Card Check, The Employee “Free Choice” Act

On its surface Card Check appears to simply to be a harmless method of expediently allowing employees to organize into a labor union if they so choose and this, indeed, is what the proponents of the Employee Free Choice Act would have the public believe.

Dig just a little deeper and one finds that the Card Check policy denies voting employees a fundamental American right -- the ability to cast their votes in a secret ballot free of undue persuasion and intimidation. Employees will be required to publicly sign a card in front of union organizers leaving them vulnerable to harassment and abuse. The Employee Free Choice Act will also force companies into binding arbitration with their unionized employees. In the end, the binding arbitration requirement will take away unionized workers’ ability to vote to ratify negotiated working contracts between their union and their employer. In essence, it will be left to the government to set their wages by way of the arbitrator’s binding decision.

Marina Kats opposes any attempt to take away the rights of American workers to cast a secret ballot.  She will oppose giving the National Labor Relations Board the ability to forego secret unionization ballots based on publically signed authorizations (Card Check). Marina maintains, as do so many others, that the only valid measure of employees’ desire to unionize can only be determined through the secret balloting system that is free of outside interference or intimidation of any kind.

Marina Kats also stands in opposition to the requirement of the Employee Free Choice Act which dictates that newly certified unions and their employers enter into binding arbitration if a contract agreement cannot be reached within 90 days. In such cases the arbitrator’s decision is final and cannot be appealed. Furthermore, the imposed contract will be in effect for two years, again taking away the rights of employees to negotiate for their own wages. Marina views this as yet another way in which the so called Employee Free Choice Act further erodes the rights of American workers and their employers to negotiate fair market wages and benefits much to the detriment of our free market economy.

Marina Kats has recognized and opposes all of the unfair mandates of this act that put both employees and their employers at a severe disadvantage as compared to the labor unions attempting to impose their will upon both parties.

In short, Marina Kats believes that the current rendition of the Employee Free Choice Act is a farce that is being forced upon unwilling American workers, their employers, and the American consumer by organized labor and their unabashed supporters in the Congress.

Marina Kats would support a legitimate Employee Free Choice Act that must include these critical elements:

1. Protects workers' privacy during organizing drives and guarantee every worker the right to vote in a private-ballot election.
2. Ensures that workers hear from both sides dur­ing an organizing drive and have time to reflect on their choice so they can make an informed and considered decision.
3. Protects the right of workers and employers to bargain collectively without having government officials unilaterally impose employment con­tracts on them.

Reference: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/bg2027.cfm

Economy

More than 90% of Pennsylvanians fear the economy will get worse before it gets better, according to a poll released at the end of March. Indeed, many Pennsylvanians have experienced the wrath of the economic turn-down firsthand. Marina Kats will make economic issues impacting Pennsylvania and, in particular, the 13^th Congressional District a top priority.  She will look at the facts candidly and make rational decisions…rather than playing politics-as-usual.  Her ongoing priority will be to extend the existing tax cuts (which is a topic that is discussed under tax policy).

Marina Kats supports a prudent balance between globalization and protectionism, consistent with both existing free-trade agreements and the maintenance of fairness in commerce.  When other governments subsidize their corporations to function in a “predatory” fashion (or if they manipulate their currencies to maximize the ability of homegrown industries to thrive), this threat to open competition must be subject to penalizing their bidders for domestic contracts.  Existing agreements must be subject to renegotiation as conditions evolve; parameters employed may include prioritized American labor/environmental/safety rules.

Not only must we not permit shut-down of major American industries, we must build-up those that have been lost from when we were dominant in businesses that now flourish abroad (such as ship-building).  Thus, Marina supports fair deals with Korea (regarding cars) and with the Americas to the south, particularly with Colombia (which desperately needs economic and political support).

Our economy is struggling because the rules have been irrationally twisted and manipulated over the years to benefit some groups to the detriment of others.  They are no longer geared toward what people—consumers and businesses and workers—want and need for our economy to succeed.  (Our economy is also struggling due to the sudden surge in the cost of petroleum products, which is a topic that is discussed under energy policy.)  Regardless of political philosophy, people must be able to understand proposed remedies.

Taxes

Marina’s priority will be extending the temporary 2001-2003 tax cut bill, to stimulate the economy.  This is essential, especially in the economic climate that this region has been experiencing during the past two years. She also wants to work towards reducing the long term capital gains tax. Raising taxes will, without doubt, hurt the local economy; thus, she will oppose tax hikes.

Marina wants to overhaul the capital gains tax structure. Over taxation has always been a hindrance to long term economic growth. Currently our capital gains tax rates for individuals is divided into just two categories short-term capital gains and long-term capital gains. Short-term capital gains refer to realized profits on assets (stocks) held for less than a year while long-term gains refer to realized profits on assets held for more than one year. Short-term gains are taxed at the ordinary income tax rate while long-term gains are currently taxed at 15% for most people (5% for those in the lowest tax brackets). The 15% tax rate is actually a reduced rate that was enacted in 2003 and will revert back to a higher rate of about 20% in the year 2011 unless it is overridden with a new tax bill.

Consistent long term investment in our economy is a huge stimulus for economic growth which creates both jobs and new wealth for Americans. The jobs and wealth created by economic growth, in turn, produce a healthy tax base to fund government operations. Overtaxing these investments reduces the incentive for one to invest in the markets and interferes with our economy’s vitality and in the long run actually decreases the tax base.  As a catalyst to stimulate such investments and bring new capital into the marketplace Marina Kats is proposing that we restructure the capital gains tax so that the long-term tax rates are further reduced in accordance with the length of time an asset has been held. For example, assets held from 1 to 2 years would still be taxed at the current15 %, those assets held from 2 to 4 years would be taxed at 12%, from 4 to 6 years 9%, 6 to 8 years 6%, 8 to 10 years 3%, and all assets held more than 10 years would be taxed at a rate of 1.5%. By providing incentives for long term investing, we are providing the confidence to publically traded companies that the capital will be available that is needed to build up their businesses into profitable enterprises. For the investors who have chosen to keep their money in the market over longer time frames the payoff will be enhanced returns that are taxed at ever decreasing rates. Marina will keep the short-term capital gains tax as is.

She supports a provision of tax incentives to encourage automobile manufacturers to convert or to expand existing domestic facilities to produce advanced technology vehicles (hybrids and diesels), just as Brazil has been able to accomplish

To get our economy back on track, we have to fix some rules and eliminate others.  Elimination of a mandate that taxpayers itemize to obtain key benefits would allow middle-income families to “level the playing field” by being able to take advantage of the same credits as are invoked by upper-income families.  Everyone should be encouraged to promote savings and to invest in American companies, instead of enhancing debt.

