Michelle Malkin has good things to say about Jason Chaffetz on her blog. She is referring specifically to Rep. Chaffetz’s Cap and Trade Disclosure Act, for which he is currently seeking co-sponsors.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz is seeking original cosponsors for the Cap-and-Trade Tax Disclosure Act which will require utility companies to disclose and separately itemize the impact of cap-and-trade taxes on each customer’s utility bill. Sound tax policy requires that taxes should be visible to taxpayers and not buried in the cost of items we purchase. With this legislation, every utility customer – residential and business — will be able to identify the cost of cap-and-trade emissions that the utility is passing on to the customer. As regulated entities, utilities pass taxes on to customers, unlike unregulated companies that can also pass taxes on to shareholders and employees. The cap-and-trade tax is potentially the largest tax increase ever imposed. According to the Administration’s own budget document, the cost will be at least $646 billion over an eight-year period. No matter where you stand on the issue of cap and trade, both sides can agree that full disclosure and transparency are good public policy.
Some critics have said that cap and trade can’t be called a tax. Cap and Trade is a way for the government to collect revenue on energy used, while having private companies do the collecting. The effect would be the same as a national sales tax. Even some Liberal Democrats have opposed cap and trade because it is a regressive tax that will hit lower-income, working Americans the hardest.
The American people deserve full-disclosure on bills coming out of their government. Rep. Chaffetz’s bill would shine a light on the effects of the Cap and Trade tax, and expose it’s bottom line effects to American taxpayers.
Contact your representative and ask him or her to co-sponsor the Cap and Trade Disclosure Act.
In one of the few bright spots of the evening, Jason Chaffetz is predicted to win the Thrid District Congressional seat.
Congressman-elect Chaffetz represents the right kind of change. We wish him all the best.
I have heard several commentators, including Rush Limbaugh, voice their concerns about the state of today’s Democratic Party. Well, it seems the Democratic Party is in great shape after all. How could it not be with all those people intent on saving us from ourselves?
The group Americans for Better Immigration rates Jason Chaffetz as a “true immigration reform candidate,” based on his positions on immigration in 12 categories.
Jim Matheson is listed as “more opposed than supportive of overall immigration reductions.” That puts him, according to a poll by the Deseret News, at odds with 3/4 of Utahans over immigration reform.
Maybe we can send two incumbents home this November.
I’ve been out of town for a couple of days. Time to catch up.
While I was on vacation, I finished reading Thomas Sowell’s marvelous book The Vision of the Anointed. It was a fantastic read! Many of my favorite current affairs books leave me wanting to strangle some liberal, just to make me feel better. So, I balance them with the heavy scholarly books, which are much more about principles, and take a lot longer to read. I get two benefits from these books–a grounding in true conservative principles, and time to cool off. Dr. Sowell’s book is a good balance of both.
In it, he explains that a good number of our population, especially of the academic variety but also many of those who simply have higher degrees, feel that they are exclusively qualified to lead us into the future; that only they have the vision to see what America really needs to be great. Right now you’re thinking, “Cool! A good book about Liberals.” Well, you won’t be entirely disappointed, but Dr. Sowell only occasionally mentions Liberals or Liberalism and does not point to them as the sole focus of his book. I came to realize, while reading the last few chapters of the book, that Dr. Sowell’s focus is on anyone who can be counted among the self-anointed, including Conservatives. No-one is immune from this self-aggrandizing vision.
Well, how interesting that Chris Cannon refers to the everyday folks here in Utah as boors (props to Brad Reneer at reneer.org). Here is a fine example of what Dr. Sowell writes about. Chris Cannon thinks the reason he was beaten in the primary was the low voter turnout. That Utahans don’t care enough to vote in numbers great enough to ensure a cannon victory. Well, after doing some analysis on the Utah County clerk’s Statement of Votes Cast, it appears that low voter turnout had little to do with Cannon’s ouster.
