Search Form
First, enter a politician or zip code
Now, choose a category
 

Jim Huffman's Issue Positions (Political Courage Test)

Project Vote Smart does not permit the use of its name or programs in any campaign activity, including advertising, debates, and speeches.
Jim Huffman refused to tell citizens where he stands on any of the issues addressed in the 2010 Political Courage Test, despite repeated requests from Vote Smart, national media, and prominent political leaders.

What is the Political Courage Test?

Issue Positions

In response to the increasing unwillingness of candidates to answer issue questions, Project Vote Smart has researched Presidential and Congressional candidates' public records to determine candidates' likely responses on certain key issues. These issue positions, from the year 2010, are provided below as a courtesy to voters.

Pro-choice Inferred Answer Abortion Issues: Do you consider yourself pro-choice or pro-life? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Jim Huffman. 2010. The Abigail Adams Project: 2010 Oregon Primary Election Candidate Survey. Responded: "Pro-choice," to the question: "I consider myself?" (216.197.120.179)
  • Darling, John. The Mail Tribune (Medford, OR): Jim Huffman Candidate U.S. Senate Guest Speaker at Jackson County Republican Women's First Forum of the Campaign Season. 18 June 2010. "Huffman called himself "socially moderate... a candidate who gets classified as pro-choice because I believe government shouldn't get in the middle of peoples' private lives."" (jcrw.us)
  • Hovde, Elizabeth. Oregonlive.com (Portland, OR): Jim Huffman: A credible and serious challenger for a Senate seat. 6 May 2010. "He says that the abortion issue has 'corrupted American politics for way too long' and that it is so difficult because, unlike most individual rights cases, it pits the rights of two individuals -- the mother and the unborn -- against each other. If forced into one camp or the other, he says he would be characterized as pro-choice." (www.oregonlive.com)
Unknown Position Unknown Answer Budget, Spending, and Tax Issues: Do you support the elimination of the federal estate tax? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Despite exhaustive research, Project Vote Smart was unable to find information about this candidate's position.
No Inferred Answer Budget, Spending, and Tax Issues: Do you support using government funds in an effort to stimulate and improve the economy? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Jim Huffman. 2010. The Abigail Adams Project: Oregon Candidate Questionnaire. Selected OPPOSE for: "Passing the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) or the stimulus bill." (216.197.120.179)
  • Jim Huffman. 2010. The League of Women Voters of Oregon: 2010 Oregon Primary Election Candidate Survey. Responded: "The Reid-Pelosi Congress has spent more than a trillion dollars in so-called "stimulus," which mostly consisted of earmarks for special interests and bailouts for state and local governments. Government stimulus does not produce jobs - private enterprise does. We need to end earmarks and create the conditions for the private sector to thrive," to the question: "What can be done in the next few years to reduce our national budget deficit?" (www.lwvor.org)
  • Jim Huffman. 2010. Oregon Secretary of State: Oregon Primary Election Voters' Pamphlet. "The Washington DC power elites said the bailouts and the stimulus package would save the economy. What they really sought to do was save themselves and their special interest supporters. Government needs to work for "We the People" again." (www.sos.state.or.us)
  • Jim Huffman. Issue Position: Jobs and the Economy. "The economy is the #1 issue today. The only way to get Oregonians back to work is to get the economy growing again. The Reid/Pelosi Congress has a dismal economic record, because their policies are based on a flawed premise -- that government can be a source of economic growth. This flawed premise brought us a stimulus package that hasn't worked, bailouts that destroy incentives necessary for a healthy private sector, and two straight Obama era budgets with deficits averaging $1.5 trillion. Government is not the source of jobs. However government policies CAN create an environment in which everyday people want to take risks with their own capital, time and talent, and when they succeed, jobs are created. To create such an environment, government should avoid creating uncertainty. Unfortunately, in the Reid/Pelosi congress, regulatory uncertainty has been the single biggest outcome. In just the last year, Congress contemplated passing a ruinous "Cap & Trade" scheme, and a hefty corporate tax for health insurance. As Congress talked about passing these bills, what businesses, entrepreneurs and investors heard was "Stop! Stay on the sidelines! Don't invest, don't take risks, don't expand, because the rules might be changing!" How can Congress help the economy grow again? It can start by stopping. Stop creating uncertainty by threatening to pass ruinous taxes for health care and carbon limits. Stop bailing out failure, and letting government pick winners. Stop burdening our kids and grandkids with unprecedented levels of debt. And then Congress should get busy making sure government policies don't get in the way of the incredible ingenuity and productivity of the American people who made our economy the envy of the world. The solution to our economic problems isn't in Washington DC. It is in the American people." (votesmart.org)
