That said, your question outlines the two ways to bring our budget into balance: reduce costs or increase revenue. What if we could increase revenue by reducing costs?

Fundamental reform of our healthcare system could help to do just that: reduce the cost of domestic programs while also reducing the cost of employing more Americans.

I plan to take a leadership role in making structural changes to healthcare and Social Security to ensure that these programs continue to serve those who need them. Details on my plans are described on my website: Joe4Jobs.com.

I see the opportunity to raise revenue through improving the health of the US economy.

I would like to reduce the complexity of our 88,000-page tax code and encourage fair and free markets in which every participant and industry pays the same rate. We can actually lower marginal tax rates by eliminating subsidies and tax breaks.

I believe that Simpson-Bowles, a bi-partisan prescription for reform, was a good start.

Many of the people of the new 8th district have deep concerns that they will now be asked to pay for health benefits that violate their religious beliefs. If an employer pays the health insurance premium, he is effectively paying for the benefits of that premium. If those benefits violate his religious beliefs, such as a plan that pays for abortions, he may choose a different plan for his employees.

Those employees must respect these convictions and either supplement the plan for those benefits out of their own pockets, pay for those services directly with cash, or choose to work elsewhere.

The health of the woman is essential. This respect for religion does not deny any woman any benefit. It merely frees the employer from paying for it. The state must not force anyone to personally underwrite actions that violate their religious principles.

The elements that make sense are allowing young people to remain on their parents’ plan until age 26 and not denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

The people who I speak to in the 8th district want real reform in healthcare. They tell me that we must provide information about the cost of their healthcare choices and personal health savings accounts to spend on care.

Insurance is best used for unexpected or extraordinary events. By giving consumers choices in their routine healthcare decisions, we can dramatically reduce the cost of healthcare in America.

First, it was the executive branch, the branch that enforces law, overstepping its constitutional rights into making law. The Congress is the branch of government charged with making all federal laws, including those governing immigration.

Congress considered, and ultimately chose not to pass, the Dream Act. By ignoring Congress, the President chose to ignore the will of the people and their legislators.

Secondly, the law grants effectively permanent amnesty to nearly 2 million people who were brought here illegally. This fact means that they will compete for jobs and resources with 2 million America citizens.

The unemployment rate for Americans under 30 is 25%. I have nearly 7% unemployment in my district. Among those in the services and trades, the number is much higher.

Stories about people being unable to feed their families hurt me deeply. This act will make their lives worse by ensuring that Americans now have to compete for those same jobs with nearly 2 million people brought here illegally.

Finally, this act sets a precedent for those considering immigrating to the US illegally in the future. If they are confident that their children will be given legal status, those who plan to violate our immigration laws in the future will be more determined.

I would address illegal immigration primarily by taking away the incentive to come here illegally. We must ensure that employers check the status of workers using E-Verify, we must ensure that we check the status of those who break our laws, and we must deny public benefits to those who flout our immigration laws.

We cannot punish those who wish to immigrate to America legally, the way that my own grandparents and my wife did, by allowing others to jump ahead.

We are a society in which there are 300 million legal guns and many more illegal ones. There are three groups that have guns: law enforcement, criminals, and law-abiding citizens. Gun laws only affect the law-abiding citizens.

Our Second Amendment is clear in its granting to all citizens the right to bear arms. It is incumbent on us to teach the safe use, storage, and transfer of these weapons so as to reduce the risk of harm to others.

However, I am not persuaded that limiting legal gun ownership will do anything to deter "mentally unstable gunmen" from acting so terribly, as was the case in Aurora.

I am encouraged by the many new innovations in lower emission technologies that will provide cheaper and less polluting sources of energy for the future. I would, for example, investigate ways to encourage converting passenger cars and trucks to natural gas.

A prosperous economy is the best way to provide individuals and industry with the resources to choose more efficient, lower-emitting energy sources.

I have met many people in the 8th district who have purchased hybrid cars, purchased solar panels for their homes, or had their town install a wind turbine such as in Scituate. Each of these decisions was made at the local level and balanced the need for a clean environment with the practical desire for inexpensive energy.

I believe that America should lead in its support for democracy, but military intervention in Syria may do little to achieve these ends.

We should work alongside our allies in the region to mitigate the human suffering and provide medical and humanitarian aid where possible.

However, as soon as we intervene militarily, we risk the possibility of aiding a different bad actor and being responsible for rebuilding the nation in the aftermath.

Israel considers the settlements to be legal, and claims that they have the right to govern and administer the land captured in the 1967 war. The international community, in most cases, disagrees and considers Israel to be in violation of international law.

The Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority will resolve this issue. It is our responsibility to both support our ally Israel as well as to encourage the international community’s support for a peaceful Palestinian state.

It behooves both the Israelis and the Palestinians to reach an agreement regarding the status of settlements, the sharing of Jerusalem, and the recognition of the Palestinian state.

I am confident that long-lasting peace will only be reached when both sides willingly accept the terms of compromise. While the United States can mediate or perhaps broker an agreement, it cannot impose a solution.

I would encourage peaceful debate and dialogue, a compromise that recognizes the unique security concerns of Israel, the need for Palestinians to have a state, and the real desire that both parties have to live in peace.