Matt Ortega

Jeff Takada, one of a handful of Republican hopefuls vying to challenge Jerry McNerney in November, agreed to answer a series of questions on the issues.

His campaign agreed to respond to some questions just after the holiday season and were delivered to his campaign shortly before the first Republican candidate forum in Manteca last week.

In the interview, Takada talks healthcare, foreign policy, immigration, government regulation, Second Amendment, and marriage equality. He also dishes on David Harmer's status as a "carpetbagger" and the obvious mudslinging among his opponents. Takada, in what appears to be comparing himself to Harmer ("star power") and Goehring ("money"), says he's the "clean, uncompromised candidate."

Read the full Q&A below.

First, thank you for responding to these questions.

Your campaign points to your roots in and around the district. You were raised in San Joaquin County; graduated from East Union High School in Manteca; attended college at Cal State Stanislaus in nearby Modesto Turlock. However, there are three candidates who don't, or didn't, live in the district: Larry Pegram, Tony Amador, and the recently announced David Harmer. Do you believe this will be an issue with Republican primary voters?

I think it already has become an issue. Larry Pegram has left the race. During the recent candidate forum in Manteca, Brad Goehring called Dave Harmer out on his `out of district` status and local political commentator Dave Diamond said that Harmer`s entry into the race was an insult to the Republican Party of CD-11 because it essentially belittled local candidates and reinforced the false view that the local party leadership was incapable of choosing contenders for the general election. Harsh words, but I think this is only the beginning.

In a recent Lodi News-Sentinel article about your campaign, you stated that the other Republican candidates vying for the nomination "leave you with a lot of questions."

Can you explain? What questions do you have about your primary opponents?

The question is: Can they beat McNerney? Rallying the Republican faithful is important and providing leadership in the midst of the din is critical. But what is more, the primary winner must be able to win over independents and Democrats in order to win the general election and truly receive a mandate from the voters of CD-11. The others give these two groups the same reservations the previous two Republican runners did…which is why they lost.

Can I explain why they leave me with a lot of questions? Yes, but only at the risk of giving my opposition, Jerry McNerney, good, solid ideas to run with should I fail to secure the nomination. I won`t do his homework for him. But any observer of this race has seen the mudslinging, the allegations, and the questionable records of many of these candidates that stretch back a decade or more. That the party committee is more interested in star power or money than a clean, uncompromised candidate like myself and one or two others, tells me that party committee has a lot of maturing to do before they can field a winning candidate – should my dark horse run be spurned by the voters.

In the same interview, you claimed that Osama Bin Laden "has one stated goal: to replace the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with an Islamic state."

This is factually incorrect. Osama Bin Laden has, on multiple occasions, expressed various goals with the toppling of the Saudi regime being among them due to their relationship with the United States. The New York Times reported in 2001 that Bin Laden sought to increase oil to $144 a barrel, which it did over, ironically, the July 4th holiday in 2008. In 2004, Bin Laden said he wanted to bankrupt the United States.

I would like to dispute your dispute of my factual correctness. Bin Laden has stated many goals all of which revolve around creating a Wahabbi Islamic super-state in the Middle East. American support for the Saud family has been the major stumbling block to his realization of this goal and so he has created a myriad of sub-objectives designed to cripple or reduce the American sphere of influence. In addition to the goals of his you`ve correctly pointed out, was the tried and true method of drawing the superpower into Afghanistan, `the graveyard of empires,` and then bleeding us white. He figured it worked with the USSR and it might work with us. You have to remember his escalation of force vis-à-vis the USA. It started with raids on US forces stationed in the Saudi Kingdom, then progressed to the Khobar Towers bombing, then vulnerable US embassies in Africa and so on. He has suffered from what we call `mission drift` and it has accrued against us

But you finished with, "Let him start a civil war in Saudi Arabia. Let them destroy themselves, which they inevitably will." Is it fair to say your foreign policy with regard to international terrorism is to "let them destroy themselves"? It appears you would be willing to allow Al-Qaeda to cause unrest, if not overrun altogether, in the world's largest oil producing country.

Could you flesh out the last part of your comment that says "they" will "inevitably" destroy themselves?