For example, in Provo’s 8th voting precinct, of 1366 registered Republican voters, only 6 made it out to vote and all 6 voted for Cannon. Conversely, in one American Fork precinct, the voter turnout was over 40%, yet Jason Chaffetz won that precinct with 60% of the votes.
Some other interesting results came out of Mapleton. You’d think that Mapleton would have been locked down for Cannon, but Cannon won in only two precincts there (I’m guessing the one in which he lives). Additionally, the Mapleton precinct with the highest and lowest turnout rates (24% and 16%) went to Cannon, but the 2nd and 3rd highest (21% and 17%) went to Chaffetz.
Overall, voter turnout was very low at less than 10%. But when the results are broken down by precinct, it becomes obvious that it would not have mattered if the voter turnout were higher. Cannon still would have lost. Perhaps Mr. Cannon should reflect on this truth. Over the years he has become one of the “anointed,” and out of step with reality. One of the things Thomas Sowell teaches us is those with the vision of the anointed find myriad ways to insulate themselves from reality. Chris Cannon is doing exactly that now.
I said in an earlier post that it was time for Mr. Cannon to step aside, in large part because he had reached the pinnacle of his power. Judging from his reaction to the election, I’m comfortable knowing I called it right.
(On a side note, I told Jason that we was going to win the nomination back at the Convention)
On a great win in the face of tremendous odds.
Chris Cannon seemed to have everything going for him: endorsements of most of Utah’s Republican leadership, name recognition, a bigger budget, experience from previous campaigns, PAC money from outside Utah, all that and yet volunteerism and a great grass roots effort were able to unseat him in a near landslide.
Everyone thought that the 59%-41% vote at the State convention was a fluke, but here it is again repeated in the Republican primary. Obviously Jason has something to say that resonates with voters. Too bad Chris Cannon was more interested in listening to outside voices.
I spent the evening at Chaffetz Headquarters in Springville. At about 11:00 PM, Chris Cannon called to offer his congratulations, and to concede the race for Utah’s Third congressional District.
The totals as of right now (with all but one rural precinct reporting) are:
- Jason Chaffetz – 59.96% (27,266)
- Chris Cannon – 40.04% (18,208)
In his acceptance speech, Mr. Chaffetz thanked Mr. Cannon for his service to the community, which was a nice gesture.
There was a point during the evening where Mr. Cannon said something that served to solidify our feelings about him. He told a local reporter that he was disappointed in the low turnout, and said that it aserved as a lesson to the people of Utah; that if they want good representation, they’re going to have to get out and vote. The comment drew a lot of cat-calls from people at Chaffetz headquarters.
To me, it was reminiscent of another comment that was made several years ago. When Al Gore lost the presidential election in 2000, one of the Democratic leaders was interviewed at the State Capitol. Her comment made my blood boil. She said, as closely as I can recall, “The people have spoken, and if they want to drive this ship of state into the ground, that’s their business.”
Now I know Mr. Cannon didn’t say exactly that, but it certainly felt a lot like it. I am convinced that Washington has historically attracted people who think like that; who think they know better than us benighted masses. Chris Cannon has called for transparency in earmarks. What is really needed to overcome this effect is transparency in government. Washington needs to be a fishbowl, not an opaque bubble. Then nobody could say, “Well, you just don’t understand how things work back there.” That’s always a red flag for me. It says three things, 1) Washington is a closed society that, 2) the politicians think we aren’t bright enough to understand, and 3) we couldn’t get things done there because we aren’t part of the clique.
Here’s hoping Jason Chaffetz breaks it wide open!
With 30% of precincts reporting, Jason Chaffetz has taken a sizable lead.
Chaffetz: 61% (10,583) Cannon 39% (6798)
Watch current results on-line at
Today is the Republican Primary.
Do the right thing, and vote.
I voted Jason Chaffetz for US Congress in Utah’s Third District. I think it’s time for a change, and I’m not talking about the empty change-for-the-sake-of-change that Obama wants. I mean substantive change.
