Steven Feldman's Issue Positions (Political Courage Test)
On The Ballot: Running, Libertarian for U.S. House (NC) - District 10
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.
Steven Feldman has provided voters with clear stances on key issues by responding to the 2024 Political Courage Test.
North Carolina Congressional Election 2024 Political Courage Test
| Pro-choice | Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation? | ||
| Yes | Do you support the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade? | ||
| Abortion/ reproductive rights is an issue for which there is no reasonable compromise. The government should absolutely not be controlling women's bodies. The government absolutely should not condone murder. These two no compromise is possible principles are at odds, and some balance must be found. Clearly, we should minimize the number of unwanted pregnancies. I encourage both pro-Choice and pro-Life advocates to advocate for their positions respectfully and to encourage others to understand each other's point of view. I agree with the pro-Choice position that the government should not be in the business of forcing women to give birth, at all times, in all situations. I agree with the pro-Life position that the rights of the fetus must also be considered; a woman does not have the right to indiscriminately end a pregnancy (kill her baby) at any time, for any reason. I don't think there's any one correct answer to this issue, but a reasonable, balanced policy could include: 1. Keeping government out of funding abortions 2. Making abortion illegal after a certain period of gestation, with proper consideration taken for the health of the mother 3. Allowing different states to adopt different regulations, based on the views of the people in those different states | |||
| No | Do you support expanding federal funding to support social safety net programs such as Social Security and Medicare? | ||
| No | Do you support a decrease in income taxes in order to balance the budget? | ||
| No | Do you support a wealth tax in order to pay for public programs? | ||
| Our massive and growing national debt is a threat to our nation and the future of our children. We must spend less and pay down the debt. Taxation should be fair and minimized. As our debt must be paid in the future, it is an unfair tax on our children. Today, that burden stands at $100,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. Unless we change, it will be more tomorrow. Printing more money is no solution. It is a tax on everyone because it makes our money worth less, and this makes all of us, especially the poor, worse off. By reducing defense and healthcare expenditures-- which account for a huge proportion of the Federal budget-- we can start paying down our debt (the interest on which is another huge proportion of the Federal budget). | |||
| No | Do you support the regulation of indirect campaign contributions from corporations, unions, and individuals? | ||
| I trust the electorate. | |||
| No | Do you support protecting government officials, including law enforcement officers, from personal liability in civil lawsuits concerning alleged misconduct? | ||
| No one is above the law. | |||
| No | Do you support increasing defense spending? | ||
| HEAVENS NO! We need to dramatically reduce defense spending. We should defend our borders and not use our military to tell other people how to live their lives. The killing we do abroad is counterproductive, making us less safe. Too few Americans know that sanctions we imposed on Iraq reportedly killed HALF A MILLION Arab children-- before 9-11. We need to influence others by being a good role model, not with force. | |||
| No | Do you support federal spending as a means of promoting economic growth (e.g. grants, tax incentives)? | ||
| No | Do you support the federal government increasing funding for affordable housing programs? | ||
| No | Do you support the federal government taking action, beyond those of the Federal Reserve, to alleviate inflation? | ||
| I support ending regulations that limit economic growth and that make the construction of housing unaffordable. I support spending less on troops and more on "peace corps" workers, so that we have more people trained in construction, plumbing, electrical work who can build our economy. | |||
| No | Do you support the forgiveness of federal student loan debt? | ||
| Not directly, no. There's an unfairness in taking money from others (which is what taxes do) to forgive those who took on loans. That said, developing service programs (not military ones) where people do useful work in exchange for debt relief would be reasonable. | |||
| No | Do you support requiring a government-issued identification in order to vote at the polls? | ||
| I don't support it, but I understand the views of people who do. Some people think a good way to assure fair elections is to require identification; others think that requiring identification makes elections less fair by placing an undue burden on some voters. Recognizing the well-meaning motivations of people on both sides, I encourage us to come together and agree on a system that allows all eligible voters?and only eligible voters?to vote. A voter ID is reasonable if we assure they are easy for eligible voters to obtain one. | |||
| No | Do you support government funding for the development of renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind, geo-thermal)? | ||
| No | Do you support the federal government allowing permits for drilling on public lands? | ||
| I think government should get out of the way of the market and reduce regulations that limit the development of renewable energy. I don't think we should drill, drill, drill now, as it would be good to leave our children some energy resources. | |||
| Yes | Do you generally support gun-control legislation (e.g. red flag laws, boyfriend loopholes)? | ||
| I don?t own a gun. I believe having a gun in my home would bring more risks than benefits. But that is only my personal perception and preference; I would want to force it on anyone else. I do NOT think the government should take guns away from law-abiding citizens. Those of us who think there are too many guns should try to influence others by being role models, not by using the government to force our ideas on others. Some regulations may be reasonable, for example, restrictions on gun ownership by severely mentally ill people who would be likely to hurt others. Gun enthusiasts should be heavily involved in the development of any government policies to regulate gun ownership. This will lead to policies that have the intended effect while minimizing undesirable secondary effects. Having different rules in different states, within the constraints of Constitutional law and depending on the will of the people in those states, seems reasonable to me | |||
