Thank you very much for your kind words. We follow this site closely and are glad to join.

Energy will rightly be one of the very first items addressed by an Obama Administration and the 111th Congress. While the spiking gas prices made the public more receptive to opening up the issue, we must push forward in ways that go far beyond short-term fixes and address broader problems of petroleum dependence and greenhouse gas emissions. I’m committed to a comprehensive national energy policy that emphasizes efficiency, conservation, and – perhaps most importantly – development of alternative sources. You’re right about the need to move beyond corn-based ethanol to a wider range of biofuels, and we need to encourage the research being done in North Carolina and beyond on this challenge.

I’m happy to see U.S. business engage in vigorous trade as a result of friendly U.S. relationships abroad. However, too often the tail has wagged the dog and corporate interests have unduly influenced American policy. One familiar example is trade policy, where labor, environmental, and human rights standards in partner countries have been sacrificed for the sake of unimpeded commerce.

Brad Miller has indeed been an effective watchdog for U.S. scientific integrity, and thanks to him we have a much fuller indictment of the Bush Administration’s distortion and abuse of science. We have an example close to home in the disconnect between the research on mercury conducted by the EPA in RTP and the Administration’s inadequate proposed rules on mercury. This simply must be reversed under an Obama Administration, for on numerous challenges confronting us, we simply must understand and base policy on the unvarnished scientific truth.

My congressional seniority has brought two chairmanships in the current Congress – Homeland Security Appropriations, and the House Democracy Assistance Commission. Sometimes such positions are useful in stopping bad things, such as withholding funding from Department of Homeland Security programs until privacy requirements are met. But, believe me, I am eagerly awaiting an Obama Administration and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate so that we can be about the country’s business is a serious and positive way. On homeland security, I plan to continue my leadership on restoring the federal partnership with first responders and rebuilding our disaster response capabilities at FEMA. More broadly, appropriations can be a vehicle for long-overdue investments in public education, research, alternative energy, and infrastructure, and I hope to use my role on the Appropriations Committee to the fullest.

The first question is easy; they offered me a job when I needed one to feed my family!

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) opened the doors of learning to millions of children, and it’s a federal commitment we cannot abandon. Unfortunately, the federal government – especially under this President’s budgets – has not lived up to its end of the bargain. Like No Child Left Behind, it’s another example of a well-intentioned federal mandate that states have struggled to meet due to inadequate federal support.

The federal share is supposed to be 40% of the additional costs involved in educating a child with disabilities. The President’s most recent budget request would only fund 17% of that expense. The new Democratic leadership of the 110th Congress is committed to steady increases – and I’m pushing for those increases as a member of the Appropriations Committee – but it’s a long road ahead to get to the funding level that states need.

My Mother in Law literally lives on the US/Canadian border and I have a Brother in Law that lives about 1/2 mile from the US/Mexican border, guess I can't go visit them.

......Wait....... this may be a good thing.......

“We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country. Don't tell me that Democrats won't keep us safe.” ~ Barack Obama

This is perhaps a more ambitious question than you realize, because I have never faced a more radical opponent where the differences were so clear. I think you'll see what I mean in the text I've copied and pasted below, which is a section we're about to add to our website.

David’s Opponent

I believe my opponent to be an honorable and earnest citizen. Yet we have very different views about the role of government and the direction we would take our nation. Proclaiming to be the protégé of failed Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, Dr. Lawson has a laissez faire, libertarian approach to government and the economy that I believe is fundamentally wrong. Our current financial crisis clearly demonstrates that the hands-off, anything-goes mentality on regulation employed by the Bush Administration and supported by Dr. Lawson simply does not work and is, very frankly, dangerous to our economy and way of life.

Dr. Lawson is quick to criticize the new Democratic Congress for not passing various legislative initiatives. But he conveniently fails to note two facts: he would vote to turn the leadership of the House back to the same party that has blocked those initiatives. And on most of the intiatives where Democrats did succeed – for example, raising the minimum wage, raising fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, and outlawing insurance discrimination against mental health patients – he would have voted “no.”

Make no mistake: Dr. Lawson does not believe in the vision of progress that has made the 4th District a success story. He subscribes to a worldview where government is not an instrument of our common purpose, but an enemy. While conveniently criticizing the current Administration on the stump, he marches in ideological lockstep with President Bush’s trickle-down economics and efforts to dismantle any reasonable regulatory framework. The Lawson-Bush “ownership society” is really very simple to understand – no matter your means, no matter your ability, no matter your circumstances, you are on your own. In fact, Dr. Lawson would go even further than Bush: his extreme reading of the constitution would wipe out most if not all of the New Deal.

Dr. Lawson and I agree on the importance of a society that respects individual privacy; I will gladly defend my record as a champion of civil liberties to anyone. But my opponent often confuses privacy with privatization. His ideology would deny all the good that a representative government can accomplish for its citizens – from public schools to affordable health care to safe communities. His is an ideology far out of the mainstream that I will gladly fight.

