presents
Voter’s Edge Illinois
Get the facts before you vote.
We depend on your support.
Text VOTE to 52000 to donate $10.
Brought to you by
MapLight
November 8, 2016 — Illinois General Election
We depend on your support.
Share your knowledge

Text VOTE to 52000 to donate $10.

Do you feel better informed having used Voter's Edge?

Help us inform other voters.

United States

U.S. House of RepresentativesCandidate for District 9

Photo of Joan McCarthy Lasonde

Joan McCarthy Lasonde

Republican
Congressional Candidate (IL-9)
Use tab to activate the candidate button. Use "return" to select this candidate. You can access your list by navigating to 'My Choices'.
For more in-depth information on this candidate, follow the links for each tab in this section. For most screenreaders, you can hit Return or Enter to enter a tab and read the content within.
Candidate has provided information.
Thank candidate for sharing their information on Voter’s Edge.

My Top 3 Priorities

  • National Security
  • Economy
  • Fostering a Spirit of Bipartisan Cooperation

Experience

Experience

Profession:Congressional Candidate (IL-9)
Board Member, Illinois State Crime Commission Board — Appointed position (2016–current)
Foster Parent (Member), Department of Children and Family Services — Appointed position (2012–current)
Board Member, League of Women Voters — Appointed position (2014–2015)
Evanston School Children's Clothing Association, Board Member — Appointed position (2012–2012)
Editor, Qingdao Expat Magazine, China (2008–2009)
Account Superviser, Chase Ehrenberg & Rosene, Garfield-Linn, Bozell World Wide Advertising Agencies (1992–2000)
Marketing Director, Circus Vargas (1988–1991)

Education

Dominican University Master's Program, Early Childhood Education (1992)
University of Illinois B.S., Human Resources (1987)

Community Activities

Executive Events Director, New Trier Republican Organization (2012–current)
PREP Teacher, St. Francis Xavier (2012–current)
Board of Directors , Illinois State Crime Commission (2016–current)

Biography

I’m running for Congress because I want to turn America’s national priorities towards the following:

  • Economic growth and opportunity — a tax code that promotes employment and expansion, and a regulatory system that makes cost/benefit sense.
  • Security — enforcing our borders and executing a strong, coherent strategy for national security and homeland safety.
  • Restoring a friendly relationship with Israel and unequivocal commitment to its safety.
  • Limited government — measuring the success of social programs by how many are lifted out, not added in.

I’ve lived most of my life in the Ninth District. I was born in Rogers Park and grew up in Skokie, one of the most diverse communities in the District. Both of my parents were Chicago Public School Teachers.

I’m one of the founding members of the Policy Circle, a women-run non-profit organization focused on educating everyday Americans on state and federal policy issues including education, healthcare, taxes, pensions, and security. I’ve worked on numerous political campaigns, and was an officer at the New Trier Republican Organization.

I’m a member of the board of directors of the Illinois State Crime Commission, focused on human trafficking and the heroin epidemic. In Wilmette, where I live, I’ve been very active in the community, volunteering at my daughters’ schools, including being a Girl Scout Troop leader and a PREP teacher at Saint Francis Xavier School. I was on the Board at Evanston School Children’s Clothing Association and the League of Women Voters, Wilmette. My husband and I are licensed by DCFS, and I’m a strong advocate for all children.

I am a working Mom with over 25 years professional experience. I'm also a foster parent, and have learned firsthand the horrors of life that foster children have — and how our government has failed them. I will fight to correct those failures — to set government in the right direction for all our children, but, especially those born into hardship, as my foster daughter was.

After I graduated from the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, I moved to LA and joined Circus Vargas, the World’s largest traveling Big Top, as Marketing Director. While in China, where I moved when my husband was relocated, I was the Editor of the Quingdao Expat Magazine, doubling the circulation and size, and wrote a successful blog called “3 China Girls,” which chronicled the lives of myself and my daughters. The Chinese government often shut down my blog for exposing the truth of what life was really like there for the poorest and most vulnerable.

