Their Biographies, Issue Positions, Voting Records, Public Statements, Ratings and their Funders.
Card image cap

Mark Stewart Greenstein's Issue Positions (Political Courage Test)

On The Ballot: Announced, Democratic for President


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 2020 Political Courage Test.

What is the Political Courage Test?

Presidential Election 2020 Political Courage Test

Pro-life Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation?
If a town finds abortion odious, it should be able to keep abortion clinics out. If a state legislature deems that doctors performing abortions are harming innocent humans, it should be able to imprison them. Roe v Wade was a horrible exercise in judicial legislation. States have the prerogative to punish nefarious activities. There is no choice for the baby when a doctor knifes the baby, vacuums the baby, or chemically asphyxiates the baby. I don't support imprisoning would-be-mothers: for decades, civilians heard "it's just a cyst"; but medical professionals know better, and are pledged to "Do No Harm".
No In order to balance the budget, do you support an income tax increase on any tax bracket?
No Do you support expanding federal funding to support entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare?
We should be reducing federal spending by at least 60%. Defense, courts, immigration, and a few low-cost activities like running the patent office are the ONLY Constitutional activities. With a reduction to the proper size, the federal government does not need a personal income tax. As for balancing any budget: short of a national emergency (not seen since 1945) we never deficit spend. Spending must be paid for by THIS generation, not foisted on future generations.
No Do you support the regulation of indirect campaign contributions from corporations and unions?
The ballot regulates our public servants best. Politicians will ALWAYS get funded by influencers. Contribution laws, lobbying laws, and speech-giving limits can't stop this. But when a legislator votes against the people's interest, we remove him after two or four years. That takes great voter awareness, but that's more wholesome than the Whack-A-Mole schemes to limit money in politics. Limiting what individuals or organizations contribute to a campaign restricts free speech. The First Amendments WISELY assures unlimited political speech. As for pernicious influence: reducing government puts us all in more control.
Yes Do you support increasing defense spending?
We are unable to fight a two-front war now. And if our armed readiness (deterrence) falters, we are more likely to get into a war. Defense is the primary function of the federal government. I have no issue with a $1T budget, so long as it's not wasteful. I would be vigilant about keeping defense contractors from influencing foreign policy. They can make money by serving our true military needs, but not by creating "needs" that don't exist.
No Do you support federal spending as a means of promoting economic growth?
Yes Do you support lowering corporate taxes as a means of promoting economic growth?
No Do you support requiring states to adopt federal education standards?
Common Core, a HORRIBLE usurpation of educator talents. , is not needed to know whether our students read decently or calculate properly. We certainly don't need a top-down system, when local schools can assess needs and can adapt better. Let good teachers teach; rein in (or fire) bad teachers based on community standards, not one-size-fits-all Edu-Crat concoctions. This is a sub-argument for privatizing all schools, or at least giving CHOICE in publicly-funded schools. Kids stuck in bad schools continue to suffer; let parents choose! BTW - Common Core math actually RETARDS learning.
No Do you support government funding for the development of renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind, geo-thermal)?
Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions?
Renewable energy will take hold by PRIVATE effort. Government spurs come with government regulation and political meddling. The government should not be developing ANY industry; then industry can respond better. As for greenhouse gas emissions: government is right now the best enforcer of the PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS that each of us have in our air and our water. Individuals lack remedies against polluters of their environment, and thus for now, the government could provide the best intermediary. Problem: the Constitution does not give authority to the Federal government to regulate the Environment; I support an Amendment to do so.
No Do you generally support gun-control legislation?
The best protector against a kidnaper, rapist, or murderer is a good guy with a gun. The police can't be everywhere (and we would want them to be everywhere). Trained civilians, willing and able to take down murderers, are the best defense. They can be as innocuous as the airplane marshals that secretly fly with us. In schools, it should be the choice whether those protectors are volunteers, teachers, police, or paid private security. Let enclaves and organizations decide for themselves - state-wide legislation is not tailored enough. Guns deter crimes; gun control legislation leaves good people defenseless.
Yes Do you support repealing the 2010 Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare")?
Obamacare increased premiums, decreased choice, raised deductibles, kept many young people from working more than 29 hours, turned insurance companies from underwriters into billing agents for the government, and left many sick people in limbo with bureaucratic delays. Nice going! All to get a mere 1% more Americans insured. Welfare could do that better - we don't ruin a whole industry in the process. American individuals can spend their health dollars more wisely than bureaucrats-influenced-by-profiteeers can. Obamacare, like Medicare, is also Unconstitutional.
Do you support the construction of a wall along the Mexican border?
Yes Do you support requiring immigrants who are unlawfully present to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship?
"WILL" is superior to "wall". Walls will be defeated by overstaying visas, by entry via ports, by chain migration. Once we decide who we want in this nation, we should then have the will to enforce it, meaning pulling kids out of schools, pulling workers out of meat-factories, and even sending nice community moms back. American should choose only good people. "Good" is a definition we should form while slowing immigration to a trickle. IMHO: English proficiency, not taking welfare, and exhibiting AMERICAN values equals "good". To current illegals: pay back the welfare you've taken and we'll consider your staying.
Yes Should the United States use military force to prevent governments hostile to the U.S. from possessing a weapon of mass destruction (for example: nuclear, biological, chemical)?
Yes Do you support reducing military intervention in Middle East conflicts?
You don't need a lot of military force. Our Special Ops forces can take out almost any leader we want. Go after the leaders before invading with an army. Likely the people will cheer our imprisining (or assassinating) a WMD-making leader - usually they are in fear of him. Panamanians cheered our removal of Manuel Noriega; most Iranians would laud us if we removed the mullahs who are running their nation; and the tortured Sudanse would be forever grateful is we could remove the evil people who have starved their own citizens.
Yes Do you generally support removing barriers to international trade (for example: tariffs, quotas, etc.)?
Free Trade helps consumers and MOST businesses. Tariffs help only a few large "protected" firms. But even people who work for those firms suffer when nations retaliate with higher prices. If China punishes its own consumers with high tariffs on American imports, the Chinese should revolt. Similarly, we should not stand for our government similarly restricting what WE can buy. Free trade also helps our allies; and makes potential enemies into allies by uplifting them. The way to avoid war is mutual prosperity. "When goods can't cross borders, soldiers will".
End welfare. Restore justice (including ending the drug war, ending illegal immigration, ending EPA predations, ending government takings, ensuring school choice, eliminating the personal income tax, making Social Security optional, and installing term limits). No extra funding is needed. With this retrenchment to fariness (also known as "Constitutional principles") we pay down the debt, and never again spend more than we have, short of a WWII-like emergency. PS. End the draft; a nation without sufficient volunteers to preserve itself isn't worth preserving.

Vote Smart does not permit the use of its name or programs in any campaign activity, including advertising, debates, and speeches.