Francis Gibson: Persistence Personified

Over the past couple weeks I had received many messages from Francis Gibson, incumbent State House Rep. for District 65. At first it was a little annoying since I didn't have the time to meet with him and he seemed desperate in some way. However, after speaking with him for the first time on Wednesday night at 10pm I found his actions not that of a desperate man, but a result of his persistence and desire to serve and meet all of the delegates face-to-face.

During our meeting at Jonathan Bond's house (a county delegate from our precinct) he began by trying to diffuse allegations that have been made by the incumbent he beat a little over a year ago. Personally, I wasn't too interested since I wasn't involved in a lot of the interchange before I was elected as a delegate. However, he adequately explained his response to the allegations of raising fees for registering vehicles and the reduction of a planned scholarship among other things.

He is currently part owner of a surgical facility and mentioned that he opted to not serve on a committee that would be involved in policies that would affect his industry. He is also an assistant football coach at Mapleton High School, and had played football at BYU during college. Currently he resides in Mapleton and had served on the city council there for a few years.

Throughout my discussion a couple things were clear: that he was accessible and is willing to talk about issues. He had expressed the desire to learn and didn't seem to try to make things up as we dug into education and the proper role of government.

He appears to want to provide more incentives to be creative with cuts in spending and change the baseline budget going into each year. We had expressed to him the waste that we see on a district level and how it seems that district jobs are never cut while teachers are being reduced. He mentioned plans from different school districts throughout the state that had done more with less and limited the firing of teachers. He contrasted that with Jordan School District that failed to do so and cut back upwards of 200 teachers. He is proposing to start with a budget of 85% of the previous year's budget and bring in every department that is requesting money to justify why their allocation should increase.

Overall, I was impressed by my meeting with him. My initial impression was much better than that of his challenger Mark Jarman. If you want a candidate that is approachable, will listen, and who acknowledges that he makes mistakes then you will find him refreshing.

Taxes, Tea & Lee

On April 15 I made a trek up to the Capitol to watch some of the candidates for the U.S. Senate in action during a Tea Party event scheduled that day. Unfortunately I ended up getting my venues mixed for the 10am meeting, but was there for the opening of the Tea Party event on the steps in front of our state's Capitol building.

While waiting for the party to come to me, I had a chance to run into Joe Puente, an Independent candidate for U.S. House of Representatives. He fancies himself as a documentarian and was there to find offensive signs and discredit those in attendance. In my discussion with him I found him to be a fairly nice guy that knows very little about politics and a healthy dose of skepticism for institutions. We had a nice little discussion where I attempted to educate him, and garnered some interest from those surrounding us. In the end, he mentioned that he's working on education proposal and would welcome comments from me. I thought it was a nice gesture, but I haven't taken him up on it yet.

Following that worthwhile exchange I sauntered down the steps to talk with Mike Lee who had just set up shop. I had opportunity to ask some direct questions about departments like the Department of Education and his opinion on Medicare, Social Security and the Federal Reserve. What struck me was the simplicity of his answers. Frequently the response was "gone." I realize that sort of venue doesn't lend itself to more in depth explanations, and it was good to hear these responses said with conviction. However, I suddenly realized that it is in the simplicity of returning to the constitution and increasing state's rights that makes my job as a delegate much harder.

After talking with Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewater I've found it difficult to separate them on issues alone. Granted I know a lot more about Tim than Mike and will dig deeper, but on key issues of the day there appears to be very little difference. Ultimately, I've come to the realization that getting to the heart of their understanding of the issues may be a better identifier since there will have to be a series of steps before the worthy Constitutional goals are reached.

As I hung around a little longer a few delegates approached him with questions about his stance on gun control and the War in Afghanistan. I thought he offered a reasonable response to both.

