Rachel Ventura, 11th Congressional District Democratic candidate profile

Candidate profile

Rachel Ventura

Running for:United States Congress – IL 11^th CD

Political/civic background:Current Will County Board Member, District 9. I am also a volunteer for Joliet School District 86, Girl Scouts, and an active thespian at Joliet Will County Bicentennial Park. I am also an active life-long member of the American Legion Auxiliary. I currently serve on the nature foundation that will county, and the Heritage Corridor Convention Visitors Bureau.

Occupation:I am a Will County Board Member representing District 9 and I am the Business Director for an international publishing company, Legendary Games.

Education: I graduated from Joliet Central High School and earned a BA in mathematics from Benedictine University in Lisle. Later, I returned to school for a degree in Biology.

Campaign website:rachelfventura.com

Facebook:@electventura

Twitter: @electventura

Instagram: @electventura

The Chicago Sun-Times Editorial Board sent candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives a list of questions to find out their views on a range of important issues facing their districts, the state of Illinois and the country. Rachel Ventura submitted the following responses:

Please tell us about your civic work in the last two years, whether it’s legislation you have sponsored or other paid or volunteer work to improve your community.

I have served on the Will County Board in a paid position. In my short period of time on the board I have fought hard for three key environmental initiatives and supported an “opt-in” for recreational marijuana.

My first fight on the Will County Board was to oppose a water privatization scheme being proposed in the community of Fairmont by the company, Aqua. Aqua is the same company that exposed the residents of University Park to lead poisoning. We worked between several governing bodies to successfully move Fairmont residents over to Joliet’s public water system.

I worked with other Will County Board Members to make Will County the second county to adopt the Greenest Region Compact and I continue to fight to move Will County to 100% renewable power.

As a member of my community I have taken to the podium in city hall to oppose a massive warehouse expansion project known as NorthPoint. I opposed it largely for environmental concerns and labor practices, but also because the CenterPoint Intermodal business brings a great deal of truck traffic to the area and has caused extensive damage to the roads. Tax abatements for the warehouses mean that these companies pay no taxes and the residents are left to foot the bill.

I have called on the Mayor of Joliet to replace our police chief for not taking action on a number of incidents including multiple counts of police brutality, an unwarranted shooting of an unarmed black man, and covering up for inappropriate behavior by officers on the force.

Outside my political work in our community, I actively participate in community activities. For example, I paint faces at the Joliet Family Fun Fair every year. I directed a community play at Bicentennial Park. I have participated with the Fairmont Community organization that does trash pick-up and other volunteer work.

What are your views on the decision by the U.S. House to impeach President Donald Trump? Has the impeachment process been fair or not? How so? If, in your view, the president should not have been impeached, would you have supported censure? Please explain.

I support impeachment. The process used by the House of Representatives has been fair. That said, I believe the House’s impeachment scope was too narrow. I believe a wider investigation into violations of the emoluments clause and possible obstruction of justice from the Russian investigation would have exposed more of Trump’s misbehavior.

Even if the Senate does not ultimately vote to impeach, taking this historic step in the House of Representatives was important. Furthermore, it is important to go beyond censure. People like President Trump will keep abusing power as long as they can get away with it—bending and breaking the rules until someone intervenes. Finally, it was important for the rest of the world to see that some American lawmakers were willing to step up and do something about our Trump problem.

How would you reduce the federal budget deficit, which now stands at about $1 trillion for 2020? What changes, if any, to the U.S. tax code do you support and why?

Closing the Wealth Gap: A big priority for me is closing the wealth gap in the United States. I am more partial to increasing wages than I am to utilizing tax policy, but I am open to either approach. I support a living wage of $15/hour that is indexed to inflation. One benefit of this increase is that it would result in fewer people living in poverty and depending on public aid, effectively reducing overall expenses. When large corporations like Walmart avoid paying living wages because their employees can qualify for food stamps, it is effectively a way for taxpayers to subsidize multi-billion dollar companies.

Wealth Tax: Presidential candidates, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are also talking about a wealth tax to tax existing wealth. While their plans are different, I am open to implementing either, or working on a hybrid model.

I support a progressive tax policy that taxes the wealthy at a higher rate. As recently as the 1970s, the top tax bracket was 70% of a person’s income.

