Dexter W. Dow

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2025

Do you support "The Speaker Project" from the organization No Labels, a proposal to change several House rules with the intent of encouraging bipartisan cooperation? (Learn more at https://www.nolabels.org/the-speaker-project/)

"I endorse the 'Speaker Project' initiative championed by the organization No Labels.

"My own vision is to establish a system where all members of Congress are unaffiliated with any political party. The sole label that would be recognized would be 'United States.' or 'Independent'. This approach would ensure that all issues are the sole focus of discussion, rendering party affiliation irrelevant. The Senate and the House would solely bear the label of “Independent” which I envision will eventually encompass all candidates, congress, senate, and most crucially the executive.  This will free us from the shackles and corruption of the two-party system and require citizens to research and know the policy agendas of each independent candidate and eliminates the social divisions, group think, and party loyalty without critical thinking.

"Implementing such an idea could require a significant amount of time and would necessitate the recruitment of a new generation of young, ideologically driven leaders to fully execute it. In the interim, while we await the emergence of these new leaders, I encourage individuals to consider running for office as 'Independents' like 'No Labels'. If elected, I would strongly advocate for the formation of “Independence” from the two-party system and work diligently to eliminate all factions and erroneous political affiliations from our state government, truly freeing New Hampshire from the federal governments partisanship that has come to define national and local politics.

"Why an Independent Governor?
1. Breaking Free from Partisan Gridlock
2. Putting New Hampshire First—Not National Party Agendas
3. Fiscal Responsibility Without Partisan Games
4. Defending Individual Freedoms and Local Control
5. Restoring Trust in Government

"People are tired of politicians who say one thing to get elected and do another once in office. They are frustrated by corruption, backroom deals, and leaders who are more loyal to their party than their constituents. An independent governor is accountable only to the people of New Hampshire—not donors, not lobbyists, and not national party bosses."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2018

Do you believe the "Trump tax plan" bill passed in December 2017 helps middle income citizens?

"I do not believe the 'Trump tax plan' bill passed in December 2017 helps middle income citizens."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2025

Should the federal government amend the Affordable Care Act/"Obamacare" by giving states a fixed block grant for Medicaid?

"No, shifting Medicaid to a fixed block grant system could limit healthcare access for the most vulnerable populations. While giving states more control over Medicaid funding may seem appealing, block grants often fail to adjust for economic downturns, rising healthcare costs, or public health emergencies, potentially leading to funding shortfalls and cuts in essential services.

"Instead of restructuring Medicaid in a way that could reduce coverage, we should focus on improving the efficiency of the system, reducing healthcare costs, and incentivizing employers to offer affordable health insurance. Strengthening Medicaid expansion and making healthcare more accessible should be the priority—not limiting resources for those who need them most."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2025

Should Congress create a path to citizenship for illegal/undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children?

"Yes, Congress should create a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, especially those brought to the U.S. as children. Approximately 60% of undocumented immigrants have lived in the U.S. for over a decade, and there are over 11 million in the country. These individuals work hard, pay taxes, and contribute to our economy in meaningful ways. The majority are law-abiding members of society, and deporting such a large population would not only be impractical but also economically damaging.

"Instead of seeing them as job takers, we should recognize them as economic contributors who help drive growth and innovation. A more inclusive approach strengthens our communities, enhances diversity, and upholds the American promise of opportunity. Children should not be punished for circumstances beyond their control—they deserve a fair chance to become citizens and fully participate in the country they call home."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2025

Should the federal government amend the Affordable Care Act/"Obamacare" by eliminating the "essential health benefits" insurance plans must cover?

"No, eliminating the essential health benefits (EHBs) would likely lead to higher out-of-pocket costs and reduced access to necessary care for millions of Americans. These benefits—such as prescription drug coverage, maternity care, mental health services, and emergency care—ensure that insurance plans provide comprehensive coverage rather than offering stripped-down, low-quality plans that leave patients vulnerable.

"While there is room for improving the ACA to enhance flexibility and affordability, completely removing EHB requirements could lead to a race to the bottom, where insurers offer cheaper plans with minimal coverage, forcing people to pay significantly more for critical medical services. Instead of eliminating these protections, policymakers should focus on making healthcare more accessible and cost-effective without sacrificing essential care."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2025

Should the federal government ban abortion after 20 weeks gestation, with exceptions for cases of rape/incest and health complications?

"This is a deeply complex issue that involves medical, ethical, and legal considerations. While some argue that restricting abortion after 20 weeks is necessary due to concerns about fetal development and viability, others emphasize the importance of preserving women’s autonomy and access to essential healthcare.

"Key considerations:

• "Medical Realities: Most abortions after 20 weeks are due to severe fetal anomalies or serious health risks to the mother. A federal ban could limit access to critical medical care in these rare but serious cases.
• "Legal and State Rights: Many states already have their own restrictions, and a federal ban may be seen as infringing on state-level decision-making.
• "Exceptions & Enforcement: While exceptions for rape, incest, and maternal health are often included in such bans, the reality is that proving these cases and accessing care under strict regulations can be difficult for patients and providers.

Rather than a one-size-fits-all federal ban, the focus should be on ensuring women have access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare, improving education, expanding contraception access, and providing support for families facing difficult pregnancies."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2025

Should the federal government do more to combat climate change by increasing funding for research on climate issues?

"Yes, increasing federal funding for climate research is a critical step in addressing the long-term impacts of climate change. Scientific advancements help us develop more effective strategies for mitigation, adaptation, and clean energy innovation.

