Putting People First!

Now this is refreshing to see.

I knew when I ran for Congress that fighting would be part of the job description. I came here to fight for what I believe in, to fight to be heard and to fight for the interests of the people I serve. The problem is, so did everyone else.

And with competing priorities, beliefs, constituencies and approaches, there's no way we can all agree. Fighting, or more accurately "debate," is a natural and beneficial part of the legislative process.

The trick is knowing where to draw the line between productive debate and destructive debate. Quite simply, productive debate produces something positive, whether agreement or simply mutual understanding. Destructive debate sets out to destroy the character of the fighters. Fighting for ideas and policies can all too easily morph into personal attacks against those who disagree with us.

At the other extreme, we can sometimes be quick to label as mudslinging any effective argument that makes our position look bad, regardless of whether the attack was actually personal. During my campaign, I was very aggressive in talking about my opponents' records, positions and public statements. I believe these things are fair game.

But I did not and will not tolerate the politics of personal destruction from either side. Once you find yourself calling someone a name, questioning their character or insulting their friends and loved ones, you're over the line.

Now one of the things I do have to add is that disagreeing on a policy matter is NOT a personal attack. I don't think that gay marriage is healthy for society to take as a policy stand. That does not mean I "hate" gay people. I have some people in my life who are very dear who happen to be gay. We disagree on the policy without being enemies. It's not hard! I have very dear friends who voted for President Obama and we are still friends. It is a matter of putting PEOPLE (your friends and neighbors and co-workers) over ideology.

Selling A Pig In A Poke

Joe Puente is obviously no fan of Jason Chaffetz as his latest screed in City Weeky shows(for my MN readers City Weekly is Utah's City Pages).

Well, Jason’s at it again. He has sent out a letter in which he criticizes the stimulus package for being both too big and ineffective. He also claims that “The President projected that his stimulus package would prevent the unemployment rate from exceeding 8%.” (emphasis added)

Oh, did he? Actually, no, he didn’t. At least I haven’t been able to find a direct quote from the President or anyone on his staff to that effect. Just third party hearsay from the blogosphere (by the way, blogs are not usually credible sources of information as they are largely used to express opinion that may or may not be based on actual facts). If any readers can find me a direct quote from a credible and verifiable source, I’d really appreciate it. Now, what did the President say?

I have a copy of the letter in question. It is a letter that Rep. Chaffetz sent out to all constituents on his mailing list. It also included a link to a graph very similar to the one below.


Mr. Puente is being more than a little disingenuous when he claims that the President "never said that" other than third party hearsay in the blogosphere when this report is out there for the Googling. The report was created for and approved BY the then President-elect of the United States in order to garner support for his very ambitious Stimulus package! He then went on the radio two weeks before his inaguaration to tout THIS VERY REPORT and he echoed it's claims of massive numbers of jobs it would create or save and thus keeping unemployment low!!!!!

If there is a real discussion to be had on the effects of the stimulus, we have to get beyond Mr. Puente's hyperbolic partisanship ("Ya know, one of these days all of his lying and political bullshit is going to come back and bite Chaffetz right in his Republican ass and I plan on being there when it happens.") and look at some economic realities (HT to my favorite economic professor King Banaian)

Everyone wants to know when the U.S. economy will start growing. I will focus on a related question: when will the stimulus law begin to have a significant positive effect on U.S. economic growth? And could it have come sooner if the Administration had done something different?

I believe the Administration made an enormous mistake in its legislative implementation of the stimulus. As a result, the boost to GDP will come six to nine months later than it needed to (maybe more). Given the President’s desire to do a large fiscal stimulus, and given his policy preferences, he could have had a different bill that would have been producing significant GDP growth beginning now, rather than in the middle of next year. That’s a huge mistake with real consequences for the U.S. and global economies.

One thing that I told many friends (during the campaign and during the stimulus debate) was that the economy is not something that can be turned on a dime. It is not like a sports car - if fact it is more like a super-tanker! It is just too big for any single piece of legislation to impact in anything less than 24 months, so to expect (or to give the expectation as the Obama graph did) that it can "cap" unemployment within 6 months of this bill being enacted is naive at best. Conversely to declare the stimulus to be a success or a failure at this stage is equally naive. Oh to be sure we can take a look at individual benchmarks - such as the creation of so-called "shovel ready" jobs and get a foreshadowing of the overall success of the plan (these so-called "shovel ready" jobs were jobs that were supposedly immediately available and yet we have not seen any of these jobs to date). Even the Chairman of the Federal Reserve - an early supporter of the President's Stimulus plan - is starting to see the early indications that the plan was not all it was cracked up to be.

To be honest, I can see where Representative Chaffetz is coming from. If you go strictly based on how the stimulus package was "sold" to us (both by the incoming Obama Administration and the media) then you could say that the stimulus packaged did not live up to it's billing. However, it IS too early to tell how much harm or good will be done to the economy as a result of this economic package. We will most likely start seeing that more clearly next summer - just in time for the 2010 mid-term elections. If it is as bad as many economists think it will be, will Mr. Puente renounce his words? Somehow I doubt it.

Voting Right Versus Wrong

Last Thursday, freshman Congressman Jason Chaffetz had an Op-Ed in the Washington Times talking about the unconstitutionality of the so-called DC "voting rights" bill. He starts off addressing the basic truth that those who live in DC are taxed without representation.

Taxation without representation is fundamentally flawed. It was wrong when Great Britain governed the American Colonies. It is still wrong today. Citizens of the District of Columbia deserve to be represented by a voting Member of Congress.

He laid out his opposition to the bill that was presented in the House and Senate this year - even if Utah did benefit from getting an additional seat in the House as a result of this bill...