1. Gun Control- Concern was raised over the fact that he doesn't own a gun. In response, he admitted that he only has a BB gun, but that he hunted when he was younger and hasn't found the desire to spend money on a weapon. He mentioned that he supported gun ownership and worked on a group during law school that addressed 2nd Ammendment rights. Ultimately there was no intention expressed to limit the rights of gun owners by additional regulations.
2. Afghanistan- There have been comments over his "cut-and-run" approach to the war in Afghanistan. He took exception to this characterization and offered a pretty balanced approach to war. The heart of his policy appears to be a desire to only engage the military in military objectives. The idea of peacekeeping and other humanitarian functions that the military currently provides is outside the scope of what is constitutionally acceptable. He mentioned that if you're engaged in war that the objectives should be clear, there should be undeviating support for those engaged in the conflict, and that when the mission is completed you should leave.

While providing his views on the military he was asked a question about his view on Reagan's use of the military in Beirut during the 1980's. Clearly he had no idea what happened in Beirut or Reagan's policies, but rather than saying so, he asked the delegate what he felt was wrong with the mission and then he co-opted the delegates response in his assessment. Is this a terrible thing, no. However, it was disappointing to me that he wouldn't say that he didn't know anything about the issue. Given his age and the obscurity of the question it would have been perfectly reasonable to do so, but instinctually he utilized a maneuver to mask any deficiency.

At this point there isn't a lot of depth to my analysis of Mike Lee. I felt like he's on the right side of most all issues at hand, but wasn't able to explore his depth of knowledge to provide a sound critique.

A Case of Instant Karma

This week Congress came to the stark realization that the healthcare bill they just passed requires them to obtain their health benefits through state insurance exchanges. It appears that they have no problem gunning down our rights to healthcare services, but are quite concerned now that they've shot themselves in the foot. Currently these exchanges don't exist, and states like Georgia have sent letters to the department of Health and Human Services saying that they will not create one.

This issue was discussed by none other than the New York Times. Here is an exerpt from the article:

"The confusion raises the inevitable question: If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of Americans?"

The following is illustrative of what happens when we don' get to know who we're voting for. Ultimately we all get what we deserve, and hopefully this video, the above issues with the healthcare bill, and a litany of other problems we face will moivate all of us to do more.

Rep. Hank Johnson Fears Guam May Capsize- Click on the link to watch

One Night at Tim's House...

Last Saturday evening I spent a couple hours at the home of U.S. Senate candidate Tim Bridgewater. This was my first more intimate meet and mingle that I've been a part of, and it was exciting because of the ability to pose very pointed questions in order to clarify his positions. I have plans to attend a couple of web-based meetings for Mike Lee and Cherilyn Eager this week as well as the Tea Party at the Capitol on Thursday where several of these candidates will be speaking.

As I walked up to the home of the Bridgewater family on 3700 N in Provo I thought that it was a nice home, but not too nice. The same was true of the interior and the dress of the man himself. This isn't intended to be an indictment, but rather a compliment. My first impression was that there isn't anything ostentatious about this candidate. Although my wife isn't extremely interested in politics she is someone that is very aware, and this was the biggest impression she had as well.

His Background

He began his presentation before the group of delegates by introducing his family--which was mostly in attendance at some point during the meeting. Having attended both the UofU and BYU he has a affinity for both, and currently his eldest daughter plays for the UofU women's basketball team. He also discussed his backgound in business, working in the last year of office in the Reagan administration, and his role as a board member of the John Hancock charter school.

He also discussed his childhood growing up in a single parent family and the trailer court he announced his candidacy from in West Jordan.

He currently has a consulting business called Interlink Capital Strategies. All-in-all it appears he's been an entrepreneur with ties to politics throughout his career. He played off of his business background by stating that a businessman wouldn't produce a 2700 page bill, referencing the Healthcare Reform Bill clearly written by attorneys. He recounted times where he's had to make checks out to employees when their was nothing left to pay himself. It was this type of experience that he feels is unique in the field of candidates for Senate.

His Policies

My first impression was that he is informed, can speak on a variety of subjects, but isn't necessarily a policy wonk. He kept reiterating his view that states should handle many affairs ranging from education to Social Security and Medicare. The passion for states rights and their role in delivering in many of these Federally mandated programs was clear and fairly consistent. However, he didn't always have a lot of specifics as to what it would look like. Here are some of the details to questions that were asked in the meeting.