Green New Deal: I am a strong supporter of the Green New Deal, which is a massive spending bill. I recognize that we cannot re-invest money into our economy without finding a way to pay for it. We just watched the U.S. House of Representatives vote to fund Donald Trump’s space force through the NDAA. My opponent voted in favor of this bill. The entire defense budget of $738 billion is where we start looking to shift revenue.

What changes would you like to see made to our nation’s healthcare system? Would you shore up the Affordable Care Act or work to repeal it in full? What’s your view on Medicare for All? And what should be done, if anything, to bring down the cost of prescription drugs?

I support an improved Medicare for All system that would replace all premiums, co-pays and deductibles with a smaller payroll tax that is often estimated to be about half the cost of premiums and co-pays. It would be a health care system and not “insurance” against getting sick.

Even after the passing of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), America still has 29 million uninsured citizens, and millions more who are under-insured. Those who have access can hardly call it affordable. Many people avoid going to the doctor at all, even for check-ups which can prevent future illnesses.

The simplest way to fix our healthcare system is to replace overpriced private health insurance with an improved and expanded Medicare for all Americans system. Patients would still have unlimited options when choosing their primary care physicians, dentists, eye doctors, or specialty care providers. All medically necessary procedures would be covered, including emergency room visits.

I had a very similar system as a military spouse for ten years of my life. Military families are eligible for TRICARE, a system that operates similarly to but simpler than Medicare. I was able to go to any private doctor of my choosing and TRICARE, a government insurance system paid the bill.

This is a centrist and popular position. Two recent polls (August 2018 and May 2019) show that over 70% of Americans want a Medicare for All System. But if it is so popular, why aren’t more lawmakers listening and jumping on board? Why are journalists still calling this an extreme position and using scare tactics to frame the debate?

According to Opensecrets.org, in the last election cycle alone, Big Pharma and the for-profit health care system spent $24 million buying influence over Democratic lawmakers and they spent $30 million buying influence over Republican lawmakers. It is no wonder we have such a rigged system that results in 37,000 deaths each and every year because American citizens can’t afford private insurance. It is time we say enough with insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies profiting off the suffering and deaths of others.

The Trump administration is awaiting a ruling from the Supreme Court as to whether it can end the DACA program — Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals — which shields young undocumented immigrants from deportation. Do you support or oppose DACA and why? Should a path to citizenship be created for the so-called DREAMers? Please explain.

I support DACA and a more reasonable path towards citizenship for all undocumented workers who want to pursue a permanent life here. People who came to the United States as a minor should be offered an attainable path towards citizenship.

The only people who benefit from undocumented members of our communities living in the shadows are unscrupulous employers, often temp agencies, who seek to exploit those workers for low wages. Offering them a reasonable pathway towards citizenship makes it more difficult for employers to prey on these individuals.

The new piece of the immigration that we need to start talking about is climate migration. When people living in southern regions of America are plagued by intense heat waves and violent storms, they will eventually migrate north. Illinois is a relatively safe state and we will have to decide how to handle climate refugees. Of course, when most people think about migration, they think about people crossing the southern border seeking a better life, but we need to start making these considerations now.

What are the three most important issues in your district on which the federal government can and should act?

The 11^th Congressional District is home to two oil refineries and a converted natural gas plant. The transition to green energy is going to require a robust investment from the federal government. The Green New Deal is a $16 trillion jobs package that includes resources to retrain workers who are currently employed in the fossil fuel industry. I want to see workers in the 11^th congressional district benefit from these job retraining dollars as well as job creation in the new clean energy sector.

Criminal justice reform is an important issue in the 11^th congressional district because Joliet is a “prison town” home to many ex-felons who have a tough time re-entering into society once they have served their time. I support record sealing for non-violent offenders so they can find employment and housing once they have served their time. I support getting rid of mandatory minimums at the federal level. I support an end to cash bail. Another unique idea that deserves exploring is a concept employed through the Will County Court system called, “problem solving courts.”

Transportation and infrastructure are issues in the 11^th congressional district. Warehouses in Will County and along I-80 draw heavy truck traffic to our region. Many municipalities struggle to find adequate funding for state and county roads that need widening or repairing. Before investing too much money in road repair I would want to explore more ways to move freight and people with an improved rail system that might have a smaller carbon footprint.