Citizens can agree that the arcane, complex, disjointed tax code has these problems:

First, it does not satisfy its fundamental purpose (to raise money to fund government) because, instead, it serves as a tool for economic engineering. 

Second, it favors certain activities and creates loopholes to benefit a select few.  

Third, it does not keep pace with today’s economy and, thus, it forces individuals and families to make bad choices with their own money. 

Fourth, it empowers special interest groups because it encourages ongoing modification, year after year. 

Fifth, it is both unstable and unpredictable instead of simple and comprehensible. 

Therefore, the following changes should be made in the individual-tax code system:

First, the number of tax-brackets should be reduced from six to three (15% for lower-income, 25% for middle-income, and 30% for upper-income). 

Second, people should be able to elect to use a flat-tax, transitioning from the current progressive tax system (as Senator McCain has proposed).  Using a simple tax form—which is less than half the length of the current Form 1040—would save time, money and aggravation.  Implementing this streamlined system would both allow Americans to adjust to a system that better reflects the future economy and be more fair, for both families and businesses.

Third, the complicated set of loopholes should be eliminated.  People will have more faith in the tax system if they feel everyone (neighbors and business competitors) is paying his/her fair share. 

Fourth, a Family Tax Credit should be implemented, thereby reducing taxes for middle class families instead of penalizing married couples.  This would replace the process of claiming exemptions for each household member by establishing standard credits such as these:  $3,300 for all married couples, $2,800 for all unmarried taxpayers with a child, $1,650 credit for dependent taxpayers, and an additional $1,500 credit for each child and $500 for each other dependent. 

Fifth, the Alternative Minimum Tax should be repealed; it is unfair to middle-income families and, if allowed to remain, would raise the taxes of more than 52 million taxpayers by 2015.

Sixth, the “Death Tax” should be repealed.  It is wasteful and inefficient, and it raises barely over 1% of the total federal tax revenue; for every dollar it generates,         it prompts expenditure of another dollar on avoidance, administrative compliance, and enforcement costs. In addition, morally, it is unjustified to tax people’s savings heavily at the time of their deaths.

Seventh, a “Work Credit” should be created.  This would reward workers (particularly those in lower-income families), replacing the earned income tax credit.  Specifically, the credit should be increased for working families to $3,750 (with one child) and to $5,800 (with two or more children). 

Eighth, tax benefits for home ownership should be extended to all taxpayers, not just to the wealthy who itemize.  In this way, we should change the standard deduction to a credit equal to 15% of the mortgage-interest paid. 

Ninth, the availability of charitable-giving deductions should be expanded to all people who donate more than 1% of their income.  This would increase charitable giving and reduce the size of government by growing institutions that do a better job providing services to those in need.  It is also good for the soul.

Tenth, tax-free health insurance should be extended to all taxpayers, enabling everyone—not just those who receive insurance from their employers—to purchase health insurance with pre-tax dollars.

Eleventh, dividends in foreign companies should continue to be taxed at 15%, but 100% of dividends earned from U.S. companies should be excluded; in addition, 75% of capital gains from domestic companies should be excluded. This would immediately spur the economy and restore faith in the dollar by encouraging investment in American companies instead of forcing businesses to borrow. 

Twelfth, Social Security benefits should be taxed at 15%, rather than on a sliding-scale (depending on income and marital state) at varying levels.  Seniors should not be penalized by a system that gives with one hand and takes with the other.

Marina Kats wants to the following changes made in the tax-free savings-account system:

First, there should be only three simple tax-free savings accounts: at-work, health and education, and retirement.  Simplifying the system (pooling the current number of categories from a total of 15 alternatives) would enhance everyone’s understanding of the system and reduce costs.

Second, both health care and education costs should be saved in one account, to be used at a family’s discretion (for both school and doctor’s bills).  Each year, a family should be able to save $10,000, replacing specialized Health and Medical Savings Accounts (HSA’s and MSA’s).

Third, impediments to saving and investment must be removed.  It should be easier for employers to offer savings plans (instead of having to use middle-men) and everybody should be able to deposit $10,000 annually in a retirement account. 

Marina Kats wants the following changes made in the business-tax code system:

First, the tax reporting system should be changed to reflect how companies actually keep their records.   The current complicated, bloated, expensive, time-consuming system forces businesses to maintain two sets of records (one for how the business actually runs and the other for how the IRS wants it reported). 

Second, large businesses should be taxed at a single rate (approximately 30%), replacing the current use of eight brackets (which encourage them to juggle numbers to avoid paying their fair share).  Also, depreciation-rules should be updated, reflecting how best to encourage new investment in today’s economy.

Third, small businesses should continue to be taxed at the new individual rates.

Marina Kats believes that through a fully modernized and intelligently thought out taxation system we can accomplish both the necessary funding of the federal government and also vital economic stimulation. Economic stimulation through smart taxation policies is key to maintaining a self sufficient growing economy that also results in adequate tax revenue generation without unduly burdening individuals, small businesses, or even large corporations as all are vital elements in our economic structure. This is the positive feedback taxation system Marina Kats will work to achieve.

Education

Marina Kats is determined to bring excellence in education back to our local schools. This will not be accomplished by simply putting more money into stagnant public education systems. A fundamental shift in education must occur though competition at all levels.

Marina personally knows and understands from her own life experiences how priceless a good education is to our children. A quality education goes hand-in-hand with the ultimate economic self-sufficiency of an individual, their long range quality of life, and even one’s overall health throughout the course their lifetime. The quality of an American education has slipped in recent years due to many factors including: popular cultural phenomena such as the ever increasing acceptance, availability, and use of mind altering substances such as marijuana, alcohol, and other drugs amongst public school-aged children; the failure or inability of local school districts to maintain and enforce standards of excellence for their teaching staff; contractual requirements of teachers’ unions; agenda driven education policies; and a failure by adults to instill in our children at an early age the true value of an education all of which leads to a general attitude of indifference towards their schoolwork by too many of our young people.

Marina has a first-hand understanding of the education issues facing parents and their children today as she is raising two school-aged daughters of her own. She also knows that the efforts by so many parents to pass-on a value system of high moral standards and ethics to their own children are far too often thwarted once the children enter our public school systems.

For these reasons Marina Kats fervently supports the concept of school choice whereby parents are given more control over their children’s education. Parents and their children should be given the opportunity to select a school of their own preference, one that is in keeping with their own values and expectations of a high quality education. In conjunction with a viable school choice program Marina will also support tax credits and deductions for expenses related to schooling- including home schooling expenses, and school vouchers to attend nonpublic schools. While it is often argued that school choice is an expensive option, the reality is that privately run schools typically operate at a cost between 25% and 50% of a publically run education system and produces better-quality graduates. Competition is the cornerstone of our free market society; it is what is responsible for the prices of all goods and services. It forces the suppliers of these goods and service to produce the highest quality products at the lowest cost to the consumer. By giving parents a choice of schools we also force competition amongst the various education systems available for a child to attend. Such competition will break up and drain the stagnant pools of the uninspired and unaccountable; this will force inefficient ineffective school systems to either drastically improve their standards or face their own demise at the hands of better and more efficient education systems.

