Eisele Aims to Keep Tech Jobs in District

Marina del Rey resident Stephen Eisele is one of six Republican candidates running for the vacant 36th Congressional District seat in Tuesday's primary election. Eisele, whose hometown is Houston, has been in the aerospace industry for nearly a decade and said he wants to keep aerospace/defense, high-tech and manufacturing jobs in the district.

Here is how Eisele responded to a Patch questionnaire about issues facing the district and the nation:

Patch: What do you think is the biggest issue facing our district?

Eisele: No question it is jobs, jobs, jobs. My primary mission will be to get our economy back on track with an emphasis on creating new, sustainable jobs. The past three years have brought great uncertainty and people in the 36th district and across the U.S. are worried about the future of this country. We need to regain consumer confidence and provide the necessary incentives for investment, job growth, and encourage businesses to thrive, rather than tax them out of existence. A real economic stimulus will come from new wealth generation via the private sector and not a dependency on big government to redistribute taxes. 

There is a lot at stake in the 36th District Congressional Race—the future of our economy hangs in the balance as we continue to risk losing aerospace, high-technology, and manufacturing jobs. For years these industries represented the backbone of this district and contributed hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs to our local economy. Unfortunately, Southern California has permanently lost tens of thousands of jobs in aerospace alone and will continue to do so unless someone will be a strong advocate on behalf of these vital industries.

For a long time, California was the birthplace of innovation and inspiration not only for entertainment but also entrepreneurs who helped define our local heritage in the creation of aerospace/defense, high-technology, and manufacturing businesses. I’ve worked in aerospace for almost a decade and possess the know-how and willingness to fight to keep these important jobs in our district. The way to balance out local projects with the need for fiscal pragmatism is to encourage the further investment of the aerospace workforce into high-tech jobs, commercial aerospace/space companies, and promote entrepreneurship. Many aerospace jobs that previously had only one customer—government—are now available to the private sector. This is part of the key to transitioning this once government-heavy industry into a wealth and job creator for the district

Patch: What do you think is the biggest challenge to our nation’s economy and what do you think the federal government should do to facilitate economic recovery?

Eisele: I believe our biggest challenge is striking the right balance between the public and private sectors to get our economy moving again. Public sector jobs are outpacing private sector jobs in both wages and benefits—a statistic that is unsustainable since the private sector is key to growth and greater tax revenue: this is a paradox that is simply unsustainable long-term. We also need to rein in spending which is forcing us to borrow forty cents on the dollar and is accounting for our massive debt burden.

Just like every household has to balance its own budget and make tough spending decisions, I believe it is absolutely time to get the U.S. back on track to fiscal sanity. According to the President’s budget, by 2014, net interest payments will surpass the amount spent on education, transportation, energy, and all other discretionary programs outside defense. Our history of deficit spending is not only crippling, it is unconscionable. We can no longer kick the can down the road and must start balancing our budget and moving the debt needle in the other direction. 

We need to rein in government spending by capping spending, reducing waste and fraud, and empowering the states and communities familiar with the challenges and needs of local municipalities to provide the people with the necessary services. This is an absolute necessity given our $14 trillion (and growing) debt.

I believe we need to focus on getting Americans back to work and provide the necessary environment for job formation. With the second highest corporate taxes in the world, the federal government has put American businesses at a significant disadvantage. The U.S. Government needs to focus its policies on allowing businesses to flourish by lowering barriers to entry and making tax rates competitive with the global economy. Only through incentivizing businesses to grow and investing in their communities will we be able to get people back to work.

Patch: How will you specifically encourage job growth in Southern California?

Eisele: As I mentioned previously, there is a lot at stake in the 36th District Congressional Race—the future of our economy hangs in the balance as we are forcing some of our core industries out of the district. I think we need to focus on what we do best and keep the talent we have in the 36th District. Many companies in the aerospace, high-tech and manufacturing fields are leaving the state due to high taxes and stifling regulations. We have to first stop the bleeding and encourage new investment in the region. We can take some pro-active steps and when I’m in Congress I will pledge to stand with the hard working people of the district to keep their jobs here. The bottom line though is that it’s not just about the jobs but the skilled labor and innovation this district attracts through the core industries. Some of my opponents want to make LA the “green capitol of the US.” They hope to accomplish this by transitioning part of the aerospace workforce into green jobs. I’m all for green jobs but not at the cost of existing jobs and businesses and this plan would simply devastate our economy. We need to grow green jobs in parallel to our current industries through technology-transfer, tax incentives and by pooling from the incredible talent we have here. If we let the high-tech industries leave the state and continue to go to Texas and Florida, there won’t be many individuals left with the subject matter expertise to continue to support our industrial base.

