Candidate for
United States Representative; District 6; Republican Party

When the Santa Rosa Press Democrat asked about the federal deficit Mike Halliwell responded: "I recognize the dynamic wherein a governing majority that gives each interest a slice of a large pie, has an advantage over any potential rivals who favor a smaller-sized pie, however it is sliced up. However, the dangers of living beyond our means are becoming so obvious that advocates of larger spending programs and/or larger tax cuts are beginning to apear to much of the public like advocates of a warmer fire in the fireplace who want to burn the supporting timbers that hold up the roof. I would try to mobilize the bipartisan majority of voters who favor deficit reduction in the abstract, by trying to spread the necessary sacrifices equally. I would try to enact a 1% income-tax surcharge coupled with equivalent across-the-board cuts in the purchasing power of government spending programs. Very few of us would really be hurt by a 1% cut in anything we get from the government or a 1% increase in what we pay to the government. However, a great many oppose even tiny cuts in their programs or increases in their taxes, when it looks like their benefits are being sliced like salami, and giving an inch will make it easier to single them out for further sacrifice."

At an April 27 debate in Tiburon, Mike Halliwell responded to a suggestion that one's wage history only be adjusted for inflation (but not for real growth in the economy) in calculating future Social Security retirement benefits: [This] proposal to decouple Social Security from the rise in average wages, and keep the purchasing power of benefits at current levels, will cause those who retire 30 years from now to receive a much sharper reduction in their standard of living when they retire, than is the case now. I think a better approach is to raise the retirement age to keep the ratio between years in the work force and years in retirement the same as it was when Social Security was first enacted in 1935. This would produce a large increase in our nation's output, and provide funds essential to making a reality of the improvements in health care made possible by our new understanding of the human genome. Special consideration needs to be provided to those who enter the full time work force at an earlier-than-usual age and may be ground down by this. I was completely self supporting for 45 years before I took early retirement (the Golden Handshake) in 2004, but Social Security is based on average earnings for a 40 year period. I could have gone on sounding off as a college professor as long as I lived, but most of those who enter the workforce as early as I did [aren't going to have the advantage I had of the Russians launching Sputnik on their 15th birthday, October 4, 1957, with a resulting sharp expansion of educational opportunities, such as the National Defense Education Act] spend their careers in much more physically demanding occupations. Workers deserve an offset for whatever (full) time beyond 40 years they spend in the workforce, against any rise in retirement age (early at 62, normal at 67) beyond that established in current law." (In response to a Press Democrat Medicare question Halliwell said:) "Enough of the public may come to realize that real economies in Medicare cannot always come at the expense of someone else, to make politically feasible raising the Medicare eligibility age to that of normal retirement under Social Security (66 now, eventually 67 under current law). I will support such a change whether the public likes it or not, because the alternative is lower quality medical care which will cause earlier deaths for many, which the public will like even less."

At an April 10 Candidates' Forum at the College of Marin, in response to a question asked about requiring a high school exit exam to receive a diploma, Mike Halliwell said: "If the Richmond School Board lets those without minimal skills have a diploma, it will make their diploma worthless for all the rest of their students. I am not a fan of rote learning and teaching to the test, to the exclusion of a less 'bare bones' approach to learning, but the skill level required to pass the California high school exit exam, is only the mastery of basic fundamentals that are the gateway to more creative and enriching forms of learning. These exit exams are forcing us to admit what a poor job we have done for some students during the years before they enter high school. We need to take a look at student performance from the very beginning. If a student is falling behind in the first, second or third grade, we need to take a look at the home situation, and make sure that basic essentials to learning, such as a quiet place to do homework, are available. If students in later grades are falling behind minimal performance levels, we need to investigate the possibility of a longer school year for these students, so that (if necessary) they learn what they need to know in twelve months, and are able to keep up with students their own age (and avoid the humiliating experience of being thrown in with younger children after failing a grade or two). We are not 'throwing away' students by insisting that they achieve genuine success while they are still in school. Those most 'at risk' will be truly 'cruising for a bruising' if we give in to self-esteem advocates who are really playing a cruel hoax on students by giving out unearned badges of success."