Marina also wants to see the education systems evaluated for effectiveness and efficiency in education. Those educators who don’t perform must be shown the door and those systems that fail to produce must be overhauled. A system of genuine accountability must be implemented. One’s job security and career track must be directly linked to one’s ability to effectively educate our children. The low expectations and standards that have become the norm in so many schools cannot be allowed to continue; the future of our nation and the viability of our local economy acutely depends upon having a highly educated population that is able to comprehend and address a universe of increasingly complex issues. We must also be able to compete against the ever increasing educational standards of the international community, many of whom are our sworn enemies.

Marina also strongly believes that English should be the official language of the United States of America and therefore every child graduating from a high school in our country must be proficient in the English language before receiving his or her diploma.    

Immigration Policy

Marina Kats will take a firm stance on illegal immigration. Marina immigrated to this country legally, along with many others, from the Ukraine, part of the former Soviet Union, but only after an extensive review process including a verification of her credentials by the US government. She believes that the same should continue going forward for everyone who wants to immigrate to the United States. Historically, the United States has been a melting-pot of immigrant citizens who have enhanced economic prosperity and social foundations, and we must welcome those who wish to come here legally and to accept American values and principles in the process.

Illegal immigration is a huge problem for the United States. It threatens our national security, the very existence of our nation and the American culture as we know it. What’s more, the problem is perpetuated by all levels of government. Blanket amnesty for people who came here by illegal means is wrong, for it is unfair to those who patiently await the opportunity to come here legally.

Marina would like to see a comprehensive policy of immigration reform enacted but not before our borders are under strict control so that we have a very accurate accounting of who is crossing into and out of our country. Legal, controlled, and governed immigration is good for America, but illegal immigration is akin to permitting anarchy and chaos in our society. It is crucial that every newcomer have a stake in making America a better country for all Americans.

Stemming from a fundamental belief in the rule of law, illegal immigrants should not be afforded the same privileges as full citizens (such as unionizing rights). Marina Kats oppose taxpayer-funded housing, education and healthcare for illegal immigrants, as it provides an unfair advantage to those who have broken our laws while those who abide by our laws struggle economically. For example, once illegals have received emergency care, their presence should be made known to federal immigration officials.

Marina Kats will support efforts by the federal government to ensure that the borders are secure. Marina will also fight the efforts of local governments across our nation to circumvent federal immigration laws and act as sanctuary cities. Local agencies that fail to notify ICE when they encounter illegal aliens (some of whom are in police custody, charged with the commission of felony crimes) make a mockery of our legal system and our immigration laws. Marina will support the revocation of federal funding to localities that have sanctuary policies for illegal immigrants. Marina believes that we should not be providing jobs or social services to those who have committed the crime of entering our country without proper permission and who continue to disobey our laws.

Marina also supports using our military assets to secure our southern border with Mexico. The essential role of every nation’s military is to defend its borders and America is no different. Border security could be accomplished more efficiently if this effort received the full backing of the military. We must secure the border promptly, and the military is best suited to undertake this huge project on short notice.

A border fence by itself won't do it.  More border patrol agents by themselves won't do it. More interior enforcement by itself won't do it.  More technology by itself won't do it.  Employer sanctions alone won't do it.  But all those things together will do it, reduce the level of illegal immigration (currently ~800,000 annually) below the level of natural attrition (currently ~400,000 annually), and give us a functional immigration law system. Once our borders are secure, we can then determine the best way to address those who have entered our country illegally, while allowing us to keep our economy vibrant. 

Marina Kats strongly supports legal immigration; indeed, it should be increased to fuel the economy. That is why we should both expand the number of annual visas for skilled workers and establish a guest-working program to provide opportunity for unskilled workers who urgently want to provide a better life for themselves and their families. But cheap labor provided by illegals only serves to hurt American-citizen contractors and union members.

Marina supports expanding the H1 and Guest Worker visa programs as long as doing so does not take away jobs from Americans and as long as the people admitted on these visas are properly screened for potential health and security risks, including industrial spying and espionage. From day one these people will be able to legally contribute to the tax base of our country and will be expected to do so.

Marina also believes that English must be the official language of the United States. It should be the only language used in official government transactions at all levels (local, state, and federal). A multilingual nation really is not a nation if one ethnic group can’t communicate with another because the people are from different parts of the world and don’t speak the same language. Rather, such a condition rapidly deteriorates the core and fabric of a nation. The resulting vulcanized hodge-podge of subcultures occupying the same land mass would result in chaos, resembling a third-world nation. While native languages should be cherished and promoted within families and cultures, we have reached a point where the confluence of immigration rates and modern communications justify the establishment of English as the official language. 

This is how Marina summarizes her perspective on this gut-wrenching concern, and its implications:  “We must be careful not to lose sight of what it is that makes us a nation. To be sure, I’m not saying that one must give up his or her ethnic heritage and pride in order to be a proper American. I am myself an immigrant to this nation and I am quite proud of my ancestry and my heritage. I love the richness of this nation and of the innumerable cultures that have come together to make this nation so great. There, however, must be a common thread that ties us all together as a nation; the English language is one of the essential fibers in this thread that keeps us firmly bound together.” 

Energy Independence

Marina Kats ardently believes America’s comprehensive energy policy must achieve independence from oil imports as soon as possible, for this constitutes a national security emergency. By substantially increasing our domestic oil production we will regain control of gasoline pricing as well as a large portion of our economy from the foreign oil producers whose interests are often times diametrically opposed to those of the United States and our closest allies. A practical energy policy must include further exploration and drilling of our domestic oil and natural gas reserves. There is no easier or more direct way to prove to the world that we will no longer be subject to the whims of others than to expand our production capabilities. We have trillions of dollars worth of oil and gas reserves in the U.S. at a time we are exporting hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas to buy energy. This is the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind. We should keep more of our dollars here in the U.S., lessen our foreign dependency, increase our domestic supplies, and reduce our trade deficit - 41% of which is due to oil imports. A long range objective of the comprehensive energy policy will be to develop viable alternative energy sources such as; wind, solar, hydrogen cells, and bio fuels. Marina believes that it would not be a reasonable policy to allow our dependence on foreign fuel sources to continue to grow without limit especially in light of the most recent developments in our relationship with Russia.