"Key Reasons for Increased Funding:

• "Stronger Data & Predictions: More research leads to better climate modeling, allowing policymakers to make informed decisions based on accurate predictions.
• "Innovation in Clean Energy: Investments in renewable energy, battery storage, and carbon capture technology can drive economic growth while reducing emissions.
• "Economic & Public Health Benefits: Climate change contributes to natural disasters, food insecurity, and public health crises—research can help create solutions that protect communities.
• "Global Leadership: Increased funding reinforces the U.S. as a leader in climate science, fostering international cooperation on climate action.

Rather than framing climate policy as an economic burden, we should view it as an opportunity to invest in job creation, energy independence, and sustainable innovation. The federal government has a responsibility to fund research that will shape a cleaner, more resilient future."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2025

Should the federal government continue to fund Planned Parenthood?

"Yes, the federal government should continue to fund Planned Parenthood, as it provides essential healthcare services to millions of Americans, particularly low-income individuals and those in underserved communities.

"Key Reasons for Continued Funding:

• "Vital Healthcare Services: Planned Parenthood offers cancer screenings, birth control, STI testing/treatment, prenatal care, and general health services—not just abortion. In fact, abortion services make up a small fraction of its overall care.
• "Economic & Public Health Benefits: By providing preventative care and family planning services, Planned Parenthood helps reduce unintended pregnancies, lowering healthcare costs for taxpayers in the long run.
• "Access for Underserved Communities: Many people, especially in rural areas, rely on Planned Parenthood as their primary healthcare provider due to a lack of alternative options.
• "No Direct Federal Funding for Abortion: Federal funds do not pay for abortion services due to the Hyde Amendment, except in cases of rape, incest, or threats to the mother’s life. Most federal funding supports Medicaid reimbursements for non-abortion services.

"Defunding Planned Parenthood would not eliminate the need for the services it provides—it would only reduce access to critical healthcare for millions, particularly women, low-income families, and young people. Instead of defunding, efforts should be made to expand affordable healthcare access for all."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2025

Should the government enforce federal marijuana laws in states that have legalized marijuana?

"No, the federal government should respect state sovereignty and not interfere with states that have chosen to legalize marijuana. The current conflict between federal and state laws creates unnecessary legal confusion, hampers economic growth, and misallocates law enforcement resources.

"Key Reasons Against Federal Enforcement:

• "State Rights & Voter Decisions: States that have legalized marijuana have done so through democratic processes, and the federal government should respect these choices.
• "Economic Growth & Tax Revenue: Legal cannabis industries generate billions in tax revenue, create jobs, and support local economies. Federal enforcement could disrupt these benefits.
• "Criminal Justice Reform: Federal marijuana laws disproportionately affect minority communities, contributing to mass incarceration. Allowing states to set their own policies aligns with broader justice reform efforts.
• "Medical & Scientific Benefits: Many states have legalized marijuana for medical use, with research showing benefits for pain management, epilepsy, PTSD, and other conditions. Federal interference could limit patient access.

"What Should Be Done Instead?

"Rather than enforcing outdated federal laws, the government should:
✅ Reschedule or decriminalize marijuana at the federal level
✅ Allow banking access for legal cannabis businesses
✅ Support further medical research
✅ Ensure responsible regulation and public health protections

"Federal enforcement in legal states would be an overreach that contradicts public opinion, state autonomy, and economic progress. The government should focus on modernizing marijuana policy instead of punishing states for making their own decisions."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2025

Should the federal government raise the minimum wage?

"Yes, the federal government should raise the minimum wage, but with a balanced approach that considers regional cost-of-living differences and the needs of small businesses.

"Key Reasons for Raising the Minimum Wage:

• "Keeping Up with Inflation: The federal minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation, reducing workers’ purchasing power. A gradual increase would help ensure wages reflect today’s economic realities.
• "Reducing Poverty & Income Inequality: Raising the minimum wage helps lift millions of workers out of poverty, reducing the need for government assistance programs.
• "Boosting Economic Growth: When low-wage workers earn more, they spend more, driving consumer demand and economic expansion.
• "Addressing Wage Stagnation: Many full-time workers earning minimum wage struggle to meet basic living expenses, even while working multiple jobs.

"Concerns & Solutions:

• "Small Business Impact: A sudden, steep increase could burden small businesses. A phased or regionally adjusted increase can help businesses adapt while still supporting workers.
• "Job Loss Fears: While some studies suggest potential job losses, others indicate that higher wages reduce turnover and improve productivity, offsetting costs.

"Alternative Approaches:

"Instead of a one-size-fits-all federal mandate, the government could:
✅ Adjust the minimum wage based on regional cost of living
✅ Provide tax credits or incentives to help small businesses transition
✅ Expand access to job training and career development

"A thoughtful wage increase, coupled with pro-business policies, can create a stronger, more sustainable economy where workers earn a living wage without stifling job growth."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2025

Should the federal government continue to subsidize the domestic production of coal?

"No, the federal government should gradually phase out coal subsidies and redirect investments toward cleaner, more sustainable energy sources while supporting coal-dependent communities in transitioning to new economic opportunities.

"Key Reasons to End Coal Subsidies:

• "Economic Shift Toward Renewables: The energy market is moving toward cheaper and more efficient alternatives like solar, wind, and natural gas. Subsidizing coal slows innovation and keeps the U.S. reliant on a declining industry.
• "Environmental & Health Impacts: Coal burning is a leading cause of air pollution, respiratory diseases, and carbon emissions, contributing to climate change and public health crises.
• "Market-Based Solutions: If coal cannot compete without government support, continued subsidies create an artificial dependency rather than allowing the market to transition naturally.