However, we can correct this without violating the Constitution. The Founding Fathers' decision to exclude the District from congressional representation was no oversight. They made clear their intent that members of the House are chosen “by the People of the several States,” and that Washington, D.C., was not intended to be a state. I cannot accept that this foundational principle was meant to be trumped by Congress' plenary power in the “District Clause.”

More importantly, he laid out all of the CONSTITUTIONAL ways that this could have been done - ways that Republicans proposed in this session but Democrats rejected...

The provision to give Utah the fourth seat in the House it nearly received after the 2000 census is no comfort. Utah deserves the additional seat but should not accept it as a political bribe. Offering a new member of Congress to a state, even a deserving one, to curry political favor and support for unconstitutional legislation does not represent the type of bipartisan compromise that Americans expect and deserve.

This is not, and should not be a partisan issue. None of my Republican colleagues were heard calling for exclusion of the District's citizens from their right to representation in Congress. Instead, Republicans proposed alternatives that were constitutional.

The best alternative is retrocession of residential areas of D.C. back to Maryland, as was done with Arlington, Va. Under this option, D.C. residents would receive not only a vote in the House and two in the Senate, but a state legislature, a governor and many other benefits.

Texas Republican Louie Gohmert proposed a version that was broadly supported by Republicans, but was rejected in traditional partisan fashion.

Another constitutional alternative is to amend the Constitution. Admittedly, this solution has been considered and rejected twice - once by the Founders and again recently. In 1978, Congress passed an amendment granting D.C. voting rights in Congress, but only 16 states voted to ratify. At the time, the Judiciary Committee, chaired by Democrat Peter Rodino, issued a report stating that, “If the citizens of the District are to have voting representation in the Congress, a constitutional amendment is essential; statutory action alone will not suffice.”

The Legislation, as written, was a lawsuit waiting to happen. Granting DC residents their rights to representation in a Constitutional manner is in the best interests of the electorate. Pushing a blatantly unconstitutional bill, as the Democrats have done, shows that they were not serious about doing the right thing by the citizens of DC - only that they were more concerned about a naked power grab - a push for a guaranteed Democrat seat.

If you want to do what is right Speaker Pelosi, do it the Constitutional way...it's the only way!

A Day In The Life

If any of you are not following the ongoing CNN webseries "Freshman Year" you should. Yes, I have to admit that my new Congressman, Jason Chaffetz (UT3) is one of the two featured freshmen (one from each party) in the series. However it is more a lesson in what our Congressmen and women have to face every single day in DC. It is a great montage of what happens on the floor and off.

The latest in the series can be found here.

Jason Chaffetz On Glenn Beck

Jason Chaffetz was on Glenn Beck's program talking about the Obama Administrations move to move the Census Department out of the Commerce Department and directly into the supervision of the White House!

Whose Hyperbole?

Remember a few weeks back when the City Weekly (among others) chided Rep. Jason Chaffetz for signing on to Rep. Mike Pence's "Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009". We were told that the Republican concerns were an "obsession" and "heavy on hyperbole and light on reality". Well I wonder what those same people would say about these remarks from Senator Debbie Stabenow?

Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan told radio host Bill Press this week that she thought there needs to be more balance in broadcasting and suggested there would be hearings in the Senate during this Congress on possibly reinstating the fairness doctrine...

Asked whether it was time to bring back the fairness doctrine, she said “I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else.”

Note the shift in verbiage. Sen. Stabenow knows that "Fairness Doctrine" will not fly with the American people, but who wouldn't support a "fairness standard". I mean after all - don't we all want fairness?????

But that's just talk you say. No legislation has been proposed - no hearings scheduled....RIGHT?????

Press asked her whether she could be counted on to push for hearings and she answered: “I have already had discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen, yep.”

Heavy on hyperbole you say???????

Of course Sen. Stabenow didn't tell Mr. Press about her conflict of interest in forcing the issue.....it appears that her husband is a VP of Air America!

In 2003, Stabenow married Tom Athans, now the executive vice president of Air America. By this marriage, she has a stepdaughter, Gina.

This is the SAME Air America that lauched with such spectacular press only to fail with the listening audiences. The thing is, there are successful liberal radio hosts out there. Fast Eddie Shultz comes to mind - along with Alan Colmes of Hannity and Colmes fame. Ed and Alan have succeeded is that they have managed to put forward a show that is political entertainment - they really are the "Liberal Rush Limbaugh's. They are not joyless, angry scolds like Al Franken, Randi Rhodes and Jeanne Garafolo are. It's not that there is some conspiracy out there preventing the progressive word from getting out on the radio airwaves. The reason that these hosts are not gaining market share is because they are simply not good! If Air America were able to find more hosts like Ed Schultz or Alan Colmes their fortunes may have been much, much different!

Like him or not, Rush Limbaugh succeeds because he manages to make politics entertaining! He makes people think and makes them laugh at the same time. Silencing Rush and his ilk will not make it any easier for progessive radio to get a foothold...if anything it will do the opposite. Because by reinstating the "Fairness Doctrine" (or whatever you want to call it today) you will do nothing more than kill radio period. Because no one will take a chance with ANY political talk as long as there is the remotest of remote threats of federal intervention in programming. Killing the medium that saved AM radio from extinction will simply put even more people out of work at a time where any job at all is a plus.

The Pride of Utah

This is one reason why the 3rd District sent this young man to Washington DC.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker/Madam Speaker. I rise to give voice to the need to cut the size and scope of government. While the rhetoric and calls for increased spending continue to escalate, let us also remember it is our duty and our obligation to do more with less.

Over the past 12 years annual federal spending has more than doubled, exceeding $3.1 trillion.

Since January 2007 our government has added an average of $2.8 billion per day to our national debt. If deficit spending were the way to prosperity, our economy would be booming.