Marina is in favor of preserving our environment and she understands that domestic oil exploration can be accomplished using new eco-friendly methods to drill. Modern technologies allow crude oil extraction to be accomplished proficiently and in an ecologically-safe fashion, rendering this process efficient and environmentally-friendly. The ecological impact of the Alaskan pipeline has been minimal; similar or even better results could be obtained in ANWR. Harvesting reserves in ANWR is feasible and such drilling would benefit America without harming the ecology. A harmonious relationship can be developed between the local ecology and the needs of our economy. Marina would also like to have a significant portion of the monies obtained from the ANWR oil production used for ecological preservation projects in that region as well as being used to perfect our drilling technology for future explorations.

Marina Kats also supports offshore drilling. The rigs in the Gulf of Mexico have weathered many hurricanes with very few incidents of any note. It can be done safely, and it should be permitted. She fully recognizes the urgent need to drill as soon as possible, at as many locations as is feasible.

In her opinion our shale-oil reserves, such as in Colorado, should also be developed.

Marina Kats wants to put significant resources into the development of alternative fuel source technologies such as solar, wind, bio,  and geothermal. She would like to see individual homeowners given tax-incentives to install solar-panels or even wind turbines to supplement their use of public utility energy sources. In support of these efforts she will work to obtain R&D funding for local companies focused on developing feasible alternative fuels and the related technologies required to integrate these new energy sources into our society.

In summary Marina Kats supports efforts to:

• Increase the production of American-made energy in an environmentally-safe way (including drilling off-shore and in ANWAR).
• Increase use of nuclear energy.
• Increase and upgrade the petroleum refining industry.
• Develop new, clean, and reliable sources of energy, such as solar-power.
• Cut red tape and burdensome regulations that restrict production and drive up prices
• Achieve greater energy efficiency and encourage conservation.
• Provide tax-incentives towards purchase of hybrid automobiles.

Dealing with Iran

Marina Kats understands that we cannot ever allow rouge states such as Iran to dictate the course of events in the world because our lives and our freedoms are at stake. She does not support preventive warfare, attacking another sovereign country without having first been provoked. Marina, however, is wise enough to understand that we all must learn from the lessons of history. For example, opposing Hitler in the 1930’s, could have precluded World War II in the 1940’s. The Iranian leader sounds very much like the Hitler of our times. He wants to kill the Jews, he wants to wipe Israel off the map, and then he wants to destroy the United States of America and Western culture. He has referred to Israel and the United States respectively as the Little Satan and the Big Satan. Marina Kats will never passively sit by and let any of these things occur. She will take a proactive approach in Congress ensuring that we act first to prevent a disaster. She understands, as well, that it is our responsibility to determine how much of what Ahmadinejad is bellowing is just hot air and what is truly an actionable threat on the part of the Iranian government. She, therefore, fully supports bolstering our intelligence agencies (CIA, NSA, and DIA) and giving them the full powers they need to fulfill their vital missions to protect the citizens of the United States of America. Early-on, in the conflict with Iraq, our intelligence failed us to some degree and, thus, we cannot afford to have such failures repeat themselves in Iran. The stakes are just too great. The development of deployable weapons of mass destruction by an unstable regime --- that supports international terrorist organizations, has supported our enemies in Iraq by providing them with weapons that have killed our soldiers, and is hell-bent on destroying us and our closest allies --- can reasonably be construed as a provocation of the highest magnitude on the part of the extremist government of Iran.

Marina Kats will work with the governments of the United States, Israel, and our Arab allies to ensure through every means possible that Iran never obtains the ability to deploy any weapon of mass destruction.

Marina Kats will only support the deployment of American military personnel into harms way so long as she is satisfied that their missions and the determination of the U.S. leadership at the highest levels of government are always guided by two overarching goals: (1)—we must unconditionally defeat the enemy, and (2)—the loss of American blood must be minimized. Marina will further require that these two goals be met through the use of crushing force against the enemies. She will never support allowing our troops to enter any conflict “holding back our fists”, with the unrealistic hope that we won’t get hit back hard in return. History has shown that such hesitation to use massive force always leads to protracted conflicts. Marina Kats believes that the use of overwhelming force is the only way to win convincingly, and it also sends a clear message to any other potential advisories that they might meet the same fate should they challenge the United States with violent aggression. This is exactly the message radical Islamists need to hear form the United States. It’s the only message they understand, and it is the message that Marina Kats is more than willing to send to our enemies.

The U. S. Role in Iraq

Marina Kats believes that it is essential for our nation to fully support the fledgling democratic government in Iraq. Marina understands that setting precise time tables, as opposed to using clearly defined milestone objectives, to determine the schedule for the U.S. to withdrawal its troops from Iraqi soil would be a grievous mistake both strategically and morally. The enemies of the Iraqi government are also the enemies of the United States of America. Should the U.S. withdrawal its troops prior to the time when the Iraqis are: a) completely capable of governing themselves and - most importantly - b) completely able to provide for their own national security; the door would left wide open for terrorist entities such as Al Qaeda and terrorist states such as Iran to cannibalize the democratic Iraqi nation by provoking sectarian tensions and promoting a civil war.

An unstable Iraq would upset the delicate balance of power in the Middle East and Persian Gulf region that is so crucial to maintain. A premature American withdrawal would result in Iraq deteriorating into a bloody cesspool providing the perfect breeding grounds for future generations of radical terrorists hell-bent on destroying the U.S., Israel, and any other state that holds freedom and liberty as cherished values.

For these reasons Marina Kats has and will support the “Surge” that is helping us win the war in Iraq; “we must remain resilient in this theater and bring the conflict to a satisfactory conclusion by ensuring that the democratic Iraqi government annihilates the radical extremist elements that seek its ruin. In such a situation, I don’t believe that we can set an absolute timetable for the complete withdrawal of our military personnel.”

Marina Kats also understands that the cost of the war in Iraq has taken a great toll on the American treasury and she does believe that the financial cost of the war can still be offset by the sale of Iraqi oil. She supports an informal “oil for freedom” policy. The Iraqi nation has one of the richest reserves of oil to be found anywhere on earth. One way in which the war was originally going to be funded was through the proceeds generated from the sale of Iraqi oil, but this has never come to fruition. It is not too late now. Marina Kats believes that the people of the United States deserve this, and it would be especially appreciated in this era of high fuel prices and uncertainty in future oil supplies. The United States has given the Iraqi people the precious gift of freedom and exterminated a terribly vicious dictator along with his entire regime. Therefore, as part of the newly-negotiated agreement that will replace the UN-sanctioned role at year’s end, our nation deeply deserves to get some compensation for all of our many sacrifices of precious American blood and treasure to accomplish this end for the Iraqi people. Thus, for example, an Iraqi Air Force does not exist; it is appropriate that our armaments be purchased rather than bequeathed, as the country builds a complete military force.