"A Balanced Approach:

"Rather than abruptly cutting subsidies, the federal government should:
✅ Invest in job retraining programs for coal workers to transition into renewable energy, manufacturing, and other industries.
✅ Support economic diversification in coal-reliant regions to reduce financial hardship.
✅ Encourage clean energy investment to position the U.S. as a leader in the global energy transition.

"Phasing out coal subsidies while supporting affected communities is the best path forward ensuring a smoother transition to a cleaner, more competitive energy economy."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2025

Should the federal government do more to combat climate change by providing subsidies for energy efficiency?

"Yes, the federal government should increase subsidies for energy efficiency as a cost-effective way to reduce carbon emissions, lower energy costs for consumers, and boost economic growth.

"Key Reasons to Support Energy Efficiency Subsidies:

• "Lower Energy Bills: Incentives for energy-efficient appliances, buildings, and industrial processes help businesses and households save money on utility costs.
• "Job Creation & Economic Growth: Expanding energy efficiency programs can create thousands of jobs in construction, manufacturing, and technology sectors.
• "Reduced Carbon Footprint: Energy efficiency is one of the fastest and most affordable ways to cut greenhouse gas emissions without sacrificing economic growth.
• "Grid Resilience & Energy Security: Reducing energy waste lowers overall demand, easing strain on the power grid and improving energy independence.

"Smart Policy Approaches:

✅ Tax credits & rebates for homeowners and businesses upgrading to energy-efficient technologies
✅ Stronger efficiency standards for appliances, vehicles, and buildings
✅ Incentives for retrofitting older buildings with better insulation, lighting, and HVAC systems
✅ Public-private partnerships to encourage innovation in clean energy solutions

"Investing in energy efficiency is a win-win—it lowers costs, cuts emissions, and strengthens the economy while making the U.S. more competitive in the global energy market."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2018

Should the federal government continue to subsidize the domestic production of natural gas?

"No, absolutely not. We have already pumped enough fossil fuels out of the earth that can possibly be used without going over the carbon budget (remaining amount of greenhouse gases we can emit if we are going to stay below the warming limits). It's estimated that $20 Billion is spent (subsidized) on the production of fossil fuels every year. It's an irresponsible waste of tax dollars and not to mention a waste of everyones time. Putting public money towards finding some fossil fuels we cannot use doesn't make any sense. It's better if we put government subsidies towards environmentally safe and efficient alternatives."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2018

Should the federal government increase subsidies for nuclear energy to bring them into line with subsidies for other energy sources with low greenhouse emissions, such as wind and solar?

"Against, it's not safe, cheap, or clean. It has caused major catastrophes, and has enabled more nuclear weapons and the nuclear waste problem has still not been solved. Using public money to subsidize nuclear energy isn't a wise investment."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2018

Should the federal government continue to subsidize the domestic production of oil?

"No, absolutely not. We have already pumped enough fossil fuels out of the earth that can possibly be used without going over the carbon budget (remaining amount of greenhouse gases we can emit if we are going to stay below the warming limits). It's estimated that $20 Billion is spent (subsidized) on the production of fossil fuels every year. It's an irresponsible waste of tax dollars and not to mention a waste of everyones time. Putting public money towards finding some fossil fuels we cannot use doesn't make any sense. It's better if we put government subsidies towards environmentally safe and efficient alternatives."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2025

Should the federal government do more to combat climate change by providing subsidies for renewable energy?

"In favor. Educate the public about the gravity of the issue, confront those who deny the facts, and influence public opinion. If climate change isn’t as severe a threat as experts believe, I still support reducing carbon emissions and striving for a cleaner, safer, and more energy-efficient society for this generation and future generations."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2025

Do you generally support higher tariffs on imports from countries such as China, where we have a large trade deficit?

"Not necessarily. While addressing trade imbalances with countries like China is important, higher tariffs can often lead to unintended consequences that hurt American businesses, workers, and consumers.

"Key Considerations:

"✅ The Case for Tariffs:

• "Countering Unfair Trade Practices: If countries like China engage in intellectual property theft, currency manipulation, or unfair subsidies, targeted tariffs can be a tool to level the playing field.
• "Boosting Domestic Manufacturing: Tariffs can protect U.S. industries from being undercut by artificially cheap imports, supporting American jobs.

"❌ Concerns About Higher Tariffs:

• "Higher Consumer Prices: Tariffs often lead to higher costs for American consumers, as companies pass increased costs onto buyers.
• "Retaliatory Measures: Countries hit with tariffs often respond with their own, hurting U.S. exports and industries such as agriculture, technology, and manufacturing.
• "Disrupting Supply Chains: Many U.S. businesses depend on imported materials, and tariffs can make production more expensive, reducing competitiveness.

"A Smarter Approach:

"Instead of blanket tariffs, the U.S. should:
✔ Negotiate fairer trade agreements that protect American workers and industries.
✔ Hold countries accountable for unfair trade practices through diplomatic and economic pressure.
✔ Invest in domestic industries to reduce dependence on foreign imports.
✔ Strengthen partnerships with allies to create a more balanced global trade system.

"While tariffs can be a useful tool in specific cases, a more comprehensive economic strategy is needed to ensure long-term American competitiveness and growth without harming consumers and businesses."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2025

Would you vote in favor of impeaching President Donald Trump based on what is known to date?