  • Jim Huffman. Issue Position: Spending and Federal Debt. "Federal spending is out of control. Both parties share responsibility for a decades' long escalation of spending that has driven the national debt to unprecedented heights. Republicans lost control of Congress after failing to adhere to basic principles of fiscal responsibility. Now the Democrats have brought fiscal irresponsibility to a new low. In the current year alone, the national debt has increased by $1 trillion. The current spending spree is built on the disproven theory that government spending will stimulate the economy. While spending on needed infrastructure can have short term, job creation, benefits, most of the over $1 trillion spent since the end of the Bush Administration has served to bailout fiscally irresponsible state and local governments and to fund preexisting government obligations. Since 1980, when Ron Wyden was elected to Congress, the national debt has risen from $930 billion to $13.3 trillion. Unfunded entitlements add trillions more to the federal government's obligations. This rampant spending is not sustainable and it is unconscionable that we would burden our children and grandchildren with these obligations." (votesmart.org)
Yes Inferred Answer Business and Employment Issues: Do you support privatizing elements of Social Security? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • The Situation Room. Interview with Oregon Senate Candidate Jim Huffman. 5 October 2010. BLITZER: Well, let's talk a little bit about some of the key issues, Social Security, for example. Do you favor privatizing Social Security? HUFFMAN: I favor giving young people an op -- an option of -- of putting some of their money into a private account. At the same time, I'm very concerned to preserve the benefits that people have invested in for -- those who are already retired and those near retirement." (www.realclearpolitics.com)
Unknown Position Unknown Answer Crime Issues: Do you support capital punishment for certain crimes? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Hovde, Elizabeth. OregonLive.com (Portland, OR): Jim Huffman: A credible and serious challenger for a Senate seat. 6 May 2010. "It makes sense why some liberal bloggers are attacking the bow tie. Getting into the issues with Huffman could prove problematic. Huffman is the kind of Republican that a lot of independent Oregonians will be attracted to: He has supported the legal rights of gays and opposes the death penalty, saying it isn't applied with enough reliability or accuracy to deserve support." (www.oregonlive.com)
No Inferred Answer Education Issues: Do you support federal education standards and testing requirements for K-12 students? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Jim Huffman. News. 28 October 2010. "Our federal and state law makers should take note of these results and those in other parts of the country where smaller schools under greater local control have dramatically improved student performance. Ever since the consolidation movement of the mid 20th Century, schools have grown larger and school administration has become more centralized. The expanding role of the federal government, though generally well intended, has contributed to this decline in local control. The result has been a steady decline in the quality of public education despite ever increasing expenditures per student. As with many other areas of public policy where local conditions and needs vary, federal law makers should defer to the states and encourage the states to defer to local communities when it comes to public schools. Our kids will be better for a little self-restraint in Washington, D.C.." (www.huffmanforsenate.com)
  • Jim Huffman. Issue Position: Education. "Education is primarily a state and local responsibility, but the federal government can play a role as a catalyst for reform. Competition and school choice should be a standard feature of our school systems across America. Congress should continue to encourage states to expand charter schools, and it should continue the Washington DC voucher program that is currently slated to end in 2011." (votesmart.org)
Yes Inferred Answer Environment and Energy Issues: Do you support enacting environmental regulations aimed at reducing the effects of climate change? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Jim Huffman. 2010. The Abigail Adams Project: 2010 Oregon Primary Election Candidate Survey. Checked SUPPORT for: "Imposing federal government regulations and restrictions upon states and American citizens in an effort to protect the environment." (216.197.120.179)
  • Jim Huffman. Issue Position: Energy. "Alternative forms of energy such as wind, solar and wave could very well be the route to energy independence in the future. But these technologies are not yet cost effective. It should not be the government's role to pretend it can choose which technology will prove viable. Government should avoid trying to pick the winner through subsidies, and let the private sector do what it does best: innovate. "Cap & Trade" legislation, or carbon taxes, or other CO2 emissions rationing programs are not worth the cost to the American economy. The science is still far too uncertain to impose such Draconian costs on ourselves." (votesmart.org)