Marina supports strengthening the US-led effort to stabilize Iraq, whether it is through the UN or through any other entities (such as NATO or a coalition-of-the-willing).  This would include supporting Iraq’s effort to hold regional elections, for such action would enhance international recognition of Iraq’s achievements.  As a result, it is anticipated that other countries will supplement efforts to satisfy ongoing humanitarian missions such as promoting national reconciliation, facilitating regional dialogue, and helping refugees resettle and prosper

Policy Overview –

An Interview with Marina Kats, Esquire

Candidate for U.S. Congress in Pennsylvania’s 13^th Congressional District

An interview conducted by Kerry I. Litvin, Ph.D.

With the editorial input of Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.

August 7, 2008

1)      If elected to the US Congress, what would be your top three legislative priorities that you would work on for the people of Pennsylvania’s 13th Congressional District?

M.K. Number one, extending the 2001-2003 tax cut bill is essential, especially in the economic climate that this region has been experiencing over the past two years. I also want to work towards reducing the long term capital gains tax. Raising taxes will, without doubt, hurt the local economy.

Number two, this region, along with the entire country, must have a comprehensive energy policy that includes further exploration and drilling of domestic oil sources. The program must also include a means for introducing various alternative energy sources such as wind, solar, and some bio fuels. This could be turned into a great advantage for the people of the 13^th Congressional District, as I will propose vastly increasing the R&D dollars for companies and university programs in the District performing vital research into alternative energy sources.

Number three, our immigration policy needs a drastic overhaul. It should include comprehensive border security measures while also providing for a sufficient workforce to serve the economic needs of those employers who hire foreigners that are legitimately permitted to work in the United States.

2)      Do you have any special interest connections, financial or otherwise, that might possibly influence your future legislative agenda or your voting record? Are you susceptible to any outside pressures (domestic or foreign) that might compromise your ability to devote yourself to always working for the best interests of your constituents in the 13^th Congressional District of Pennsylvania?

M.K. I do not have any special interest connections, financial or otherwise, that could influence my legislative agenda or my voting record in the Congress, should I be elected in November. I am not susceptible to any outside pressure groups; I am a self-made professional business woman. The associates in my firm and I have achieved our great private-sector success with much hard work and devotion to our clients’ needs. We have earned our livings honestly and owe no special favors to anyone. We are producers, not takers of tax monies. My only allegiance is to the people of the 13^th Congressional District and to our nation. I am only beholden to the constituency of 13^th District and I will always work on their collective behalf in the Congress.

3)      Do you have a personal biography that you can provide?

M.K. Yes I have a detailed biography. (Marina’s bio has been appended to the end of this interview.)

4)      Are you a member of the ACLU or the National Lawyers Guild?

M.K. I am not a member of the ACLU. I am not a member of the National Lawyers Guild.

5)      Which Bar Associations have you been admitted into?

M.K. I have been admitted into the Bar Associations of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and Washington D.C.

6)      If people would like to learn more about you, your policies, or your campaign where can they look?

M.K. This information can be found on my campaign website. The internet address is: http://www.katsforcongress.com/.

They can also call my campaign headquarters in Huntingdon Valley, PA at:

Economy, Taxes, and the Local Infrastructure

 1)      Investors and corporations consistently complain that the capital gains tax is a huge burden on the economy because it severely reduces the incentive for placing money into the markets. Consequently it hinders the growth of corporations that would have created new jobs and more wealth for investors. Do you agree with these notions and, if so, do you have a proposal to remedy this situation?

M.K. I agree with these notions. Over taxation has always been a hindrance to long term economic growth. Currently our capital gains tax rates for individuals is divided into just two categories short-term capital gains and long-term capital gains. Short-term capital gains refer to realized profits on assets (stocks) held for less than a year while long-term gains refer to realized profits on assets held for more than one year. Short-term gains are taxed at the ordinary income tax rate while long-term gains are currently taxed at 15% for most people (5% for those in the lowest tax brackets). The 15% tax rate is actually a reduced rate that was enacted in 2003 and will revert back to a higher rate of about 20% in the year 2011 unless it is overridden with a new tax bill.

Consistent long term investment in our economy is a huge stimulus for economic growth which creates both jobs and new wealth for Americans. The jobs and wealth created by economic growth, in turn, produce a healthy tax base to fund government operations. Overtaxing these investments reduces the incentive for one to invest in the markets and interferes with our economy’s vitality and in the long run actually decreases the tax base. As a catalyst to stimulate such investments and bring new capital into the marketplace I propose that we restructure the capital gains tax so that the long-term tax rates are further reduced in accordance with the length of time an asset has been held. For example, assets held from 1 to 2 years would still be taxed at the current15 %, those assets held from 2 to 4 years would be taxed at 12%, from 4 to 6 years 9%, 6 to 8 years 6%, 8 to 10 years 3%, and all assets held more than 10 years would be taxed at a rate of 1.5%. By providing incentives for long term investing, we are providing the confidence to publically traded companies that the capital will be available that is needed to build up their businesses into profitable enterprises. For the investors who have chosen to keep their money in the market over longer time frames the payoff will be enhanced returns that are taxed at ever decreasing rates. I would keep the short-term capital gains tax as is.

2)      Currently, it seems this region’s primary high-tech industries are chemicals and pharmaceuticals; otherwise, there are perhaps four big-name firms in this area (Unisys, Lockheed Martin, L3, and Motorola). It is severely lagging behind other sections of the country in most every high-tech field of endeavor such as modern electronics, energy, and optics. Do you have a plan or vision for spawning development of high-tech industries in our region? 

M.K. Optimal job creation in the 13^th Congressional District will be in highly-skilled positions in high-tech industries. To attract these companies, we need both to foster the education of a pool of well-prepared people to fill such positions as they become available and to promote research in local universities through increased funding of research grants.  Enhancing education and research would dovetail while supporting the state-of-the-art advances that traditionally have been generated in the Delaware Valley throughout the fields of science, technology, and medicine. Seed money can be particularly beneficial when such vital work is in the initial concept and incubation stages of development.

3)      What should be done with the land used by the Willow Grove Naval Air Station?

M.K. The local residence of the area, whose lives will be most directly impacted by whatever might become of this land, should have the final say in approving its development for any proposed land-use project. I will completely support the will of the local constituency in the vicinity of NAS Willow Grove. I definitely oppose any use of the land as a commercial airport. Just as the Naval Yard has been industrialized, the Naval Air Station’s land can be used as a business park for high-tech companies and their manufacturing operations. To do so, it may be necessary to enact tax incentives to encourage private companies to relocate within the 13^th District. Ultimately, the local residents—whose lives will be most directly impacted by whatever might occur—must have the final say in approving any proposed redevelopment project.