Chris Cannon has served Utah reasonably well, but he now seems to have picked up whatever germ has infested Washington DC that causes our public servants to become arrogant and cocky, to rise up against the people and take an attitude of “I know better than you.”
Jason’s positions more closely match my own, as does his feelings on the immigration question. Leaving in place the incentives that cause people to come here illegally, only to be caught up in the web of deceit laid by our leaders wherein these people cannot lift themselves out of poverty is wrong. We are a country that has prided itself on the equality of opportunity. But these people are shut out of that opportunity cycle by their legal status. The solution is not to make categorical changes to their status, but to encourage them to come to America the right way, in accordance with the law. Luring them here with promises of free health care, better income, whatever, is an evil that must be abolished.
Both Jason Chaffetz and Glenn Beck have rightly named this the new slavery–a community of non-citizens upon which our economy supposedly hangs. That argument was wrong during the revolution, and it is wrong now.
Get out and vote.
I support Parents for Choice in Education. I support their cause because I support the idea that parents, not elitist government bureaucrats, know best how to educate children. The “anointed elite” believe that because of their highly educated status, they are among the very wise and therefore must be obeyed when it comes to social policy.
One example I want to share. This comes from a newsletter recently sent to me by PCE. It includes a portion of a letter by Denise Griffiths. She writes,
My daughter’s stress and anxiety left her hating school and suffering a down turn in her delicate health situation. We believed a change in schools and peers would help. A transfer should have been easy since our our school was overcrowded and the other school had room for almost 200 students.
We applied to transfer her by the deadline but were rejected. Our written appeal, with letters from two doctors, was also rejected. When I complained to the district I was told ‘It’s not about capacity, it’s about things you don’t understand.’
In desperation to help my daughter, we were compelled to turn over custody to grandparents. Unbelievably, a school administrator attended the custody hearing to inform the judge that we were just trying to get around district policy. I wish the district understood that it’s about the children and things that parents do understand.
The only thing the newsletter leaves out is the identity of this busybody school administrator who believes he or she has the right, even the duty, to interfere in the lives of other people. In my opinion, this administrator should be fired, their name well-publicized, and they should be made the target of public scorn, derision, and ridicule.
Sadly, this is not an isolated incident. Remember the Jensen family that ran afoul of the State when their son, Parker, was diagnosed with cancer? Rather than subject their son to the torture of chemotherapy, which would leave their son sterilized in addition to offering little chance of saving his life, they opted to get a second opinion. That’s when their doctor reported them to the Utah Dept. of Child and Family Services. The DCFS took the case to a judge who ordered that Parker be taken into state custody and that his parents be arrested for kidnapping (they were on vacation in Idaho when the judge made his ruling).
Well, the family was recently spotlighted on a local news broadcast. The state has since dropped it’s case against the family, but only after two years of pursuing them. The father lost his job, they lost their home, and they are basically having to start over. But what they did was nothing short of heroic. Their actions are of the same character as those of our founding fathers, standing up against government overreaching its Constitutionally-limited authority. Instead, there are still many people here in Utah and elsewhere who see the Jensen’s as abusive parents who need to be jailed.
What these obtuse individuals have failed to grasp is that the government has never legitimately been given power over families like that. It has taken that power unto itself, which means that it does not really have the authority at all. It may have the power, but it lacks the authority.
Do these folks realize that the DCFS can sieze a child from its parents without due process? All they need is someone to say the child is in imminent danger. And the courts have historically sided with DCFS on the issue, Constitutional prohibitions notwithstanding. The DCFS and the courts thus routinely violate the Supreme Law of the Land.
Fortunately, there still seems to be a majority of people who oppose this usurpation. It’s one of the things I am asking Jason Chaffetz to address when he gets to Congress–to enshrine in our Constitution and laws the unalienable rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, including the recognition that government does not have first right of refusal in providing for childrens’ needs.
Vote for Jason Chaffetz on June 24.