Ahead of the June primary election, the Southern California News Group compiled a list of questions to pose to the candidates who wish to represent you. You can find the full questionnaire below. Questionnaires may have been edited for spelling, grammar, length and, in some instances, to remove hate speech and offensive language.
Name: R.R. Jimenez
Current job title: Father
Political party affiliation: No Party Preference
Incumbent: No
Other political positions held: None
City where you reside: West Covina
Campaign website or social media: jimenez4statesenate.com
Do you believe balancing the state budget should rely more on spending cuts, new revenue streams or a combination? Tell us how you would propose tackling California’s projected budget deficit. (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
I believe balancing the budget should be a combination of budget cuts, reprioritizing and redistribution of budgeted line-item allocations that are based upon California providing a public good and need founded upon our constitutional principles and placing the emphasis on Californians, not issues, in the formation of laws and programs to cut costs. In addition, I believe in employing untapped labor pools to offset tax revenue, infrastructural costs, and the deficit.
California should not balance its budget by enslaving us with excessive taxes, surcharges, and regulations that promote issues that divide and oppress us. California should expect a return for every tax dollar it spends on benefits and programs without providing exceptions that privilege a select few.
Lawmakers need to check their gluttonous appetite, leading to higher costs of living, so Californians can balance their respective household budgets.
We also need to put an end to lawmakers’ framing issues as a public good and need that politically trick us into peonage. For California’s sake, we need to straighten our finances, lower taxes, lower utility surcharges, lower operational and manufacturing costs via regulatory reform and remove conditional privileges for projects. We need to make citizens, residents, voters, neighbors, parents, families, and communities a priority to restore our voice as opposed to being pawns. We need to restore California’s freedom, by our banner’s name, the “California Republic!”
For you, what’s a non-starter when talking about budget cuts? Why? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
I believe there should be no “non-starter” per se, every line-item in our state’s budget should be on the table to ascertain its need and priority in meeting our State’s public good and needs in relation to our Constitution.
Every taxpayer has already made sacrifices in paying taxes, so lawmakers need to make sacrifices in their spending and priorities for the greater, public good. If we cannot re-evaluate the degree and cost of a budgeted line-item, meeting only the needs of a special, select, and personal interest, “framing” it as meeting a public need, then how can we assess the true cost of a public good?
What are the top three most pressing issues facing the state, and what would you propose, as a state legislator, to address them? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
The top three pressing issues California faces are the increasing cost-of-living, the increasing disenfranchisement of citizens, residents, voters, neighbors, parents, families, and communities; and private desires and special interests co-opting the public good and needs.
Lawmakers are increasing California’s cost-of-living by superimposing substantial taxes (e.g., gas and VMT taxes, etc.), rate surcharges (e.g., utilities’ EPIC program), and regulations that increase costs, while providing exceptions quid pro quo, to increase revenue from Californians to advance its agenda with laws and excessive spending.
As a state senator, I’d move to expose and repeal laws burdening us with excessive spending, policies, and programs that increase our cost-of-living, where, in essence, we work to feed lawmakers’ appetite. Thus, I’d move to empower the people collectively, empowering us to be the driving force behind any policy, bill, and budget opposing a political party “framing” an issue (e.g., housing, health, etc.), superimposing their agenda upon us, telling us how we should live, oppressing us.
Furthermore, I’d move to have laws and a budget that emphasize the public good and needs that are respectful to everyone’s privacy and personal decisions.
As it currently stands, lawmakers promote laws, spending, and a budget that privilege certain personal decisions and special interests against others having different values and interests, creating conflict and division, threatening public safety among Californians with social and civic unrest. Consequently, these lawmakers are able to suppress our voice, increasing taxes and spending, and change our way of life in California.
What specific policy would you champion in the statehouse to improve the cost of living for residents? Would you see this having an immediate impact on Californians or would it take some time? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
I would move to repeal the use of VMT (vehicle miles traveled) in CEQA studies, reverting to the use of LoS (length of service) in studies, and emphasize “quality.”
I would move to prevent any VMT tax and reduce gas taxes. I would move to reduce utility surcharges that have not produced beneficial results for ratepayers. I would move to mobilize unused labor pools sitting around for public works projects.
Increase the supply of needs—i.e., healthcare providers, local agricultural providers, etc.—along with tort reform because the control and restriction on these supplies while demands are high holds us hostage to those who attempt to control, restrict, and exploit any fault for personal or special interest gains.
These are some of the policies I would fight for; some of these types of policies would have an immediate impact, while others would take some time to lower our cost of living.
There have been numerous efforts made in the state legislature to curtail federal immigration enforcement in California, from prohibitions on agents wearing masks to banning federal officers from future employment in a public agency. Do you see any area where the state could better protect its residents from the federal government’s widespread immigration crackdown? Would you prefer the state work more hand-in-hand with the federal government on immigration? Where does the role as a state legislator fall into your beliefs here? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
I believe the role as a state legislator is two-fold: working with the federal government while strengthening California’s defenses as a free state.
