue Positions
For Presidential and Congressional candidates who refuse to provide voters with their positions, Vote Smart has researched their public records to determine their likely responses. These issue positions are from 2010.
- David Ratowitz. 2010. Illinois Federation for Right to Life: 2010 Illinois Primary Election Candidate Survey. Responded YES to: "Would you oppose any proposed health plan that would use the tax payer funds to pay for abortions?" (www.ifrl.org)
- David Ratowitz. 2010. Illinois Federation for Right to Life: 2010 Illinois Primary Election Candidate Survey. Responded "YES" to the question "Do you support the complete reversal of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, thereby allowing the state legislatures and congress to once again protect unborn children?" (www.ifrl.org)
- David Ratowitz. 2010. Illinois Federation for Right to Life: 2010 Illinois Primary Election Candidate Survey. Responded B) "To prevent the death of the mother, in cases of incest, and in report cases of forcible rape." to the question: "The Illinois Federation for Right to Life (IFRL) believes that unborn children should be protected by law, and that abortion should be permitted only when necessary to prevent the death of the mother. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe that abortion should be legal?" (www.ifrl.org)
- David Ratowitz. 2010. Illinois Federation for Right to Life: 2010 Illinois Primary Election Candidate Survey. Responded YES to: "Besides Medicaid, would you vote against weakening the existing bans on the use of any congressionally appropriated funds for abortion in bills covering the military, federal employs, the District of Columbia, etc., with the same exceptions as the Hyde Amendment?" (www.ifrl.org)
- David Ratowitz. 2010. Illinois Federation for Right to Life: 2010 Illinois Primary Election Candidate Survey. Responded YES to: "Would you vote against legislation that would allow the performance of abortions at U.S. Military facilities, even if privately funded (except to save the life of the mother, or in the case of rape and incest)?" (www.ifrl.org)
- David Ratowitz. 2010. Illinois Federation for Right to Life: 2010 Illinois Primary Election Candidate Survey. Responded YES to: "Would you vote against the use of taxpayer funds for abortion except to safe the life of the mother?" (www.ifrl.org)
- David Ratowitz. Issue Position: Right To Life. "I believe the right of a human being to remain alive is the most fundamental -- the one upon which all others are founded. Once an unborn child reaches a stage at which he or she is considered alive, that child's right to remain alive supersedes the mother's right to choose whether or not to continue her pregnancy. I support the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2006, which requires doctors to tell mothers about fetal development and the capacity of unborn children to feel pain." (votesmart.org)
- David Ratowitz. 2010. Campaign for Liberty: Candidate Surveys. Responded: "Y,Y,Y,Y" to the question "20. Indicate the tax cuts you are willing to vote for: * Across the Board Income Tax Cut * Capital Gains Tax Cut * Business Tax Cut * Estate Tax Cut" (www.campaignforliberty.com)
- ABC News WLS- TV Chicago IL. 2010. David Ratowitz, Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives, IL-5. "Government does not create jobs, not in Illinois, nor anywhere else. Government intervention in the economy more often destroys jobs, or chases them away. Government intervention can also exacerbate unemployment by inhibiting new job creation. Private business does not need incentive or stimulus to make more money; it simply needs capital to grow. The single greatest source of stable investment capital for business is reinvested profit. To encourage job growth in Illinois and nationwide in the short run, I would work toward across-the-board tax cuts. To transform those short-term gains into long-term, sustainable growth, I would work toward balancing the budget through aggressive spending cuts." (abclocal.go.com)
- David Ratowitz. 2010. Fox Chicago News: 2010 Voter Guide. Responded: "Economic growth needs no encouragement. Human beings are inherently productive, Americans more so than most. Remove impediments and economic growth and prosperity will be the natural consequence. The stagnant economy and lingering unemployment are the natural and predictable results of the Democrats radical economic policies. These same policies produced identical results when implemented in Europe, Japan, Latin America, and even here in the U. S. While the recession ended some time ago, government has essentially outlawed the recovery! Economic growth requires maximizing the cash available to invest in productive uses. To allow growth, government must restrain spending so that it stops competing with small businesses for capital. Furthermore, government must reduce taxes so that small businesses have more of their own profits available to reinvest." to the question "What's your plan to encourage economic growth?" (www.thevoterguide.org)
- David Ratowitz. 2010. Chicago Sun-Times: U.S. Representative Primary Election Questionnaire. Responded "Governments do not create jobs. Eighty percent of new jobs emerge from small businesses, yet these are precisely the businesses least able to afford the lawyers and lobbyists needed to attract government funding. Large, failing corporations have the greatest incentive to seek government financing to replace their own dwindling revenues. Government intrusion into business has the effect of withdrawing money from the very productive small business sector and funneling it into those companies that are losing jobs. This is precisely why nations with governments that are directly involved in 'job creation' exhibit systemic, double-digit unemployment." to the question "What should be the role of government in putting Americans back to work?" (media.suntimes.com)
