Policy Overview –
An Interview with Marina Kats, Esquire
Candidate for U.S. Congress in Pennsylvania’s 13th Congressional District
An interview conducted by Kerry I. Litvin, Ph.D.
With the editorial input of Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.
August 6, 2008
Legislative Priorities and Personal Information
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 13th 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 13th 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 13th Congressional District and to our nation. I am only beholden to the constituency of 13th 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 13th 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 13th 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.
6) Over the years many once-American iconic businesses and real estate have fallen into foreign ownership. Do you support allowing the PA Turnpike to be sold or leased to a foreign entity? Is there anything wrong with this trend in general? Is globalism beneficial or hurtful to America? Should anything be done to slow this trend toward foreign ownership of domestically-based businesses and real estate?
M.K. The Pennsylvania Turnpike is essential to the people of Pennsylvania and the country; it should not be placed into the control of any foreign power. I support a Jeffersonian form of government, prioritizing use of its powers almost exclusively to provide essential services to the people such as security, public safety, and infrastructure. In the private sector, free markets should dictate the directions in which businesses move. If the forces of the free market dictate that sales of various non-essential entities such as some businesses or even real-estate to a foreign entity is economically feasible, than I believe it should be permitted but only after a reasonable amount of scrutiny by the appropriate parties including the government, share holders, and the public at large.
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.
Ultimately, the hypothetical impact of many alternative technologies cannot supplant the urgent need to drill as soon as possible, at as many locations as is feasible.
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 13th 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 13th 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?
M.K. The Communist Chinese government has very little respect for the human rights, business laws and other international agreements that keep Western societies afloat and able to coexist with one another. We, therefore, must guard against doing too much business with Mainland China because our capitalist instincts might be used as bait against us in a manner that will make it very difficult for the US to remain an economic super-power during the next century. We cannot expose all of our trade and manufacturing secrets to a government that doesn’t respect the bounds of fair and ethical business dealings. Just look at all of the cheap counterfeit “brand-name” goods seized all around the world that have been manufactured in China for illicit purposes. And we must not forget their disregard for modern safety regulations on food and other products, especially children’s goods.
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.
2) Do you believe that revisionist history is being taught in our public schools and, as a result, the American culture is not being properly and truthfully conveyed to future generations? If so, how would you propose we get back to teaching the un-obscured truth from the days of our founding fathers through to 2008?
M.K. History, just like a physical science, is comprised of facts, in this case factual events experienced by the people of the time. These facts have withstood the test of time and have been authenticated by all sorts of documentation. If a school system, history department, or social studies teacher decides to distort these pillars of known truth to propagate a particular political agenda or simply to make everyone feel good, then the students are not being properly educated. These people don’t deserve to be in such esteemed positions because they are taking advantage of our children by essentially trying to brainwash them for their own self-serving purposes. They are perpetrating a great disservice to our children. The history and political science teachers are there to teach the factual truth about our nation’s past and its political processes. If they want to have a scholarly debate during which various viewpoints can be expressed, the difference between fact and opinion should be made very clear to the children and to their parents. The teachers and students should express their opinions, but there must be intellectual debate within the classroom regarding these opinions. As the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.”
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.
Today, Marina has been presented with the opportunity to give back to the country that has given her so much. Marina wants to be your next Congresswoman and to get Washington back to basics. With your support, she knows we can make it happen.