In order to preserve our district’s core competencies in aerospace, high-technology, and manufacturing we should take the following measures:

We need to:

• Make California competitive again by bringing national and state corporate tax rates
  in line with the global economy and reduce barriers to entry for new aerospace & tech
  companies
• Rally the California Congressional delegation, state legislators, and community to
  support the California Aerospace and hi-tech industries
• Maintain a robust aerospace & high-technology sector by:
  • Revisiting strict export control rules (such as ITAR) that prevent U.S. satellite and
    aerospace manufacturers from being competitive
  • Supporting government R&D projects that are too risky for the private sector to
    take on
  • Promoting use of innovative solutions such as NASA Centennial Challenges and
    prizes (government and private) to foster “innovation through competition”
  • Promoting commercial/private sector alternatives for suborbital space missions,
    low-earth orbit missions & exploration (including cargo transport, human
    spaceflight)
  • Encouraging government agencies to focus on deep space exploration (including asteroid missions, Moon & Mars)
  • Reform H1B immigration visas to allow highly skilled immigrant labor to remain part of the aerospace industrial base

Patch: Standard and Poor’s recently predicted the U.S. credit rating would be downgraded due to the federal government’s handling of the nation’s budget deficit. What budget items do you think should be cut, and what needs to have continued or even increased funding?

Eisele: I believe we should be open to across the board budget cuts in order to get our deficit and massive debit in hand which includes defense spending. In this economic hardship, we have to make some sacrifices and focus on growing the economy before we can simply advocate spending more—more money that we don’t have and that the American people are unable to afford through higher taxes.

Just like every household has to balance its own budget and make tough spending decisions, I believe it is absolutely time to get the U.S. back on track to fiscal sanity. According to the President’s budget, by 2014, net interest payments will surpass the amount spent on education, transportation, energy, and all other discretionary programs outside defense. Our history of deficit spending is not only crippling, it is unconscionable. We can no longer kick the can down the road and must start balancing our budget and moving the debt needle in the other direction. 

The U.S. Government needs to focus its policies on allowing businesses to flourish by lowering barriers to entry and making tax rates competitive with the global economy. Only through incentivizing businesses to grow and investing in their communities will we be able to get people back to work. Once more people are back to work and our unemployment level drops, we’ll see an increase in economic activity, increased revenues, and decreased entitlement spending. This will allow us to better pay for programs that we value and are necessary going forward. I don’t necessarily believe that we have to spend more, but we can spend smarter.

Patch: Where do you stand on No Child Left Behind? What would you do to improve the state of education in this country and in California?

Eisele: The No Child Left Behind act has failed to deliver on its promise of better educated and more prepared students by providing incentives for teachers to teach students how to be better test takers rather than getting a well-rounded education. I think this speaks more to the failure of federal education policies that attempt to corral students into a single-mindset of learning. I believe that our education system is in dire need of reform and proactive steps can be taken that will improve our teacher pool as well as the education received by our students.

To improve education in this country, we need to first and foremost celebrate and elevate our teacher professions to a higher level of respect that they deserve. I would do this by proposing higher pay for teachers with a reward system but also make it easier for the state to remove underperforming teachers. I think we should encourage the hiring of teachers from different sectors of the economy, including the business world and other specialties so that students are provided with more well-rounded perspectives. I would also propose that we gear classes towards other options including differentiated instruction that does not solely focus on teaching tests and allows students to pursue vocational options, the arts, and through the promotion of charter schools. Also, I believe that we should not be afraid to narrow standards and curriculum to teach our children to do fewer things well and more extensively such as focus on math, reading, writing in elementary school first before pursuing other subject matters in greater depth.

Patch: Where do you stand on federal environmental policy? The Supreme Court is now considering the merit of a nuisance lawsuit against electric companies over their greenhouse gas emissions. Do you think the courts should get involved in climate change policy or is this a role better suited for Congress?