It is unfortunate for their peaceful coreligionists that all major acts of international terror in the last 20 years have been caused by radical Muslims. Over the centuries, from the Crusades to the Mahdi Army to modern Iraq, these radical elements have only paused in their destruction of one another to attack interlopers. `Let them destroy themselves` is my foreign policy with regard to radical Sunni/Shiite terrorism. Other terrorists – Basque separatists, doomsday cults, the IRA, Timothy McVeigh types, North Korean agents – will require different handling if they go international because their motivations are different. Bin Laden is very much the Family of Saud`s problem. Would I be willing to risk Bin Laden taking them out? Yes, because the price in American blood is not worth it to save the corrupt Saudis. But Bin Laden will lose, expending the force of his movement on a Saudi shield instead of an American one and life will continue more or less as usual. We are not the world`s policeman or nanny.

Unquestionably there would be unrest in the region as there always has been and always will be, which is a great motivating factor to solve our economic problems with technological solutions - alternative forms of energy. Science and hard work, not the military, has always been America`s strongest solution to global problems.

Regarding healthcare, your website says you favor "deregulation, tort reform, health savings accounts, and tax deductions."

However, Hawai'i ties North Dakota for the lowest insurance premiums in the nation and their healthcare system's regulations go far beyond anything currently being discussed in the U.S. Senate, and even earned praise from conservative radio commentator, Rush Limbaugh.

Thank you for mentioning this! This is my point exactly! The individual states can do whatever they want within the bounds of the Constitution per the 10th Amendment. This is a perfect state-centered solution to a Congress-made problem (the HMO Act of 1973). It is when the Federal government gets involved that I have a problem.

Without regulations, insurance companies have shown a pattern of behavior that includes rescinding coverage from those who need it most. It is a practice executives encourage their employees to continue, and reward them for doing so. Insurance companies authorize expensive treatments then foot ailing patients with the bill. It is a policy that Steve Poizner, a candidate for the Republican gubernatorial nomination, issued California's first regulations against the policy as insurance commissioner this year.

By deregulating, we would be removing the power and money from the pockets of the big insurance companies and HMOs that profited from the HMO Act of 1973, not the people who are a victim of the current practices you point out. In mid- to late 20th Century America, prior to this Act, very few went completely without medical treatment because of low costs, doctors who were beholden to the Hippocratic Oath rather than enslaved to corporate interests, and a booming medical charity `industry.` Hospitals aren`t named things like St. Anne`s or Lutheran Medical for nothing. These were funded and staffed by religious or humanitarian groups who have been crowded out following the disastrous legislation in 1973.

Quite simply my prescription calls for a complete elimination of middlemen, where the patient negotiates costs directly with the providing doctors themselves. It is the beauty of the free market – if one doctor is charging you too much, go to his competitor down the street. Medical insurance would return to the realm of auto and fire insurance – used only in catastrophic cases. This would drastically bring down the prices customers pay because claims would be drastically reduced.

Several studies have shown that malpractice liability costs are a miniscule fraction of healthcare costs, and states with tort reform measures, like Texas, have little effect.

I would dispute those findings, but I think that even more importantly, unreformed tort law causes `mental anguish and stress` (maybe THEY should sue) to doctors who must always look over their shoulder while treating patients. Unreformed tort law makes it less likely that doctors will take on pro bono or charity cases as they used to (and still do overseas through excellent outreaches like Project HOPE and Doctors without Borders).

Critics argue that health savings accounts favor the healthy and wealthy, according to a Government Accountability Office report, which can afford to tuck away several thousand dollars into an account and pay $2,000 deductibles. American workers are deciding against them in large numbers probably because they cannot afford it.

How would you respond to these criticisms against what forms as the central thesis of your position on healthcare?

I would argue that socialized medicine unfairly targets the healthy and wealthy. Young people who are naturally more healthy make up a large block of the uninsured-by-choice category and the wealthy, as you point out, can afford to pay exorbitant costs for premium medical care. But they can also pay exorbitant costs for yachts, Swiss villas, and caviar. At its core, it is simply un-Constitutional for the Federal government to require anyone to purchase or pay for health insurance.

