DavidKimforCongress

Hi u/millennialproblem ah, great question! This is a contentious choice among the writers on my team 😂. I’ve decided that in an effort to shoot for a little more flow and clarity, I had to say goodbye to the oxford comma. It was not an easy choice, and a tiny part of me cringes every time I exclude it. But I stand by this decision. :)

Hi u/Grunt_21_UT thank you for asking this important question.

First, we urgently need campaign finance reform that removes corporate and dark money from politics. I wrote about this in a piece published on Medium about my “A Floor to Stand On” platform. Right now, money from corporate PACs and large donors have an outsized influence on the choices that our elected officials make when casting their vote on the Hill. Big donors (those who donate over $200) account for 71% of campaign contributions, despite being only 1% of the population. No one should have 70 times the influence over a candidate. Studies have shown that political donations actively affect senators’ voting records. When some of the biggest campaign donations come from weapons makers, fossil fuel, and healthcare companies, that is a major problem - as corporately funded Congress members end up making empty campaign promises to their constituents.

For example, my opponent promises Medicare For All, but is funded by big pharmaceutical companies and healthcare companies. My opponent promises Free Education For All, but is funded by our country’s largest student debt collector. See why nothing ever gets done?

Dark money is a big concern. Voters deserve the right to know who funds their leaders’ campaigns. Supporting the DISCLOSE act, which requires more transparency in political fundraising, and overturning Citizens United vs. FEC, which allows unlimited political spending by corporations, will increase transparency and allow us a better view of whose money buys what policies.

Second, we should end common partisan gerrymandering practices to ensure a more proportionally representative Legislative Branch. The Washington Post has a great visual explanation of how gerrymandering affects outcomes. Basically, it allows political operatives from one party to draw district lines in a way that favors their ideals and perspectives, even in places where theirs is the minority viewpoint. This tactic has been employed extensively by Republicans since the last Census to tip the scales in their favor. Forcing states to employ fairer redistricting tactics will make a world of difference.

Installing term limits for members of Congress will, as Andrew Yang put it, “get Congress back in the habit of serving the people, not serving out careers.” Thanks to the incumbent advantage, those in Congress are able to amass power and keep it, increasing opportunities for themselves indefinitely with each passing term. Term limits puts the power back into the hands of the voters who will have more opportunities to decide which members of their community will serve as effective representatives for their community.

My platform also includes a Representative Accountability bill, which would require elected officials to co-govern with their constituents by holding monthly town halls in which they would present a summary of upcoming votes, giving voters a direct channel to the official they send to Congress to represent them.

I hope my answers above give you an idea of at least where we need to start, in order to move our country forward. As I am running a 100% grassroots, people-powered campaign, I pledge my allegiance 100% to the people, and this is disruptive to the world of politics in DC, as Tulsi shares in her interview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6urQjuO9eI. If you'd like to donate to our people-powered campaign, you can contribute here: https:/www.davidkim2020.com/call.

Hi u/Boredeidanmark thank you for asking your questions about the Green New Deal. These are very thoughtful questions, but it's important to understand the difference between a bill and a non-binding resolution in the House of Representatives.

The Green New Deal is not a binding set of policy proposals, but rather a non-binding resolution meant to guide our policymaking priorities and reframe the conversation on climate change.

From NPR: “Importantly, [the Green New Deal] is a nonbinding resolution, meaning that even if it were to pass... it wouldn't itself create any new programs. Instead, it would potentially affirm the sense of the House that these things should be done in the coming years. Lawmakers pass nonbinding resolutions… to send political messages — for example, telling the president they disapprove of his trade policies, as the Senate did in summer 2018.”

You are certainly right that it wouldn’t make sense to give every American an automatic livable income with paid vacations (our UBI, by contrast, is not high enough to be a living wage -- it merely supplements private income, which means people must still work for a living). We do not interpret “jobs guarantee” to literally mean “give every single American a job forever no matter what.” The “jobs guarantee” provision of the GND merely speaks to a goal of implementing our environmental protection efforts in ways that create meaningful employment opportunities for American workers. As CNBC explains, the GND resolution “provides a ‘loose framework’ and not guidance for how these goals would be carried out.”

In the 1940s, President Franklin Roosevelt called for an “Economic Bill of Rights,” including a “right to employment.” That did not mean hiring 85-year-olds for construction jobs out of their retirement homes. It meant a series of government programs that gainfully employed millions of Americans while building essential infrastructure that rebuilt our economy stronger than ever after the Great Depression. We are in the middle of an economic recession with unemployment levels not seen since the Great Depression. We need another New Deal.

You bring up another thoughtful point in your question on the definition of “vulnerable communities.” “Vulnerable” is certainly a vague term, but the GND defines “vulnerable communities” as “indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth.” Of course, since the GND is a loose, non-binding framework of priorities, that does not literally mean that a council of indigenous elders must approve every decision made by the government. It just urges our policymakers to consider the impact their decisions may have on these communities, who are often overlooked in matters of infrastructure and environmental policy.

Hi u/Honest_Joseph thank you for asking. The realistic solution is a Universal Basic Income, and a Homes Guarantee (HR 4351), both of which my opponent does not support. This country could eradicate poverty overnight, and that truth is the foundation of my campaign. I’m running for office to create federal legislation that will ensure no one in our country is unhoused in any state, rather than mediate whose problem this should or shouldn’t be. Homelessness is America’s problem, and Congress has the power to end it.

Hi u/Boredeidanmark, great questions. Thank you. The formal proposal for a Homes Guarantee, as outlined in this briefing book, is a patchwork of proposals that would create more housing opportunity for those who most need it, in the form of social housing units, community support, and tenant protections, including a national tenant bill of rights. The Homes Guarantee is meant to create the conditions that will lead to housing for all, rather than a literal guarantee that if someone wants a home anywhere, they will get one. Like any government solution, there are limits and boundaries. Nevertheless that shouldn’t stop us from trying to improve the world around us.

These are complementary and intersecting proposals that, along with Medicare For All, form the core of my platform, “A Floor To Stand On.” Not everyone would have a job or home through these plans; rather, it’s about strengthening our safety net so that no citizen falls under a certain threshold. It’s about utilizing our country’s immense wealth and power to fight poverty in ways that we have long been capable of doing, but have rarely ever pursued.

Homelessness is not just a moral crisis in our country, it’s also an unnecessary one. Frankly, it’s shameful that a nation of such wealth and resources would not consider over half a million unhoused residents to be a top priority. This issue is particularly important to me because my district, CA-34, includes Los Angeles’s Skid Row. Thousands of unhoused folks live there permanently, and it’s hosted that large unhoused population for nearly a century.

But a homes guarantee policy is more than addressing the acute homelessness crisis in many parts of our country. It also helps everyone achieve safe, sanitary, and dignified housing, which we as a country have the means to provide. A Homes Guarantee includes passing HR 4351 and S 1919, building new social housing units, investing in existing affordable housing, and protecting renters’ rights in order to ensure universal access. The incentives to move from renter to buyer will still exist, and will also be more attainable by ending things like discriminatory lending practices and real estate speculation. A Homes Guarantee is not a matter of “everybody gets a house!” It is a matter of a family of four not dying of carbon monoxide poisoning while sleeping in their minivan. https://www.latimes.com/nation/ct-homeless-family-carbon-monoxide-poisoning-20180316-story.html