Questions & Answers

Questions from Chicago Sun-Times (18)

What is your biggest difference with your opponent(s)?
Answer from Joan McCarthy Lasonde:

I bring a fresh voice with a very different philosophy of pragmatic centrism, while Jan Schakowsky has held elected office for 24 years with no results. She has been a loyal cog in the Cook County Democratic machine throughout her career. She has little to show for her work except the worst of the divisive rhetoric and extremism that pervades congress. People of the Ninth District are mostly fiscal realists and social moderates, like me, while Jan Schakowsky is widely viewed as among the most radical leftists in Congress.

Among the issues on which I differ with her are these:

She opposes term limits. She supported the Iran Nuclear deal and lead the boycott of Israeli Prime Minister Ntanyahu before Congress. She led a recent sit on on the floor of Congress, taking obstructionism to an unprecedented level. She votes against virtually all military spending bills. She wants to expand the quote of Syrian refugees coming into the United States to 100,000, which is ten times the number proposed by President Obama. She brands her opponents as haters and bigots. She sees terrorism mostly as an issue of gun control. She supports few restrictions on our borders and sanctuary cities. She supports massive expansion of government and huge tax increases, caring nothing about the national debt. She makes no effort to restore economic growth and help employers.

Congress has declined to formally authorize America’s undeclared war against ISIS. Should Congress take a vote to authorize the use of military force against ISIS?
Answer from Joan McCarthy Lasonde:

Yes. Winning military efforts only succeed, as we should have learned long ago, if the public and Congress are fully in support of administration action. That requires that we lay out a clear military strategy America understands (which we have not done) and a vote by Congress.

More generally, what should Congress do to reduce the threat of ISIS abroad and at home? 
Answer from Joan McCarthy Lasonde:

 

First, we have to articulate a strategy the American public understands and accepts. Very few Americans could describe each of the groups we are supporting or fighting in the Middle East and why.  Conflicts among groups there date back centuries and we should have learned long ago that American lives and treasure cannot be spent without a popularly accepted, coherent strategy.

 

While we must deal aggressively with ISIS, we needn’t have large numbers of American troops on the ground in Syria, Iraq or elsewhere in the Middle East. Destroying ISIS as a nation state, instead, requires troops neighboring Arab states – Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and others. It is essential that we obtain their full commitment to this effort because air strikes and other support by the U.S. and its allies will have little effect otherwise. With poor execution, such as bombing alone, the coalition we work with is at risk of merely dispersing ISIS fighters, not eliminating them. For far too long, the United States has paid an unfairly large portion of our allies’ defense budget.

 

We must be mindful that the United States, together with our allies, faces a three-front war against terrorism emanating from the Middle East. Aside from ISIS in the Middle East, Europe faces an existential threat from mass migration of refugees, and we all face home-grown acts of terrorism sponsored or inspired by ISIS and other terrorist groups. A genuine coalition must be maintained – the U.S. cannot dictate policy alone while Europe has so much at stake.

 Israel remains the only reliable democracy and friend in the region. Our relationship with it should have priority. Boycotting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s appearance before Congress by some members of Congress was horribly wrong, as was the Iran nuclear deal, which we signed over Israel’s objection.

 

Regarding our domestic response to terror, both the Bush and Obama administrations have failed to lay out reasonable limitations on domestic surveillance and protection of individual privacy. There is virtually no written guideline, regulation or law on this topic, which makes abuse of powerful new surveillance technology dangerous. The executive branch simply hasn’t cared about creating any set of rules or policies appropriate in a post-911 world, and Congressional oversight has been nonexistent.

I will work hard to force the next administration, regardless of what party controls it, to establish, publish and follow sensible limitations  that protect Americans’ privacy and the Fourth Amendment, without limiting our defense against new threats created by terrorism and technology.