What is the biggest difference between you and your opponent(s)?

I support the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and closing the wealth gap in America. I’m not taking corporate PAC dollars.

I am running a people-powered campaign because I believe we need to get the corrupting influence of money out of our political system. I am not taking corporate PAC money or SuperPAC money. Even though my opponent is a multi-millionaire, he has succumbed to living in the broken political system and therefore happily accepts corporate PAC money. Consider that over the course of his career he has taken $1.4 million from big banks, hedge fund managers, and financial institutions. His voting record includes voting with Republicans to strip-down Dodd-Frank and voting for the bank bailout in 2008/2009.

My opponent does not support an Amendment to the Constitution to overturn Citizens United, the disastrous supreme court decision that allowed dark money even greater influence in our political process. I support overturning Citizens United and I support publicly funded campaigns. A more perfect political system would be a competition of ideas, not a competition between deep pockets. I will work in this direction.

What action should Congress take, if any, to reduce gun violence?

My position on gun violence is more expansive than background checks and an assault weapons ban. Growing levels of gun violence and hate crimes cannot be adequately addressed with one or two pieces of legislation.

We must recognize that across America there is a sense of detachment from each other as human beings. Capitalism has boiled down the basic purpose of our lives to an unfulfilling desire to be constantly working, producing and consuming. In short, we are taught to keep up with the Joneses. It is our system that devalues human life.

Instead of supporting community and connectedness to each other, we are living through a period of American history in which we are being purposely divided. We must challenge the division and hatred through unity, compassion, and empathy.

It is only when we stand together with our brothers and sisters from different races and backgrounds—demanding a more just world with economic opportunity for all—that we stand a chance of taking back our country and keeping our communities safe.

Additionally, we need to address mental health and depression. I am supporting a single-payer, Medicare for All system that adequately provides mental healthcare for all Americans. Finally, our school counselors need to be trained to identify students who might be at risk of the kind of disconnectedness or peer alienation that can lead to violence. We need to provide adequate wrap-around services for at risk kids that need social-emotional support so that school social workers can provide much-needed intervention.

Is climate change real? Is it significantly man-made? Is it a threat to humankind? What, if anything, should Congress and the federal government do about it?

Climate change is real and is caused largely by human activity. Global air and water temperatures are warming, and they are rising as a result of increasing emissions from greenhouse gasses, primarily carbon dioxide. In turn, these rising temperatures help to trap more solar energy within the atmosphere. Most of that trapped heat is stored in the oceans and is melting our polar ice caps at an accelerated rate. The increased amount of water from the melting ice has caused rising sea levels, more water in the atmosphere and changing weather patterns. The latter two cause more destructive storms and increased flooding.

It doesn’t take a scientist to understand that urgent action is needed and this is a national and global emergency. There are two emerging schools of thought on how to deal with this crisis. There are some who still deny the science behind climate change even though it has now been revealed that Exxon Mobile knew long ago that their product (petroleum) was causing damage to the atmosphere.

The first school of thought is that the people who caused the crisis should now be afforded a chance to fix the problem that they created. These people believe that a fancy gadget on a smokestack can capture CO2 and that we can inject carbon into the ground. The common term for this process is Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS). Recognize that when CCS is used as potential solution, it is part of fossil fuel companies’ propaganda to continue doing business as usual. A concerning piece of legislation called THE USE IT ACT is working its way through the halls of power and is nothing more than a fossil fuel bailout to experiment with these proposed carbon capture concepts.

The second approach — my favored approach — is to use the power and resources of the federal government to tackle the climate crisis with the priority level we had when we went to war in WWI or WWII. Americans mobilized quickly, industry adapted, people rationed goods, and many made sacrifices to preserve the nation and democracy abroad.

Resources should be directed towards homeowners or business owners who want to make their homes and businesses more energy efficient, buy an electric vehicle or fleet of vehicles, and make decisions to reduce their carbon footprints. Even for those who don’t believe in global warming, this will create an opportunity for them to improve their lives and save money on energy bills. These are the concepts outlined in the Green New Deal, which is why I support it. A detailed, 18-point strategy paper has already been drafted that outlines what temporary agencies would have to be set up to implement this massive mobilization.

The two paths ask the question: will we bailout the corporations who got us into this mess or will we bailout the American people? I support using taxpayer money to help hardworking Americans improve their lives, save money, and save the planet.