4)      What are your priorities regarding the need to rebuild the local infrastructure?   How would you attract funding to accomplish it?

M.K. Economic growth for the region will only proceed if our local infrastructure can easily accommodate it. Such development must always strike the delicate balance between growing the economic base in the region while also maintaining, to the greatest extent possible, the quaintness of our many neighborhoods and communities. Quiet residential streets must not be converted into bustling four lane highways. That said, the transportation system must be modernized, both roads and railroads. The former will entail use of federal highway development funds to accommodate increased traffic volume by performing much-needed roadway and bridge repairs and upgrades. The latter will entail rethinking how public-private partnerships can spawn additional modes of public transportation to accelerate redevelopment of our region to befit this new millennium.

5)      Many firms (ranging from high-tech industries to traditional factories) outsource much of their labor (ranging from engineering and R&D, to production-line jobs) to overseas facilities (such as in India, Mexico and China). The US economy is rapidly converting from a manufacturing-based market to a service-based system; even vital defense technology contracts are now awarded to overseas companies. Some fear that, soon, we may not be able to build anything in America and our economy’s worldwide competitiveness will lag. How do you think this can be stopped? What specific proposals would you put forth that would make it more feasible for the private sector to keep the jobs they create in domestic hands?

M.K. We need to have better training and education for our people both locally and nationally, so that domestic corporations always have a vast pool of highly skilled Americans from whom to select. Additionally, the economic equation must be turned in favor of domestic manufacturing. If the costs of domestic manufacturing are so prohibitive that it makes financial sense to build products oversees, we need to examine our import and export tariff regulations and those of our foreign trading partners to ensure that American companies are always getting a fair deal.  Ultimately, transportation costs may restore some balance to the economic realities faced by companies and consumers alike. Also, enacting tax incentives and eliminating onerous regulations would spur local businesses.

Global Warming and Energy Policy

1)      Is it your understanding that global warming is not a truly urgent issue or do you tend to agree with those most loudly sounding the global warming alarms?

M.K. Global warming is not an imminent emergency and it should therefore be addressed in a correspondingly calm and deliberate manner. We should neither jump to gloomy conclusions, nor make drastic changes to our lives in the immediate or foreseeable future. Much of the rhetoric of the “global warmers” should be toned-down because, upon closer scrutiny, their cries of impending doom recall verbalizations of the irrational thoughts of someone in the throws of a panic attack. All of the data must be carefully reexamined by trusted scientists and policy-makers without preconceived notions and without an agenda to promulgate.

2)      The price of gasoline is on everyone’s mind these days and it is the catalyst for much of the inflation the US has been experiencing; yet, the US is known to have rich oil reserves located throughout the country and off its coasts. Crude oil extraction technology has progressed substantially over the past few decades so that it is more accurate, efficient, and environmentally friendly. Do you support drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR)? How about off-shore drilling? How would you balance preserving the environment and satisfying energy needs?

M.K. Modern technologies allow crude oil extraction to be accomplished proficiently and in an ecologically-safe fashion, rendering this process efficient and environmentally-friendly. The ecological impact of the Alaskan pipeline has been minimal; similar or even better results could be obtained in ANWR. Harvesting reserves in ANWR is feasible and such drilling would benefit America without harming the ecology. A harmonious relationship can be developed between the local ecology and the needs of our economy. A significant portion of the monies obtained from the ANWR oil should be used for ecological preservation projects in that region as well as being used to perfect our drilling technology for future explorations. I do support offshore drilling. The rigs in the Gulf of Mexico have weathered many hurricanes with very few incidents of any note. It can be done safely, and it should be permitted. Our shale-oil reserves, such as in Colorado, should also be developed.

It is our responsibility to leave the Earth in as good a condition as we received it or preferably in much better shape for our children. We must show the future generations of Americans how to balance exploiting our natural resources, protecting the ecological systems in which these resources are found, and preserving the environment. This can be done through education and research into advanced technologies for extracting energy sources with ecological and environmental considerations taken into account as a priority.

3)      Some endorse switching to bio-fuels such as ethanol, but ethanol contains much less combustible energy, gallon-for-gallon, compared to ordinary gasoline.  Also, using corn to produce ethanol would predictably increase the cost of many foods. Is it economical to promote the use of solar, wind, geothermal or bio-fuels? Should the government fund basic R&D in these areas? If deemed feasible, how can alternative energy sources be put to good use in our region?  

M.K. Ethanol may be somewhat of a gimmick because, as you mentioned, the chemical energy required for combustion simply does not compare to the yield of ordinary gasoline. I’m not completely convinced that converting land used to produce food into ethanol production farmland will have quite the severe impact on food prices as some might predict. However, future studies are necessary before any resources are committed.

Implementing alternative fuel source technology—such as solar, wind and geothermal—can be encouraged where appropriate. For example, individual homeowners could be given tax-incentives to install solar-panels or even wind turbines to supplement their use of public utilities. Expanding R&D funding to local companies should be focused on developing feasible methods by which this technology can be integrated into our society. These companies must, however, be held accountable for their grant monies, we need to see tangible and marketable results from their efforts.

Immigration, the English Language, and Foreign Affairs

1)      How great a problem is illegal immigration? Which immigration reform proposals do you support?

M.K. Illegal immigration is a huge problem for the United States. It threatens our national security, the very existence of our nation and the American culture as we know it. What’s more, the problem is perpetuated by all levels of government. Blanket amnesty for people who came here by illegal means is wrong, for it is unfair to those who patiently await the opportunity to come here legally. The Federal government should ensure the borders are secure. State governments should not fund social services such as non-emergency medical care and education. Local agencies—such as the city of San Francisco—that routinely fail to notify ICE when they encounter illegal aliens make a mockery of our legal system and our immigration laws. Thus, such “sanctuary cities” should be denied federal funding. We should not be providing jobs or social services to those who have committed the crime of entering our country without proper permission and who continue to disobey our laws.

Legal, controlled and governed immigration is good for America, but illegal immigration is akin to permitting anarchy and chaos in our society. The process of learning English so that we all speak a common language is vital for immigrants so that they can become fully capable to function productively in our society. It is crucial that every newcomer have a stake in making America a better country for all Americans.

I support expanding the H1 and Guest Worker visa programs as long as doing so does not take away jobs from Americans and as long as the people admitted on these visas are properly screened for potential health and security risks, including industrial spying and espionage. From day one these people will be able to legally contribute to the tax base of our country and will be expected to do so.

2)      Some propose that a policy of “oil for illegals” could be enacted, whereby Mexico would supply the U.S. with oil in return for America not deporting illegal aliens and using the oil revenue to offset the social service costs of schooling their children and providing medical and other social service to these people. Would you support such a program?