- David Ratowitz. 2010. Chicago Tribune: Editorial board endorsements questionnaire. Responded "The very notion that a bank could be 'too big to fail' is nonsense. When a bank fails, the depositors do not vanish. Neither do borrowers, employees, branches, ATM machines or any other assets of that bank. What should vanish are the owners and managers whose poor decisions led to the bank's failure. They should be replaced by owners and managers of successful banks who acquire the distressed assets and apply sound decision-making to those assets. The financial shock that occurred when Lehman Brothers failed was not intrinsic to the industry. It was merely the realization that the owners and managers were responsible for their own mistakes. Those owners and managers correctly hesitated to make further mistakes.By undermining this lesson and reassuring the financial industry that taxpayers would subsidize recklessness, our government has placed us in an even more precarious situation...Further, I advocate adjusting the bankruptcy code to ensure public confidence in the orderly dissolution of failed banks. This will send the message that reckless financial managers cannot expect taxpayers to bail them out and will ensure a smooth transition the first time a reckless manager tests the system." to the question "What specific changes would you make to financial oversight of banks and financial institutions in the U.S. so that no single large entity could pose a systemic risk to the economy? Would you like to see more or less power given to the Federal Reserve Board? Would you favor a new federal regulator to oversee financial products sold to consumers?" (primaries2010.elections.chicagotribune.com)
- David Ratowitz. 2010. Chicago Tribune: Editorial Board Questionnaire. Responded: "Social security is an unsound program, based on unrealistic assumptions. The Baby Boom generation plans to rely more on their own retirement savings than on social security. My generation has always known that social security will not be there for us. In fixing our national retirement system our policy must acknowledge this reality. Tinker with it as we may, the program will not accomplish its goals because it cannot. I advocate expanding the Individual Retirement Account system already in existence. While recent stock market turmoil cast doubt upon that system, two important factors have been ignored. First is the extent the stock market rebound has had in revitalizing those retirement accounts, and second is that, in spite of the impact the stock market turmoil has had on individual retirement accounts, they were always better off than our insolvent social security system." to the question "Would you raise the Social Security payroll tax on employers and employees? Would you raise the retirement age beyond 67? Would you change the benefit formula? Be specific and explain." (elections.chicagotribune.com)
- Despite exhaustive research, Vote Smart was unable to find information about this candidate's position.
- David Ratowitz. 2010. Chicago Tribune: Editorial board endorsements questionnaire. Responded "I advocate directly tying education resources to school performance by allowing parents to choose schools and allocating resources based upon those choices." to the question "The Obama administration has committed $4.35 billion for education reform through its Race to the Top program. It's not clear yet if Illinois will qualify for this money. Please give us your views on how to improve public education in the U.S. and in this state. Do you support performance pay for teachers? Charter schools?" (primaries2010.elections.chicagotribune.com)
- David Ratowitz. 2010. Chicago Tribune: Editorial board endorsements questionnaire. Responded "Only by eliminating the government monopoly on education will we develop an education system that provides more Americans with the tools to provide for themselves." to the question "What changes in revenue and benefits do you support to keep Medicare and Social Security solvent?" (primaries2010.elections.chicagotribune.com)
- David Ratowitz. 2010. Chicago Sun-Times: U.S. Representative Primary Election Questionnaire. Responded "Our current government-run monopoly on education has produced low-quality education at an ever-increasing price, precisely what a monopoly is designed to do. It is time that we implement the simple, common sense solution that is long overdue: Break up the monopoly on education and allow innovation, professionalism and sound management to replace stagnation, cronyism and despair. Standardized tests are necessary to enable parents to make decisions regarding their children's schooling. Testing is performed at all levels of education to allow educators to evaluate students, and those results are used by parents who are able to select schools to make their selection. I do not believe it necessary for a government bureaucracy to administer standardized tests, there is an existing private industry that does an excellent job already" to the question "Comment on the president's education agenda, specifically his push for national standards and tests and the use of student test results to evaluate and reward teachers." (media.suntimes.com)
- David Ratowitz. Issue Position: Education. "Parents, not bureaucrats, should ultimately determine where their children attend school. In our education system, the wealthy are able to send their children to their private school of choice. Well-to-do members of the middle class buy homes in neighborhoods with better schools. The majority of working Americans and the nation's poor are forced to send their children to mediocre and often under-performing schools. I believe in Universal School Choice, which allows all Americans, not just the wealthy and well connected, to send their children to excellent schools." (votesmart.org)