We are more than $10 trillion in debt, and there is no end in sight.

Let us remember it is not the government’s money we talk about and spend, it is the American people’s money. And we cannot afford to continue to run this government on a credit card.

We are going to have to do more with less and that means finding ways to cut government spending.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker/Madam Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.

This is something that has bothered me in the last few weeks. In the last 6 weeks we have seen democrats around the country defending the incoming Obama administration projected deficit spending! Democrats like Maxine Waters, who was on "Meet the Press" just this last Sunday defending the very thing that she has been lambasting the Bush Administration over during the last 8 years!

So the question begs asking again - if we have been engaging in excessive deficit spending over the last 12 years and we are still in a recession, why should the American people believe that even more deficit spending will do the trick? After all, doesn't the old adage "The defination of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result" apply here?

Meet Your New Representative

Meet Utah's new 3rd Congressional District Representative. Congrats Jason! We know you will do a great job!

Jason Chaffetz On Colbert

The much anticipated Jason Chaffetz interview aired on the Colbert Report and it was a hoot!




Colbert asked a couple of serious questions but for the most part it was lighthearted silliness. Go see it for a couple of serious belly laughs. It's nice to know that not all politicians take themselves so seriously that they are not afraid to leg wrestle on national TV.

What Are They Thinking?

The Salt Lake Tribune saved the best for last apparently. They endorsed candidates for the 1st and 2nd district on Saturday and today they endorsed for the 3rd district. It was not a surprising endorsement.

Utah's 3rd Congressional District hasn't been represented by a Democrat since the early 1990s and is the most Republican of the state's three districts. Right up there with the most conservative in the country, in fact.
The question that 3rd District voters will answer on Nov. 4 is whether they want to be represented in Congress by the radical right-wing idealogue Jason Chaffetz, who is at odds with much of his own party, or Bennion Spencer, a right-of-center Democrat and erstwhile Republican.
But setting aside any consideration of party labels,The Salt Lake Tribune editorial board believes Bennion Spencer would better represent Utah County and the rest of the district than would Chaffetz, who cites party reform, not the drafting and shaping of legislation, as his top priority.

Party reform is needed within the Republican Party (as I noted on Friday) however now is not the time for that discussion. Now is the time to totally dissect the SLTrib's "reasons" for supporting Bennion Spencer.

First is Spencer's "opposition" to drilling in ANWR.

Chaffetz favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; Spencer does not.

One has to wonder what exactly Spencer DOES support. In response to a question at the UVU debate, where Spencer was asked specifically about drilling in ANWR he said "Drill everywhere, I say!" If Spencer is so easily swayed between positions depending on who he is speaking to, how can we expect him to stand up for the district in the face of intense lobbying or his caucus leadership?

Then there is his support of the Bush Administration's bail-out. That is not going to sit well with the Bush hating, far left in his base. Then there is the fact that this bail out was horrible policy to begin with. Groups like IBD and Market Watch were opposed to the bail out as were many prominent economists. Especially after the Senate got done adding $150 BILLION in pork projects to the bill.

Then comes the obligatory reference to Chaffetz' purported "xenophobia", a lie that I addressed here, here, here, here and oh yes here.

The next two paragraphs were by far the funniest (although I suspect an attempt at humor was not on the editoral boards mind when they wrote it).

For us, the chief difference between the candidates is that one has the instincts of a collaborative problem-solver and the other has the markings of a self-righteous zealot.
Chaffetz vows he will be "pounding on lecterns" when he gets to Washington. We acknowledge that this rhetoric plays well with voters justifiably angry with their government. But unbending adherence to political ideology is partly to blame for the current mess, and it surely is no recipe for getting out of it.

Given the fact that Bennion Spencer went from supporting an "all of the above" energy policy on his website to repeating (ad naseum) the Democrat House Leaderships "we can't drill our way out of this crisis" mantra, it sure seems that if anyone is kow towing to the dictates of party purity it is Bennion Spencer.

The SL Trib closes with this.

The art of politics is principled compromise, and it is regrettable that Jason Chaffetz seems to have no eye for complementary colors. Bennion Spencer clearly does, and would take that vision to Congress.

The problem is we have too many people in Washington DC that are compromising their principles in order to "get things done" in Congress. We need people in DC who can stand up to the compromisers and do what is best for the country, rather than what will get them re-elected. That is what propelled Jason Chaffetz past Rep. Chris Cannon in the primary and what (I suspect) will propel Jason to Congress in 9 days.

These Dreams

When I left Minnesota, I dreamed that I would finally be going to a city where the local newspaper employed real journalists and left partisan hacks like Nick Coleman behind. Sadly, that dream died when I got to Salt Lake and read Nick Coleman wanna-be Glen Warchol's partisan slams in the Salt Lake Tribune. For my Utah readers, you can get a glimpse of the insanity that is Nick Coleman at places like Powerline, Shot In The Dark, Fraters Libertas, Bogus Gold (who did the ultimate explanation of Nick and his war with the blogs) and yours truly. For my Minnesota readers, here is your introduction to Glen. In an otherwise rather humorous post on why voters should take newspaper and other endorsements with a very large grain of salt, Glen throws in the slam of the campaign on 3rd CD candidate Jason Chaffetz.

Obama-lovin' Esquire says re-elect Jon Huntsman and congressmen Rob Bishop and Jim Matheson. As for the Third Congressional seat, the men's magazine recommends Democrat Bennion Spencer over "reactionary" Kamp Kommandant Jason Chaffetz. But considering that Esquire also describes ousted Chris Cannon as a "reasonable" Republican, maybe it should just stick to picking the Sexiest Woman Alive,...