Eisele: I am a strong advocate for alternative energies and believe these technologies are vital to our future and we must continue to promote the benefits moving forward. I believe that both Congress and the Courts should and will play a role in environmental policies moving forward depending on how the situations present themselves. The case before the Supreme Court regarding nuisance lawsuits and the five energy companies is a legal matter that leaves the judiciary ill-suited to make policy since climate change policy-judgments have yet to be clearly defined and codified under law, which should be left up to the political branches. The courts are trying to determine whether allowing these lawsuits to go forward could potentially open up a wave of new challenges against carbon emitters of which the energy companies only represent a small percentage of. The fundamental question at stake is are we as a country willing to use carbon-emissions caps as a policy tool to fundamentally change how our energy needs are met? My greatest concern with such policies is the impact it will have on the economy. I do not believe, given the multitude of factors that contribute to environmental changes (including man-made and cyclical factors) that the Courts or Congress should affirm blanket policy decisions based on the carbon-emissions litmus test alone. We have to face a few realities and understand first what impact this would have on our economy. That is to say we need to aggressively pursue alternative energies in concert with petroleum products until America can wean off of our addiction to oil.

Thus I believe we need to take an all of the above approach which includes petroleum products in the short term but have a real plan to develop more efficient alternative energies long term. This includes heavily promoting alternative energies and making them more cost effective through tax breaks, encouraging private sector investment and through prizes; promoting clean coal, shale and also allowing drilling to continue (off-shore and land) where the platforms and footprints are already established including the Gulf Coast and Alaska where the local economies heavily depend on these jobs.

Patch: Federal energy regulators have approved the test phase of a wave farm off the coast of San Onofre. Do you approve of that project, specifically, and what are your thoughts on the development of wave energy in Southern California, generally?

Eisele: I think that wave energy technology should be pursued as an option to creating alternative energy sources. There are numerous technical problems that still have to be resolved, including the issue of salt water corrosion of mechanical parts, but I think the technology shows promise and should be encouraged. While the technology still needs to be tested and proven, California environmental regulations make it extremely difficult and expensive to see this project to fruition. I would be in favor of expediting the testing phase in order to assess whether this is truly a viable and safe means of generating energy, all which could provide millions of homes a clean source for the future.

Patch: Do you think that the nuclear energy plants in California need additional safety regulation? Do you think we should move away from nuclear energy? What would you say to people who are worried that what happened in Japan will happen here?

Eisele: The tragedy that struck Japan and the Fukushima plant in particular should prompt all of us to reassess our nuclear energy plants and make appropriate determinations to the future role of nuclear energy in the United States as well as proactive methods to secure them from creating a hazard risk to our citizens. It is also important that we do not react reflexively to the problem and make a careful assessment of the potential risks moving forward.  The United States currently relies on over 100 nuclear power plants providing close to 20% of the U.S. total electric energy output. Nuclear energy is also the cleanest non-carbon emission energy we currently have proven to supply mass quantities of power. The DOE predicts that Americans will consume 25% more electricity by 2035, meaning we have to find new solutions fast if we are to substitute nuclear energy options moving forward. Fundamentally. I believe that the US should undergo a careful risk assessment of all our nuclear power facilities and halt the issuance of any new licenses until a study is completed and it may turn out that some plants pose a risk and should be shut down. But this should all be carefully assessed prior to making any drastic changes in how we obtain our energy requirements.

I believe that the American people have a right to be concerned in light of the tragedy Japan and should demand that our publicly elected officials take the matter seriously. But the American people should also realize that the United States has never had any casualties due to a nuclear power plant meltdown (including 3-Mile Island), and countries across the world and in particular France receives 80% of their power from nuclear sources, also without incident. Compared to accidents in coal mines and oil fields, nuclear power has proven to be safe and effective. However there are legitimate major concerns about potential catastrophic fallout that make the issue such an important one moving forward.

In short, we should carefully assess our current assets, study the role nuclear energy plays in our economy, have a national debate and determine the best course of action.

Patch: As a member of Congress, which health care legislation would you support or oppose?

Eisele: I believe that all Americans should have access to affordable healthcare. I do not believe the current health care plan proposed by President Obama is the solution as it mandates that all buy in or be penalized, stifles competition, and puts decision-making ability into the hands of bureaucrats. The government should focus on providing healthcare to those truly in need including the elderly, disabled, children and the poor who have no means to help themselves.  Individuals who are satisfied with their current healthcare should be allowed to keep their plans and we should continue to encourage employers to provide comprehensive coverage for their workers. 

