Where I Stand

The National Debt

Today, the national debt stands at roughly 125 percent of gross domestic product, the highest level since the all-out wartime emergency of World War II. Many economists suggest a more sustainable ratio would be closer to 50 percent.

During the COVID years of 2020 and 2021, the federal deficit surged to $3.1 trillion and $2.7 trillion, respectively. In the years since, deficits have remained historically high, averaging between approximately $1.3 and $1.8 trillion annually, with total federal spending ranging from about $6.2 to $6.7 trillion per year. If we remain on this trajectory, our children and grandchildren could end up paying 30 to 40 cents of every tax dollar just to cover interest on the debt.

Federal Outlays as % of Tax Revenue

2025

Net Interest: 14%

2030

Net Interest: 21%

2040

Net Interest: 30%

2050

Net Interest: 39%

Interest payments on the national debt will consume an ever-larger share of tax revenue if we don't act now.

My Solution

In my view, the solution is straightforward, though not easy: reduce spending and adjust taxes to an optimal and responsible level. Overall, the current tax structure represents a reasonably fair distribution of the burden, but loopholes exist that allow certain individuals to avoid paying their fair share at the expense of everyone else. While it is true that many wealthy Americans reinvest capital into ventures that create jobs and economic value, I would not rule out targeted, justified tax increases where appropriate.

Healthcare spending remains one of the most difficult challenges, and there are no simple solutions. However, requiring Congress to pass a truly balanced budget—without exceptions—would force federal agencies to make necessary and often difficult decisions. While some programs would be affected, responsible reductions can be made to achieve an optimal level of government assistance without causing significant hardship. The alternative—continuing to do nothing—would allow the national debt to grow unchecked, placing an even greater burden on future generations.

The Border and Illegal Immigration

I believe in legal immigration. To prevent the continued flow of illegal immigration, I support the current administration's approach, including stronger border enforcement, restrictions on asylum abuse, targeted deportations, and other constructive measures. Additional improvements could include expanding physical barriers in high-traffic areas, increased use of surveillance technology, and ensuring adequate staffing for border agents. At the same time, I support legal immigration.

Benefits Policy

While no one should be allowed to go hungry or suffer unnecessary medical hardship, government benefits for undocumented immigrants should be limited. Access to public benefits can serve as a strong incentive for illegal immigration and contributes to long-term fiscal strain. Additionally, I believe we should eliminate the hypocrisy in our current laws that allow the employment of undocumented immigrants through various loopholes, as this only adds to confusion and tension surrounding immigration enforcement.

Pro-Legal Immigration

The United States clearly benefits from legal immigration. When individuals are properly vetted and come to this country to work, contribute, and follow the law, it is a win-win for both immigrants and the nation as a whole.

Social Security

Social Security provides income for retired workers, spousal and survivor benefits, and individuals with disabilities. It is a major safety net and the primary source of income for millions of Americans. Social Security is also the single largest expenditure in the federal budget.

The trust fund—built up over decades in anticipation of Baby Boomer retirements—will be depleted, leaving the program short by approximately 23% of current expenditures. To keep the program solvent so beneficiaries continue to receive full payments, Congress would need to appropriate an additional $350–$450 billion per year from the federal budget. This would further increase the budget deficit and accelerate the growth of the national debt.

The plain truth is that increasing funding without reform simply shifts the financial burden to our children and grandchildren. I would support changes to Social Security such as gradually increasing the retirement age and tightening eligibility requirements to better balance incoming and outgoing funds. While acknowledging these realities is often political suicide for a prospective politician, it remains the plain truth.

I recorded a presentation on Social Security, available on my social media profiles, that explains how the program works, how funds are allocated, and the upcoming shortfalls related to projected insolvency.

Medical Care

Medical care in the United States is widely regarded as the best in the world in terms of quality, accessibility, and innovation. The financial and humanitarian benefits of these strengths are closely aligned with the free-enterprise system.

When accounting for private insurance, self-pay, Medicare, and Medicaid, the United States spends approximately $5 trillion annually on healthcare. Of this total, about 55 percent comes from the private sector, while roughly 45 percent is funded by the government through Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and other programs. Medicare and Medicaid together represent the largest share of government healthcare expenditures.

Recent increases in government healthcare spending were driven largely by the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to expanded Medicaid enrollment and extensions of enhanced subsidies for individuals insured through the ACA. In addition, demographic shifts—particularly the growing number of baby boomers becoming eligible for Medicare—have further accelerated government healthcare costs.

Recent government shutdown episodes have highlighted ongoing political tensions surrounding the cost of ACA benefits. The reality is that some households earning up to $180,000 per year may receive taxpayer-funded subsidies, often financed by taxpayers who are less financially secure than those receiving the assistance.

Russia, Ukraine, and Venezuela

The war in Ukraine is not an abstract geopolitical issue for me. My son-in-law is currently serving in the U.S. Army and is stationed in Poland. One of my nephews serves in the U.S. Navy, and one of my sons served six years as an infantry Marine and is now a veteran. Like many Americans with loved ones in uniform, I view this conflict through the lens of what it means for those who may be asked to stand on or near the front lines.