"Probably, but I would want full access to all official evidence and a broader perspective of the facts—something only possible if elected. Impeachment is a serious and costly process, both financially and politically, and replacing Trump with Pence may not be an ideal alternative.

"That said, Trump’s actions raise significant concerns: his inhumane immigration policies, alienation of NATO allies, unsettling admiration for Putin and Kim Jong-un, reckless trade wars, divisive rhetoric, attacks on the free press, consistent dishonesty, refusal to release tax returns, and apparent use of the presidency for personal financial gain. These are all valid grounds for impeachment.

"However, with just two years left in his term, the best course of action may be to focus on an unprecedented voter turnout in the next election. While impeachment could prevent further damage to America’s reputation, it could also deepen congressional gridlock and fuel civil unrest. On the other hand, failing to act could lead to backlash from the public.

"Ultimately, this decision should reflect the will of the people. Congress should be responsive to the voices of Americans, and perhaps a national referendum could be an effective way to determine the course of action. The people deserve to have their say."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2025

Should the federal government increase funding for transportation infrastructure, such as road repair and highway expansion?

"Yes, the federal government should increase funding for transportation infrastructure, as it is essential for economic growth, public safety, and long-term national competitiveness.

"Key Reasons for Increased Investment:

✅ Fixing Aging Infrastructure: Many U.S. roads, highways, and bridges are crumbling and outdated, posing safety risks and increasing maintenance costs for businesses and drivers.
✅ Boosting Economic Growth & Job Creation: Infrastructure investment creates jobs in construction, engineering, and manufacturing while improving supply chain efficiency.
✅ Reducing Traffic Congestion: Expanding and modernizing highways, public transit, and rail systems reduces commute times, improves productivity, and cuts fuel costs.
✅ Improving Public Safety: Poor road conditions contribute to accidents and vehicle damage. Investing in infrastructure helps save lives and reduce costs for drivers.
✅ Strengthening Global Competitiveness: Countries that invest in modern infrastructure—high-speed rail, smart highways, and efficient transit systems—gain economic advantages. The U.S. must keep up with global competitors.

"Balanced Approach for Smart Investment:

"Rather than just expanding highways, federal funding should focus on:
✔ Repairing & modernizing existing infrastructure before expansion.
✔ Investing in public transit, rail, and smart transportation solutions to reduce traffic and emissions.
✔ Leveraging public-private partnerships to fund projects efficiently.
✔ Incorporating climate-resilient infrastructure to withstand extreme weather.

"A strong transportation infrastructure is a national priority that benefits all Americans, fuels economic growth, and ensures a safer, more efficient future."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2025

Should the federal government limit certain firearm purchases to residents over age twenty-one?

"Yes, with exceptions for responsible use, such as military service, law enforcement, and licensed hunters. Raising the minimum age for purchasing certain firearms, particularly semi-automatic rifles, can be a reasonable safety measure while still respecting Second Amendment rights.

"Key Considerations:

• ✅ Brain Development & Risk Factors:
  "Research shows that the brain’s impulse control and decision-making are still developing into early adulthood. Limiting access to high-powered firearms for individuals under 21 could help reduce impulsive acts of violence, including mass shootings.
• ✅ Consistency with Other Age-Restricted Laws:
  "Federal law already restricts handgun purchases from licensed dealers to individuals 21 and older. Expanding similar age requirements for semi-automatic rifles could create a more consistent legal standard.
• ✅ Reducing Gun Violence & Mass Shootings:
  "Studies show that a significant number of mass shootings are carried out by individuals under 21. Implementing age restrictions on certain firearm purchases could be one tool in a broader strategy to prevent gun violence.

"Balanced Approach:

"While raising the age requirement for some firearms makes sense, exceptions could be considered for:
✔ Active-duty military personnel and law enforcement officers.
✔ Licensed hunters with state-approved training.
✔ Young adults who complete certified firearm safety and training programs.

"Age limits alone won’t solve gun violence, but they can be part of a broader, common-sense strategy that includes background checks, mental health support, and responsible gun ownership measures."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2025

Should the federal government reform Social Security by requiring means testing?

"Maybe, but with caution. Means testing—reducing or eliminating Social Security benefits for higher-income retirees—could help address long-term funding challenges, but it also raises concerns about fairness, incentives, and the fundamental nature of Social Security.

"Arguments in Favor of Means Testing:

• ✅ Preserving Social Security for Future Generations:
  "Social Security’s trust fund is projected to face shortfalls in the coming decades. Means testing could help extend solvency by reducing payments to wealthier retirees who may not need them.
• ✅ Targeting Benefits Where They’re Needed Most:
  "Social Security was designed to prevent poverty in retirement. Focusing benefits on low- and middle-income seniors ensures that those who rely on it most get the support they need.

"Arguments Against Means Testing:

• ❌ Undermines Social Security’s Universal Nature:
  "Social Security is a universal program, meaning everyone who pays into the system expects benefits in return. Means testing could turn it into a welfare program, reducing public support.
• ❌ Disincentivizes Saving for Retirement:
  "If wealthier individuals know they will receive reduced or no benefits, they may have less incentive to save independently, potentially increasing reliance on other government programs.
• ❌ Administrative Complexity & Cost:
  "Implementing means testing would require new bureaucracy to assess income and assets, potentially increasing administrative costs.

