A.B.) This is your first run for public office. What was the tipping point that made you enter the arena? Have you been able to garner any support from the Republican Party leaders?
N.H.)The tipping point came when I saw the President and a Democratic supermajority in Congress over-reach and misinterpret their election as a mandate for the federal government to spend more, tax more, and expand its size and scope in ways that will forever weaken our country and imperil its future. I’m a first-generation American; my mother immigrated here because she knew that the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution would provide her with the opportunity she needed to work hard and make a life for herself. And now this Congress and our President are endangering those opportunities for our children and grandchildren. They are steeply plunging America deeper into debt with so-called “stimulus” spending that has netted not one new job in the District or the country; the endless series of “bailouts” have made the federal government a much more dominant force in our economy than is wise or healthy. They will cause further damage if they impose “cap-and-trade,” raising energy costs and making it harder for businesses and families to afford to remain in our already overburdened, overtaxed Hudson Valley. And if their health-care plan becomes law, we’ll lose the quality, choice, and innovation that Americans expect and deserve, while the cost of our medical care will skyrocket—and ALL taxpayers, including those in the middle class, will be stuck with the bill.
Congressman Hall has voted for every element of this unaffordable agenda. I am running to replace him, reverse the disastrous course of the current Congress, and advance policies that will keep our country in its rightful position as the world’s leading economic and military power. I will oppose “stimulus,” bailouts, and earmark pork; I will work to balance the federal budget. I will strive to put more money into our citizens’ pockets in the private sector, that creates jobs and innovates, by preserving the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, abolishing the death tax, and reducing the capital gains tax. More of my goals for the Congress are described in the answers below.
We have received dozens of endorsements, including the unanimous endorsement of nine Republican committees thus far and many more from prominent Republican officials, officeholders, and citizens. A complete list can be found at
http://www.nanhayworth.com/nan-hayworth-endorsements.asp. I’ve also been recognized by the National Republican Congressional Committee as a Contender in their competitive Young Guns program. This designation shows that the NRCC is impressed by my campaign’s organization and fundraising, and that they feel I’m in a good position to win. There are only 20 Contender races in the entire country, and right now I’m the only woman who’s a Contender.
A.B.) Unlike most members of congress and the President himself, you have a medical background. Give us a quick synopsis. Most people agree the there should be some reform to health care. We know that our present congressman believes that government should control it. How would you tackle this issue?
N.H.)My M.D. degree is from Cornell University Medical College. I completed residency in Ophthalmology (specialty care of the eyes) in 1989, at which point I began my solo practice in Mount Kisco. This was also my small business, so I have a good understanding of the challenges of caring for patients and of running a small business. In 1996 I became a partner in the Mount Kisco Medical Group, where I remained until retiring from full-time practice in 2005, to spend a couple of years being a full-time mom to my two sons (now ages 19 and 17). I served on the teaching faculty of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, where I did my residency, throughout my years of practice. I’ve also been an expert reviewer for the New York State Department of Health’s Office of Professional Medical Conduct.
I share the dismay and anger of millions of Americans at a Congress and President who are trying every legislative trick they can find to nationalize health care against the will of the American public–jeopardizing the choice, quality, and innovation that our citizens expect and deserve, while raising costs that will be paid for in more taxes, including heavy new burdens on small businesses and the middle class. As a nation, we do need to improve access to care at an affordable price, and to control our skyrocketing medical expenditures, and we will only achieve these goals effectively and fairly by allowing Americans to make their own decisions. We must eliminate barriers to selling insurance policies across state lines; allow individuals to arrange for pretax Health Savings Accounts and to purchase only the insurance they need; enable individuals and small businesses to associate to purchase health plans; afford individuals and small businesses the same tax benefits on health-plan premiums that are available to those who work for large employers; and reform medical liability to reduce the enormous cost of defensive medicine.
A.B.) Energy independence. We are a petroleum based economy for now and in the near future. Our last Republican Congresswoman Sue Kelly and our present Congressman John Hall have voted against domestic off shore drilling. What is your position on tapping our natural untapped reserves?
N.H.)Congress must allow an increase in domestic oil production. Estimates by the Department of Energy indicate that as much as 30 billion barrels of crude oil are available within our territory, and scientists from Cornell University have estimated that 60 billion barrels of shale oil could be retrieved from the Gulf of Mexico—in total, nearly 10 times the 10 billion barrels we’ve imported from Saudi Arabia since the beginning of this decade. We must reduce our reliance on foreign nations for fossil fuels, which leaves us vulnerable to hostile regimes that can disrupt our energy supplies. Too much of what we spend on foreign oil has ended up in the hands of rogue regimes and terrorist organizations bent on destroying our democracy, against whom we must expend further billions in defense.
America should, at the same time, actively develop the cleanest, most sustainable energy sources via the free market. These sources include solar, geothermal, wind, hydroelectric, and biofuel, as well as nuclear power. Today, America has 104 nuclear power plants, producing 20 percent of our electricity, all of which are more than 30 years old. In contrast, France produces 80 percent of its electricity using nuclear power. New generations of reactors use fuel more completely and pose fewer environmental risks than the generation of reactors currently on line. New plants should be located in areas that minimize risk to our population and to the environment.
We must also upgrade and enhance our electric grid, replacing power lines that lose as much as 30% of their electricity between source and destination.
A.B.) This leads us to man-made global warming. In spite of the recent revelations regarding the “science behind this theory, our present Congressman still supports “cap-and-trade” which is based on this now questionable science. What is your view of man made global warming and cap-and trade?
N.H.)I am opposed to cap-and-trade. It would more accurately be called cap-and-tax, and it is a bad idea for several reasons: it sets unrealistic goals that would require sacrifices that Americans cannot sustain, undermining our economy; it puts into place a complex system of carbon-emission credits that will unfairly favor certain industries and special interests; and the cost of the credits system will make life unbearably expensive for our consumers and increase the cost of our goods. The United States will lose businesses and jobs to countries that refuse to abide by the same restrictions.
Recent controversies regarding the scientific evidence of global warming indicate that we must regard any claims with skepticism, which is what true scientists are supposed to do. Pending the presentation of a more iron-clad case for man’s role in global warming, it’s still a reasonable goal to utilize energy wisely, to conserve resources, and to minimize pollution. Again, these are goals that should be pursued within the free market, not via government interventions that punish American consumers and businesses.
A.B.) You have a small business, a medical practice. It seems New York is at war with small businesses. Are there any particular taxes and regulations that you would advise our state legislature to roll back that would make New York more business friendly?
N.H.)Having had my own solo practice from 1989 to 1996, I’m well-versed in the challenges our businesses face here in the Hudson Valley. Much of the spending at the county and local level is mandated by the State of New York, which provides insufficient money, in turn forcing local officials to raise property taxes. This is why we suffer under the second highest state and local tax burden in the nation. It’s why more than 1.5 million people—most of them taxpayers–have left our state over the past 10 years. It’s also the reason it’s so hard to attract new companies and new business to New York, and to keep the employers we have. All of these factors erode our tax base, putting even more pressure on local officials to raise property taxes on the payers who remain. It is a vicious cycle, and Albany must now put an iron-clad cap on property taxes, impose no further unfunded mandates on our communities, and reduce the regulatory burdens that needlessly subject small businesses to needless and expensive paperwork.
In addition, the MTA tax places an intolerable burden on our local businesses, and this tax should be abolished.
As a federal legislator, I will work to further reduce the tax pressures on our businesses by reducing the capital gains tax, easing the flow of investment capital. And small business owners who pay personal income taxes will benefit from permanently extending the federal tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, and from eliminating the estate tax.