Domestically, I suppport strict border enforcement -- but also comprehensive immigration reform including a path to normalization for those alread here.

 

 

Donald Trump has called for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration. Do you support such action? What restrictions, if any, do you support on the admission of Muslims into the United States? 
Answer from Joan McCarthy Lasonde:

 

I oppose a complete ban on all Muslim immigration, but vetting standards for refugees should be severely tightened. We simply cannot repeat Europe's mistake on that. Immigration should be strictly limited to those whose lives are endangered because they have stood up for democratic principles and human rights, fought with American troops or assisted other American efforts in their homeland. Exceptions may be made for parents of young children. A comprehensive review of indicators of susceptibility to radicalization should also be completed, which I am not satisfied has been done, and those indicators should be reflected in the criteria. The large number of those individuals who pass such a test would more than fill a reasonable quota of refugees. Those individuals have already put their lives at risk by supporting ideals we share, so they can be expected to assimilate and embrace our values, and they won’t be at risk of radicalization.

I strongly oppose expanding the quota of refugees from Syria that we take from 10,000, as set by the Obama Administration, to 100,000, as proposed by a member of Congress. American intelligence authorities have already confirmed that ISIS is attempting to infiltrate those refugee ranks.

The lives of millions more are economic refugees or are in danger for other reasons. The world has some 20 million refugees, and their plight cannot realistically be answered by immigration into the United States and other nations For them, the answer must be restoring peace in their homelands and humanitarian aid.                 

The United States’ nuclear deal with Iran turned one year old on July 14, 2016. Should the deal be maintained as it is, revised or scrapped completely? What is right or wrong with the Iran deal? And should the next president feel bound by it?
Answer from Joan McCarthy Lasonde:

 In contrast to my opponent, who still strongly defends the deal, I think the Iran deal was a horrible mistake. It is not a binding treaty so the next president should feel free to do as he sees fit. It cannot be scrapped completely because, unfortunately, the duties on our side are not mostly completed -- release of hundreds of billions of dollars to Iran.

The deal was spun for the public almost entirely as a matter of restricting Iranian progress towards building nuclear weapons, but since its implementation, we’ve learned the truth:

 - $50 to $100 billion dollars (depending on whom you believe -- The Obama Administration itself has given vastly different numbers) -- of frozen assets were released to Iran, much of which we can expect will be used by Iran to continue its role as the primary sponsor of terror in the Middle East. Untold additional hundreds of billions will also come to Iran because sanctions on its oil sales were lifted as part of the deal.

- Whether the deal will slow Iranian progress towards getting nuclear weapons is dubious at best. Our rights to inspect for compliance should have been unfettered. Instead, they are limited and require prior notice to the Iranians. The Israeli Prime Minister says the deal assures Iran will get nuclear weapons, “and lots of them.”

- The deal was negotiated without any notice to, much less input from, our only democratic ally in the region, whose annihilation is threatened by it: Israel.

 - The deal was sold to the American public through media manipulation, as detailed in a New York Times interview of Ben Rhodes, a 38-year old, arrogant, key communications specialist for the Obama Administration. ‘We created an echo chamber,’ Rhodes said. Supporters of the deal were simply “saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”

- And now comes admission from the Administration that the $400 million cash payment to Iran was contingent on the release of four American prisoners -- despite earlier denials, and in the face of a long-standing position of the United States not to pay ransom for hostages.

 

Should the United States build a physical wall along our nation’s entire border with Mexico? Should a “path to citizenship” be created for the millions of people already living here without proper documentation? Would you support legislation to prevent the deportations of so-called “Dreamers” — youth who came to the U.S. illegally as small children with their parents?
Answer from Joan McCarthy Lasonde:

The “wall” should be thought of figuratively and, in that sense, I strongly support it. There are places along the Mexican border where an actual wall is needed, but much of it can be controlled effectively by other measures, including use of unmanned aerial patrols, construction of physical and virtual fences, more border agents and enhanced conventional patrolling. The “wall” should also be thought of as including measures away from the border, such as enforcing time limits on visas (which we don’t do now) and eliminating sanctuary city impediments to enforcement.