Bringing up, yet again, the lie perpetuated by Chaffetz' opponent and the local media that he wants to lock all illegal immigrants up in razor wire. They refuse to admit that Chaffetz has repeatedly said (ad nasuem thanks to the local media and Rep. Mike Honda and La Raza) that his proposal would NOT just randomly lock people up, it would lock up ALL (regardless of race or national origin) illegal immigrants who have broken other laws in this country. People like Frank Benavidez, an illegal immigrant who stands indicted in the drive by murder of a 7 year old girl and was deported once before after being convicted in ANOTHER drive by shooting! However, the local media (and Chaffetz' opponent) don't talk about that because after all enforcing our immigration law simply does not fall into their meme that enforcement advocates are xenophobic doncha know......"Kamp Kommandant" on the other hand fits nicely into the meme that they are trying to sell the voters.

About the only good thing about Warchol is that the SLTrib puts this drivel out on their blogs and not in a twice weekly column. After all, in the world according to Nick, bloggers are just "hobby hacks", "graffiti artists" with no oversight or editors - unlike real journalists like Nick who "know stuff". At least Glen has something to work toward in his career.....

Buyer Beware (Or Read The Fine Print)

We are almost to the silly end of this very silly election season. That's right folks - the endorsements are coming fast and furious. The one that seems to be generating the most local buzz (besides the SLTrib endorsements) is probably the Esquire endorsement.

Esquire endorsed candidates in every federal race nationwide - even Utah. The winners of the coveted backing: Rep. Rob Bishop, Rep. Jim Matheson and 3rd District challenger Bennion Spencer. And, in Utah's biggest state contest, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.

The SLTrib goes out of it's way to make sure that they mention the flaky Citizens Against Government Waste endorsement of Chris Cannon (instead of Jason Chaffetz who is on the ballot and not Cannon) for the 3rd CD race.

Citizens Against Government Waste, an aggressive watchdog group that fights against increased government spending and earmarks, has a crush on Rep. Chris Cannon.
So much so that the group's political-action committee last week formally endorsed Cannon in the 3rd District race, calling him "a true fiscal conservative" and saying he would "work for the best interest of citizens in the 3rd District in Utah and for taxpayers nationwide."
Only one problem: Cannon won't be on the ballot.
The incumbent lost in a primary months ago to Republican Jason Chaffetz. Apparently Citizens Against Government Waste didn't get the memo.

What the didn't mention is the endorsement that Jason Chaffetz received from the National Federation of Independent Business.

The National Federation of Independent Business, the nation's leading small business association, has endorsed Jason Chaffetz for the open seat in Utah's 3rd Congressional District.

The endorsement comes from NFIB's Save America's Free Enterprise (SAFE) Trust, the organization's political action committee, and is based on evaluations of the candidates' views on legislative issues affecting small business.

"Jason Chaffetz is the proven pro-small business candidate in this race," said Lisa Goeas, NFIB's vice president, political. "A small business owner himself, Chaffetz is well-versed on the issues facing our members. In addition, his policy positions have indicated his support of many of NFIB's priority issues including healthcare and tax reform, as well as opposing labor initiatives such as card check that would hamper an entrepreneur's ability to run a business without union interference."

Of course there is no bias here. I'm sure that the NFIB endorsement - an endorsement that probably means more to more 3rd district voters than the Esquire endorsement does - was just an oversight on the SLTribs part. Right?????

To be fair, the SLTrib's Culture Vulture blog asked the most pressing question of the week. What are endorsements really worth?

But will the Tribune's endorsement move Utah from the red column to the blue? Will it have any more effect on Utah voters than the number of lawn signs each candidate has (Obama is well ahead in that count in Utah) or how many 7-Eleven coffee cups were sold with each candidates' names on them (Obama came out ahead there, too)?

Which brings me to this....regardless of who you are voting for this November, do your OWN research. Don't rely on what the paper says alone or what your friends and neighbors say......look at the records (where there are records) and look at how the candidate lives their life. If they are honest and truthful about their controversial friends, they will be honest and truthful when the get to the state or national capital. If they have a 30 year track record of supporting (or not supporting) a certain issue well then you can be sure that they are not going to vote the opposite way just because someone takes them out to lunch. Don't listen to what everyone else say - do your own due diligence and decide for yourself. Take things like endorsements into account, but make sure you take them ALL into account before you decide - not just the ones that the SLTrib decides to report on.

Disconnect

One of the hot economic issues of the season has been the cost of energy. One of the people who has been less than clear on their stand on this issue has been Bennion Spencer. On his official campaign website issues page he has this under the heading "Energy Independence"

There is no single issue that is having a greater impact on our family budgets, our nations economy, and our national security than our dependence on foreign oil. America currently consumes 20 million barrels of foreign oil per day, 70% of of which is for automobiles. America must move towards greater energy independence. We must invest in clean energy; this includes the next generation of biofuels and development of commercial scale renewable energy. We need to double our efforts in science and research funding for energy projects that include biomass, solar and wind resources. According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), in 20 years, wind can generate 20% of the U.S. electricity supply. It would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 25% while creating half a million new American jobs.

We must continue to find new ways to: reduce carbon emissions; develop cleaner coal technology, and digital smart grids that could be used not only in America but also throughout the world. We must support and provide incentives to the development of more fuel-efficient vehicles, hybrid vehicles, and transportation that uses alternatives to gasoline. A mass transportation system for Utah County is critical in reducing congestion throughout the county and providing citizens with an alternative form or transportation.

I support developing oil shale in Utah. Here in the west we are sitting on 1.8 trillion barrels of oil from oil shale. We can ease our dependence on foreign oil while creating jobs at home.