NATO Commitments

I support honoring America's commitments to NATO and guaranteeing the security of NATO member states. Deterrence only works if it is credible, and credibility depends on keeping our word to our allies.

Ukraine Support

I also support establishing and enforcing firm military boundaries along existing lines in eastern Ukraine. As long as the Ukrainian people have the will to fight, I believe the United States and its allies should continue providing the munitions and supplies necessary to help Ukraine hold those lines. At the same time, I do not support the direct deployment of U.S. ground troops unless there is a compelling and credible case that such involvement would bring the war to a swift conclusion with minimal loss of life.

Long-Term Economic Strategy

Looking beyond the battlefield, I strongly support a long-term strategy aimed at preventing further Russian aggression. A key component of that strategy should be economic. Russia's ability to wage war is heavily dependent on energy revenues, and deliberate action to drive down global oil prices would significantly weaken its capacity to continue the conflict.

Recent U.S. engagement with Venezuela may be partially aligned with this objective. With effective leadership and reform, Venezuela could reclaim its position as a stable and prosperous energy producer, improving the lives of its citizens while increasing global oil supply. The return of Venezuelan oil to world markets would help displace Russian oil being sold to China and India.

This conflict is prolonged and dangerous, with the potential to escalate into a nuclear confrontation. Every policy choice must be weighed carefully, with a clear understanding of both risks and benefits. In my view, a sustained economic strategy combined with measured military support offers the safest and most effective path forward.

Historical Perspective

Since 2022, the United States has authorized roughly $175–180 billion in Ukraine-related assistance, much of it consisting of existing U.S. military equipment transferred from stockpiles and funds spent to replenish those inventories, along with economic and humanitarian aid. This represents roughly half of all international assistance committed to Ukraine.

Some argue that the United States should disengage entirely. History suggests otherwise. An isolationist response to unchecked aggression has often resulted in far greater costs—both in blood and treasure—down the road. Supporting Ukraine now may reduce the likelihood that American service members are called upon to fight a much larger war later.

Greenland

I would support a voluntary political or economic arrangement involving Greenland only if the people there agree. I do not believe the United States should use military force to take over Greenland. If the people of Greenland were to elect to join the United States, and if such a move were legal under international law and made sense for the American taxpayer, I would support Greenland becoming a U.S. territory.

That said, the United States should not be expected to defend Greenland at the cost of American lives and taxpayer dollars without clear benefits to the American people. From the perspective of a taxpayer and a parent of service members, any policy involving Greenland must reduce the risk of future conflicts and deployments—not create new open-ended commitments.

As Arctic shipping routes open, Greenland's location is becoming increasingly strategic. A voluntary, consent-based partnership—focused on U.S. investment, infrastructure development, and shared economic returns—could benefit Greenland while improving U.S. security through earlier warning and greater stability in the Arctic. Any such arrangement must include clear cost-sharing and tangible returns, not blank checks.

Claims by China and Russia that they have no strategic interest in Arctic waterways should be treated cautiously, given China's actions in the South China Sea and Russia's invasion of Ukraine. If Greenland were threatened, there would likely be an expectation that the United States respond.

For these reasons, the focus should be on voluntary cooperation that protects American lives, delivers real value to taxpayers, and prevents future crises—rather than coercion, conquest, or one-sided obligations.

Climate Change and Renewable Energy

There are widely varying opinions and assessments regarding human-induced climate change. During the Obama and Biden administrations, human-induced climate change was generally presented as an established reality supported by mainstream science, while other administrations have played down the extent or potential consequences of human-driven climate change.

The United States produces roughly 13% of global greenhouse gas emissions and has one of the highest per-capita emission rates in the world, largely reflecting its standard of living. Many developed countries are now focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, often at a significant cost to the public in the form of higher energy prices.

At the same time, several developing countries—most notably India and China—are rapidly expanding their energy production, largely through coal-fired electricity generation, making them major and growing contributors to global greenhouse gas emissions. Given these realities, the practical question is how best to proceed: advancing renewable energy where it is effective and economically viable, but doing so gradually to avoid severe financial impacts from rising energy costs.

A Balanced Approach

I favor a measured and pragmatic response to climate change. I support gradual emissions reductions paired with major investments in energy innovation—including advanced nuclear power and improved grid reliability—as well as adaptation measures such as stronger infrastructure and better disaster preparedness.

Climate action should emphasize realism, cost-effectiveness, and long-term resilience rather than emergency-driven mandates.

Transgenderism

I believe that men are men and women are women. I do not support biological males competing in girls' sports or using girls' restrooms. I am opposed to any form of government-supported or other efforts to indoctrinate children with transgender ideology.

