Mark Stewart Greenstein's Issue Positions (Political Courage Test)
On The Ballot: Running, Democratic for President
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.
Mark Stewart Greenstein has provided voters with clear stances on key issues by responding to the 2024 Political Courage Test.
Presidential Election 2024 Political Courage Test
| Pro-life | Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation? | ||
| Yes | Do you support the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade? | ||
| Taking an innocent human life is wrong. We need to convince all of the gravity, and while it remains legal, abortion should be at minimum scorned as selfish. I do not like legislating by thin majority, and thus educating about the sacredness of a tiny human life should precede moves to completely end abortion is a state. When 80+ percent of us agree that it is evil, legislation that criminalizes the taking of life becomes more just. Removing a baby is not "removing a cyst. RA baby is not "part of a mother's body"; the baby is IN her body. In states that criminalize abortion, the penalty should be visited upon the clinics and doctors. They know it's wrong; distressed would-be mothers often don't know the right/wrong difference. There is an enforcement problem that is hard to overcome: morning-after pills, arriving by mail, can�t be traced. Laws should be enforceable. A �higher law� of do not take the lives of innocents, reinforced by �do not do unto others, what you would not want done to you� is the best �legislation� while we proceed fervently with better education. Three generations of Americans have lived under the �it�s okay� teaching. THIS must change first. | |||
| No | Do you support expanding federal funding to support social safety net programs such as Social Security and Medicare? | ||
| Yes | 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? | ||
|
|||
| A wealth tax is more fair, and far more efficient than an income tax. I support less SPENDING. THat's mainly because federal government spending cannot be done as well as when private citizens and private organizations spend for tpublic welfare. It's also because almost all our non-military, not judicial federal spending is unConstitutional. Please see www.stewartForLiberty.com for videos on Article I Section 8's LIMITED congressional powers. | |||
| No | Do you support the regulation of indirect campaign contributions from corporations, unions, and individuals? | ||
| Individuals have the ultimate power over candidates, and SOME ower to direct legislation. We have the ability to turn away every elected official in less than one term. An elected candidate who turns out to be a scoundrel can, with good media (admittedly a difficulty these days), be turned away next time. I urge the public to pay attention to how people vote. This is best gauged by interest group rating, which deserve great prominence in our media. Literally, there is NO campaign finance law that should be on the books. If a politician is getting gobs of money in paper bags, or his family member is receiving untrace-able crypto-currency distributions is ALMOST IRRELEVANT to whether he crafts good legislation, works to abolish bad legislation, or none of the above. Sure, an untainted public servant is more admirable, but if a GOOD corporate donor wants to spend its shareholders' money getting GOOD legislation passed, I favor it, so long as the ballot box is open to all citizens and media is not lying to us. (See StewartforLiberty.com for how I would enforce against media lies). | |||
| Yes | Do you support protecting government officials, including law enforcement officers, from personal liability in civil lawsuits concerning alleged misconduct? | ||
| This "yes" carries a limit. Where there is a PATTERN of wrongdoing, an arbitrator or a jury should be allowed to infer misconduct and thereby award damages. In isolation, a well-meaning accidental injury should not lead to personal forfeiture. We NEED good police officers. | |||
| No | Do you support increasing defense spending? | ||
| This should carry "Ambivalent", because SOME areas deserve increases. But in general: We are way too bloated as is. And our missions should be drawn back to exclude interference abroad. When American's have been harmed, or are DIRECTLY threatened, i believe in involvement. That PROBABLY means fighting Yemeni attackers on the Mediterranean. It does NOT yet mean any involvement in Ukraine. I do support private action by American groups who pay for our military intel and act under letters of Marque and Reprisal. I do not otherwise support our military involvement abroad. | |||
| 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? | ||
| Free markets are the best engines for economic growth. LIfting government restrictions is the best way from humans to individually flourish. Private charity is the best form of welfare. It engenders gratitude and gets people to live up to their potential better than a government handout. | |||
| No | Do you support the forgiveness of federal student loan debt? | ||
| While students in 2008 - 2012 might be forgiven for overestimating their earning power after being fed propaganda about the worthiness of College degrees in Guatemalan poetry, African artistry, or European history, we are a decade beyond this, during which time, it's been clear to even 17 year olds that loans carry interest and need to be repaid from something called "earnings". That said, IF there is to be any federal voiding of private contracts (a severe step), these qualify under a very old theory: non-consent to a written proposal. Few 17 year olds, or even 27 year olds understand that interest can make your outstanding balance rise EVEN when you are making your early payments. Big lenders don't want their borrowers to understand. They certainly don't conduct a face to face inquiry "son, do you realize that if you don't get a $50,000 a year job within 6 months of graduation, you will be unable to repay this loan?" "Son, do you expect to be living in your parents' basement until you are 28 in order to knock these payments in half?" This lender-borrower imbalance is especially oppressive to 17 year olds, but it goes to a big reform we should consider: whether ANY contract of adhesion, that can't be altered even if understood, should be enforceable. If our courts rolled back to adjudicating "is there true agreement to these term", contracts would be far simpler, and far less oppressive. | |||