For those already here, "Dreamers" and others, I support comprehensive immigration reform including a path to normalization. No deportations except for criminals.

Federal judges in July ruled against voter identification laws in Wisconsin and Texas, concluding that they disproportionately impact minority voters and violate the U.S. Voting Rights Act. Should voters be required to show a photo ID when voting? And should the federal government have a say in this, or is it strictly a matter for the individual states to decide? 
Answer from Joan McCarthy Lasonde:

Yes, a photo ID should be required. The federal government should have a say in all elections for federal office.

Should all or certain federal public lands, including national parks, wildlife refuges and forests, be given to states to control? Do you support the opening of public lands and the outer continental shelf to exploration for oil and other fossil fuels, even if those resources are not immediately developed? 
Answer from Joan McCarthy Lasonde:

In general, the federal government has been as good a steward of public land as states, so I do not generally support a transfer. Specific exceptions may exist. I support exploration of fossil fuels but only if environmental safeguards are strict. Exploration in the outer continental shelf is not an issue or priority now due to the abundance of oil and natural gas now available in the lower 48 states due to enhanced drilling methods.

What changes, if any, to the U.S. tax code do you support and why?
Answer from Joan McCarthy Lasonde:

 The tax code should be heavily revised to make it simpler, flatter and pro-growth.

 To put it simply, I favor broadening the base and lowering rates (which would increase the effective rates for some -- those who are not paying their fair share).

Further, U.S.-based international corporations have billions if not trillions of dollars overseas that will continue to be reinvested overseas until we provide some sort of relief on repatriation of funds on which taxes have already been paid.

 The tax code has long been a tool to regulate personal and corporate behavior, but the result has been to distort the market. What starts out as a tax incentive becomes a loophole. The result of a complex code is that individual taxpayers often defer or avoid making what would otherwise be a sound economic decision because of the tax implications or fear of what the tax implications might be. The other result: The more complex a tax code is, the more it favors the wealthy, the connected, the privileged who have the resources to hire a team of accountants, attorneys, and wealth managers to provide for maximum after-tax dollars.

What are the most important actions Congress can take to ensure the solvency of Social Security?
Answer from Joan McCarthy Lasonde:

Raise the retirement age for the young -- those still many years away from retirement -- as was done in previous reform.

The Republican Party platform defines marriage as between a man and a woman. What is your view? The Obama Administration has issued guidelines to schools, saying they must allow transgender students to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity. What is your view? And do you believe parents of LGBT children should be allowed to force their children into conversion therapy?
Answer from Joan McCarthy Lasonde:

I fully support LGBT equality on marriage and all else. The Federal government should not regulate what bathrooms people should be using. Parents of children should not be ordered one way or another by the Federal government on LGBT issues.

What is the single most important action Congress can take to reduce U.S. gun violence?
Answer from Joan McCarthy Lasonde:

Further restrictions on the sale of assault weapons to terror and other suspects based on lists such as the "No-Fly" list, provided that due process procedures are added to assure that those wrongly included on those lists can have their names removed.

The “Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act” would give the Department of Justice authority to keep suspected terrorists on the federal “no fly” list from buying firearms. The bill was voted down in Congress late last year but pushed again in June after the Orlando massacre of 49 people. Do you support or oppose this bill, and why?
Answer from Joan McCarthy Lasonde:

I support, but only if due process procedures are added to assure that those wrongly included on the can have their names removed.

Should Obamacare be repealed, left intact, or changed — and if so, how? 
Answer from Joan McCarthy Lasonde:

The central problem with ACA is that premiums are skyrocketing to unaffordable levels and insurers are pulling out, so the whole system is now clearly collapsing. Allowing interstate competition would help address that. Currently, the number of insurers is dwindling fast, which reduces competition and increases premiums.