Your criticisms also failed to note that the HSAs I support are pre-tax AND tax deductible (as should be all non-cosmetic medical expenses) and that employers have serious incentive to contribute large amount to their employees HSAs because of tax breaks they would receive for doing so.

Among your policy prescriptions for healthcare, you state you support "allowing doctors to collectively negotiate with insurance companies thereby driving down the cost of medicine and treatment to the patient." But they already do that. Hospitals negotiate with insurance companies and often collude with them to maintain high costs.

I am not talking about hospitals, HMOs or other corporate entities colluding. I am talking about single practitioners collectively bargaining – consider it a `guild` sort of concept. This means that questionable or un ethical practitioners would likely be excluded from such bargaining, leading to higher costs that would drive them out of business – a perfect example of the free market regulating itself.

Your website also notes that you support stripping regulations "that get in the way of small business providing affordable medical coverage to their employees."

What regulations are "in the way" of small businesses?

Here are just a few:

• Currently, self-employed business owners are prohibited from fully deducting the cost of their health insurance.
• Employer mandates force small businesses to choose between compliance or employment. More regulation equals lower employment figures.
• Excessive reporting requirements stemming from excessive regulation unnecessarily burdens those who can least afford the time and expense – small business owners.

In your discussion of abortion, you argue that "it is the function of any government to protect the lives of its people, and it is our duty to oppose those who would take it away." It sounds like a principle not shared in other contexts.

For instance, if it is the government's role to "protect the lives of its people," why is that not a principle shared in the context of healthcare?

This is not a double standard in any way. Healthcare is simply that – management of an individual`s health. It is inevitable that our health will decline and we will die. The government can no more change this than it can prevent the sun from rising. Preventing a federal endorsement of abortion or making the taxpayers responsible for its funding is another matter entirely. There, the issue is one of life and death. A government constrained by the U.S. Constitution cannot condone abortion in any way and still maintain the veracity of that document.

Continuing on with abortion, your website says you "unequivocally oppose abortion at any stage as a moral outrage" -- even in cases of rape or incest, and if the health of the mother was in jeopardy?

My position on abortion is directly in line with the National Right to Life: opposition to abortion at any stage of development of the child except when necessary to prevent the death of the mother as determined by the immediate supervising physician. Rape and incest are outrageous, horrible crimes. Like with other horrible crimes, the punishment must be borne by the criminal offender, not the offspring of that offender. To terminate the life of such a child is tantamount to murder. The commission of one crime cannot morally cover the tarnish of another.

Your website states that you oppose amnesty and a pathway to legalization. What would be your recommendations on how to deport several million people?

We cannot logistically deport several million people. But as they imported themselves here, they can export themselves back to their home countries, or another country, and proceed through the legal channels of America`s generous legal immigration program. I will expand on this in the following answers.

What would you suggest be done about children of undocumented immigrants that are American citizens?

They would follow their parents back to their country of origin. Minors in almost every nation`s legal code, including the United States, are the responsibility of the parent, not the state or hosting nation. The answer to this question logically calls for a review and possible amendment to Article 1 of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution making all people born within the US borders citizens. This clause is an anomaly among modern industrialized nations and is an artifact of racial strife following the Civil War.

Would you advocate deporting undocumented children that lives most (if not all) of their lives in the United States but were born elsewhere?

Ultimately, the happiness, health, and wellbeing of a child is the responsibility of the parents, not the U.S. government. Deportation is a legal proceeding carried out by select immigration courts. However, I would hope that all due consideration would be taken by the magistrates in these cases to reach amicable solutions that are both humane and in the best interests of American jurisprudence.

You stated that you wish to "remove incentives" for undocumented immigrants to travel to the United States. What are these incentives? Keep in mind that the undocumented are barred by federal law from obtaining benefits thus never collect, despite the fact that they pay into entitlement programs and taxes.