I believe our state should work with the federal government to achieve and respect our goals, considering immigration is a federal question. I believe the state should work with the federal government to remove all foreign criminals, spies, and terrorists; vet all undocumented persons; and for those undocumented people “acting” and conducting themselves as good citizens rooted in our communities as good neighbors within and willing to join our workforce, our state should sponsor and support them in application for residency with the federal government in consideration of their knowledge, skills, and abilities to contribute to and assimilate in our state.
On the other hand, I believe in strengthening our Second Amendment rights and California’s Constitution to be free and the right to self-defense. I also believe individual federal agents acting under the color of law that violate the law should be held accountable and California should help hold these federal agents accountable by working with responsible federal authorities charged with investigating these violations along with establishing a legal defense fund on behalf of the victim, helping the victim, a Californian, while recuperating costs and fees, under 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h).
Health care costs — like in many other areas — are continuing to rise. What policies, specifically, would you support or like to champion that could lower premiums or out-of-pocket expenses? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
I would propose policies that increase the supply of all healthcare providers via education, promissory agreements, tax incentives, a mixed-compensation fee basis, and establish a dedicated healthcare designation fund and resource pool. I would propose a “voluntary tax contribution” on state taxes where every Californian has the opportunity to designate a contribution to a healthcare fund that is not dedicated to research but to directly help patients in need. These funds would be dedicated to out-of-pocket healthcare costs, medically necessary, and not based upon elective medical choices or the necessity derived from a personal choice.
I would also emphasize policies that aid in the prevention of medical errors and failures, along with medical tort and administrative regulatory reforms.
Would you support expanding state health care programs to ensure more residents — including those who are not citizens — are covered? How would you propose the state fund such an expansion? Or, how would you propose the people who cannot afford health care still get the necessary care they need without expanding state programs? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
I would not support expanding state healthcare that leads us into a budget deficit, per se. I would reallocate from other budgeted line-items to help meet this need. I would also propose increasing the supply of all healthcare providers via education, promissory agreements, tax incentives and a mixed-compensation fee basis, and establishing a dedicated healthcare designation fund via voluntary tax contribution and establishing a healthcare human resource pool that is financed by our hearts and private means. I would move to place a face to all those in need because I believe in and bank on Californians’ hearts coming together and meeting our healthcare needs.
As part of combating homelessness, elected officials often talk about the need to prevent people from losing their homes in the first place. What policies or programs should the state adopt to make housing more affordable for renters and homeowners? What do you propose the state do to incentivize housing development and expedite such projects? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
I would propose to strengthen homestead laws; move to reform Mortgage Premium Insurance (MPI) and other home insurance policies; reform foreclosure laws; and, stabilize home taxes and taper them off for senior citizens.
There are already many incentives and exceptions in the law to expedite housing developments and projects to bypass regulations, only to impose other stipulations. Consequently, these regulations and stipulations should be revised along with creating a workforce that taps all areas of labor (e.g. surplus labor, underemployed, able but not in the workforce, underutilized labor, etc.) to help build housing.
Furthermore, housing developments and their projects need to incorporate some limits, and a social element is needed for beneficiaries in order to get community buy-in for these projects, addressing their concerns. I believe removing VMT as a factor in housing developments and projects is vital to how we see housing development. Increase allocation of percentages for lower income brackets while making these projects personal (e.g., placing a face and family to a home). I believe more public/private/NGO collaboration with community engagement and oversight is needed in housing projects.
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law in 2023 authorizing state energy regulators to penalize oil companies making excessive profits. But the California Energy Commission put off imposing the penalties last year after two oil refineries, which represent nearly a fifth of California’s refining capacity, said they would shut down operations. Those announcements prompted many to be concerned about soaring gas prices. What do you think of the commission’s decision? And how would you, as a state legislator, propose balancing California’s climate goals with protecting consumers from high gas prices at the pump? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
I agree with the commission’s decision, and I believe the commission should be working with oil companies to help facilitate the balance between protecting our environment and preventing high gas prices at the pump. We should be working with oil companies to provide clean fuel that protects our vehicles, provides clean air, and doesn’t spoil our land and sea, while having safeguard measures in place; and on the other hand, we should work to reduce gas taxes and reform some regulatory burdens, focusing on the issues and not on excessive profits per se. We should be focusing on Californians’ needs and market conditions to meet those needs.
In 2024, voters approved Proposition 36 to increase penalties for certain drug and retail theft crimes and make available a drug treatment option for some who plead guilty to felony drug possession. Would you, as a legislator, demand that more funding for behavioral health treatments be included in the budget? How would you ensure that money is used properly? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
I would not demand more funding for behavioral health treatment. I may look at reallocating a budgeted line-item amount or include such mandated service within a budgeted mental and behavioral health allocated budget.
However, I would move to place primary responsibility upon the offender to pay for their treatment either by their own means or by some offset (e.g., working it off, payment in part, etc.). We should ensure any tax dollar spent is transparent and produces desired outcomes overseen by a group of diverse stakeholders.