 

In the Ninth District, many residents are grappling with hard decisions after Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois dropped some popular PPO policies, effectively locking patients out of NorthShore University Hospitals and affiliates and Northwestern Memorial Hospitals and its affiliates, including Lurie Children’s Hospital. I support aggressive measures to increase competition from more insurance providers.

 

Prior to the adoption of the ACA, HSAs and FSAs were two vehicles that put patients in charge of their health care. New policy should allow for greater tax benefit for using savings accounts to pay for out-of-pocket expenses. We should consider giving individuals the same tax benefit for purchasing health insurance as for employers.

 

Excessive cost of delivering healthcare is the central problem largely ignored, not just in Obamacare but across our entire healthcare system. Duplicative, overpriced procedures are rampant. The primary deficiency of the Obamacare is that it did not focus on cost, and that has spilled over into Medicare. Significant savings can be achieved if a major, concerted effort is launched to reduce cost.

 

I am open to considering what has been called a “defined contribution” option whereby patients can choose to either stay in the traditional Medicare system or receive a voucher of the same value useable with providers they select. That would inject more competition and choice into the system, helping lower costs. However, concrete numbers and projections have yet to be detailed.

 

I must add that it's incumbent on those who supported ACA to tell us how to fix it. We who opposed it thought from the start that the economics in it were unsound -- insofar as the act was even understood. I support the goals of ending the preexisting conditions and lifetime cap limitations that used to be common, but ACA is not working.

 

A plan to replace Obamacare, presented by House Speaker Paul Ryan in June, would gradually increase the eligibility age for Medicare, which is now 65. Starting in 2020, the Medicare age would rise along with the eligibility age for full Social Security benefits, eventually reaching 67. Do you support this change in the eligibility age for Medicare? 
Answer from Joan McCarthy Lasonde:

 

Yes, in concept that should work, though I have not seen exact numbers confirming what retirement ages need to be changed in order to save the programs. With those changes, no benefit reduction should be necessary.

 

Some of Mr. Ryan's orther recent proposal was short on cost information and is therefore impossible to evaluate. He has supported full repeal of Obamacare, yet retained in his projections the tax used to support it. I support trying to keep coverage for preexisting conditions, but with limitations for those who are gaming the system, as he proposed, and I support elimination of the individual and employer mandates, as he proposed.

 

The GOP platform opposes the use of public funds for Planned Parenthood and other groups that “perform or advocate” abortion. It also opposes funding health care that includes abortion coverage. In contrast, the Democratic Party’s platform called for continued funding of Planned Parenthood and repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which bars the direct use of federal funds to pay for abortion. Where do you stand?  
Answer from Joan McCarthy Lasonde:

I am pro-choice but think those of us who are should pay for it and not force the bill on unwilling taxpayers. I also believe Planned Parenthood does good work separate from abortion. I therefore support continued funding for Planned Parenthood with the restriction that such money is not used for abortion, and I support continuation of the Hyde Amendment.

President Obama has proposed making two years of community college free nationally. Do you support or oppose this proposal? If you support it, how would you have the nation pay for it? 
Answer from Joan McCarthy Lasonde:

No.

College costs have risen at twice the rate of inflation for about 30 years. What is driving this increase and what should be done about it?
Answer from Joan McCarthy Lasonde:

Out of control spending and excessive bureacracy are the causes. Colleges must be pressured into cutting cost and reducing tuition dramatically. Most colleges and universities receive federal money in the form of research grants or other aid. I would support conditoning federal financial support on progress reducing tuition.

Who gave money to this candidate?