| Yes | Do you support a government-run (e.g. single-payer) healthcare program, such as Medicare-for-All? | ||
| No | Do you support expanding paid family AND/OR medical leave benefits (e.g. maternity leave)? | ||
| No | Should the government be able to regulate the cost of prescription drugs? | ||
| There is no perfect medical system because we don?t have unlimited resources. Our current third-party payment system can provide miracles, but it is extraordinarily costly and not accessible to everyone. In our current system, patients don?t have an incentive to choose low cost options. They do have an incentive to choose high cost care. This leaves insurers to ration care. A government-imposed single-payer system that provides ?free? care does assure care for everyone but limits choice and makes government ration care. Plus, it isn?t free. My preference is to encourage market-based care. Markets give people incentives to choose lower cost options, create competition that would reduce health care prices, and give providers incentives to improve quality. Current government-supported healthcare programs could do this by moving to high deductible plans with health savings accounts. This would give people an incentive to seek lower cost care. The resulting competition reduces healthcare prices and costs. While this is my preference, it?s not a perfect system. Some people might choose less care than others think best. That should be their right. There is no perfect system The Federal government could give states the freedom to try different approaches. This would allow us to see the pluses and minuses of each approach and base our future decisions on facts. I don't support forcing a "single payer" on everyone, but it would be good to permit people who want Medicare to be on Medicare and pay the premium. | |||
| No | Do you support increasing security along the southern US border? | ||
| No | Do you support requiring immigrants to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship, regardless of their immigration status? | ||
| On the whole, immigration may be good for the economy overall but can have unacceptable detrimental effects on workers? wages. We already have a lot of "security." Trying to solve immigration by blocking people at the border is, like our failed drug war, a costly, ineffective solution. In the bigger picture, we would do well to end our policies (like sanctions on Venezuela) that make families there desperate to leave. Fixing those policies would be a MUCH more cost effective way to solve the border problem. | |||
| Yes | Do you support economic intervention as a means of resolving international conflicts? | ||
| No | Do you support the US providing increased offensive military aid to Ukraine? | ||
| We have been far too reliant on military approaches (ie, hurting other people) in international affairs. It has been costly and counterproductive. Russians don't want American or German troops on their border any more than we would want their troops on our border. The effort to expand NATO to the Russian border precipitated Russia?s invation. Our experience in the Cuban Missile Crisis is telling?at a time of intense antagonism between the United States and the Soviet Union?the Soviets removed their missiles from Cuba when we removed missiles we had put in Turkey first. To get Russia to withdraw from Ukraine, we need diplomatic solutions that recognize the concerns of all involved parties. As Russia?s invasion of Ukraine was precipitated by the perceived threat of NATO troops on Russia?s border, I?d like to see us offer to withdraw from NATO. Europe doesn?t need our protection. Fighting a proxy war with Russia is bad for Americans in so many ways. Our support for fighting until the last Ukrainian is standing is horrible for Ukrainian families, and, worse, if we were to support Ukraine sufficiently to win the war against Russia, we may bring on worldwide nuclear Armageddon. | |||
| No | Do you generally support increased regulations on social media companies (e.g. Tik Tok, Facebook, etc.)? | ||
| Heavens no! The government should have no role in regulating people's speech on social media. | |||
| We live in the best times in human history. We are better housed, better fed, & better informed. We enjoy technologies that people even 50 years ago would have thought miraculous. Here in America, we do not face the horrors of living in a war zone; we do not face the crushing poverty of a country where the average person gets by on less than a dollar a day. These are the blessings of liberty that our founders pledged themselves to in the Preamble to our Constitution. I am devoted to expanding and extending those blessings to our children and our children?s children. As a general principle, we should look to minimizing government intrusion into people?s lives. People should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn?t hurt others. Regulations to make things better often make things worse, due to their secondary effects or unintended consequences. I want to end the vitriol in our public sphere. We aren?t so far apart in our views. We all have similar goals, such as peace, prosperity, and the freedom to live as we want. We all value decency, kindness, fairness, and respect. Building on the foundation of our shared values, as a congressman I will work with members of all parties and political persuasions to achieve our shared goals. We spend too much time tearing each other down and questioning each other?s motives. We have good human beings across the political spectrum. I can respect the people who hold different political views. I recognize their motivations are good, and I will not encourage anyone to think ill of them. We generally have similar goals, although we may disagree (sometimes passionately) on the best way to achieve those goals. We will achieve our shared goals more often and more quickly by staying focused on our shared values and vision, rather than on our differences. All politicians promote policies they believe are good for American families. We can work together to: 1. Recognize our shared goals 2. Carefully and respectfully try to understand and consider each other?s positions 3. Compromise to resolve our disagreements on policies 4. Try different approaches in different places We need to rely less on war. I will work to make us more peaceful at home and abroad. We desperately need to eliminate the Federal deficit and bring down our debt so that we don't leave our children a bankrupt country. |
Vote Smart does not permit the use of its name or programs in any campaign activity, including advertising, debates, and speeches.