What role should the state play in ensuring hospitals and doctors are providing gender-affirming care to LGBTQ+ residents? Similarly, what role do you believe the state could play should other states adopt policies that restrict that care? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
I believe the state should play no role in any gender-affirming care to LGBTQ+ or any other group based upon our state’s constitutional right to privacy concerning a person’s personal and most intimate decision to change and affirm their gender and reproductive systems. One’s most personal and intimate decision should not be a burden and expense against our public unity and its good. These personal decisions run contrary to the spirit and letter of our state’s Constitution in the separation between the public and private spheres to protect one’s right to privacy and the public guarantee of equal protection for one’s personal decision for or against such personal and intimate decisions.
Our state should not choose and support a side because it creates division among our state and it co-opts our Constitution to pick a side concerning a personal decision, supporting it with funding, meant to be a private decision, not at a public expense. Likewise, our state should not carry the burden and responsibility of another state’s decisions on how they handle their citizens’ and residents’ personal and private decisions.
Governments around the world are increasingly considering an age ban or other restrictions on social media use among young people, citing mental health and other concerns. Do you believe it’s the state’s responsibility to regulate social media use? Why or why not? And what specific restrictions or safeguards would you propose as a state lawmaker? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
I believe it is not our state’s responsibility to regulate social media use among young people; rather, that use should be regulated by their parent. Social media use is a personal and private decision where the parent is the best person (not the government) to regulate, guide, and instruct their child on whether to use or not use any social media.
However, our state should regulate social media itself, requiring social media platforms to ascertain and confirm the identity of each of its users. Each user, or their parent, should be held responsible and accountable for what they say and do on a social media platform and not hide behind some obscure profile or bot; or, the social media platform should be held responsible for aiding and abetting obscure profiles and bots, as a product or service liability, that exceed beyond our First Amendment rights that do not protect certain speech (e.g. that incite violence; true threats; defamation; and obscenity) or used for criminal purposes in such a virtual, public sphere.
Artificial intelligence has become a ubiquitous part of our lives. Yet public concerns remain that there aren’t enough regulations governing when or how AI should be used, and that the technology would replace jobs and leave too many Californians unemployed. How specifically would you balance such concerns with the desire to foster innovation and have California remain a leader in this space? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
This question is too sweepingly broad to provide a more definite, specific, and clear answer. However, I would maintain a precept that undergirds analyzing, drafting, and voting on bills concerning A.I. that centers on the human condition. This precept would be that A.I. should help and assist people’s knowledge, skills, and abilities and not replace nor substitute them because the human condition is unique and the development of any A.I. derives from that condition to be able to replace or substitute any human.
Statistically, violent crime rates in California is on the decline, but still, residents are not feeling safe or at ease in their communities. How do you see your role in the state legislature in addressing the underlying issues that make Californians feel unsafe in their own neighborhoods? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
I perceive social and civic unrest and the co-opting of these unrest (e.g. paid protesters inciting violence, riots, street takeovers, etc); disorder around homeless encampments (e.g. trash, lack of basic amenities and resources, lawlessness, and lack of stability and identity); and certain property crimes as “porch piracy,” stealing catalytic converters, and the like are taking a toll on Californians’ mental and emotional attitudes toward personal space and public safety as the aforementioned issues are infringing on both the public and private spheres creating greater divides, apathy, resentment, and mistrust among Californians.
As a state senator, I would view my role as facing these issues head-on, leading the way to empowering families, neighbors, and communities to feel and be safe. Our public spaces need to be secured and safe for all our use, and special interest social causes need to be able to express their frustrations free from being co-opted, while not misusing and destroying our public spaces. Homelessness needs to be cleaned up; a face and identity need to be associated with a homeless person in order to help and assist them while identifying criminals hiding among the homeless populations; and, a social element is needed in housing development plans to house the homeless population (e.g., social engagement/connection to existing community members). And more stringent repercussions for certain property crimes.
What’s a hidden talent you have? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
My ability to critique and analyze an issue in terms of its history, perspectives, and standards, revealing it against expectations and goals to present alternative resolutions, as opposed to providing pre-determined resolutions to issues one created, I believe, is my talent.
Thus, I’m opposed to political schemes, rackets, and symbolic framing within policy formation with a desire and knack to reveal and expose these tricks so that all that is done in the darkness comes to light. Californians should plainly understand every issue, knowing the enemy within, causing division for opportunistic gain. My talent was forged from years of experience and relationships while discerning it all.
I grew up in many communities throughout the San Gabriel Valley to Boyle Heights. I’ve visited many other states and countries. I overcame being a high school dropout to being a college graduate with various honors. I’ve interacted with many from the streets to the halls of academia and politics. I served my country in war, overseas, and in peace, at home, along with serving my community. I’ve been homeless, a renter, and I’m a homeowner. I provided, cared for, and led my family through many ups and downs, trying my best to do good by them, for them, and all for the love of them. What good is any talent if it’s hidden and does not serve others? For the love of California, my family, friends, and community, I’m not hiding any talent; I want to serve California for all Californians!