  • Jim Huffman. Issue Position: Environment and Natural Resources. "Oregon has been blessed with an abundance of natural resources, but for some reason we have decided to lock them up. Interest groups and politicians have denied us our birthright of vast expanses of timber, rich soils, and productive fisheries. These industries perhaps will never again play the dominant economic role they once did, but they could and should be doing far better than they are. The federal government owns 50% of Oregon -- and for the most part, it is not a very good neighbor. They have made most of that land unavailable for economically productive use. They refuse to manage the fuel load in the forests -- so they burn. And when they go up in smoke, Oregonians' jobs go up in smoke with them. To add insult to injury, when a forest burns, such as the 500,000 acre Biscuit fire in southern Oregon - the federal government won't even allow salvage logging. It is little wonder that the unemployment rate in rural Oregon is so high, and that our rural counties who rely on the federal timber revenues they were promised years ago are in crisis. But what rural Oregonians need and want are jobs, not federal handouts to compensate for jobs lost to the idling of Oregon's vast natural resources. We can use our bountiful natural resources to provide jobs without spoiling the natural beauty of the environment we all love." (votesmart.org)
No Inferred Answer Gun Issues: Do you support restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Jim Huffman. 2010. The Abigail Adams Project: 2010 Oregon Primary Election Candidate Survey. Selected OPPOSE for: "Imposing government restrictions on an individual's right to keep and bear arms." (216.197.120.179)
No Inferred Answer Health Issues: Do you support a publicly-administered health insurance option? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Jim Huffman. The Oregonian (Portland, OR): 2010 Primary Voter Guide. Responded: "Because the health insurance reform law does virtually nothing to control costs, Congress should move as quickly as possible to amend the law to: 1. Encourage consumers of health care to control costs by eliminating tax incentives for 3rd party (employer) provided insurance and by encouraging health care savings accounts. 2. Require states to open their borders to interstate competition in health insurance. 3. Encourage states to reduce the high costs of defensive medicine by implementing tort reform. 4. Repeal subsidized health insurance for middle class individuals and families who can afford to purchase insurance. The new law subsidizes families with incomes well in excess of the median family income," to the question: "Now that the health care reform plan has become law, what should Congress do next on this issue?" (thevoterguide.oregonlive.com)
  • Jim Huffman. 2010. The Abigail Adams Project: 2010 Oregon Primary Election Candidate Survey. Selected OPPOSE for: "Taxpayer-funded health care that is mandated and run by the government." (216.197.120.179)
  • Jim Huffman signed the Repeal It! Pledge. "I hereby pledge to the people of my district/state upon my election to the U.S. House of Representatives/U.S. Senate, to sponsor and support legislation to repeal any federal health care takeover passed in 2010, and replace it with real reforms that lower health care costs without growing government." (www.repealit.org)
  • Jim Huffman. Issue Position: Health Care. "Oregonians want affordable health insurance and quality health care, and there are many things Congress can do to help make it available. But the answer is not a quasi-government takeover of the health care industry along the lines of the current plans being debated in Congress right now. Washington DC is not the solution. The health care problem is largely a problem of cost. People are being priced out of the market for health insurance. Reforms should be focused on reducing the cost of health services, and there is a lot Congress can do to achieve this. We should allow cross-state competition among health insurance providers. We should pass meaningful tort reform, which will not only drive down malpractice insurance, but will limit "defensive medicine" treatments, that some experts say comprise 30% of medical procedures in hospitals today. We should encourage lower-cost catastrophic coverage so that no one is bankrupted by an illness or an accident. And we should open the door wider for medical savings account style insurance programs that turn patients into true consumers of health care. In the final analysis, the best way to ensure more Oregonians have health insurance is to make sure that everyone has a job. Whether or not the employer provides insurance, the only way people can afford health insurance is by being employed." (votesmart.org)
No Inferred Answer Immigration Issues: Do you support a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Hovde, Elizabeth. OregonLive.com (Portland, OR): Law professor has best shot at unseating incumbent. 26 April 2010. "He says immigration reform should focus on enforcement and establishing a guest worker program to meet the needs of U.S. businesses, but he opposes proposals to put the 12 million undocumented workers already in this country on a track to legal status and wants to deport as many as possible." (www.oregonlive.com)