Contributions

Total money raised: $202,305

Top contributors that gave money to support the candidate, by organization:

1
Employees of Kirkland & Ellis
$8,600
2
Employees of Foov Fitness
$5,400
2
Employees of gaa incorporated
$5,400
2
Employees of Levine, Marc
$5,400
2
Employees of Uline
$5,400

More information about contributions

By State:

Illinois 87.41%
Indiana 4.70%
New York 3.76%
New Hampshire 1.62%
Other 2.51%
87.41%

By Size:

Large contributions (88.67%)
Small contributions (11.33%)
88.67%11.33%

By Type:

From organizations (2.06%)
From individuals (97.94%)
97.94%
Source: MapLight analysis of data from the Federal Election Commission.

Political Beliefs

I am a fiscally responsible social moderate who is tired of the political games paralyzing Washington, D.C. I believe in free markets, free enterprise, free trade, and the power of the private sector to provide the prosperity America has grown accustomed to. As a foster parent and an active community volunteer, I also know how effective safety net programs are in improving the lives of those trapped in poverty. Unfortunately, our social programs have helped trap people in poverty. I believe success should be measured not on how many people enter the welfare rolls, but rather on how many people achieve independence and leave the welfare rolls forever.

I believe America has an irreplaceable role in foreign affairs. We are the most powerful nation on earth, and we need to use that power for good. We cannot be the world's policeman, entering conflicts and nation-building around the globe, but we must stay engaged in global conflicts and be prepared to aid our allies. In the Middle East, no ally is greater or more important to us than Israel. As the threats from ISIS and Iran grow, Israel needs to know that any aggression towards the Jewish state will not stand. I oppose the deal with Iran, and I was dismayed to see some members of Congress boycott Israeli Prime Minister Benjami Netanyahu's speech before Congress last year.

I believe the Federal Government's largesse is holding back America's potential. Start with our complicated income tax code. Simplifying our income tax code would create a more efficient market, improve the quality of ordinary Americans' lives, and possibly result in increased revenues.

Finally, I am disgusted by the extremism both parties have displayed in recent years. We have a very diverse district -- diverse in ethnicity, in socioeconomic status, in age, in religion, and in politicall ideology. I believe an effective representative acknowledges the differences we all have and then works to serve the needs of the entire district.

National Security

Summary

National security including securing our borders, defending Americans from the threat of terrorism, and supporting our allies in a time of need is a priority for me.

The world today is far more dangerous than most of us have ever seen in our lifetimes. We have no choice, despite our budget problems, but to invest in a defense force of unmatched capability. We must ensure that our troops are equipped with the finest technology and capable of rapid deployment against a variety of threats. Our position of strength cannot be lost.

We should limit on-the-ground troop deployments and avoid nation-building and involvement in disputes we cannot hope to resolve, many of which are growing in the Middle East. We need to aggressively respond against ISIS but without significant numbers of American troops on the ground in Syria, Iraq or elsewhere in the Middle East. Destroying ISIS as a nation state does require infantry in large numbers, but they must be supplied by neighboring Arab states – Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and others. It is essential that we obtain their full commitment to this effort because air strikes and other support by the U.S. and its allies will have little effect otherwise. With poor execution, we are at risk of merely dispersing ISIS fighters, not destroying them. For far too long, the United States has paid an unfairly large portion of our allies’ defense budget.

We must be mindful that the United States, together with our allies, face a three-front war against terrorism emanating from the Middle East. In addition to the war against ISIS, Europe faces an existential threat from mass migration of refugees, and we all face home-grown acts of terrorism sponsored or inspired by ISIS and other terrorist groups. A genuine coalition must be maintained – the U.S. cannot dictate policy alone while Europe has so much at stake in its refugee crisis.

Israel remains the only reliable democracy and friend in the Middle East. Our relationship with it has primacy.  A vibrant and progressive democracy, Israel is a champion of religious and political freedom.  They are a beacon of hope in a turbulent and volatile region. More than just a moral and ideological ally of the United States, Israel is a key economic partner as well with a thriving free enterprise system bolstered by competitive technology.

