A Closer Look at House of Representatives Candidate Ron Varasteh

NAME: Ron Varasteh
AGE: 47
RACE: House of Representatives, District 48
TITLE: Engineer/Small Businessman
FAMILY: In a relationship, no children
EDUCATION: CSU Fullerton, M.S., Computer Engineering, 1987; CSU Fullerton, B.S., Electrical Engineering, 1986
KEY ISSUES: Eliminate income tax for most of us, reduce defense spending, take money out of elections and politics, government out of our private lives, amend NDAA and Patriot Act, affordable higher education, and marijuana and hemp legalization and taxation (For a complete list, please refer to website: RonVarasteh.com/Promises.
WORDS TO LIVE BY: Returning Congress to her rightful owners – WE the People
KEY ENDORSEMENTS: Private Citizens
CAMPAIGN WEBSITE: RonVarasteh.com/
CAMPAIGN FUNDS RAISED AND SPENT: Raised and spent less than $25K

Why are you running for Congress and what qualifies you to hold office?

When Mr. Rohrabacher first ran for U.S. Congress some 24 years ago, he ran on the platform that congressional representatives are staying in office for far too long and should, at minimum, impose their own personal term-limit. At my website, I provide all the evidence a voter needs to see that Mr. Rohrabacher is not working for WE the People and is instead working for the big contributors of his political campaign. His ongoing scandals have made him an embarrassment. Compared to past candidates who ran against him, I feel that I could better educate voters about how little Mr. Rohrabacher really cares about our district and that I can best represent us in Congress.

What are the most important issues facing voters in your district?

We must take money out of elections and politics, because our government should not be for sale to the highest bidders. We must restore WE the People’s government back to her rightful owners. Mr. Rohrabacher may have entered the race for Congress some 24 years ago with the right intentions; however, evidence proves the contrary for at least the last decade or so that Mr. Rohrabacher is not working for WE the People and is instead working for his big campaign contributors. Elections shouldn’t be about who can raise the most money, they should be about who can best represent his/her district in Washington. I believe that I can win this "redistricted" seat due to its diminished scope of incumbency and be a better representative for us in Washington.

Do you offer any pledges or promises to voters?

I would fight to lower income tax on those making less than $250K and increase tax on those making more than $1M. I would campaign on ending income tax on everyone’s first $80K altogether. Reforming corporate tax and offshore tax haven laws as well as tax breaks for manufacturers in combination with imposing tariffs against countries that manipulate their currency would be a priority. I would push to get us out of unfair free trade agreements and strive for a leaner government by eliminating earmarks, loopholes, and subsidies. I would work on reforming subsidies and tax-breaks granted to large businesses. Corporations and unions are not people and must stay out of our elections.

What is your current occupation and what do you enjoy most about it?

I am a founder, owner, and operator of a 25+ year-old Orange county high tech small business. Evidence has shown most of us that both parties in Congress are doing very little, if anything, to reform regulations that have a chokehold on the start-up and growth of both small and medium businesses. My business background places me in a unique position to speak for small/medium businesses which are sorely underrepresented in Washington today. Most of the members of Congress are lawyers; as both a scientist and an engineer, by education and practice, my expertise will be put into action to creatively and critically analyze the problems we face in a cost effective manner. Over the years, Mr. Rohrabacher has simply become too disconnected to view the issues we face with new ideas.

What do you consider to be the most important strides which need to be made in your district?

Middle-class hasn’t recovered from the Great Recession. In bad times, we don’t pay down our debt faster; instead we must borrow more, eliminate non-essentials, and create additional revenues. We must tax those who’re prosperous and benefiting from public infrastructure and eliminate taxing those who aren’t. My tax plan eliminates income taxes on everybody’s first $80K or less earned and imposes a marginal tax rate for those making more than $80K (e.g. $120K pays $14K in taxes). “Obama Care” attempts to address health-care expense and coverage issues. Its flaw is it relies on expensive for-profit insurers. Medicare and VA programs are more efficient with lower overhead. We’re the only developed country, in the world, without all our citizens insured. I strongly support a “Medicare for all” system. This would eliminate many business regulations. Employers would be free from needing to offer health insurance. We would eliminate worker’s compensation, Medicaid, Medicare, and VA, saving us at least $35 billion per year.

Will you share with us a little-known fact about yourself, something that might surprise even your family or friends?

For the most part, I’m an open book to my family and friends and nothing I can think of about me would surprise any of them.

What do you plan to do about our pension problems?

In order to not default on them, their pensions must be renegotiated down with them.

What is your stance on the bail-outs?

I’m not a fan of bailouts. Extraordinary times (Great Recession) demand extraordinary measures (Rescue). In this rare situation, saving our auto industry was not only a wise decision, it was necessary. We maintained our No. 1 automaker status in the world and, by most calculations, saved over 1 million jobs. This rescue was so masterfully executed, that we got back more than what we invested and sooner than expected. We must now impose tariffs to protect American businesses.

Which do you think is more important to the citizens of California, protection of civil liberties, or public safety and security? If faced with a vote that might infringe upon the civil liberties of Californians in the interest of protecting the public from a threat, which principle would guide your decision?

One thing above all others in this great nation of ours is our freedom. Protecting our civil liberties supersedes everything else in most cases, unless our survival depends on suspending it briefly. So, a vote against this principle would have to be due to an extreme circumstance and only for a brief period of time.

As you know, Southern California is currently seeing a crackdown on medical marijuana dispensaries due to actions of the California District Attorneys. Do you support this crackdown or oppose it? Whether yes or no, what actions will you take to support this opinion if any?

We have spent over $1 trillion since the inception of the DEA, fighting an un-winnable war on drugs. California and a few other states have legalized the medicinal use of marijuana. Such state rights should be protected by our Federal Government, not opposed. In fact, studies have shown that much of our deficit can be paid for, if marijuana is legalized and taxed. I support this position.