  • Jim Huffman. Issue Position: Illegal Immigration. "The United States is also a nation founded on the rule of law. Generations of immigrants, like my grandfather, entered the country in compliance with federal immigration laws and became productive citizens. Many lawful immigrants continue to come, but far more enter the country illegally. Congress must demand that the government enforce existing immigration laws, provide adequate funding for effective border security, implement a nationwide system for verification of legal residency of individuals seeking employment, and develop an immigration policy that serves the interests of the United States. AS YOUR UNITED STATES SENATOR, I WILL SUPPORT: - Adequate funding for effective security on every American border. - Development and funding of an electronic verification system to assist employers in assuring that employees are legal residents. - Cooperation with state governments in the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. - Legislation requiring the President to take action against states and localities purporting to create sanctuaries for illegal aliens or otherwise acting in conflict with federal law. - An affordable and efficient guest worker program to assure a reliable and timely supply of workers to American agriculture and other industries. - Legislation allowing permanent residency leading to citizenship for those with skills needed by the U.S. economy." (votesmart.org)
Yes Inferred Answer International Policy Issues: Do you support United States military action in Afghanistan? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Jim Huffman. The Oregonian. 2010 Voter Guide. Responded: "While I agree with the "surge" effort in Afghanistan, I believe it was a mistake to establish a firm deadline for withdrawal. We must achieve a balance between giving Afghans incentives to assume responsibility for their own affairs, and not leading terrorists to believe that they need only await our withdrawal to achieve their goals. The President should only commit troops to conflicts in other countries when American interests are at stake and with the agreement of Congress. We are now deeply committed and must find a resolution that serves American interests and does not violate commitments made to the Afghans. Any resolution must be centered on a counter terrorism strategy based on the recognition that terrorism is a global problem that threatens human lives and freedom everywhere. While I do not believe that American troops should be committed indefinitely to any foreign country, we must do whatever is necessary to protect Americans from terrorist attacks." to the question: "President Obama has set July 2011 as the date for when U.S. troops might begin withdrawing from Afghanistan. In your opinion, what conditions must be present for that withdrawal to take place? If those conditions are not met, should U.S. troops remain indefinitely?" (thevoterguide.oregonlive.com)
  • Jim Huffman. Issue Position: Foreign Policy and National Defense. "The most important function of the federal government is national defense. Although the President has primary constitutional authority for defense and foreign policy, the United States Senate has a critical advice and consent responsibility. I will take that responsibility seriously. American foreign policy must always serve American interests and reflect the values embedded in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. Central among those values are individual liberty and national sovereignty. The United States should be prepared and willing to cooperate with other nations whenever it serves the best interests of the American people. But we must negotiate with the knowledge that other nations will seek to achieve their own interests, as they perceive them." (votesmart.org)
  • Jim Huffman. Issue Position: The War on Terror. "The war on terror is not a bumper sticker slogan, as John Edwards called it, nor was the war in Iraq lost, as Harry Reid claimed. The war on terror is a real conflict against a toxic ideology whose adherents willingly end their own lives to take lives of Americans. The unspeakable horror of 9-11 should be proof enough that we should take their threats seriously. Whether or not Iraq was the appropriate front line for the war on terror, it is a job we must see through. Thanks to the Surge and the dedication of our troops, it appears we can begin withdrawal soon. We must show the same resolve in Afghanistan that we had in Iraq to turn a deaf ear to the defeatists and finish the job. Iran cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapon technology. Taking the war on terror seriously means we cannot afford to prosecute captured terrorists -- whether they were caught on foreign soil or in the U.S. - in the criminal justice system. By providing terrorists with taxpayer funded lawyers (who invariably counsel them to remain silent) we deny ourselves the opportunity to get intelligence about terror organizations and we put American lives at risk." (votesmart.org)
Unknown Position Unknown Answer Social Issues: Should marriage only be between one man and one woman? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Darling, John. The Mail Tribune (Medford, OR): Jim Huffman Candidate U.S. Senate Guest Speaker at Jackson County Republican Women's First Forum of the Campaign Season. 18 June 2010. "On gay marriage, Huffman said, "Oregon has got gay marriage resolved as good as it can get, with civil unions, and we've solved the real problem, which is that government must treat everyone equally." (jcrw.us)

Key

Candidate Answer

Official Position: Candidate had the Political Courage to address this issue directly.

Inferred Answer

Inferred Position: Candidate refused to address this issue directly, but Project Vote Smart inferred this issue position based on the candidate's public statements, voting record, and evaluations from special interest groups.

Unknown Answer

Unknown Position: Candidate refused to address this issue.

Project Vote Smart's Research: Click on this icon to reveal more information about this candidate's position.

Other or Expanded Principles & Legislative Priorities are entered exactly as the candidate has submitted it. Project Vote Smart does not edit for misspelled words, punctuation or grammar.

Skip to top
Back to top