Occassionally, I'll post my opinions on state legislative races. Today, it's the big one in the House: The Speaker of the House, Greg Curtis, has been challenged once again by Jay Seegmiller. The Trib profiled the race on Monday morning: http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10409209
I make no secret that I am a fan of Speaker Greg Curtis. He's done a ton for Utah schools via increasing funding. He's been one of the leading forces in making Utah the best managed state in the nation. And he will not buck principles he believes in to raise his popularity. That's the kind of leadership I appreciate, and not to be to cliche, this really is "Leadership that Delivers".
In the above linked Trib article, Seegmiller supports Public Financing of elections. This is an idea I flat out despise. I'm so anti-public financing, I'm glad Obama's turning the money down. I never check that box on my tax return to give $3. The IRS says it doesn't add to my tax bill, but if it doesn't add to my tax bill, the money does come from somewhere.
And it's not because I am cheap. I simply think that taxpayer money should not be used to fund someone's campaign. Let me be clear: The government has a responsibility to fund the cost of administering an election. But supporting candidates by giving them funds is not a role for government.
Why should my tax dollars support speech which I do not endorse? Why should there be limits on the amount of money spent on politics? In my mind, if all candidates were funded equally by tax dollars, does that not disconnect the citizens from the political process by making it feel rather distant and impersonal? Why shouldn't a citizen be able to give their money to a candidate? If a candidates message is more persuasive, would it not make sense that they would have less trouble raising money from a supportive electorate?
These are just a few of the problems with public financing. I understand Seegmiller is trailing in fundraising by thousands of dollars. But don't come to me, or any other taxpayer, and hope to have my taxes solve your financial disadvantage.
I make no secret that I am a fan of Speaker Greg Curtis. He's done a ton for Utah schools via increasing funding. He's been one of the leading forces in making Utah the best managed state in the nation. And he will not buck principles he believes in to raise his popularity. That's the kind of leadership I appreciate, and not to be to cliche, this really is "Leadership that Delivers".
In the above linked Trib article, Seegmiller supports Public Financing of elections. This is an idea I flat out despise. I'm so anti-public financing, I'm glad Obama's turning the money down. I never check that box on my tax return to give $3. The IRS says it doesn't add to my tax bill, but if it doesn't add to my tax bill, the money does come from somewhere.
And it's not because I am cheap. I simply think that taxpayer money should not be used to fund someone's campaign. Let me be clear: The government has a responsibility to fund the cost of administering an election. But supporting candidates by giving them funds is not a role for government.
Why should my tax dollars support speech which I do not endorse? Why should there be limits on the amount of money spent on politics? In my mind, if all candidates were funded equally by tax dollars, does that not disconnect the citizens from the political process by making it feel rather distant and impersonal? Why shouldn't a citizen be able to give their money to a candidate? If a candidates message is more persuasive, would it not make sense that they would have less trouble raising money from a supportive electorate?
These are just a few of the problems with public financing. I understand Seegmiller is trailing in fundraising by thousands of dollars. But don't come to me, or any other taxpayer, and hope to have my taxes solve your financial disadvantage.
No comments:
Post a Comment