Mark Alliegro's Issue Positions (Political Courage Test)
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 Alliegro has provided voters with clear stances on key issues by responding to the 2016 Political Courage Test.
Massachusetts Congressional Election 2016 Political Courage Test
| Pro-life | Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation? | ||
| As a scientist with over 30 years experience teaching and doing research in embryology, I can assert with authority that there is more than one human life to consider in abortion decisions. Therefore, in all legislation put before me, I will always decide on the side of caution and respect for life. | |||
| No | In order to balance the budget, do you support reducing defense spending? | ||
| No | In order to balance the budget, do you support an income tax increase on any tax bracket? | ||
| Regarding the defense budget: THE principal role of the federal government is national defense. I will therefore always support healthy budgets for the DOD. However, like every single federal entity, budgetary waste should be reduced to a minimum. If there are ways to hold the budget steady by eliminating waste, I will support them. | |||
| Yes | Do you support the regulation of indirect campaign contributions from corporations and unions? | ||
| This is a very vague question. If you mean do I support certain rules governing how contributions are made and reported, the answer is "yes". For example, I do not support the act of forcing workers to belong to unions and paying dues, and then using those dues to support candidates or causes with whom those forced memberships disagree. | |||
| Yes | Do you support capital punishment for certain crimes? | ||
| Yes | Do you support alternatives to incarceration for certain non-violent offenders such as mandatory counseling or substance abuse treatment? | ||
| Yes | Do you support mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenders? | ||
| I do not believe mandatory minimum sentences are ideal, but in the current environment of judicial leniency, they serve a purpose. On the expression, "non-violent drug offenders": The term is too often misused. For example, selling heroin to a 16 year old is often classified as a "non-violent" offense. I assert that it is a violence committed on the life of that child and his/her family. Whether or not we apply the term "violent", it is no less despicable and destructive than a brutal assault. | |||
| No | Do you support federal spending as a means of promoting economic growth? | ||
| Yes | Do you support lowering taxes as a means of promoting economic growth? | ||
| Yes | Do you support providing tax incentives to businesses for the purpose of job creation? | ||
| Again, these questions are too vague. Do I support federal meddling in the economy? The answer is "no". However, many expenditures affect economic growth, whether intended or not. My position is that each federal expenditure should be assessed for its economic impact, and mitigation be applied accordingly. On the second question: I always support lowering taxes. It will indeed promote growth. On the last question: As long as the tax system is this horrifically over-complicated with loopholes and exceptions, then my answer is "yes. But the tax code should be simplified to minimize the need for such incentives. | |||
| No | Do you generally support requiring states to adopt federal education standards? | ||
|
|||
| The federal government should stay completely out of "reforming" education. Overseeing education is a role for local authorities (School Boards, Principals, and local taxpayers). | |||
| Yes | Do you support building the Keystone XL pipeline? | ||
| No | Do you support government funding for the development of renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind, thermal)? | ||
| No | Do you support increased regulations on the hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") industry? | ||
| Questions 2: At the basic research level, yes. I have no objection to scientific grants targeting fundamental discovery that leads to developments in the energy sector (or health, or environment, etc.). However, I do not support federal funding to favor/manipulate one sector vs. another. Question 3: Reasonable environmental concerns should be addressed. The key word is "reasonable". | |||
| No | Do you believe that human activity is contributing to climate change? | ||
| No | Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions? | ||
| As a trained scientist with over 30 years of professional experience in some of the top institutions in this world, I can assert with authority that there is no valid reason to conclude that man is affecting the global climate. | |||
| No | Do you generally support gun-control legislation? | ||
| The key words are: "shall not be infringed" | |||
| Yes | Do you support requiring immigrants who are unlawfully present to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship? | ||
|
|||
| While they are in this country, they are, by definition, breaking the law. We cannot reward the breaking of our federal immigration laws by allowing some people to "jump the line" in front of those who followed the law. | |||
| No | Do you support same-sex marriage? | ||
| According to the U.S. Constitution, anyone can enter into contract with those of their choosing. However, this does not necessitate the re-definition of long-standing, fundamental institutions. | |||
| Yes | Should the U.S use military force in order to prevent governments hostile to the United States from possessing a nuclear weapon? | ||
| Unknown Position | Do you support increased American intervention in Iraq and Syria beyond air support? | ||
|
|||
| In specific and clear cases of threat. I believe that once you demonstrate the principle, diplomatic leverage becomes more effective. | |||
| Yes | Do you support allowing individuals to divert a portion of their Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts? | ||
SpendingIndicate what federal spending levels (#1-6) you support for the following general categories. Select one number per category; you can use a number more than once.TaxesIndicate what federal tax levels (#1-6) you support for the following general categories. Select one number per category; you can use a number more than once.
| Maintain Status | a) Agriculture | ||
| Greatly Decrease | b) Arts | ||
| Slightly Increase | c) Defense | ||
| d) Education | |||
| Slightly Decrease | e) Environment | ||
| Maintain Status | f) Homeland Security | ||
| Greatly Decrease | g) International aid | ||
| Maintain Status | h) Medical Research | ||
| Maintain Status | i) Scientific Research | ||
| Slightly Increase | j) Space exploration | ||
| Eliminate | k) United Nations | ||
| Greatly Decrease | l) Welfare | ||
| Slightly Decrease | a) Capital gains taxes | ||
| Slightly Decrease | b) Corporate taxes | ||
| Slightly Decrease | c) Small business taxes | ||
| Eliminate | d) Excise taxes (alcohol) | ||
| Eliminate | e) Excise taxes (cigarettes) | ||
| Eliminate | f) Excise taxes (transportation fuel) | ||
| Maintain Status | g) Income taxes (low-income families) | ||
| Slightly Decrease | h) Income taxes (middle-income families) | ||
| Slightly Decrease | i) Income taxes (high-income families) | ||
| Eliminate | j) Inheritance taxes | ||
| Slightly Decrease | k) Payroll taxes | ||
| Again, items are over simplified. For example, in some of these categories (such as education), I would not advocate cutting off funding. But I would advocate that taxpayer dollars not be sent to Washington D.C. where the bureaucracy takes a chunk and the leavings are returned to the states and school districts. Rather, I would advocate for keeping these tax dollars local, and not have them siphoned-off by the federal bureaucracy. More money for the schools, less federal interference. | |||
| Questions oversimplified. My position in general on taxes is to simplify and minimize. The federal government must be supported to carry out its Constitutional roles. Federal tax revenue should be prioritized and minimized accordingly. | |||
| 1) Ensure national sovereignty by enforcement of immigration law (and strengthening policy) 2) Unleash the economy by reducing federal interference/regulation and reducing taxes 3) Ensure a strong posture internationally with a strong military and assertive diplomatic program |
Vote Smart does not permit the use of its name or programs in any campaign activity, including advertising, debates, and speeches.