Libertarians Hold Only Dallas Debate at SMU

By Brooks Powell

blpowell@smu.edu

Four Libertarian candidates for Texas governor squared off before a small gathering of party faithful and interested voters in SMU’s Hughes-Trigg Theater Tuesday night. During the only Dallas debate before the Libertarian party’s statewide convention in Austin this June, the candidates outlined how the themes of limited government, lower taxes, and individual and state sovereignty would be central to his or her tenure as governor.

Surprisingly, throughout Tuesday night’s debate, one heard hardly any mention of jobs or health care, two highly contentious issues at the heart of the Republican and Democratic races.

When asked about the lack of any mention of the political “elephants in the room,” Tarrant County Libertarian Party Chairman John Spivey said those issues are at the core of the federal regulation the Libertarian party wants to eliminate.

Jobs are created “when you reduce taxes, reduce the size of government and take the government out of people’s lives,” Spivey said.

Spivey said the health care issue could be addressed by deregulating the state health care industries, allowing coverage to be sold across state lines.

“Right now, health care companies have a monopoly in each state,” Spivey said. “Removing barriers makes health care more affordable for everyone.”

From transportation to education, candidates outlined their stances on the major issues.

Moderator Paul Petersen, chairman of the Dallas County Libertarian Party, queried the candidates about a free-market solution to transportation throughout the state.

Steve Nichols, a Frisco real estate appraiser and gubernatorial candidate, suggested recovering from the federal government more of the tax revenue generated by gasoline taxes and using those funds to build roads, rather than creating more toll roads. In addition, Nichols said as governor he would shed light on where money is being spent within the Texas Department of Transportation to eliminate waste.

Jeff Daiell of Houston said he believes the best solution would be to stop taking federal funds for transportation in order to eliminate cumbersome and intrusive federal regulation. Daiell also said he would end the practice of taking private land under eminent domain, a controversial topic also being discussed by Republican and Democratic gubernatorial candidates.

On a question regarding limiting government’s role in education, Houston trial attorney Katherine Youngblood Glass said she would support establishing a minimum standard for student performance as outlined in the Texas state constitution, but would otherwise eliminate regulation statewide. She favors local control.

Ed Tidwell, a fire specialist for the Austin Fire Department and former U.S. Marine, said he supports a school voucher system, which allows parents to use their school taxes to put their children in private schools if they so choose.

Candidates also addressed the issue of resisting federal intrusion into state affairs, with each providing a decidedly different solution.

Tidwell said as governor he would push for the revision or outright repeal of the 17th amendment, effectively returning the responsibility of electing of U.S. senators to state legislatures rather than permitting a statewide popular vote.

Nichols said he would seek to eliminate federal funding, and therefore regulation, at all levels, especially in education. He said currently, tax dollars from states are taken from citizens, who would otherwise spend them on driving local economies. They are absorbed by the federal government, and then sent back to the states with strings attached that Nichols called “maintenance of effort” clauses—essentially, unwanted mandates forced upon states using taxpayers’ money.

Daiell wants to strengthen adherence to the 10^th amendment, which grants powers not reserved for the federal government to the states. He said he would even mount formal legal challenges to protect state sovereignty in cases where the federal government appears to be overstepping its constitutional bounds.

Finally, Youngblood Glass cited the Environmental Protection Agency as a prime example of federal interference in state business.

“The EPA has no teeth,” said Youngblood Glass. “Because they don’t have any power to enforce regulations themselves, they make the states do it.”

Youngblood Glass said unnecessary regulations should be eliminated, especially if the federal government has no power to enforce them itself.

“They won’t use Texas that way when I’m governor,” she said.

SMU Libertarians Co-President Spencer Price Matthews said attendance by students at Tuesday night’s debate was lower than expected, but he was pleased to see members of the greater Dallas community come to see the candidates.

“It’s important to have this debate at SMU because we’re a university. It’s part of our job to bring people together to talk about important issues,” Matthews said.

While no more than a handful of SMU students attended, a group of about a dozen students from Allen High School made the trek to hear the Libertarians articulate their positions. Only two high school students were old enough to vote.

“We believe in Libertarian principles and it was important for us to be here tonight,” one student said.

Characteristically different in another way from their Republican and Democratic counterparts, Libertarians will not hold a primary election March 2nd to decide their candidate for governor. Instead, they will meet at a statewide convention in Austin June 12th to select a candidate who will then campaign until the gubernatorial election takes place November 2nd.