Free vs. Fair Trade

When asked whether he believed in free trade or "fair trade," he was clearly on the free trade side of the isle. Cherilyn Eager is a candidate for Senate that uses the "fair trade" phrase and appears to take a similar stance as Pat Buchanan who has always been more of a protectionist. In response to increasing the competitiveness of U.S. companies and increasing our manufacturing base, he expressed a desire to reduce regulations domestically in order to make our products more competitively priced.

The idea of improving competitiveness through introspectively working on reducing the cost imposed through regulations is a much more conservative, limited government approach. He did mention that he would impose some restrictions on countries that are highly anti-competitive. However, he didn't elaborate as to what behavior would qualify or what he would do in those cases.

Healthcare Reform

This was a topic that I had opportunity to discuss with him in more depth after the meeting. He is very high on not limiting the use of HSA's (Health Saving Accounts) in order for healthcare consumers to be in touch with the cost and ultimately reduce the over-consumption of healthcare services. In other words, you may decide to not go to the doctor for a sniffle if you had to pay for the visit until your deductible is met. However, the money that isn't spent accumulates in an IRA-like account and could be deployed later for other healthcare related expenses or retirement when over 59 1/2 years of age.

He would like to see the amount of costs in the healthcare system reduced as a result of law suits. The twist is that he isn't for a Federal bill that would provide Tort reform. He would rather see that the states address this issue, and this view is emblematic of his consistency on states rights.

Social Security & Medicare

This was an area that I found quite interesting. He had expressed his desire to see a Medicare type system exist on a state level and the same for Social Security.

He initially explained that he would like to see Social Security privatized. I pressed with several questions in this area, and he mentioned that he doesn't want a Federally controlled system nor any Federal mandates in this regard. He would like to see states take-up the issue mandate participation, but there wouldn't be any Federal mandate for the states to do so.

For Medicare he expressed a similar position that funds would be collected and dispersed on a state-by-state level without the help of the Federal government. I believe that he said funds would be initially collected from Medicare Federally and would be passed down to a state level, but over time the Federal entitlement would be phased out over several years.

This area was short on a lot of specifics, but it was very clear that he wanted to dismantle Federal programs in these areas and eliminate any Federal mandates. He fully expects that the states would take on these programs and would provide more efficiency and personal responsibility.

The Federal Reserve

I don't believe that this was an area that he planned to address, but is something I asked him about. The context of the discussion was related to eliminating deficit spending mechanisms. The Federal Reserve owns as much of our debt as the top six holders combined (including China and Japan). He said that he would support a current proposal to audit the Federal Reserve. He also mentioned that he would likely support a move toward a commodity-backed currency and potentially gold-backed Treasury bonds. Overall, he expressed concern over the power of the Fed and a desire to limit their role.

Federal Employee Compensation

He expressed a desire to freeze all federal employee compensation and reduce the salary of elected offices to that of a Typical Federal employee. He outlined an imbalance that exists between the higher compensated public employees (salary + benefits) versus their private sector counterpart. The freeze would exist until salaries are normalized and in-line with public sector jobs. Ultimately he would like to see a sacrifice to work for the public sector and incorporate an element of service vs. doing it for the benefits.

Immigration

This was an area where he had quite a few specifics. He indicated that he would want to add more border control and provide a 12-18 month window for those here illegally to return to their homeland. As part of this system he suggested the use of biometric cards and strictly enforcing existing laws. By removing the incentive systems such as healthcare and anchor baby loopholes he felt that it would aid the measures taken for enforcement.

Despite the aggressive stance on enforcement, he also wanted to make it easier and less costly to become a citizen. I think this showed a sensitivity for those wanting to come to America, but addressing the concerns over not controlling the border.

Utah Land

When asked about his stance on the Federal Government assuming control over Utah lands, he immediately pointed to the enormous wealth that exists on those lands and the benefit that could be derived if they were freed. He stated that the U.S. has a tremendous amount of uranium and yet we import it because of restrictions. He also expressed support a local bill on emminent domain laws, and would support a repeal of the Antiquities Act.

Public Education

There were a couple of teachers in attendance and they appreciated some of his comments regarding the Charter school he helped launch. Although he may have opinions on how education should be managed, he clearly expressed that it is the states that should have control over education.