ICE

It is estimated that over 10 million unauthorized immigrants entered the United States during the Biden administration, though the exact number varies depending on the methodology used. During this period, ICE arrested approximately 278,000 individuals, the majority of whom had criminal histories, with the remainder arrested for civil immigration-law violations. Even among those arrested, a substantial share are not ultimately deported, due to legal, humanitarian, or resource constraints.

Taken together, this suggests that the implicit enforcement message of recent administrations—including the Trump administration—has been: if you are in the country, avoid serious criminal activity, and you are unlikely to be deported. This approach has failed to satisfy either Republicans or Democrats.

Employment Loopholes

At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that structural loopholes exist within the employment system that allow unauthorized immigrants to be hired in practice, if not in principle. Under current law, employers are required to verify work authorization through documents that must only "reasonably appear" to be valid. If such documents are presented, employers are generally shielded from liability, even if the worker later turns out to be unauthorized.

Once hired, the employer can place the worker on payroll, with taxes withheld and remitted as normal. In many cases, those payroll taxes—particularly Social Security contributions—are never reclaimed by the worker, because the identifying information is invalid or mismatched. As a result, the system allows unauthorized employment to persist while still collecting tax revenue.

The bottom line is that current laws are loose enough in practice to permit widespread employment of unauthorized workers, even though such employment is technically illegal. This contradiction makes the national immigration debate deeply hypocritical: we argue publicly about enforcement while quietly tolerating—and benefiting from—systems that rely on unauthorized labor.

The Ten Commandments

I support the current law that allows the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public areas when they are presented in a historical context.

I read the Bible often, consider myself a Christian, and rely on my faith to help guide my thoughts and decisions. To me, the Bible and the Ten Commandments are part of my heritage. I believe the Ten Commandments provide practical principles that support moral living and social order.

However, the difficulty with placing the Ten Commandments in a public-school setting lies in their explicitly religious content—particularly the commandment stating, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." We live in a multicultural society, and public schools serve children from many different religious backgrounds. For students of other faiths, this statement may conflict with their own inherited religious beliefs.

In the same sense that I would oppose my children being proselytized in another religion or taught religious doctrine in public school, I believe it is important to apply the same standard when considering how matters of faith relate to my own beliefs in a school setting.

Private religious schools may display the Ten Commandments because they are private institutions, not government actors, and the Constitution protects their right to teach and express religious beliefs.

Freedom of religion under the Constitution means that the government must neither impose religion nor inhibit it. In Texas, the Supreme Court allowed a Ten Commandments monument on capitol grounds because it was passive, historical, and non-coercive. By contrast, the Court barred Ten Commandments postings in public classrooms because the classroom is a compulsory instructional setting where government-placed religious texts can function as endorsement.

The difference is not the words themselves, but where they are placed, who places them, and how much pressure they exert.

Abortion

I support abortion law as it currently stands in Texas per Sec. 170A.002.

It states, in substance, that:

• A person may not knowingly perform, induce, or attempt an abortion
• Except when a licensed physician determines, using reasonable medical judgment, that the abortion is necessary to:
  • Save the life of the pregnant patient, or
  • Prevent a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function

Vaccinations

I support mandatory vaccinations for diseases that provide the greatest public health benefit and have been proven safe, such as measles, polio, pertussis, rubella, and diphtheria.

Decisions regarding other vaccinations should remain at the parents' discretion. I support parents' right to exempt their children from vaccinations under current Texas law.

However, in the event of an outbreak of a specific disease in a particular area, I would support requiring the relevant vaccination or, alternatively, quarantining unvaccinated children to prevent further spread.

Tariffs & Trade

The stated intent of the tariffs is to increase manufacturing within the United States which could be beneficial. When a product is manufactured domestically and sold in the U.S. versus purchasing from an international supplier, there is a clear competitive advantage to the U.S. supplier.

However, based on practical experience, tariffs can also hinder U.S. manufacturing. In some cases, an item can be purchased from a foreign supplier from another foreign supplier to avoid paying U.S. tariffs, thus hurting a U.S. manufacturer.

Tariff revenue collected in 2025 was approximately $195 billion. It should be noted that the administration has allocated roughly $12 billion to farmers to offset the effects of tariffs and agricultural products.

I believe this should be monitored for effectiveness and proper action taken in the future.

Department of Education

Overall, I would leave it up to someone more knowledgeable about the education system than me. I think the overall allocation of funds to poorer school districts is a benefit of the Department of Education, but I oppose mandates contrary to the values of the majority of the local community.

Overall, if state or local control of education proves adequate, then there may not be a reason for the department.

US House Term Limits

I wouldn't be opposed to term limits, but I can see benefits of an incumbent being in office for 8 to 12 years which benefits long-term planning for a specific district.

Government & Parents' Rights

The government should override parental rights only when there are obvious signs of child abuse such as:

• Neglect
• Medical neglect
• Educational neglect
• Sexual exploitation
• Criminal activity
• Abandonment
• Other critical situations that place the child at risk

In the case of child abuse, the harm must be evident and should not be confused with lawful parental discipline.