Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69
Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70
I enjoyed going to the debate at the Sutherland Institute between Jason Chaffetz and Bennion Spencer. A one-on-one debate between the candidates is much different to attend than a “meet the candidates” kind of affair for city council when six candidates are seeking three seats without any specific match-ups. Until now those were the only kind of political “debates” I had ever attended in person.
In his opening remarks, Chaffetz said, “If I can’t build a grassroots network then I shouldn’t be your congressman.” I thought that was an interesting assertion but upon reflection it is true. A congressman should be firmly connected to the people he is representing. With senators we have double representation (in theory) and yet Senators should still be connecting with people but a congressman has no business trying to represent people if he cannot connect with them and be supported by them.
I was slightly surprised at how many things both candidates agreed on. They both support real immigration reform (verbally) – in fact they both listed it as the most important domestic policy issue facing the nation. They both want to see No Child Left Behind repealed. Chaffetz made the comment:
We don’t have a revenue problem (in the Federal government) – we have a spending problem.
Moments later Spencer repeated the same statement – verbatim.
Of course they differed in how they would approach many issues, but they seem to have comparable views on the basic issues that we need to confront for Utah and the nation.
When asked about what they saw as the most important improvement for our political system Spencer suggested term limits (without specifying any idea of how many terms he might have in mind) while Chaffetz listed transparency (he lists the names of all his donors no matter the size of their donations – as an example).
When they were asked whether they thought there was a Constitutional right to healthcare they both unequivocally stated that there was no such right in the Constitution. I was disappointed as Spencer went on to argue that although there was no “right” we should do it anyway because it was the right thing to do. That kind of attitude is detrimental to the rule of law. Just because it is the right thing to do does not mean that government is the right tool to do it. If it is the right thing, but not the province of government then the correct approach is to encourage people to do it – not force them.