- David Ratowitz signed Americans for Prosperity: No Climate Tax Pledge. 2010. (www.noclimatetax.com)
- David Ratowitz signed the Contract from America. "Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation's global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures." (www.thecontract.org)
- David Ratowitz. 2010. Illinois Family Institute: 2010 Voter Guide. Responded "OPPOSE" to the question "Tax Increase/ Cap and Trade-will tax energy consumption to combat "global warming (American Clean Energy and Security Act 2009)" (www.iviipo.org)
- David Ratowitz. 2010. Chicago Sun-Times: U.S. Representative Primary Election Questionnaire. Responded "Whether or not one accepts climate change theory, Cap and Trade is a disaster that will sacrifice jobs and increase energy costs here in Illinois and in the 5th District, all without beneficial effect on emissions. Even if we assume that carbon emissions contribute to potentially catastrophic changes in climate, how can we justify a barter system that essentially incentivizes "polluters" to resist lowering carbon emission standards in order to avoid costly fines while incentivizing "clean companies" to likewise resist lowering emission standards to avoid losing their valuable carbon credits? Cap and Trade will have no impact on carbon emissions because it incentivizes all parties to resist lowering emission standards....To improve our environment while encouraging sustainable growth, I advocate eliminating existing government roadblocks to both" to the question "What is your position on a national cap and trade program to put a price on carbon dioxide emissions?" (media.suntimes.com)
- David Ratowitz. Issue Position: Environment. "We are all stewards of this earth and have a responsibility to leave a better world for our children. While many people find portions of climate change theory controversial, we can all agree that thrifty use of resources is better than waste. However, for a number of reasons, current federal regulations yield only marginal environmental progress. I advocate eliminating regulations that encourage bad environmental behavior. Politically influenced subsidy programs, like those in the agriculture and infrastructure sectors, for example, encourage waste, over-use of chemical fertilizers, sprawl and water-runoff. Government spending should shift away from marginally productive and environmentally destructive activities to economically productive investments. By focusing on rescinding counterproductive regulations, better environmental policies can be forged that will help America lead the world in emission reduction, real cost savings and economic growth." (votesmart.org)
- David Ratowitz. Issue Position: Environment. "Government spending should shift away from marginally productive and environmentally destructive activities to economically productive investments. By focusing on rescinding counterproductive regulations, better environmental policies can be forged that will help America lead the world in emission reduction, real cost savings and economic growth." (votesmart.org)
- David Ratowitz. Issue Position: 2nd Amendment. "The 2nd Amendment protects every citizen's right to keep and bear arms as an essential element of preserving a free society. While living in Louisiana, I had a conceal and carry license, and I am proud to be a responsible gun owner. Unconstitutional gun bans, like the one in place in the City of Chicago, effectively ensure that only criminals have access guns and weaken the law-abiding majority's natural right of self-defense. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear McDonald vs. the City of Chicago, which challenges the handgun ban's legality. Oral arguments are scheduled for March 2. I will continue to watch this and similar cases closely." (votesmart.org)
- David Ratowitz. Ratowitz Comments On Hand Gun Decision. 24 June 2010. "Long time transparency and pro-liberty advocate Candidate for U.S. Congress from Illinois' 5th Congressional District, David Ratowitz supports the Supreme Court's decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago. "I applaud the Supreme Court's principled defense of Liberty and recognition that rights of law abiding citizens should be at least equal to those the rights of predatory criminals. I urge the Chicago City Council to refrain from plans to use back door methods to re-institute the gun ban and do indirectly what the Supreme Court has just ruled cannot be done directly", said Ratowitz this morning from his Chicago office. The U. S. Supreme Court struck down Chicago's decades old handgun ban this morning in the McDonald v. City of Chicago ruling. The decision has been long expected. "Nearly three decades of historical data have shown conclusively what common sense tells us immediately: unconstitutional gun bans only limit law abiding citizens, they do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals nor do they reduce crime. In nearly three decades Chicago's gun ban produced no positive results whatsoever", said Ratowitz." (votesmart.org)
- David Ratowitz signed the Contract from America. "Defund, repeal and replace the recently passed government-run health care with a system that actually makes health care and insurance more affordable by enabling a competitive, open, and transparent free-market health care and health insurance system that isn't restricted by state boundaries." (www.thecontract.org)
- David Ratowitz. 2010. Illinois Family Institute: 2010 Voter Guide. Responded "OPPOSE" to the question "Government Health Care - A government managed insurance plan that includes a "Public Option" similar to Medicare. (H.R. 3200, H.R. 3962 or U.S. Senator Max Baucus' plan - 2009)" (www.iviipo.org)