M.K. No. The Mexican government would never approve of such a program and America would never pursue such a policy. It’s a moot point.

Years ago, I came here legally, along with many others, from the Ukraine, part of the former Soviet Union, after an extensive review process including a verification of our credentials by the US government. The same should continue going forward for everyone who wants to immigrate to the United States.

3)      Where do you stand on declaring English as the official language of the United States? Do you think it is helpful to have multi-language government documents and/or voting ballets?

M.K. English should be the official language of the United States of America and, therefore, it should be the only language used in official government transactions at all levels (local, state, and federal). A multilingual nation really is not a nation if one ethnic group can’t communicate with another because the people are from different parts of the world and don’t speak the same language. Rather, such a condition rapidly deteriorates the core and fabric of a nation. The resulting vulcanized hodge-podge of subcultures occupying the same land mass would result in chaos, resembling a third-world nation. We must be careful not to lose sight of what it is that makes us a nation. To be sure, I’m not saying that one must give up his or her ethnic heritage and pride in order to be a proper American. As an immigrant to this nation I am quite proud of my ancestry and my heritage. I love the richness of this nation and of the innumerable cultures that have come together to make this nation so great. There, however, must be a common thread that ties us all together as a nation; the English language is one of the essential fibers in this thread that keeps us firmly bound together. 

4)      The basic entities that define a nation are its borders, its language, and its culture. Would you support using the US military to defend our southern border against illegal immigration?

M.K. The essential role of every nation’s military is to defend its borders and America is no different. Border security could be accomplished more efficiently if this effort received the full backing of the military. We certainly should not wage a violent assault on illegals, but we must secure the border promptly. If our neighbors to the south get the message that it is futile to even attempt an illegal border crossing the problem will eventually dissipate.

5)      Some say the original plan to fund the Iraqi war was to provide the people freedom in exchange for a supply of oil, so that we would not bankrupt our national treasury during the process of liberating them. Do you support the war in Iraq? How should it be brought to a conclusion? What would be a satisfactory outcome? Could you support a “freedom for oil” policy?

M.K. We are deeply entrenched in this arena and our military actions have drastically perturbed the political landscape throughout the Middle East. Therefore, I support the “Surge” that is helping us win the war in Iraq; we must remain resilient in this theater and bring the conflict to a satisfactory conclusion by ensuring that the democratic Iraqi government annihilates the radical extremist elements that seek its ruin. In such a situation, I don’t believe that we can set an absolute timetable for the complete withdrawal of our military personnel.

I support an informal “oil for freedom” policy. The Iraqi nation has one of the richest reserves of oil to be found anywhere on earth. One way in which the war was originally going to be funded was through the proceeds generated from the sale of Iraqi oil, but this has never come to fruition. It is not too late now. The people of the United States deserve this, and it would be especially appreciated in this era of high fuel prices and uncertainty in future oil supplies. We have given the Iraqi people the precious gift of freedom and exterminated a terribly vicious dictator along with his entire regime. Therefore, as part of the newly-negotiated agreement that will replace the UN-sanctioned role at year’s end, our nation deeply deserves to get some compensation for all of our many sacrifices of precious American blood and treasure to accomplish this end for the Iraqi people. Thus, for example, an Iraqi Air Force does not exist; it is appropriate that our armaments be purchased rather than bequeathed, as the country builds a complete military force.

6)      The US has the most powerful military in the world, but we refuse to use any of this modern weaponry against the Iranians. For example, last year, the Iranians took British sailors as prisoners and we did nothing. Also, we did nothing after Iranian rubber boats approached our war ships in the gulf. In light of Iran’s nuclear program and the threat it brings to the world, do you believe the US should be more or less aggressive with its military might in such situations? Would you support a US-led attack on Iranian nuclear and military facilities?

M.K. I do not support preventive warfare, attacking another sovereign country without having first been provoked. Nevertheless, we must learn from the lessons of history.  Had Hitler been assassinated in the 1930’s, much of World War II would have been completely avoided.  The Iranian leader sounds very much like the Hitler of our times.  He wants to kill the Jews, he wants to wipe Israel off the map, and then he wants to destroy the United States of America and Western culture. We must never let any of these things occur. It is our responsibility to determine how much of what Ahmadinejad is bellowing is just hot air and what is truly an actionable threat on the part of the Iranian government. Our intelligence failed us to some degree in Iraq and, thus, we cannot afford to have such failures repeat themselves in Iran. The stakes are just too great. The development of deployable weapons of mass destruction by an unstable regime --- that supports international terrorist organizations, has supported our enemies in Iraq by providing them with weapons that have killed our soldiers, and is hell-bent on destroying us and our closest allies --- can reasonably be construed as a provocation of the highest magnitude on the part of the extremist government of Iran.

The United States, Israel, and our Arab allies must ensure through every means possible that Iran never obtains the ability to deploy any weapon of mass destruction.

We must have two overarching goals when deploying our military: (1)—we must unconditionally defeat the enemy, and (2)—the loss of American blood must be minimized. These two goals are only achievable by using crushing force against the enemies. We cannot go into a conflict holding back our fists, and then hope we don’t get hit back hard in return. This always leads to protracted conflicts. Overwhelming force is the only way to win convincingly, and it also sends a clear message to any other potential advisories that they might meet the same fate should they challenge the United States with violent aggression. This is exactly the message radical Islamists need to hear form the United States. It’s the only message they understand.

7)      Should the US consider an attack on Israel as an attack on the US? To what extent should the United States expend the national treasure and US lives in defending Israel? Would you support a preemptive attack on Iran by the Israelis? Would you support US military action in defense of Israel?

M.K. Yes, we should consider an attack on Israel as an attack upon the United States. The US and Israel are sister states and Israel is our only true democratic ally in the Middle East. Israelis have provided vital intelligence to us and they have carried out some seemingly impossible military strikes against sworn enemies of the US and Western societies. Who can forget their raid on the Iraqi nuclear facility at Osirak? The entire world was relieved when that threat was removed, although few admitted this fact publicly. This will probably be the case again in Iran. This is why we must support Israel. Think what you want but Israeli intelligence and military ultimately make the world a much safer place for all free people. This is particularly true for the citizens of the United States as well as Western Europe.  We should avoid, whenever possible, the loss of US lives in combat but, if Israel truly needed us to come to her aid militarily, we must take action.   In this scenario, we should defend Israel to the same extent and with the same vigor that we would defend our own nation.