What should Congress do to ensure the solvency of Social Security and Medicare?

Social Security: I support “scrapping the cap.” I oppose privatization schemes and any efforts to reduce benefits for senior citizens who live on that fixed income.

Medicare: I support Medicare for All, because it would effectively bring more young and healthy people into the system. It would do away with all premiums, deductibles, co-pays, supplemental plans, and gap insurance. For a more detailed response, please refer to my response from question #4.

What should Congress do to address the student loan crisis? Would you use the word “crisis”?

I support a plan to fully fund pre-K through a 4 year college degree or certificate. Furthermore, when it comes to job transitions, we need to allow for growth. I support passing the Green New Deal which includes a transitions program to take people currently working in the fossil fuel industry and move them into renewable energy jobs.

I support a plan to eliminate college debt for those who have been saddled with an unnecessary financial burden after graduation. I will work with the next president and my colleagues in congress to find a way to cover this cost by either enacting a speculation sales tax (Robinhood tax) or the proposed wealth tax on individuals with a net worth of over $50 million. Canceled student loan debt will not be taxed as income.

Some economists are predicting that student loan debt will be the next bubble to burst with over $1.5 trillion in student loan debt nationally. An estimated 44 million graduates have some form of debt and the national average is around $37,000 per graduate.

Higher education funding is a question of national priorities. I believe that education, healthcare, and repairing the climate are three big priorities that we need to address before we spend another penny on defense spending.

If we want the United States to remain a competitive global leader, then we must invest in our future generations. For individuals looking to further their education through colleges, universities, trade, or technical schools, public education should be tuition-free.

Household income and finances should not be a barrier to a higher degree or a technical/trade certificate. If as a nation, we want to make higher education a priority, we need to give graduating students a fighting chance in life and that begins by not saddling them with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt after graduation. There are a number of good proposals coming from presidential candidates that offer both tuition-free college and loan forgiveness.

What should our nation’s relationship be with Russia?

Let me first say that the climate crisis, healthcare, student debt, and a number of other domestic priorities will be my top focus if elected.

There is no question that Putin is a growing problem. He seems to have some unique interest in interfering in our nation’s affairs through cyber warfare. He has been more aggressive than past Russian leaders and seems to be pushing his way into regional conflicts with little regard for international opinion or human rights.

The Russian incursion into Ukraine cost 13,000 lives by the time France and Germany facilitated a cease fire earlier this month (Dec. 10, 2019). Notably, the United States was not part of the cease fire or peace-keeping talks and this can only be viewed as a failure on behalf of the Trump Administration. We should also see this as an opening for the United States to work with other allies.

The next president will have to work harder with our allies to keep Putin in a box and prevent him from using military action to grab access to natural resources.

A key piece of U.S.-Russian relations will center on nuclear disarmament. Clearly Russia wants to return to superpower status and re-assert its role as a global leader. This mindset needs to be recognized as we rebuild relations in a post-Trump world.

What’s your view on the use of tariffs in international commerce? Has President Trump imposed tariffs properly and effectively? Please explain.

We need to re-negotiate trade deals, but President Trump has certainly been a bit of a bull in a China shop in his efforts. If we use tariffs as a tool to level the playing field between countries that don’t support workers’ rights, then revenues from those tariffs should be used to re-educate displaced workers who might have lost their jobs because of a resulting trade war.

Ideally, our trade policy needs to be focused on bringing jobs back to the United States and reducing our carbon footprint. Putting cheaply manufactured goods on a slow boat from China or India utilizes more carbon than is necessary. Even making goods in Mexico and transporting them to a nearby Walmart uses more carbon than manufacturing those goods here at home in Joliet or Aurora.

Unfortunately, neither Trump nor the Democratic Congress took the climate crisis into consideration when re-negotiating USMCA and I would have opposed it in its current form.

I would have voted against Trump’s NAFTA 2.0 deal because it will only exacerbate the climate crisis. It perpetuates the offshoring of toxic waste and the outsourcing of jobs, creates incentives for more pipelines like the Keystone XL pipeline, and allows big oil companies to challenge environmental protections through a corporate tribunal process known as ISDS.