| Yes | Do you support requiring a government-issued identification in order to vote at the polls? | ||
| Absolutely. | |||
| No | Do you support government funding for the development of renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind, geo-thermal)? | ||
| Yes | Do you support the federal government allowing permits for drilling on public lands? | ||
| The government should reither propel nor retard development, unless the development infringes on others' rights. That DOES come into conflict in the environmental realm. While I am a Constitutionalist and a governmental minimalist, I think we might consider additing regulatory power to Congress' Article I section 8 grant of authority. Until then, private tradeoffs for environmental pollution, and private courses of action against wilful contaminators, are better then unauthorized government force. As for government funding of renewables -- if the opportunity to turn a new energy source exists, the change to become billionaires by developing it is sufficient to spur good development. | |||
| No | Do you generally support gun-control legislation (e.g. red flag laws, boyfriend loopholes)? | ||
| MOre guns in the hands of law-abiding people almost certainly means less crime. Police can't be everywhere. Without trained civilians carrying firearms, there would be more rapes, more armed robberies, and more domestic violence. A gun is a fewarsome offensive weapon. BUt it's the best defensive weapon we have, as evidenced by the END of a mauling or a shooting spree -- what almost always takes the perp down is a gooy guy with a gun. Thugs will always eb able to get guns, we don't want them to be the ONLY people in the area with guns. The red flag invocation is very dangerous. A criminal who has done his time should be free to protect himself. If he is deemed too dangerous to be let out of prison, or a boyfriend too dangerous to be in the same town as a fearful ex-GF, then they should be restrained and even confined from the outset. The weaponry they carry is not the isue -- intent to harm is. Remember, a strong angry thug can kill with a platic bag or his bare hands. | |||
| No | 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? | ||
| Force (by government policy) maternity leave inevitably hurts younger women. Employers who expect to lose a woman from their work force for four to six months are less likely to hire ANY woman of child-bearing age. Let employer and would-be employee come to their own agreements about leave should the woman want to care for her newborn and be unavailable in the workplace. (Most employment now can accommodate women working from home WHILE caring for their newborns). As for single-payer: no. A medical voucher that let's families use some government money as they see fit is a step better. But a totally-free marketplace in health care is the best solution. Prescription drug costs fall when there's no regulation other than patent protection. I support medical tourism - to get procedures done overseas if North American care is cost-prohibitive. | |||
| Yes | Do you support increasing security along the southern US border? | ||
| Yes | Do you support requiring immigrants to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship, regardless of their immigration status? | ||
| Please recognize that the majority of illegal immigration now is from people overstaying visas - student, tourist, and work (including H1Bs). The best solution is to End Government Welfare, Enforce laws, and restore Western culture. Once we do that, we have nothing to fear from immigrant who come here with the American creed. Until then, i support strict border enforcement and rapid deportations. | |||
| 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? | ||
| Putin will win, because he has the power to deploy nuclear weapons, and PROBABLY the willingness. Ukraine's government has immorally tied Eastern provinces whose people prefer either independence or to be part of Russia. This is just a statement to recognize; this is NOT a prescribed policy (see www.StewartForLiberty.com for why i do NOT give commitments to international military policy). | |||
| No | Do you generally support increased regulations on social media companies (e.g. Tik Tok, Facebook, etc.)? | ||
| NO. I am conservative in values. That means good speech will win out over bad. We should let platforms proliferate, even those influenced by China, even those showing lies adn visual AI-generated distortions). Eventually, pur platforms will win the allegiance of those who want truth. I would remove the protections IRS Section 230 gives to platforms if they are not acting as platforms. FB, X, MSN and IG have been reguating content in biased ways and cannot be considered mere "platforms". If upon inauguration, after these behemoths have had 10 weeks to roll back their censorship, they are still doing it, I will direct the Attorney General and the new IRS commissioner to fine these firms. | |||
| If elected, it's with a pledge to REMOVE unfair laws. Hopefully Congressional committees do this on their own, cuued by a populace that brought a "nobody" to the presidency based on proposed policies like this. But if Congress fails to act on its own, my administration will propose removing or amending every vile law passed in the last half-century. I will voters to remove their incumbent congressman is she or he is not on board by the end of 2025. Priority 2 is to selectively enforce, which will usually mean ignore, EVERY regulation in the CFR that was not DIRECTLY enacted by Congress. It is time to go back to real rule making. Start with the Constitution, keep the longstanding laws (Congressionally enacted ones) with merit, and selectively add laws, no more than 2 per month, and each no longer than 2 pages where warranted and where ENABLED UNDER ARTICLE I. Priority 3 is to push for recognision that American works better by private agreement rather than government force. That aside from courts and defense, there is very little that the Federal government SHOULD be doing. |
Vote Smart does not permit the use of its name or programs in any campaign activity, including advertising, debates, and speeches.