8)      The Russian government under Putin (and Medvedev, his successor) has become less and less supportive of American interests; for example, it has been arming Iran and may also assist Venezuela. Some observers believe Americans have been “played for fools” and, for the past several years, may have relinquished a great deal of vital intelligence and sensitive technology. Much of Putin’s top leadership were former members of the KGB. In recent weeks, the Russian Foreign Minister issued a very thinly-veiled threat to the US with regard to the US placing defensive missiles in Eastern Europe to defend against Iranian missiles; through NATO, we are planning to deploy missile defense radar in the Czech Republic and interceptor missiles in Poland.  Russia has threatened to consider re-arming Cuba should this occur, arguing that the missile shield would severely undermine the balance of European security. Further, it regards the proposed missile shield based in two former Communist countries as a hostile move, despite the fact that it is overtly intended to defend against an Iranian attack.   It is also alleged that the KGB is up and running international operations again, including assassinations (poisonings in London and elsewhere). 

What is your opinion on US-Russian relations? Why should or shouldn’t we trust them? Should the US foster business relations with the Russians?

M.K. We should not blindly trust the Russians. “Trust but verify” was the mantra of President Ronald Reagan’s administration when he defeated the USSR, and it must always be applied when dealing with the Russian government. Our relationships with this country should be handled intelligently using a very well thought-out process. They can be a very shrewd opponent, ready to pounce on any weakness that a potential adversary might display.   Finally, we should promote business and economic relations with them, and indeed, with any country where such relations serve the best interests of the United States but we must always be very careful to guard against revealing sensitive technological or industrial trade secrets.

9)      What about your own personal dealings? What sort of business interests do you have in Russia and elsewhere abroad? Do you have any conflicts of interest? Will you always be able to put the interests, well-being, and security of the United States ahead of your own business and personal interests in foreign countries?

M.K. I have friends and acquaintances back in the countries that comprised the former Soviet Union, but I have no business interests or dealings there. Indeed, I have no personal economic interests with any foreign country. I have absolutely no relationships that could present a conflict of interest should I be elected to the US House of Representatives for the 13^th Congressional District of Pennsylvania. I have only one allegiance and that is to my country, the United States of America. I will always without exception put the interests, well-being and security of the United States of America before any and all other interests. There is absolutely no question about this in my mind. Furthermore, I will always put the interests of the residents of the 13^th Pennsylvania Congressional District above all else while serving as their representative to the US Congress.

10) The Chinese government has behaved in a fashion that is comparable to that of the Russian government. In fact, they might be even more dangerous to the US and our allies. Should we really be fostering economic relations with a country that has an abysmal human rights record, no regard for dissenters, has the world’s largest military, steal’s trade, technology, and military secrets from the US on an almost daily basis and completely disregards international intellectual property agreements such as patents and trademarks?

Government Subsidies and Agenda Driven Education

1)      Do you think the social engineering programs of the left that have been implemented over the past 40 years had any benefit, or have they simply created a dependent under-class of relatively unproductive citizens?

M.K. These programs and policies have created innumerable social problems. It’s a classic case of the medicine being worse than the ailment. Such programs have created populations with no marketable job skills, who are going to be dependent upon government handouts and social services in order just to survive over the course of their entire lives. Unfortunately, this dependent lifestyle is too-often “inherited” from one generation to the next through various societal ailments such as teenage pregnancy.

Therefore, yes, an underclass of citizens has been created, whose primary source of income is in the form of government handouts. This, in turn, has created a market for politicians and so-called activists who rely entirely on the support of these people to foster their own careers. This is a very bad situation because what has been created is an endless cycle of people in need and politicians being elected into office who promise to fulfill their needs through more government programs and subsidies.

This welfare is being funded by the hard-working American taxpayers from all socioeconomic backgrounds. We need to think long and hard about breaking this cycle of hopelessness that adds nothing to our society, instead yielding generation after generation of misery.

The way out is through education and also by putting those adults of sound mind and body to work in a productive manner. Some say illegal immigrants are performing the jobs that Americans refuse to do; I say we must encourage these adults to become productive citizens, for we need to return the American Dream to all Americans, especially those who are living below the poverty line or surviving on government subsistence funding.

I entered this country legally with practically nothing, and not speaking even one word of English, I worked the menial jobs, educated myself, built my career, and now I’m running for the US Congress so that I can give something back to this great country. If I can do this, then why can’t people who were born here follow their own paths to some sort of self sufficient success, no matter where their starting point in life might be?

The answer to this question is that the social welfare programs have been an unmitigated disaster and they, in fact, have sabotaged the possibility for success of so many poor impoverished Americans by de facto removing their motivation to work or even educate themselves. These programs need a complete overhauling, they are a huge burden on the taxpayers, and the reward for those who partake in them is only short term day-to-day government dependency as opposed to long term self- productive self- sufficiency.

Marina Kats – Biographical Sketch

Marina Kats is an independent thinker who will serve in Washington as a prudent decision maker to restore our government’s ability to deliver on the best interests of its citizens.

Marina came from the former Soviet Union in 1979, as a teenager, with no money and no understanding of the English language. Her first order of business was to learn as much English as possible as it became clear to her that the keys to success in America were education and hard work. Marina enrolled in community college, followed by Temple Business School, then Temple University School of Law, and concluded with an LLM in Trial Advocacy. She now proudly serves as the Vice- President of the Temple University Presidents’ Advisory Board. All throughout school, Marina held at least two jobs ranging from dental assistant to waitress. After school, Marina worked at a law firm until she decided to start her own firm in 1994.  Today, Marina owns a successful legal practice in Feasterville, Pennsylvania.

Marina has lectured at Temple University, the New Jersey State Bar Association and various other schools.  She has been honored by the former Governor of Pennsylvania, Tom Ridge, as one of the “50 Best Business Women in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,” as “Woman of the Year” by the Bucks County YMCA, and “Consumer Advocate of the Year” for three consecutive years. Philadelphia Magazine selected and featured Marina as one of Pennsylvania’s “Super Lawyers” in 2004 and in 2008, and Real Philly magazine recognized her as one of the “Women of the Year” for 2008. As the current President of the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce, Marina conducts regular lectures to its members and the community on various legal and civic issues.  She is a Board Member of the HIAS Organization which promotes legal immigration assistance.

In addition to her business pursuits, Marina is also actively involved with a number of charitable and civic organizations.  She is an appointed member of the Board of Trustees of the Albert Einstein Hospital Board and the Board of Overseers of the Albert Einstein Healthcare Network, and serves as a member of the Einstein Society where she has gained critical experience to understand patients’ needs in the healthcare system.  Also, she serves on the Physicians’ Advisory Board for Einstein Hospital where she interacts with doctors trying to provide the best care possible.

Marina has two beautiful daughters, Kelsey, who is a senior in high school, and Alexandra, who is entering the fifth grade.

As our Congresswoman, Marina will work to ensure that the same opportunity she found in America will be available to future generations of American citizens. Ultimately, Marina came to this country with nothing but a love for freedom and the belief that through hard work, anything is possible.