Currently the Federal government funds about 10% of education expenses, but have a lot of say on how those funds are used. He was against "No Child Left Behind" because of the mandates, and worked with Governors Huntsman and Herbert on eliminating some of the mandates. As a result, he is for the abolition of the Federal Department of Education and eliminating any Federal education funding or control.

My Conclusions

I probably asked the most questions out of the entire group, and overall I was impressed with him as a candidate. I didn't verify his responses with his website, but I was impressed with the consistency of his responses whether he had a great answer or not. The consistency was laid by deferring to states to take up many issues of the day, and is based on their ability to better address these concerns and protect freedoms.I went into this meeting thinking it would probably not yield much return, but in the end I came away feeling like he was a legitimate candidate and a capable of performing in the office of Senator.

If their are any questions or comments regarding any of his positions represented here you can email me at sp3.brandon@gmail.com or post a comment below.

District 65 Candidate Review

This past week Gary and I attended a delegate training in which we had opportunity to listen to many candidates running for office in Utah county and one candidate for state office. It was very clear that most all of the candidates promoted the role of limited government, and those running against the incumbent promised to be a better shepherd with tax dollars. There wasn't a lot of time allotted to get deep into policy. The idea of smaller government is a hot button issue this year, and so it will be important to find whether those that call for it, believe it.

Here is a summary of the presentation that was made to our group. Feel free to comment and provide any thoughts or additional feedback on the candidates.

State House District 65

Mark Jarman- http://www.utahcountyonline.org/dept/clerkaud/elections/candidates.asp, jarmanart@sfcn.org

During his presentation he expressed several reasons for running against the incumbent Francis Gibson. The first point he made was that the incumbent was running unopposed, but then added several issues regarding taxation that he felt Francis Gibson supported. He represented that that the incumbent supported increases in auto registration, business, and licensing taxes. Also, that Francis Gibson supported increases in Medicaid spending that would include immigrant children.

He didn't have a polished presentation and used notes. He mentioned a book by Lawrence Reed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Reed) who is a senior fellow with the Heritage

Foundation. He made a strong statement about the role of government when he said that "the

government can't give, but what it takes away.

Utah County Commissioner Seat A

Gary Anderson- www.electgaryanderson.com; electgaryanderson@gmail.com

Gary is the incumbent and a former attorney. He

mentioned three issues: financial, economic development,

and law enforcement. He mentioned that they resist

every opportunity to raise taxes and fight mandated tax

increases by the state. He stated very clearly that the

county has an important role in bring business to Utah

County and named several companies that were planning

to add jobs in our county. He defended the building of a

convention center and promised that it would be funded

through taxes on tourism. In the end he mentioned that

he is for limited government. I found the comment

interesting since he feels the role government is so key

to growth in our county.

Utah County Commissioner Seat B

Linda Housekeeper- linda4liberty.com; linda@linda4liberty.com

Linda is very enthusiastic and a former chair of District 64. She didn't present many issues related to the seat, but expressed concern over the amount of contributions the she said were made to those on the County Commission from businesses. She felt that her strengths were those of a "connector" and desires to cultivate the proper environment in county government. Other than that of a watchdog, she didn't make it clear where she would provide leadership on specific issues.

Doug Witney- www.dougwitney.com; doug.whitney@gmail.com

Doug has an impressive background with service in the military during Vietnam and law enforcement since 1975. He headed the financial fraud division for the FBI in Utah, I believe, and currently works part time at the district attorney's office helping in that field. He focused a lot emergency preparedness, from a transportation perspective, and finding ways to comabt drugs and violence. He emphasized that the role of county commissioner is both managerial and a leadership position, and that tax dollars have to be accounted for properly. He implied that there has been a lack of proper accounting by current officials. Overall he was a pretty impressive guy in appearance and presentation.

County Assessor

Kris Poulson- www.krispoulson.com; kpoulson99@yahoo.com

Kris is running for his third term as Utah County Assessor. He mentioned the qualifications needed for the position and that he's a certified residential appraiser. The role of assessor is to value properties for tax purposes. Interestingly he mentioned that they have no control over the rate of taxation, but rather school districts and other groups set the rate. He stressed that his role is to make sure that the process of valuation is both equitable and fair. He told me personally that they average the MLS listings for several years in order to determine valuations.

