There is a very clear contrast between myself and my opponent as shown below.
|Plan to Balance Budget||✗||✗||✗||✗||✔|
|Long-term solution for military and veterans||✗||✗||✗||✗||✔|
|Defender of Individual Rights||✗||✗||✗||✗||✔|
|Believes in free markets||✗||✗||✗||✗||✔|
|Supported Republicans in 2010||✗||✗||✗||✗||✔|
|Lives in district they represent||✔||✔||✔||✗||✔|
Plan to Balance Budget
I have a plan to balance the budget. My opponent has repeatedly refused to accept any spending cuts to defense or retirement programs, and he actually wants to "reinforce the social safety net." After more than a year on the campaign trail, my opponent has failed to identify a single near-term cut to any program. We don't need more empty rhetoric -- we need real solutions. I offer to provide sensible leadership on this issue.
Long-term Solution for Military and Veterans
My opponent has repeatedly attacked me for suggesting that we may need to cut defense spending and/or veterans benefits. The truth is that I have merely called for a balanced budget and have posted my best guess as to what a balanced budget might look like. I understand that the details of the budget will have to be negotiated, but my non-negotiable is that we must have a plan to get to a balanced budget; it is our moral duty. I am convinced that Congress will ensure that any cuts to defense or veterans benefits will be manageable and will not hurt those most in need. If we are ever going to balance the budget, every program over $100 billion must be closely scrutinized. We will never balance the budget unless we admit that. My sample budget estimates that we can achieve a 10% cut by eliminating waste and fraud in these programs, coupled with ending the wars and conflicts in the Middle East. These cuts are modest and reflect our nation's commitment to honor those who have served. By comparison, the overall budget must be cut by 35% to achieve deficit neutrality.
Instead of offering his own plan for a responsible budget, my opponent refuses to accept any cuts to these programs and attacks my patriotism. If we fail to change course on the deficit, we will reach the financial tipping point in roughly 4 years. At that point, interest rates will rise, the dollar will lose reserve currency status, and the entire economy will begin to unravel. Then we will not have the luxury to debate what we will cut -- everything will have to be cut much more drastically than my sample budget suggests. The only moral action is to make reasonable cuts now so that we can maintain the long-term viability of all programs.
I am pro-life and am proud to defend this position. My opponent says that he is neither pro-life nor pro-choice, and also says the decision "should ultimately be left up to the woman, her family, and her doctor." We need leaders who understand the issues and will clearly state what they believe. Stating that the decision should be left to the woman is by definition pro-choice; my opponent should have the integrity to say so.
I understand the Constitution requires the federal government to defend the individual's right to bear arms, even against state governments. My opponent believes that "states are well suited to determine their own policies regarding firearms, and that the federal government should allow them to do so."
Defender of Individual Rights
I am offended that our Congress passed a bill that allows the indefinite detention of American citizens. I would never vote for such a bill and will work to repeal this legislation. My opponent has said that he supported the NDAA since it funded our troops. I would never approve legislation that abolishes the fundamental rights that our men and women in uniform fight so hard to protect.
Believes in Free Markets
I am against the bailout of mega-corporations and allowing the government to pick winners and losers. My opponent wants to create incentives to "increase our production of wind, bio-fuels, and other forms of renewable energy." He apparently has not learned from the Solyndra fiasco.
Supported Republicans in 2010
In 2010, my opponent traveled to Mississippi to help Gene Taylor, a Democrat, get re-elected; six months later, he received one of his first campaign contributions from Gene Taylor's campaign. In contrast, I chose to help out Keith Fimian in his race against Gerry Connolly - a race that he lost by only 981 votes. Perhaps if my opponent had helped here instead of traveling to Mississippi, Keith Fimian might be in office today, and we might have had a more advantageous redistricting.
Lives in the 11th District
I live in the 11th District. With redistricting, my opponent now lives in the 10th District, but he is still running in the 11th. The new 11th District lines have been stable for over a year, and yet my opponent has not relocated to the district he would represent if elected. While this is technically legal, many people take exception to it, and it will cost him votes against Gerry Connolly. When every vote counts, this is a notable issue.