Boycotting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s appearance before Congress by some members of Congress was profoundly wrong.  The Obama Administration likewise has seemingly gone out of its way to undermine a relationship of trust and respect with Israel.

The next Administration should immediately review Iran’s compliance with the existing nuclear deal, which was negotiated with no prior notice to or approval by Israel. Any evidence that Iran is cheating should nullify the agreement. Iran already will have profited as much as  $100 billion in sanctions relief by the time the next Administration comes to office, thanks to a poorly negotiated deal. Washington should cite any Iranian violations of the accord as reason for re-imposing U.N. sanctions on Iran, enhancing international pressure on Tehran and discouraging foreign investment and trade that could boost Iran’s military and nuclear programs. It is critical that U.S. allies and Iran’s trading partners understand that investing or trading with Iran will subject them to U.S. sanctions even if some countries refuse to enforce U.N. sanctions.

When I am in Congress, I will work to restore a strong friendship with Israel and to regain its trust in us.

While I believe in comprehensive immigration reform including a path to normalization for those already here, our border must be made absolutely secure. We can secure the border through a host of actions, including the use of unmanned aerial patrols, construction of a physical and virtual fences, and enhanced conventional patrolling.

Economy

Summary

It is time to unleash America's economic potential. 

Forty years ago, President Carter appropriately called the federal tax code a “disgrace to the human race,” yet it has since become drastically more complex and unfair. When used as a tool for central planning, the tax code inevitably becomes crony capitalism where the most powerful interests secure disproportionate benefit directed towards questionable policy goals. Justifiable cynicism about the tax code and the Internal Revenue Service threatens a cornerstone of government, which is taxpayer confidence that revenue is collected fairly, simply and transparently.

The tax code must be simplified. Compliance, collection, and enforcement must be made easier. By eliminating non-capital deductions and lowering rates across the board, growth and efficiency will replace tax avoidance as the drivers of economic activity.

U.S. Corporate tax rates are among the highest in the world, and that tax burden ultimately is borne by individuals — regressively. Additionally, Further, American corporations with U.S. headquarters are penalized when they take cash earned and taxed overseas and invest it in the United States. I will work towards making our corporate tax rates more competitive and ending the penalty for repatriating earnings back to America.

Finally, the Earned Income Tax Credit has proven to be an effective tool in providing an assistance to the working poor. I support its expansion.

A return to rates of economic growth as high as we traditionally had is essential. Absent faster growth, job opportunities will remain inadequate and the budget will remain unbalanced. Growth must therefore be central to our tax and economic policy.

Fostering a Spirit of Bipartisanship

Summary

Congress is crippled by party strategy that puts partisan games ahead of progress. Both parties are repeatedly guilty. I will have none of that.

 

Congress is crippled by party strategy that puts partisan games ahead of progress. Both parties are repeatedly guilty. I will have none of that.

I believe in searching hard to identify where my principles are on common ground with my opponents’, and I will seize that ground to move forward wherever possible.

I will cross my party when necessary. My loyalty is to my country and to the voters of the Ninth Congressional District. In particular, I will not use this seat to push extreme views or threaten government shutdowns absent grave national interests.

Videos (4)

— March 8, 2016 Joan McCarthy Lasonde for Congress

Joan McCarthy Lasonde introduces herself to the voters of the Ninth District and discusses why she is running.

— August 28, 2016 Joan McCarthy Lasonde for Congress Staff

Joan tells the audience who she is, why she is running for Congress, and who she is fighting for. 

— August 28, 2016 North Town News Magazine

Joan is interviewed by Avy Meyers regarding her general policy positions, and how she will best represent all the people of the 9th district. 

Joan McCarthy LaSonde tells why she should be the congresswoman from the 9th district.

Please share this site to help others research their voting choices.

PUBLISHING:PRODUCTION SERVER:PRODUCTION