For the most part, I do agree with everything he said except for the one big whole in the policy.....DRILLING. There is no mention of drilling anywhere. However in radio and television interviews during August's "Don't Go" debates, Mr. Spencer made it clear that "we can't drill our way out of this crisis". At both the Sutherland Institutes bloggers debate and the UVU debate last week (both of which happened in September after a month of voter outrage over the Democrats stalling on the subject) Spencer had this to say:

Question: ...Your proposal for relief at the pump says nothing about drilling for more domestic oil. Why not drill offshore and in Alaska now?

Mr. Spencer:

"Drill everywhere...I say...I think we have to make sure that the oil stays in the United States for part of it and we can't say, 'Well, because it goes on the open market that's part of our free trade policy.' It's not free to subsidize the oil companies so what do we benefit from this? China's putting 1500 cars a day on the road. By the time we get oil in ANWR, China will have more cars than we have. So we've gained nothing. But I think drilling, we have to have the incentive that we have a comprehensive energy policy so that we're not going to drill our way out of this problem. But I guarantee you talk to oil executives and every drop you drill out of ANWR is going to go on the open market, and this country may not even see a drop."

Emphasis mine. It seems to me that there is a discrepancy between the official position found on his website and the position that he holds in debates where the public is watching. One must wonder why the discrepancy in positions. Is it because he honestly changed his mind on the issue? If that is the case why hasn't the official policy on the website been changed? Maybe it is because he really does not believe that drilling, combined with other energy sources that include wind and solar and conservation and shale, will really make a difference? If that is the case then why does the candidate not say what he truly believes? Is it because he knows that it is not politically expedient to admit? Maybe it is simply that Mr. Spencer does not have a passion for an issue that hits all Americans hard in the wallet every single day! Maybe he just does not care that this country is sending $700 billion dollars a day to foreign countries who don't like us much...that Utahans are hurting financially because of the high cost of gasoline in Utah. Maybe it is just not his priority.....

Well high gas prices (and the high price of food and everything else that is shipped here) are a priority for every middle and lower class family in the state. Every dollar that goes to pay for gasoline and diesel costs are taken away from things like mortgages and other necessities. Representatives Bishop and Matheson get it....why doesn't Mr. Spencer?

Doing His Masters Bidding.

Jason Chaffetz has been one of the bright stars of this election cycle and I am not saying this as a resident (albeit a new one) of his district. I had read many stories early on about his volunteer only shoestring campaign against a well funded incumbent and his strong conservative principles. One of the reasons why Chaffetz attracted as much support as he did in his primary challenge to incumbent Representative Chris Cannon was because of Cannon's support of amnesty in last years illegal immigration debate. Chaffetz had the radical thought that it was actually in the best interests of the country to actually ENFORCE our existing immigration laws. As part of that enforcement of our existing laws, Chaffetz had the equally bizarre notion that anyone who was an illegal immigrant that was convicted of another crime be jailed until they could be deported. Given the already over crowded state of our federal prisons (regardless of the crime, because US immigration law was broken first federal law would take precedent over state or local) Chaffetz suggested that states like Utah look into building temporary tent facilities that would shelter the prisoners from elements and yet would not cost the state or federal government a lot to build (similar to a plan supported by the Western Governors Assoc as I mentioned here). That was probably one of the flash points of the primary season.

About a month ago, Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA) started appearing on Utah media denouncing Chaffetz' supposed plan to put ALL illegal immigrants (men, women and children) in "internment camps similar to the Japanese internment camps of WWII. Never mind that he had not heard or read anything that Jason had said on the subject.....well Utah blogger Frankie Ray did some digging to find out why an incumbent Democratic legislator in California would launch such an unprecidented attack on a candidate in another state and he found 94,200 clues as to why.

Checking Honda's FEC campaign filings for NCLR's fingerprints revealed that instead of any one reason, Honda actually had more than 94,000 reasons to criticize Chaffetz…and those reasons were in the form of at least $94,200 in campaign donations that NCLR’s partners have given to Honda’s re-election efforts since the 2002 election cycle.

One of the amusing things about Honda's attack is that he admitted that he had never heard of Chaffetz or his plan or new anything about it. That is until....

Then what did Honda base his criticisms on? After incorrectly quoting what he thought Chaffetz said, Honda explained to KSL that his criticism was based only on what was reported to him by the “National Council of La Raza” (NCLR).

So rather than talk about how illegal immigrants are being used and abused by our broken system, they send their puppets out to attack one of the few people who are shedding light on how the broken system is hurting the people La Raza purports to be advocating FOR.

Thus we get yet another glimpse at who is really pulling the strings in the Democratic Party.

3rd CD Debate Wrap Up

It was a very interesting debate. To say that Mark Maxon is a passionate and opinionated conservative is putting it very mildly. While he did interject his own opinions in his questioning he did give the three candidates plenty of opportunity to get their points across.

On the economy, there were definite differences between the three. For the most part Jason Chaffetz and Jim Noorlander agreed when it came to getting the government to quit picking economic winners and losers - something I wholeheartedly agree with. Where Jason and Jim parted ways was changing over to the gold standard. Mr. Noorlander is on the Ron Paul gold standard bandwagon - he brought it up ever chance he got and that was often. Jason had a decent response (which I missed adding in my live blog as this was where the debate was jumping back and forth quickly) about the implementation of such a change. Whether it was the fair tax or the gold standard, Jason had concerns about how we could make this change and do it in a way that did not kill the economy.