County Recorder

Rod Campbell- www.rod4recorder.com; rod4recorder@gmail.com

Rod has been in the recorders office for 32 years and was very passionate about the role of the recorders office in protecting right of property as outlined by the Founders. The recorders office is like a library where records from real estate transactions are stored. He mentioned that they don't determine property rights, but provide the records for the court to make a determination. He mainly stressed his experience and the love of the work he does as his qualifications. He mentioned that since he's about to turn 65 that this would be his last term in office. It was ultimately a joke, but in a way it sounded a little like he was running for a retirement pension than for service.

Jeff Ratcliffe- www.vote-jeffsmith.com; jeff@vote-jeffsmith.com

Jeff stressed his experience in the County Recorders office and his many positions there. He mentioned several times that he was the "go-to-guy" when things needed to get done quickly and that through his hard work he has built a "congenial" relationship with the public. He tried to set himself apart as a person to get things done within the recorders office, but Rod Campbell expressed more of his understanding and experience in the role of recorder.

County Surveryor

Gary Ratcliffe- surveyorgary.blogspot.com; garybratcliffe@gmail.com

Gary has been a licensed surveyor since 1885 and has worked for the county since 1980. He's currently the Assistant County Surveyor. Gary spoke primarily about his experience at the county and about the role the surveyor to preserve monuments. These monuments are used when surveying to define boundaries and property lines.

Scott Peterson- peterson-scott@comcast.net

Scott is a Springville resident who is a candidate coming from the private sector. During his presentation he extolled the virtues of having a private sector background and not being a career bureaucrat. Much of his focus on the role of the surveyor was on preserving property rights. He didn't provide much insights as to the role of surveyors in protecting property rights, but clearly passionate about that topic. He stated that he is currently President of his chapter of the Utah Council of Land Surveyors, and passed the Land Surveyor in Training (LSIT) exam.

Utah County Sherriff

Robin Wall- www.robinwall4sheriff.com; robinwall4sherriff@gmail.com

The first point that Robin made in his presentation as to why he was running was that "he cares." He then proceeded to tell a couple of jokes about politicians and showed a skepticism for the incumbents practices politically. The use of the phrase "good ol' boy boys" was a common thread among the challengers for the incumbent Sheriff. He talked a lot about what he was going to do for the youth of the county and focused on education, particularly with respect to drugs. He said that he had 3 military commands during his 15yrs. with the army, and while in charge of a company he received an award for the "Best Company in the U.S. Army." He mentioned that he has 17 years of law enforcement experience.

Dan Burton- www.dan4sheriff.com; dan@dan4sheriff.com

Dan spent 7 yrs. in the army as an M.P. until he service was curt short because of an injury. During that time he had served for a period as a supervisor. He mentioned that he spent two years recovering and had to leave the military because he had elected against a surgery that would have allowed him stay. He expressed a desire to make the department more community based through expanding role in neighborhood watch and instituting a "My Child Protection Program." Although he is from California, he said that his goal was to come to Utah and be sheriff in Utah County. He set this goal following his relationship with some officers while attending school in the state.

James Tracy- www.sherifftracy.com; tracyclan1@comcast.net

Jim has served in virtually every capacity with the sheriffs office since 1977. He tried to rebuff statement regarding morale and favoritism. He discussed a workers program for inmates that helped pay for their incarceration and also have money when they leave, but then mentioned that it is currently not being implemented at this time. He mentioned that the department has a $37M budget and defended their use of funds. Overall, he provided very little about his role or performance as sheriff, but rather discounted accusations and talked about a now defunct program.

Serving Springville Precinct 3

As the elected delegates for Springville Precinct 3 our intent is to make you a part of the election process. When electing individuals to represent you--KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. The knowledge of knowing who best represents you will allow your voice to be counted. If, however, you find that there isn't a sufficient number of candidates that you feel represent your views, this knowledge may give you power to effect change.

This forum isn't intended to be dictatorial, but rather a community. A community involves involvement from all of its members. We want to know of any questions or concerns that you want candidates to address. ANY information you can bring that will enrich this process will be welcomed.

Thankyou