I hope you will view Dr. Lawson’s regressive ideas for yourself – many are available on his campaign blog or questionnaires like Vote Smart. Some of our major policy differences are listed below.

- David Price

Economy

In a recent News & Observer article, Dr. Lawson is quoted as saying that he does not believe Congress can take any action to “fix the economy and our financial system.” Lawson believes the current financial crisis is a result of too much regulation, not too little. Before the financial collapse, he argued that “we must eliminate onerous regulations” on businesses and cited Sarbanes-Oxley, the reform legislation that strengthened corporate accounting regulations in the wake of the Enron and WorldCom scandals, as a candidate for repeal.

He further advocates abolition of the Federal Reserve, the nation’s central banking system that regulates our monetary policy and helps prevent banking panics. And he suggests that the United States should revert to schemes similar to the gold standard, regional currencies, and even the barter system. These radically conservative ideas obviously fly in the face of mainstream economic thought – in fact, they fall on the losing side of arguments determined nearly a century ago.

Lawson opposes progressive income taxation, and corporate, capital gains, and estate taxes. He opposes the mortgage, medical expense, and charitable contribution tax deductions, and the student loan, earned income, and child tax credits. In 2007, he endorsed a national sales tax scheme that could add a 30% price increase to all new purchases, including homes, gasoline, food, and medicine. In fact, Brookings Institution economists say this is a low estimate. Even now, he claims to still like the idea, but feels it could not be implemented at this time. All of these extreme ideas on taxation would radically shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class.

Lawson believes “the safety net for individuals should be eliminated,” and supports elimination or at least privatization of Social Security and Medicare. Just this July, he said that he has “not yet found any significant disagreements” with his political mentor Ron Paul, who has consistently and repeatedly called for the eventual abolition of Social Security and Medicare.

Education and Research

Lawson believes there should be no federal role in education. He advocates elimination of the Department of Education. He even opposes low interest student loans, believing they are “distorting the economics of higher education.”

Lawson also opposes the federal funding of research that is vital to not only the health and quality of life for our families, but also the local universities and economy of the Fourth District. He doesn’t believe entities like the National Institutes of Health should exist, much less receive adequate funding. He opposes federal funding for all medical research – even current work to understand and combat diseases like cancer, diabetes, and Parkinson’s. He opposes funding for research on both existing and new lines of stem cells – a position to the right of George W. Bush, and one that could deny life-saving advances to millions of Americans.

Robust support for research and innovation is obviously important for schools like UNC, N.C. State, Duke, and the local spin-off companies. It is also the only way we can assure America’s national economic competitiveness in a new century marked by the ascendant economies of China and India.

Health Care

Lawson believes that “healthcare is not a responsibility of the federal government,” and laments that “many have become dependent on the existing safety net.” He opposes the expansion of children’s health care and tax incentives for employer-provided insurance.

Environment

Lawson opposes strengthening the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, even after the past eight years of weakening by the Bush Administration. He opposes federal action to encourage the development of alternative fuels. He even favors eliminating any government assistance to address high energy prices.

Foreign Affairs

Lawson opposes all foreign aid. Yet elimination of foreign aid would lead to untold suffering for millions of the world’s most desperate individuals, including current efforts to prevent and treat HIV-AIDS and malaria in Africa and elsewhere, and tsunami relief in South Asia.

Lawson further believes the U.S. should not meet our financial obligations to the United Nations. And he thinks we should abandon military and all other efforts in Afghanistan to defeat Al-Qaeda and a resurgent Taliban.

Gun Control

Lawson strongly disagrees with reasonable restrictions that keep guns out of the hands of those who would do harm. He authored and worked to pass a resolution at the Republican state convention that called for the elimination of no-carry zones across the state. Elimination of those zones would allow concealed handguns in areas like schools and college campuses, state and federal government office buildings, financial institutions, and even public gatherings like parades.

Public Safety

Rather than calling for obviously needed reforms in the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Lawson has actually called for the elimination of FEMA. This would leave states and communities on their own to deal with natural and man-made disasters. Because North Carolina is very disaster-prone, our state would be especially hard hit by such an extreme step.

Social Justice and Civil Rights

Lawson favors repeal of Roe v. Wade and opposes a woman’s right to choose, even in the case of rape or incest.

Lawson does not believe sexual orientation should be included in hate crime or employment nondiscrimination definitions.

Lawson opposes affirmative action.

Thank you very much. I have to head out the door to another forum. If there are any other policy questions from my Fourth District constituents, please direct them to my congressional website: www.price.house.gov

And let me leave you with a request. We have an unbelievable opportunity in this state in the next 12 days to change this country after the past eight years of failed policies. Please keep working as hard as possible so North Carolina can lead the way in giving us all a brighter future. I'm proud to be a part of this team, and please let me know how I can help achieve our shared goals of a more progressive state and nation.