"Alternative Solutions to Strengthen Social Security:

✔ Gradually raise the payroll tax cap so higher earners contribute more.
✔ Adjust the retirement age gradually to reflect increased life expectancy.
✔ Consider progressive benefit adjustments without fully eliminating benefits for high earners.
✔ Encourage private retirement savings to supplement Social Security.

"While means testing could help make Social Security more sustainable, a balanced reform approach—rather than cutting benefits outright—would be a fairer and more effective solution."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2025

Should the U.S. build a physical wall between Mexico and the U.S.?

"No, a physical wall alone is not the most effective or cost-efficient way to secure the border or address immigration challenges. While border security is important, a multi-layered approach that includes technology, personnel, and policy reform would be far more effective than simply building a wall.

"Key Considerations:

• ✅ Border Security is Important, But a Wall is Not the Best Solution
  "A physical barrier in some areas makes sense, particularly in high-traffic zones, but vast stretches of the border are remote, mountainous, or desert terrain, making a continuous wall impractical and costly.
• ✅ Technology & Modern Security are More Effective
  "Surveillance drones, sensors, radar systems, and increased border patrol agents provide better real-time monitoring than a static wall.
  "A 'smart border' approach would be more cost-effective and more adaptable to evolving security threats.
• ✅ Cost vs. Effectiveness
  "A full border wall would cost tens of billions of dollars in construction and maintenance. Many experts argue that these funds would be better spent on modern security measures, infrastructure, and legal immigration reform.
• ✅ Addressing Root Causes of Immigration
  "A wall does not address the reasons people migrate, such as violence, economic hardship, and corruption in home countries. Investing in diplomatic and economic efforts in Central America would help reduce illegal immigration at its source.
• ✅ Most Illegal Immigration Happens Through Legal Ports of Entry
  "The majority of undocumented immigrants enter legally and overstay visas, not by crossing the border illegally. A wall would do little to stop this.

"A More Effective Approach:

"Instead of focusing on a massive physical barrier, the U.S. should:
✔ Invest in advanced border security technology (drones, sensors, and AI monitoring).
✔ Increase border patrol staffing and resources for law enforcement.
✔ Improve the legal immigration system to reduce backlogs and provide pathways for workers.
✔ Enhance visa tracking systems to address overstays.
✔ Work with Latin American nations to improve economic and security conditions.

"Bottom Line:

"A border wall may symbolize security, but it is not a practical or comprehensive solution. A combination of technology, law enforcement, and policy reform would be a smarter and more effective way to secure the border while upholding American values."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2025

Should the federal government provide more funding to states to fight opioid addiction?

"Yes, the federal government should increase funding to states to combat the opioid crisis, as it remains a public health emergency that affects millions of Americans. A comprehensive, well-funded approach is necessary to reduce overdoses, expand treatment options, and address the root causes of addiction.

"Key Reasons for Increased Funding:

• ✅ Overdose Deaths Are Still Rising
  "Opioid-related deaths continue to increase, particularly due to fentanyl, which is far more potent than prescription opioids. More resources are needed to tackle this evolving crisis.
• ✅ State and Local Governments Need Support
  "States bear the financial burden of treatment programs, law enforcement, and emergency response. Increased federal funding can provide more resources for prevention, treatment, and recovery programs.
• ✅ Expanding Access to Treatment & Recovery
  "Many people struggling with opioid addiction lack access to affordable treatment, including medication-assisted treatment (MAT) like methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone.
  "Increased funding can help expand rehabilitation centers, mental health support, and harm reduction services.
• ✅ Supporting Law Enforcement & Public Safety
  "More funding can improve efforts to combat illegal drug trafficking, especially fentanyl and synthetic opioids, which are driving overdose deaths.
  "Better coordination between public health and law enforcement is key to tackling both the supply and demand sides of the crisis.
• ✅ Addressing Root Causes & Prevention
  "Investment in education, community outreach, and economic opportunities can help prevent addiction before it starts.
  "Increased funding for mental health care and alternative pain management options can reduce dependency on opioids.

"A Balanced Approach to Federal Funding:

"Instead of just punitive measures, the government should:
✔ Expand access to evidence-based treatment programs
✔ Fund public health initiatives for overdose prevention
✔ Strengthen law enforcement efforts against illicit drug trafficking
✔ Support community-based recovery programs
✔ Improve access to mental health care and alternative pain management

"Bottom Line:

"The opioid epidemic is a national crisis that requires federal action. Increasing funding to states would help ensure that treatment, prevention, and enforcement strategies are properly resourced, saving lives and strengthening communities."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2025

Should the federal government provide health care and/or insurance to every citizen?

"Yes, the federal government should ensure that every American has access to affordable healthcare, but the best approach should balance universal coverage with economic sustainability and personal choice.

"Key Considerations:

• ✅ Health Care as a Basic Right vs. Market-Based System
  "Many developed nations provide universal healthcare, ensuring no citizen is left uninsured.
  "The U.S. system is a hybrid of public and private coverage, but millions remain uninsured or underinsured.
• ✅ Reducing Costs & Expanding Access
  "High healthcare costs burden families, businesses, and the economy.
  "Expanding public options, such as Medicare-for-all or a public option, could lower costs while preserving private insurance choices.
• ✅ Impact on Businesses & Job Growth
  "Employers spend billions on employee health coverage. A government-supported system could reduce this burden and help small businesses compete.
  "However, a tax-funded model would require careful planning to avoid economic disruption.