Spencer brought up the "lack of regulation" a couple of times - making sure to follow the Democratic talking points that this was a failing of the Republican Party - the party of deregulation. There is only one problem with that. There is a video on You Tube (I will post that in another post) that shows the REPUBLICAN chair of the Government Sponsored Entity Subcommittee hearings into improper book-keeping practices at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac calling for further Congressional oversight and regulation into Fannie and Freddie and having that call BLOCKED by the Democrats in the subcommittee (including Barney Frank and Maxine Waters). Woops.....then in another answer, Bennion admitted that the problem was not caused by any one party but by the failure of both parties - a stand with which I agree, but then in another answer he went back to his "blame Bush" talking points. His biggest one was that Bush "laid off the regulators" at the FDIC. The problem with this thought process is that the practice of taking mortgages and turning them into "investments" (a la Freddie and Fannie) is not a practice that is regulated by the FDIC. Because Freddie and Fannie are "GSE"s the oversight and regulation FALLS TO CONGRESS and Congress failed to do their jobs yet again!

The second half of the second hour was immigration talk. The host did a fantastic job of pushing everyone on their answers which gave the listeners a much better understanding of where the candidates stood on the issue. I was mildly surprised when Bennion Spencer brought up a talking point version of the "Razorwire" ad that I wrote about yesterday and Jason did not get after Spencer for an apology. This has been a source of fireworks between the two all campaign. Although I found it interesting when Maxon actually went after Spencer on this allegation. He spoke at length about the fact that men as well as women commit crimes and that a "law enforcement first" strategy is going to ensure that men AND women are locked up and that there was not way to "immediately deport" the criminal aliens as Spencer advocated (after much pushing by Maxon in response to Spencer's claims that he was pro-enforcement).

I had to laugh when Spencer talked about how the Democrat Party was not a party of "litmus tests" like the Republicans were. This is the same "Democratic" Party that has bent over backwards to stifle any moderate opinions within the party - chasing such notables as Joe Leiberman and Zell Miller from the party! This is the same "Democratic" Party whose leadership threatens members with their committee assignments in order to guarantee the proper vote on an issue. No litmus tests?????? Pull the other leg Spencer!

The bright spot of the debate to me was Jim Noorlander. While I can't vote for him (there is no way we can go back to the gold standard as he and Ron Paul advocate) I did appreciate greatly his reminders that we are rapidly marching toward socialism and BOTH parties are leading the parade. It is nice to know that others are seeing this. If the majority of big "L" libertarians are of this mindset, I may find other candidates to vote for!

My thanks to Mark Maxon for hosting this debate. It was a lot of fun and a worthwhile two hours. Now if you guys could just do something to boost your signal - I had to listen on line because I could not get the station in at all here on the West Bench.

3rd CD Debate Hour 2

They are still taking calls on the economy right now - had a couple of democrat seminar callers who were more interested in pontificating instead of answering questions which took up time. Hopefully after this break we will get into the immigration question.

The last seminar caller brought up Iraq which lead to a couple of questions to the candidates from Mark. Jason's answer was typical - support the troops let them finish their jobs, it was no accident that we have not been attacked since 9/11. Bennion's answer was equally typical - bring the troops home now we can't do any more. Jim agreed with Jason.

Now on to the hot topic of illegal immigration. What would you do about Illegal Immigration - Jim first.

JN - 13 citizens a day are killed illegals driving drunk - 13 a day murdered by illegals. Need to secure border. Those that are here must get liberty card that allows him to get his affairs in order before leaving the country. Would finish the wall and nationalize Mexican assets in US in order to pay for border enforcement.

BS - guest worker program, secure borders and we need to give border states more resources in order to enforce the border.

More after the break (ooooo Van Hagar outro....)

We're back and on to Jason Chaffetz.

JC - The current status quo is a very immoral position. 7 point plan that starts with fixing legal immigration and no fence will work if we don't fix that. No amnesty - no pathway to citizenship. Fix visa situation - enforce current laws. Give business the tools to hire legally without being ICE.

MM: You were on another show recently and I guess it got heated. The host was going to walk out on you. Why?

JC: Because I support enforcing the current law. There are fugitive aliens that we need to find and deport....these are people who broke other laws and were ordered to be deported and I want that enforced. Talked about the designation on aliens from countries other than Mexico and how the majority of them are from countries that are state sponsors of terrorism.

JN: talked about how this generation of immigrants has not assimilated and how they turn to the first person who promises them goodies and expands the welfare rolls. Talked about SPP and NAFTA.

BS - brought up the razorwire tent cities. We need guest worker program so that we know who is here.

MM: don't we racially profile anyway?

BS: I am not sure we should be doing that but we do. I am hearing double speak from Jason.

JC: Are you or are you not going to support the law? If we do, some of these criminals are women...what are you going to do?

MM: enforcing the law is not pretty - if you can't do the time, don't do the crime....and commercial break.

MM: Jim Noorlander brings up a good point that neither presidential candidate wants to close the border - we don't want to hire people without checking out their background. Bennion I want to press you on this...if you are going to enforce the law are you going to look for people with an Australian accent or are you going to look at Hispanics. What are you going to do with the 650,000 people who are criminal aliens?

BS: We need guest worker program...

MM:what do we do with the criminals we can't put them in already overcrowded prisons?

BS: we don't need to go back to the barbaric practice of tent cities a la Japanese internment camps.

JC: that has nothing to do with what we are talking about here. This is not about WWII internment camps - this is about enforcing our laws.

Back to callers. One caller wanted to talk about "evangelical interference" in the elections.

MM: Do you think that there is too much involvement with Christians in the process? (more on this from me later)

JC: I think we need to remember that we are "one nation under God". We need to remember that we are a Christian nation. Mentioned that the Democrats are pushing an agenda that does not line up with a majority of Christians.

BS: I am pro-life, pro-second amendment - Democrats do not have the same litmus test that Republicans have (excuse me?)

JN: quoted Patrick Henry that this country was not founded by "religionists" but by Christians and not by multiple religions but by Christians!

MM: Take the jobs away and they won't come.

BS: renegotiate NAFTA. We enacted NAFTA and it took away Mexican jobs.