The current plan calls for massive government oversight, less incentive for those to join the medical profession, and we risk losing the quality of care that has been the envy of the world. There are certain steps that will help increase affordability and reach without increasing taxes and rationing healthcare. We should work on these solutions first before extending the reach of government healthcare. As a nation we need to assess the problem of rising health care costs and come up with a balanced approach that carefully takes into consideration both public and private options. We should also focus more on preventive care, offer incentives to maintain a healthy lifestyle, and reduce some of the crippling costs incurred due to defensive medicine.

 To do this, we must: 

• Allow health insurance to be competed across state lines
• Allow states to be laboratories for improved health care
• Analyze the benefits of creating a health savings account system that allows individuals to put money aside for health care expenses and keep their coverage even in the event of job loss 
• Encourage tort reform to place caps on lawsuits and allow doctors to do their jobs without constant threat of frivolous lawsuits
• Do not allow insurance companies to discriminate based on pre-existing medical conditions.
• Ensure greater oversight of insurance fraud and government waste

Patch: Do you think same-sex marriage should be legalized? Do you think it is a federal or state issue? Why?

Eisele: As a self-described “beach conservative,” I believe that individuals should be free to pursue happiness in their own right without constant government oversight as long as it is between two consenting adults. I believe that having strong family ties—whether in heterosexual or same-sex partnerships—is a benefit to society and should be sanctioned. I think there is a valid debate as to whether the federal government should be involved at all in “marriage” and the focus should be on extending domestic partnership rights to all consenting adults and leave marriage to the religious institutions. It is time for America to recognize same-sex partnerships.

Patch: What is your position on America’s involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya?

Eisele: I believe it is essential that the United States maintains a strong foreign policy that encourages democracies across the globe to flourish and support fledging peaceful democratic movements against tyrannical and oppressive government regimes. The Middle East is currently experiencing a wave of protests and the United States should take a strong stance in encouraging the peaceful transition to a democracy where the people are free to vote, prosper, and live without fear of state reprisals.

I believe that the United States is a force for good in the world and has an obligation to protect its citizens against extremism, asymmetric threats, and rogue nations. I am supportive of our troops overseas in all theaters of engagement and believe that we need to provide all the necessary support for our troops so that they may be best equipped to finish the mission at hand. However, it is important that we have clearly defined goals, that we have established proper metrics for victory conditions, and that we have an exit strategy. Our involvement in Afghanistan was absolutely necessary to take out Al Qaeda in our battle against terrorism. It is vital that we question the next steps and determine if this is a battle that can be won or if it is time to bring our troops home. Likewise with Iraq, it is imperative that the Iraqi government take over more of their security requirements and relinquish the coalition from most of their duties. I strongly believe that we must be certain that Iraq and Afghanistan are secure enough to maintain any democratic gains so that those countries do not fall back in the hands of despots and extremists.

But America can no longer afford to nation-build indefinitely and must actively seek out a force reduction, transfer greater powers to the autonomous states, and leave the minimum amount of troops, intelligence support, and assets in those countries in order to ensure a smooth transition moving forward.

With Libya, I believe the President did not have clear and defined goals coming out of the gate which hurt our decision-making moving forward. The United States waited until France and the UK acted in support of the protestors and then vacillated on a policy. While Gadhaffi is a ruthless dictator and should be relieved from power, engaging in a third conflict could present some major problems as we continue to stretch our forces and attention to multiple theaters of war. Hopefully the U.S. can exact change by providing moral and humanitarian support of any peaceful protestors without getting to deeply involved militarily.

Patch: Do you intend to continue Jane Harman's endeavors to ease traffic congestion in the district? If so, how?

Eisele: I believe it is vital that we push forward for our future and determine new endeavors to ease traffic congestion. This would include promoting alternative modes of transportation such as biking with tax incentives for individuals that use biking as a primary mode of transport; encouraging more efficient programs such as the 30/10 plan that hopes to use government funding as a bridge loan to expedite the development of a new and extended rail system; and also to make our communities more pedestrian friendly which includes better sidewalks and biker paths that allow pedestrians, bikers, and automobiles to share the roads respectfully.