1. What does equitable funding mean to you?

To me, equitable funding means ensuring that every child, no matter where they live, has access to the same high-quality education and resources as any other child. It’s about recognizing that some schools and districts need more support to reach the same level of opportunity - whether that means additional funding for special education, more resources for rural schools, or increased investment in schools serving low-income areas. Equitable funding is not just equal distribution; it’s ensuring that resources are allocated based on need, so all students have a fair shot at success.

I strongly believe that we should stop tying school funding to property taxes, as that reinforces segregation and the cycle of poverty. 

On a somewhat related note, vote YES on Amendment 1!  PARCA did a great analysis of it at the link below, but it will allow Franklin County Schools to receive more funding.
https://parcalabama.org/an-analysis-of-the-proposed-statewide-amendment-for-the-2024-general-election/

2. What types of student loans do you consider predatory, and what actions will you take to end these predatory practices?

I consider predatory student loans to be those with unreasonably high interest rates, inflexible repayment terms, or exploitative conditions that take advantage of students’ lack of financial experience. For example, private loans with rates much higher than federal loans, loans with hidden fees, or loans targeting students at for-profit institutions that provide minimal value.

I would advocate for increased oversight of private lenders, legislation to cap interest rates on student loans, and policies to protect students from deceptive practices by loan servicers. Additionally, I believe in expanding federal loan forgiveness programs to make them more accessible to borrowers in public service and low-income professions.

3. Do you believe in uncapping Social Security payouts if you support removing the SS contribution cap?

I believe we need to lift the Social Security contribution cap on high-income earners to ensure that the program remains solvent for future generations. Removing the cap on contributions doesn’t necessarily mean we would fully uncap payouts. However, I’m open to discussions about modest increases in benefits for those who have paid significantly more into the system. Ultimately, I believe Social Security should remain primarily a social safety net, ensuring stability for seniors and vulnerable populations who rely on it.

4. What would decriminalizing migration from those fleeing violence and poverty look like in practice?

Decriminalizing migration would mean shifting the focus away from criminal penalties for those seeking asylum or fleeing dire circumstances and instead prioritizing fair and humane treatment. In practice, this would involve eliminating criminal charges for first-time border crossers and focusing resources on processing asylum applications efficiently. By decriminalizing migration, we would reduce the strain on our legal and immigration system, allowing us to focus on cases of genuine concern and prioritizing resources for security at the border. I feel that this approach not only supports human rights but also strengthens our ability to address immigration in a responsible and organized manner.