- David Ratowitz. 2010. Chicago Sun-Times: U.S. Representative Primary Election Questionnaire. Responded "It is critical to recognize that the high cost of health insurance is not a malfunction of a free marketplace. Instead of a free market, we actually have 50 separate and highly restricted state markets. Rising costs are precisely what a restricted marketplace is supposed to produce. America does not need an expensive national bureaucracy and 2,000 pages of new regulation to create competition in the health insurance market; simply remove the existing government regulation that forbids such competition....The answer to bad government is always less government, not more" to the question "How would you alter the healthcare reform legislation passed by the House on Nov. 7?" (media.suntimes.com)
- David Ratowitz. Issue Position: Health Care. "Government interference in insurance markets has drastically skewed health insurance costs. Government regulations that forbid competition and discourage individuals from purchasing their own insurance, shopping around for health care and leading healthy lives increase the cost of health care and the frequency of pre-existing conditions. Instead of compounding bad policy with expensive bureaucracy, I advocate free market solutions that encourage Americans to 'Live Healthy and Shop Smart'." (votesmart.org)
- David Ratowitz. Issue Position: Immigration. "Illegal immigration strains our system and imposes significant costs. That is why I have proposed sensible reforms to our decades-old federal immigration policies that will encourage lawful immigration while opposing amnesty for law breakers. I propose that prospective citizens, at a minimum, should be free of communicable disease, must not be felons, and must agree to forgo all U.S. entitlements and public assistance in their lifetimes. I favor a thorough review of the H-1B visa program and advocate a fee-based visa system for short-term migrant workers."
- David Ratowitz. 2010. Chicago Sun-Times: U.S. Representative Primary Election Questionnaire. Responded "I do not support amnesty. America is a nation of laws, and there must be consequences for violating those laws. Instead, I propose a series of fines that will discourage future illegal immigration and compensate Americans for the cost of current illegal immigration. Under my plan, current illegal immigrants would face three options: 1) Be deported and banned from entering the United States; 2) Pay all fines and return to their country of origin, where they could access legal immigration channels; or 3) Pay all fines plus an additional fee for a temporary visa allowing them to remain in the United States and apply through legal immigration channels" to the question "Will we ever have a comprehensive policy on immigration? What should it be?" (media.suntimes.com)
- David Ratowitz. Issue Position: Immigration. "Illegal immigration strains our system and imposes significant costs. That is why I have proposed sensible reforms to our decades-old federal immigration policies that will encourage lawful immigration while opposing amnesty for law breakers. I propose that prospective citizens, at a minimum, should be free of communicable disease, must not be felons, and must agree to forgo all U.S. entitlements and public assistance in their lifetimes." (votesmart.org)
- Editorial Board. 2010. Pioneer Press. Ratowitz for 5th Congress. 21 January 2010. "He would remove our troops from Afghanistan and build up counter-terrorism measures from home." (www.ratowitzforcongress.com)
- David Ratowitz. 2010. Chicago Tribune: Editorial board endorsements questionnaire. Responded "...I believe that the United States has no strategic interest in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a geographically isolated country with only a tenuous national identity. There are no long-standing cultural or economic ties between the United States and Afghanistan. Our presence in Afghanistan is not a stabilizing force in the region. Rather, our presence in Afghanistan likely destabilizes Pakistan and perversely secures the eastern border of Iran, freeing up that hostile nation to concentrate on mischief elsewhere. For these reasons, I do not support the continued sacrifice of American lives for a cause that will, in the long run, benefit us very little, if at all." to the question "What are your views on the U.S. military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq? Should the U.S. change the focus of its antiterrorism campaign?" (primaries2010.elections.chicagotribune.com)
- David Ratowitz. 2010. Fox Chicago News: 2010 Voter Guide. Responded: "Support" for the question "Do you support marriage rights for same-sex couples?" (www.thevoterguide.org)
- David Ratowitz. 2010. Chicago Sun-Times: U.S. Representative Primary Election Questionnaire. Responded "The fact that the institution of marriage derives its authority from outside of state bounds helps to explain popular rejection of state attempts to dictate the composition of the institution. The case for gay marriage must be made in the community and not imposed upon the community. That case has not been made, certainly not in Illinois' 5th Congressional District. While I am not hostile to the concept of gay marriage, I do not support congressional interference with an institution that I believe derives authority from outside of the state system" to the question "What is your position on gay marriage and the federal Defense of Marriage Act?" (media.suntimes.com)
Vote Smart does not permit the use of its name or programs in any campaign activity, including advertising, debates, and speeches.