2nd District congressional hopefuls don’t always toe party lines

Candidates for Washington’s 2nd Congressional seat seem to stray from hard-set party platforms on a few issues.

Candidates for Washington’s 2nd Congressional seat seem to stray from hard-set party platforms on a few issues.

To start, incumbent Democrat Rick Larsen has been critical of President Barack Obama, a fellow Democrat, for his use of military action such as recent Syrian air attacks without congressional oversight. Rick Larsen

“If we’re really going to do this well and down the road be able to do it again, it’s important that the executive branch and the legislative branch get on the same page,” Larsen said in an interview last week.

On the other hand, Republican challenger BJ Guillot said he believes the president is operating within the parameters of his position.

“He has the right to do it, it gives him the ability,” Guillot said. “If he believes there’s an imminent threat he can use force.”

Guillot said that while Congress doesn’t have the power to stop the president-ordered military action, they could vote to cut off the funding for the operation, a move he would support.

Despite representing a primarily liberal state that recently approved the legalization of marijuana, Larsen said he is not in favor of its legalization but is just trying to “get out of the way” of the new legislation.

Guillot said he doesn’t have any issues with marijuana as long as people are following the law and paying the appropriate taxes. Guillot said he would support a federal legalization.

Larsen, a supporter of the oil and gas rail industry, has been calling for increased regulation and support for the country’s railway systems.

“Moving goods and people safely and efficiently creates jobs and keeps our economy strong,” Larsen said in a recent press release. “Washington state’s trade in products from airplane parts to apples means we need a robust transportation system, including railways.”

Guillot said he is not in favor of the coal trains or oil trains even though it “may sound strange coming from a Republican.” BJ Guillot

Increased train traffic would translate into road blocks on major highways, Guillot said, which is why he’s not supportive of the industry.

“I believe it would cause way too much traffic,” Guillot said.

Both Larsen and Guillot seem to agree that Whidbey Island Naval Air Station should be the home to the controversial EA-18G Growlers and that Outlying Field Coupeville should continue to be used for training.

They are also both supportive of protecting Washington’s environmental resources.

However on the issues of immigration, gun control, and balancing the budget, they align with their respective parties.

Guillot said he is not in favor of amnesty but would like to see the immigration process simplified.

“I want to ensure the borders are secure,” Guillot said. “I think there are ways we can expedite the immigration. Its a very long and costly process now. We need to take a long look at it and see how we can speed it up.”

Larsen said he supports a path to citizenship that would allow amnesty to those who are currently living illegally in this country. Larsen said he has supported three attempts to reform immigration in his tenure.

“I’m on my third iteration of immigration reform,” Larsen said. “It’s frustrating to me that we can’t get the ball over the line on that issue.”

Guillot favors a Fair Tax model which would eliminate all payroll taxes and create a type of national sales tax based on consumption. Larsen, who supports the current progressive tax system, said he believes a Fair Tax is simply “a way to shrink the size of government and not solve any of the problems.”

Larsen also disagrees with Guillot’s support of a balanced budget constitutional amendment which he believes would limit the government’s ability to respond to crises.

“What I want to see is the United States having a balanced budget,” Guillot said. “It’s gonna take some work to get to that but it should be a goal.”

Larsen said he believes there are more practical ways to hold government spending in check.