Jason and Jim both agreed.

MM: NAU and SPP - is it real?

JN: Yes it is real....commercial break...back - go to the book "Tragedy and Hope" it's all there.

JC: - yes it is real and I want to shut it down.

BS: It's real we have to shut it down it has already done enough damage but we need to focus on our financial dealings with China and India.

MM"Quickly the Patriot Act your thoughts.

JC: Opposed - there were parts that were good, but it is an overall bad bill that needs to go away.

BS: Opposed to it.

JN: I would have it repealed as it goes against the 4th and 5th Amendment.

Caller - economy and immigration go hand in hand support our local business - quit supporting businesses that take jobs overseas.

Caller - what about Afghan poppy fields? Everyone agreed - destroy them and quit propping up an enonomy that is hurting our kids.

That is the end of the show. It was a fascinating debate. I will write a post with my thoughts on the debate later.

3rd CD Debate

For those of you in Utah's 3rd Congressional District, KTKK-AM broadcast a debate this morning between the three candidates for the US House of Representatives. I will be quasi-live blogging the debate between Jim Noorlander, Jason Chaffetz and Bennion Spencer as I am expecting a delivery here at the house this morning. Jim and Jason are in the studio and Bennion called in to the program in order to allow Jim to be part of the debate.

Gentlemen - did any of you catch 60 minutes last night? Bennion since you are not in the studio I will start with you.

Bennion Spencer - talks about deregulation and how this is President Bush's fault. Says layoffs at FDIC were in part cause. No mention that the Democrats in Congress (more on that later) had oversight and neglected their duties. Pushing for oversight and regulation.

Mark Maxon - Jason let's move to you.

Jason Chaffetz - the claim that there was a lack of regulation is not true. The heart and soul of the story was how Wall Street skirted regulations. For the sake of the country I hope that this bail out works, the markets are telling us it won't and I said from the beginning that this was a flawed plan. Government needs to get out of the way.

Station break - back with more....and we are back.

MM - Jason you have another 40 seconds left

Chaffetz - we are over taxed and over regulated. We need responsible capital formation. I disagree with Mr. Spencer and his support of the bailout.

MM - How about you Jim?

Jim Noorlander - there is nothing worse than trying to solve a problem without understanding the problem. Government has given us 5 ways to cause a problem but nothing to fix it. We need to go back to the days of the Founders and the gold standard - there is no money only paper and if there is no confidence in the paper we have no money. America is supposed to be that shining city on the hill - we need to go back to the blue print of the Founding Fathers. The bailout was pure socialism. Both parties are morally bankrupt which is why I am running on a third party.

MM - Bennion - I believe there is an article that stated you were for the bail out is that correct?

Spencer - we needed to do something. China and Saudi Arabia were coming in to buy our banks. Their goals are not ours and we can not allow that to happen. We had to do something to prevent it.

Another station break.

Back

MM - lets go to Jim Noorlander with this question.

I missed Jim's answer as the phone rang.

MM - Jason...

JC - Social engineering got us into this mess. Both sides have plenty of blame in this mess believe me. We need to get back to our core conservative principles which is why I am running. Deficit of $9trillion came from both parties.

MM - Thank you Jason. Just a couple of things....

JN - Mark can I interrupt - the deficit is 120trillion. The only thing that will solve this is if we go back to the gold standard.

MM - why is that Jim?

JN - It's a paper game. If we go back to the gold standard we have real money.

MM - Bennion what do you think?

BS - I don't think that there is enough gold to make that workable. That is one reason why Richard Nixon pulled us out of the gold standard. This is not a Republican or Democrat or ideological problem it is a world problem.

JC - This goes back to the social engineering....

OK - I am falling way behind as this is a really spirited back and forth. We just cut to commerical and I will fill this part in as soon as the podcast (if there is one) is available.


MM - we're back - Jason I wanted to give you a chance to finish your thought.

JC - we are not at a panic point yet. While things are bad, there is some good left in the economy (low unemployment) let's not panic.

JN - I need to interject - I don't buy that there is not enough gold. We need to let the market define the value of gold and if that means it goes up to $30,000 an ounce so be it.

MM - Back to the swap Jason you saw the show last night. AIG can take these bad loans and change the name on them and claim to guarantee them even though they are not guaranteed. If we tried to do something like this wouldn't we be in a federal pen somewhere?

BS - I have to disagree with Jason - unemployment is not that low. People losing their jobs is not good. There is not enough oversight...

MM - Answer the question - wouldn't we be in a federal pen somewhere if we tried to do this?

BS - yes we would.

MM - Jason how about you....

JC - I would hope so....

Again I am getting behind so I am going to start paraphrasing....

MM - Should we hold people accountable?

JC - Oh yes.

JN - Yes

BS - Bush laid off all of the regulators...

Going to take callers soon. I am going to quit here and try to ask a question. Scratch that....second hour is going to be on immigration. I am going to end this post here and give the second hour it's own post.

Selective Law Enforcement

Oye....Bennion Spencer has a new ad out that he knows is flat out false. It is a 15 second ad titled "Razorwire".

Jason Chaffetz wants to put undocumented women and children behind razorwire. That's an awful place when your only crime is seeking a better life.

In every debate between the candidates the issue of ILLEGAL immigration has come up time and time again. And time and time again Jason has said that he wants to put ILLEGAL immigrants behind bars if they have been arrested of a crime in addition to breaking our immigration laws...not children and only women who have committed other crimes. If Spencer does not think that our immigration laws are worthy of enforcement, one has to wonder what other laws Spencer thinks are optional. Maybe the statewide smoking ban? How about the speed limit? OH or how about environmental protection laws???? And why is it so hard for some people to differentiate between LEGAL and ILLEGAL immigration?