This trade deal does little to address the climate crisis and fails to even mention the words, “climate change.” At least 10 national environmental groups are opposing Trump’s NAFTA 2.0 because the legislation is worse than the original NAFTA with respect to our climate.

The environmental concerns of NAFTA 2.0 are very real. This deal allows corporate polluters to dodge climate and environmental policies in the United States by outsourcing tightly regulated businesses like battery recycling.

The highly controversial Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) process that allows corporations to sue a sovereign government over lost profits due to increased environmental standards remains intact for fossil fuel companies. Unfortunately, this means that oil companies like Shell or Exxon Mobile can sue Mexico in private tribunals if new environmental policies undercut their government contracts for offshore drilling, fracking, oil and gas pipelines, refineries, or other polluting activities.

The Trump administration’s text included a new “rule of origin” that would make it cheaper for oil corporations to export climate-polluting tar sands oil to the U.S. through dangerous oil pipelines like Keystone XL. The text also failed to include a provision that is needed to preserve the U.S.’s autonomy to determine if gas exports to Mexico and Canada are in the public interest. This provision is necessary to fix NAFTA’s automatic gas export guarantee, which has contributed to a five-fold surge in gas exports to Mexico since 2010, fueling increased fracking in the U.S. and an expansion of controversial cross-border gas pipelines.

Does the United States have a responsibility to promote democracy in other countries? Please explain.

Yes. I support multi-lateral peace-keeping initiatives that have the support of the United Nations. Corporations have already expanded capitalism globally and the global workers’ rights movement is still catching up.

The United States has expanded our global reach through military intervention, often with the interests of capitalism as the driving motivator. As an example, our involvement in the Middle East is largely to secure one natural resource, petroleum. Instead of advancing the exploitation of natural resources, we should seek to expand human rights, women’s rights, environmental standards, the right to organize and collectively bargain for fair wages, the right to live free of military oppression, the right to live free of religious persecution, the right to a democratically elected government, and many of the same rights that we enjoy in the United States.

I am not advocating for military or any other interventionist policy, but I do believe that our foreign policy can be re-shaped to empower those seeking democracy in their own country. If there is another Arab Spring, the U.S. Government should stand on the side of the people seeking freedom, not the side of the oppressive regime.

We cannot solve these issues on our own and we should work with regional and national allies. Any involvement in foreign affairs should be done through the United Nations, human rights groups, and other NGOs to continue to advance the expansion of human rights. We cannot ignore the call to help the oppressed and we cannot absorb the full burden ourselves.

What should Congress do to limit the proliferation of nuclear arms?

My priorities if elected will be to focus on using former military budget dollars to address the climate crisis and to provide funding for education and healthcare.

The current nuclear arsenal of almost 3,800 nuclear weapons is largely used as a deterrent. These are more advanced weapons than what was used on Hiroshima, yet there are plans for Congress to spend upwards of a $1 trillion to replace this massive and unnecessary arsenal.

I would oppose spending taxpayer money on a senseless plan to upgrade our nuclear arsenal. The only predictable outcome is an arms race with Russia or China which would be expensive and dangerous because we do not have strong arms control agreements in place.

Instead of wasting taxpayer dollars on nuclear weapons I support H. Res. 302, a resolution introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives that calls on the U.S. Government to support the nuclear weapons ban treaty and make nuclear disarmament a central focus of national security policy.

Please list all relatives on public or campaign payrolls and their jobs on those payrolls.

My parents and my children volunteer on my campaign. None of my family members work in the public sector. Both of my parents are retired public employees. My mother was a school teacher and my father was a drawbridge operator in Joliet.

What historical figure from Illinois, other than Abraham Lincoln (because everybody’s big on Abe), do you most admire or draw inspiration from? Please explain.

I grew up in a political family and as a little girl, I met Paul Simon in our living room. Simon was an ethical man and the political system didn’t seem to change him. He took tough votes and recognized the corrupting influence of money in politics. Simon got elected without succumbing to the broken pay-to-play system and he continued to get elected because of his reputation. He was a reformer and pushed meaningful campaign finance laws.

What’s your favorite TV, streaming or web-based show of all time. Why?

We don’t pay for cable and I don’t watch television. The last time I watched television regularly, I watched Gilmore Girls because it showed the strength of a single mom. The show focused on building relationships within the community, their local government, and their friends and loved ones.