Let me start out by saying that my concern with the illegal immigration problem the US faces today revolves largely around the sub-Constitutional status these immigrants are forced to live under. The incentives are jobs. Unscrupulous employers pay substandard wages to these exploited people while dodging many of their corporate tax duties. While I heartily disagree with your assertion that illegal aliens make meaningful contributions to entitlement programs and anything other than sales taxes, I think that you have hit on the heart of the problem: entitlement programs. We have 15 percent unemployment rate in San Joaquin County and still illegal immigrants are able to find jobs? Clearly, welfare reform under President Clinton did not go far enough. The problem isn`t the illegal immigrant sitting on welfare; it`s the American citizens sitting on welfare not taking the jobs `Americans won`t do.` Who picks the lettuce in Japan? Japanese people. Who harvests grapes in France? The French. Who processes the herring catch in a Norwegian cannery? Norwegians. Who does this work in the freedom loving USA? A permanent economic underclass made up of foreign itinerant sharecroppers who are plagued by poverty and preyed upon by the worst kinds of criminals.

I hope my point of view is becoming clear to you. Should an illegal immigrant be turned away from a hospital? Never. Will I welcome any child from any nation or walk of life into my classroom if they have a passion to better themselves and learn? Always. Should the United States enforce its laws and reform its policies? Tomorrow. Our entire political history is the story of measured, legal immigration. These legal immigrants bear the brunt of our collective failure to address this problem with wary eyes, suspicious questions, and doubts about their commitment to this country. Our current system has failed everyone at every level (except for a few industrial and agricultural fat cats) and needs to be reformed.

Do you believe trade policies bear some responsibility for fostering the economic necessities for undocumented immigrants to travel to the U.S.?

Completely. Let`s look at NAFTA. With our `trade agreement,` more efficient American farms begin undercutting local Mexican produce, let`s say corn, that a small farmer is growing to prosper his family. He is forced to sell his farm because he cannot compete and goes to work in an American auto plant or television factory that has moved to Mexico at the expense of thousands of American workers. This works fine for a while, but when the American multinational gets wind of cheaper labor in Malaysia, they shut down the factory in Mexico leaving the former farmer landless and jobless. He doesn`t have the money or the time to invest in legal American immigration procedures so he crosses the border illegally to feed his family. This is the `push/pull factor` that dominates the modern discourse on demographic shift and immigration and senseless, rapacious multilateral trade deals like NAFTA greatly exacerbate this. California avocado farmers, Mexican corn farmers, and everyone in between becomes a victim.

You note your support of the Second Amendment and state that the Founding Fathers "realized that a nation with a fully armed citizenry is unlikely to be successfully invaded by a foreign nation. Such a nation does not need an expensive, titanic, globe-spanning military to generate a healthy respect for its defensive capabilities."

Do you truly believe in practical terms that foreign invaders are deterred by a "fully armed citizenry" and not because of a standing military with missiles, tanks, fighter jets, aircraft carriers, submarines, and nuclear weapons?

In practical terms, no, not anymore. In psychological terms, yes. Just as an armed robber is less likely to hold up a gun show booth than an ice cream man, so will foreign aggressors be less likely to succeed in their occupation of a nation of weapon-wielders. Even the Nazi`s gave Switzerland a miss and the Soviets were humiliated by tiny Finland during the Winter War. Luckily, history has endowed us with two peaceful neighbors, a wide expanse of ocean, and the ability to obliterate our enemies with nuclear holocaust from space in a matter of hours. This is why a standing military is essential in the modern world and everything from .45 pistols to Trident missiles are a fundamental part of the defensive measures that keep us free.

I argue for a mobile, largely sea-based collection of contingency forces. Quite simply, doubling our sea-borne presence and drastically scaling back the globe-spanning military infrastructure that has sprung up in more than 100 countries would slash our costs to a payable amount and greatly increase our maneuverability in dealing with the War on Terror and other military crises. It would also limit the danger to which we ask our troops to expose themselves while forcing a more strategic, mission-centric and focused aim among our political and Pentagon elites.

Your website notes positions on several issues traditionally viewed as hot button social issues: abortion, immigration, and gun rights. Where do you stand on marriage equality?

This position is consistent with my views on the 10th Amendment. Each state should decide for itself, through the legislative or initiative process, whether to expand the definition of marriage. The Federal government is explicitly limited from legislating on this per the Bill of Rights.

Thanks again for answering these questions.

Thank you for taking the time to ask them. I hope you will publish the questions and answers in their entirety and I look forward to sharing these common sense answers, solutions and approaches with the residents of CA District 11.

In Liberty, Jeff Takada