Really Bennion - are you that bereft of ideas that you have nothing better to do that to air false negative advertising?

UPDATE - I forgot to add this. The Western Governors Association has proposed a similar facility to the one Chaffetz proposes.

The Western Governors Association has proposed construction of regional correctional facilities to hold immigrants convicted of crimes. Chaffetz has suggested tent cities surrounded by barbed wire instead, as a way to cut costs.

I can't wait to see how Mr. Spencer and his supporters spin THIS!

Debate Thoughts

First off - again thanks to Lyall and the Sutherland Institute folks for hosting us this morning. It was a lot of fun. Oh I know my non-political friends and family are all scratching their heads but it really was. I got the opportunity to chat with both Jason Chaffetz and Ben Spencer before and after the event (respectively) and they both struck me as being fine, gracious gentlemen. There were not a lot of fireworks - which I have to say coming from Minnesota struck me a bit....I am used to more "explosive" debates.

There were a couple of comments that I highlighted in my notes because I really felt that these were comments that needed a little more scrutiny.

First on energy there was agreement and disagreement. Both candidates said that energy was a hot issue and both agreed (to an extent) that more drilling and advancement of alternatives was necessary. Where the two appear to disagree is where Mr. Chaffetz said that we need to make the best use possible of ALL domestic resources - something that I have been saying all along.

During Mr. Spencer's opening remarks he made the comment that if we had a foreign policy that supported Hashemi Rafsanjani over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad then we would not be in Iraq. Is he really suggesting that we should have a foreign policy that routinely interferes in the elections of sovereign nations? I was also mildly taken aback to hear a serious candidate for national office refer to the duly elected President of a foreign country as "nuts". While arguments could be made for the mental stability of said president, it is not a good idea to express those sentiments in such an open forum.

There was only one time where a question really never got answered. When the question what would YOU do to foster transparency, Ben Spencer never said what HE personally would do. While I agree that the press needs to be made accountable to their customer, saying what the people need to do and what the press needs to do does not say what YOU will do...

All in all I was very glad to have attended this event. I look forward to a couple of more in the coming 56 days.

Q&A Time/Final Remarks

The Q&A format was pretty straight forward. Lyall would ask the questions and each candidate would get one minute to answer. Because I was writing (long story) this all out all questions and answers are paraphrased from my shorthand.

Q1) What will you do when you get to DC to try to get rid of the partisan rancor?

Jason Chaffetz - I don't care who gets the credit as long as a solution is found. Take the Legacy Parkway for example (not to try to take credit) - I forged relationships on both sides of the aisle so that all concerns were addressed so that the highway could get built.

Ben Spencer - Term limits and you have to take a stand against leadership. He talked about how he spoke out against Speaker Pelosi adjourning 5 weeks ago leaving a bill on the floor that was trying to address the energy crisis.

Q2) What do you think are the two biggest threats facing the country today?

B - International or Domestic?

Q - each.

B - Russia Pakistan and Iran are the greatest international threats. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and political unrest. Russia - we just don't know if the old guard or the new guard are in control. Iran - Ahmadinejad is "nuts" - we are not sure who is in power or what their intentions are.

J - We are hearing no solutions here just a list of problems. We need to drive down our debt. Debt notes devalue our currency. Billions go daily to people who don't like us. Immigration is a national security issue that must be addressed.

Q - Domestic?

J - You can not separate domestic and international issues as they are intertwined.

B - Immigration - I agree with Jason. We need to rework NAFTA. Weakened dollar increases interest rates. Dollar value has direct impact on gas prices. People gave President Bush a hard time for going to Beijing for the Olympics but we can not longer push China around anymore on human rights issues. They own too many of our debt notes.

Q3) When does life begin?

J - at conception. I am opposed to abortion

B - I agree with Jason. Life begins at birth and I am opposed to abortion.

Q4) Do you consider health care to be a "constitutional right"?

B - Nothing in Constitution that says that. The Founding Fathers were "divinely inspired" when the wrote the Constitution. It is a "moral" response - it is because government already subsidizes so much health care and government can not "discriminate".

J - No this is not the proper role of government. We need to put more into the hands of private providers and in the individual states. We need to transition away from a Medicare/Medicaid model in a methodical way but no socialized medicine as is being proposed now.

Q5) Define "excess profits" and if we get into taxing "excess" oil company profits what industry is next?

J - I am opposed to "windfall profits" taxes. Rather than taking federal money in the form of earmarks, we need to just give "block grants" to the states and let THEM decide where the money needs to be spent. Transportation decisions need to be made by the states and not the feds. We don't have a "revenue" problem we have a spending problem - cut irresponsible spending and the money for necessary spending will be there.

B - I agree that we have a "spending" problem. It is easy to pick on oil companies because they are successful at running their business. The Senate "investigations" into the oil companies were mostly grandstanding. I am against the Obama "windfall profits" plan because companies are entitled to make a profit. We need to let the oil companies work on what they are good at.

Q6) What steps will YOU take to foster government transparency?

B - The press needs to step up and do their job (in fostering transparency). One thought (from Senator Obama) is to make CSPAN more accessible and put more content on it but who really watches CSPAN. The people need to hold the press accountable and make them do their job.

J - I think how you run your campaign is a good indicator of how you will act as Congressman. I fully disclose all my donors - not just those who give over $250 as is required by the law. We need to make the budgeting process more accessible - put budget bills on line. One thing I will do is to reject all airdropped earmarks until the system has been reformed.

Final Remarks

Ben Spencer - thanks for being here and thanks for holding the press accountable. While my opponent and I disagree on much we will have a "good" campaign.

Jason Chaffetz - If we get the principles right we will then get the process of governing right.

My thoughts next.