"Potential Solutions:

• ✔ Medicare Expansion or a Public Option
  "Allow people to buy into Medicare or a public plan while keeping private insurance options.
  "Expands access without eliminating personal choice.
• ✔ Strengthening the ACA (Obamacare)
  "Lower prescription drug prices, increase subsidies, and improve access to preventative care.
• ✔ Hybrid Universal Coverage (e.g., a two-tier system)
  "Basic coverage for all, with private options for additional services (like Australia and Germany).

"Bottom Line:

"The U.S. should work toward universal healthcare access while ensuring a fiscally responsible, choice-driven system. The key is affordability, efficiency, and maintaining high-quality care without excessive government overreach or disruption."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2025

Should the U.S. impose additional sanctions on North Korea unless it abandons its nuclear program?

"Yes, but with strategic diplomacy to ensure sanctions are effective and do not disproportionately harm civilians. While sanctions are a critical tool to pressure North Korea’s leadership, they should be part of a broader diplomatic strategy that includes negotiations, international cooperation, and engagement.

"Key Considerations:

• ✅ Sanctions Can Limit North Korea’s Nuclear Advancements
  "Restricting access to foreign currency, technology, and military resources makes it harder for North Korea to advance its nuclear program.
  "Sanctions have historically forced North Korea to negotiate, even if progress has been slow.
• ✅ Need for International Coordination
  "Unilateral U.S. sanctions are less effective without China and Russia’s cooperation, as they are North Korea’s primary trade partners.
  "A multilateral approach with the United Nations and regional allies (South Korea, Japan, and the EU) is crucial.
• ✅ Balancing Pressure with Diplomacy
  "Sanctions alone won’t resolve the crisis—a strategy combining economic pressure with engagement, security assurances, and diplomatic talks is necessary.
  "Overuse of sanctions without clear diplomatic goals can make negotiations harder and push North Korea toward more aggressive actions.
• ❌ Risk of Humanitarian Consequences
  "Harsh sanctions can worsen food shortages and harm innocent civilians, while the North Korean regime remains largely unaffected.
  "Targeted sanctions that focus on the military and ruling elite rather than the general population are more ethical and effective.

"A Smarter Approach:

✔ Enforce and strengthen targeted sanctions aimed at North Korea’s leadership and nuclear program.
✔ Engage diplomatically with China, South Korea, and global partners to create a united front.
✔ Offer diplomatic incentives (such as economic relief or security guarantees) for verifiable steps toward denuclearization.
✔ Expand humanitarian exceptions in sanctions to prevent unnecessary suffering for North Korean civilians.

"Bottom Line:

"Sanctions should remain a key tool in pressuring North Korea, but they must be part of a broader strategy that includes diplomacy, international coordination, and incentives for denuclearization and regional stability."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2025

Should the federal government privatize some or all of Social Security?

"No, full privatization of Social Security would be too risky, but certain reforms could improve the program’s sustainability. While privatization proponents argue it could offer higher returns and more control, it also introduces greater financial risk, inequality, and instability, especially for retirees who rely on Social Security as their primary source of income.

"Key Concerns with Privatization:

• ❌ Increased Risk for Retirees
  "Social Security is designed as a guaranteed safety net, protecting retirees from market fluctuations.
  "Privatization would expose individuals to stock market volatility, meaning a recession could wipe out retirement savings for millions.
• ❌ Higher Administrative Costs
  "A privatized system would likely have higher fees, reducing returns for individuals.
  "The current Social Security system is efficient, with very low administrative costs (less than 1% of payouts).
• ❌ Widening Inequality
  "Lower-income workers may not have the financial literacy or extra funds to invest wisely.
  "A privatized system could widen the wealth gap, leaving the most vulnerable without adequate retirement income.

"Alternative Reforms to Strengthen Social Security:

• ✔ Gradually Raise the Payroll Tax Cap
  "Currently, earnings above $168,600 (2024 limit) are not taxed for Social Security. Raising or eliminating this cap would strengthen the trust fund without burdening lower-income workers.
• ✔ Introduce Voluntary Private Accounts (Hybrid System)
  "A hybrid model could allow voluntary private investment options while preserving a guaranteed Social Security benefit as a safety net.
• ✔ Adjust the Retirement Age (Gradually & Fairly)
  "With increasing life expectancy, a slight increase in the retirement age (with protections for physically demanding jobs) could help stabilize funding.
• ✔ Improve Cost-of-Living Adjustments (COLA)
  "Tying Social Security benefits to a more accurate inflation index (such as the CPI-E, which reflects seniors’ costs) could ensure benefits keep pace with real expenses.

"Bottom Line:

"Fully privatizing Social Security would introduce too much risk, but modernizing and strengthening the program through targeted reforms can ensure long-term sustainability without jeopardizing retirees’ financial security. A balanced approach that preserves the core guarantee of Social Security while offering optional private investment incentives could be a more practical and fair solution."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2025

Should the federal government reform Social Security by raising the retirement age from today's age of 67?

"Only cautiously and with protections for workers in physically demanding jobs. While increasing life expectancy may justify gradual adjustments, raising the retirement age disproportionately impacts lower-income workers, those in physically demanding jobs, and individuals with shorter life expectancies.

"Key Considerations:

• ✅ Increased Life Expectancy
  "People are living longer on average, meaning Social Security is paying out benefits for more years than when the program was created.
  "A modest, gradual increase could help extend the program’s solvency.
• ❌ Impact on Low-Income & Blue-Collar Workers
  "Many physical labor jobs (construction, manufacturing, healthcare, etc.) are not sustainable into late 60s.
  "Higher-income workers tend to live longer and healthier lives, meaning a raised retirement age would unfairly affect those who can’t keep working.
• ❌ Disproportionate Effect on Certain Groups
  "Workers with lower life expectancies (often due to socioeconomic factors) would receive fewer years of benefits, making this change regressive.

"Better Alternatives to Strengthen Social Security:

✔ Raise or eliminate the payroll tax cap (currently at $168,600 in 2024) so higher earners contribute more.
✔ Introduce a gradual phase-in of any retirement age increase with exemptions for physically demanding jobs.
✔ Expand early retirement options with reduced benefits for those unable to work longer.
✔ Implement targeted cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) to ensure Social Security keeps up with inflation.

"Bottom Line:

"A one-size-fits-all increase in the retirement age would disproportionately harm lower-income and physically demanding job workers. Instead, targeted reforms—such as adjusting the payroll tax cap, improving benefit structures, and offering flexible retirement options—would better address Social Security’s long-term solvency without putting undue burden on vulnerable workers."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2025

Should the federal government amend the Affordable Care Act/"Obamacare" by repealing the tax penalty for employers who do not offer health insurance?

"Not entirely but reforming the policy to ease the burden on small businesses while maintaining employee coverage incentives would be a better approach.

"Key Considerations:

• ✅ Supports Employer-Based Insurance
  "The employer mandate ensures that large companies provide health insurance to employees instead of shifting the cost to government-funded programs.
  "Removing the penalty could lead to fewer workers having employer-sponsored coverage, increasing reliance on Medicaid and ACA subsidies, ultimately costing taxpayers more.
• ❌ Burden on Small Businesses
  "Some small and mid-sized businesses struggle to afford insurance, and penalties can discourage hiring or business growth.
  "A scaled or tiered approach—with more exemptions for small businesses—could help balance coverage and economic sustainability.

"A Smarter Reform Approach:

✔ Exempt more small businesses (e.g., those with fewer than 100 employees, up from 50).
✔ Offer tax incentives or subsidies instead of penalties to encourage coverage.
✔ Allow more flexibility in plan offerings so businesses can provide affordable options.

"Bottom Line:

"Instead of a full repeal, reforming the penalty structure to support small businesses while maintaining strong incentives for employer-sponsored coverage is a more balanced solution that protects workers and businesses alike."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2025

Should the U.S. impose additional sanctions on Russia in retaliation for its aggressive action in Syria and the Ukraine?

"Yes, but sanctions should be strategically targeted and coordinated with international allies to maximize effectiveness. While sanctions are a crucial tool for pressuring Russia, they should be part of a comprehensive diplomatic and security strategy rather than a standalone response.

"Key Reasons for Additional Sanctions:

• ✅ Holding Russia Accountable for Aggression
  "Russia’s annexation of Crimea, continued military involvement in Ukraine, and support for Assad’s regime in Syria violate international norms.
  "Stronger sanctions reinforce the message that aggression will not go unpunished.
• ✅ Economic Pressure Can Weaken Russian Military Operations
  "Sanctions targeting Russia’s energy sector, banking system, and arms exports can limit its ability to fund military campaigns.
  "Cutting off Russia’s access to Western financial systems and technology can restrict its economic and military growth.
• ✅ Supporting Ukraine & U.S. Allies
  "Increased sanctions strengthen U.S. and NATO allies by countering Russian destabilization efforts.
  "A firm response deters further Russian interference in Eastern Europe and beyond.

"Potential Downsides & Considerations:

• ❌ Risk of Economic Blowback
  "Some U.S. and European businesses rely on Russian trade, so harsh sanctions could have unintended economic consequences.
  "Sanctions on energy exports could drive up global oil and gas prices.
• ❌ Retaliation from Russia
  "Russia could respond with cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, or counter-sanctions affecting global markets.

"A Smarter Approach:

✔ Targeted sanctions on Russian elites, oligarchs, and industries supporting military actions.
✔ Work with the EU, UK, and NATO to maintain a unified front against Russian aggression.
✔ Support Ukraine militarily and economically to resist Russian advances.
✔ Use diplomacy alongside sanctions to encourage Russia toward de-escalation.

"Bottom Line:

"Additional sanctions should be strategic, targeted, and coordinated with international partners to maximize impact while minimizing unintended consequences. A strong but balanced approach reinforces U.S. leadership, deters further Russian aggression, and supports global stability."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2025

Should the federal government allow student loan payments to be reduced based on income?

"Yes, offering income-based repayment (IBR) plans is a fair and effective way to help borrowers manage student loan debt without defaulting. This approach ensures that loan repayment is sustainable and tied to financial ability, rather than placing an undue burden on individuals with lower earnings.

"Key Reasons to Support Income-Based Repayment:

• ✅ Prevents Loan Defaults & Financial Hardship
  "Many graduates struggle with high monthly payments, especially in the early years of their careers.
  "Income-based plans help borrowers stay current on payments and avoid financial ruin.
• ✅ Encourages Higher Education & Economic Growth
  "Fear of crippling debt discourages many from pursuing college or advanced degrees.
  "By tying payments to income, students can invest in education without lifelong financial struggles.
• ✅ More Fair & Flexible Approach
  "Graduates with lower-paying public service jobs (e.g., teachers, social workers) wouldn’t be unfairly burdened compared to those with high-paying careers.
  "Payments adjust over time—as income increases, so does repayment, ensuring fairness.

"Potential Concerns & Solutions:

• ❌ Risk of Abuse or Long-Term Debt Accumulation
  "Some worry that lower payments could mean never paying off loans.
  "Solution: Implement reasonable time limits (e.g., loan forgiveness after 20–25 years of responsible payments).
• ❌ Cost to Taxpayers
  "Reduced payments could shift costs to the government.
  "Solution: Ensure repayment plans are structured to cover costs while still providing relief.

"A Balanced Solution:

✔ Expand and simplify income-based repayment options to make them more accessible.
✔ Cap repayment at a reasonable percentage of discretionary income (e.g., 5–10%).
✔ Allow debt forgiveness after a set number of years for responsible borrowers.
✔ Ensure transparency and efficiency to prevent fraud or misuse.

"Bottom Line:

"Income-based repayment is a smart, fair, and necessary reform that helps graduates repay loans without crushing debt burdens, while still ensuring responsible repayment and economic mobility."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2025

Should the federal government tax carbon emissions?

"Yes, a carbon tax can be an effective market-based solution to reduce emissions while promoting clean energy innovation. However, it should be structured carefully to minimize economic disruption and ensure affordability for consumers.

"Key Benefits of a Carbon Tax:

• ✅ Encourages Pollution Reduction
  "By putting a price on carbon, businesses and industries have a financial incentive to reduce emissions and invest in cleaner energy sources.
• ✅ Market-Based & Pro-Business Approach
  "Unlike heavy regulations, a carbon tax lets businesses decide how to lower emissions in the most cost-effective way.
  "It promotes innovation in renewable energy, carbon capture, and energy efficiency.
• ✅ Revenue Can Be Used for Economic Growth & Rebate Programs
  "Tax revenue could be used to:
  "Invest in clean energy infrastructure (solar, wind, battery storage).
  "Offset costs for low-income households through tax rebates.
  "Fund job training programs for workers transitioning from fossil fuel industries.
• ✅ Reduces Health Costs & Climate Risks
  "Lower carbon emissions mean cleaner air, fewer respiratory diseases, and reduced health care costs.
  "Mitigating climate change reduces risks from extreme weather, rising sea levels, and economic instability.

"Potential Concerns & Solutions:

• ❌ Could Increase Energy Prices for Consumers
  "Solution: Implement carbon dividends or tax rebates to return money to households, offsetting higher costs (like the Carbon Fee and Dividend model).
• ❌ Impact on U.S. Competitiveness
  "Solution: Implement border carbon adjustments (taxes on imports from high-emission countries) to protect American industries.

"A Balanced Approach:

✔ Start with a moderate carbon tax, increasing gradually to give businesses time to adjust.
✔ Use revenues for clean energy investment and consumer rebates to minimize economic impact.
✔ Ensure international cooperation to prevent outsourcing pollution to other countries.

"Bottom Line:

"A well-designed carbon tax would be an effective tool to reduce emissions, drive clean energy innovation, and create a healthier environment—all while keeping the economy strong and competitive."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2025

Do you support Pres. Trump's decision to withdraw from the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement?

"The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, was designed to limit Iran’s nuclear capabilities in exchange for sanctions relief. In May 2018, President Donald Trump announced the United States’ withdrawal from the agreement, citing concerns that it was 'a horrible one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made' and asserting that it failed to address Iran’s ballistic missile program and regional activities.  

"Arguments Supporting the Withdrawal:

• Addressing Iran’s Regional Activities: Critics argued that the JCPOA did not sufficiently address Iran’s ballistic missile program and its involvement in regional conflicts.  

"Arguments Opposing the Withdrawal:

• Iran’s Compliance: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had consistently verified Iran’s compliance with the deal’s terms prior to the U.S. withdrawal.  
• Escalation of Nuclear Activities: Following the U.S. exit and reinstatement of sanctions, Iran began exceeding JCPOA limits on uranium enrichment, bringing it closer to weapons-grade levels.  
• Strained Alliances: The withdrawal created tensions with European allies who remained committed to the agreement and sought to uphold it.  

"Current Context:

"As of February 2025, efforts to revive the JCPOA have faced significant challenges. The IAEA has expressed concerns over Iran’s accelerated uranium enrichment, noting that time is running out to reach a new agreement.  Additionally, internal divisions within Iran’s leadership have complicated potential negotiations with the United States.  

"Conclusion:

"Given the subsequent escalation of Iran’s nuclear activities and the diplomatic rifts that followed the withdrawal, it appears that leaving the JCPOA may have undermined efforts to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. A more effective approach might have been to remain within the agreement while working with international partners to address its limitations and ensure Iran’s compliance."

Citizens Count Issue Survey, 2025

Do you agree with President Trump on withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement?

"No, I do not agree with President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement. This move isolates the U.S. from global efforts to combat climate change and undermines international cooperation on this critical issue.

"Key Concerns:

• Global Leadership: The withdrawal diminishes America’s leadership role in addressing climate change, ceding influence to other nations in setting environmental standards and policies.
• Economic Opportunities: Remaining in the agreement provides opportunities for economic growth through investments in renewable energy and green technologies. Exiting the pact may hinder the U.S. from capitalizing on these emerging markets.
• Environmental Impact: The Paris Agreement aims to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius. Withdrawal could contribute to more severe climate-related events, affecting both the environment and public health.

"Conclusion:

"Staying committed to the Paris climate agreement aligns with both environmental responsibility and economic interests. Withdrawal not only hampers global climate efforts but also risks the U.S.’s standing in international diplomacy and the burgeoning green economy."