Opening Statements
Presidential Candidates
Legislative Priorities
Negative Campaign Commercials
Wilderness

Opening Statements

Jim Matheson (D): I'm running for congress because I believe we need to elect people who take a longer view. Too many candidates and too many elected officials only look at the next election when they make decisions.

Let me give you an example. We've got this huge federal budget surplus we're looking at right now. And in my opinion, short term consideration says let's do a big tax cut or big spending that we can't afford right now.

What we ought to do with that surplus is we ought to secure the long term future of Social Security and Medicare and we ought to pay down our debt. That creates a fiscally responsible approach in the long term. That's my approach to that issue and that's the approach I'll take to all issues as a member of congress.

Derek Smith (R): I'm running because, as a concerned parent with a daughter in the public schools here in the Salt Lake Valley, I'm very concerned about moving more federal dollars down to a local level. I want to return control over our schools to the parents and the teachers so that we can make local decisions about how those dollars are spent.

As a small business person I'm very concerned about making the valley a more fertile environment in which to create jobs. I've created a lot of jobs myself and it's very difficult. I want to open up that process so that we can grow our economy.

As we look at the tremendous number of children who will be coming into our schools soon, we need to grow this economy to be able to pay those bills.

Presidential Candidates

Bruce Lindsay (host): At the top of the ticket this election, Al Gore and George W. Bush are locked in an extremely tight race. We've heard a lot about their positions, the proposals and their policies. Let me ask each of you.. tell me the positions on which you differ from your respective presidential candidates. What positions do you have, Mr. Smith, that are different from George W. Bush's?

Smith: I'm a strong supporter of Governor Bush. I think that he will do a great job for the country. And I would look forward to working with him to try and really make some meaningful changes for the country for the better.

In terms of areas of difference, none come to mind. So I would just say that I heartily endorse his candidacy and I'll be voting for him.

Lindsay: So every idea that he has is fine with you?

Smith: That's a tough one to answer across the board, but I support his platform and I think that he and Dick Cheney will do a wonderful job.

Lindsay: Mr. Matheson, do you similarly support the Al Gore platform?

Matheson: Well, there are points of disagreement.

First of all, I think he's over promised on our projected surplus. I think George W. Bush has as well. But I think he's over promised in terms of how much he's going to spend, and combining that with tax cuts. And I think it threatens what I think we should be doing, which is protecting the futures of Social Security, Medicare, and paying out our debt.

I also disagree with his position on guns. He supports licensing and registration of guns in this country and I don't support that.

Legislative Priorities

Lindsay: Since politics is the art of the doable and it's the art of the compromise, and you cannot accomplish everything, review for me if you would, your two or three legislative priorities..

Matheson: Number one, I want to pursue true fiscal discipline. And as I said before, we've got to take advantage of what surplus we're going to have by being disciplined in securing Social Security and Medicare for the future, and paying down our debt. That is the top legislative priority for me.

Second, I want to produce as much federal money as I can (for our schools). We're stretched to the limit in this state and we need all the help we can get.

Lindsay: The federal government currently funds what, seven or eight percent? Are you in favor of increasing that?

Matheson: I would favor federal programs that do not infringe upon local control in terms of curriculum and administration. But I've got to tell you, in terms of class size reduction, I think if we can get federal dollars to help pay for more teachers and more classrooms, that's the right thing to do.

Lindsay: Should attached to those federal dollars come mandatory testing, national standards for students?

Matheson: I disagree with mandatory testing to the national level. I think that different regions and different states have their own characteristics. I believe in testing and accountability. But I think they ought to be enforced at the local level.

Lidnsay: The first priority you said was fiscal responsibility. Does that nullify further talk of a tax cut?

Matheson: I'm open to some tax cuts. I've been on record as saying I support a cut of the estate tax and the marriage penalty. But we gotta be careful here. We can't over promise, and I think that's what's going on.

Lindsay: So you're not promising anything for income tax?

Matheson: Not at this point. I think we've got to be very careful in how we deal with this projected surplus.

Lindsay: Mr. Smith, your top two or three legislative priorities?

Smith: Well, when we think about taxes, I think that waiting to cut taxes until you're in a recession is not the right way to go. It's like waiting to maintain your car until it breaks down on the freeway. I think that we need a sensible tax cut for everybody who pays taxes. We're faced with a four trillion dollar surplus. That means the government is taking too much of our money.

Lindsay: So tax cut is your priority?

Smith: I think we need a tax cut, paying down the debt, of course saving Social Security and Medicare, and then we've got to get more federal dollars down to the district and the local level with no strings attached.

Now I was talking yesterday with the superintendent of the Jordan School District and he illustrated for me the amount of federal paperwork that goes with some of these federal strings, for one student in one year could cover a wall in his office, and he has a big office. So, we have to simplify that process and return control back to the teachers and the parents.

Lindsay: (To Smith) So you think there's enough money to have a tax cut and to pay down the debt. (To Matheson) And you say be fiscally responsible and tax cuts come later. All right, well there's a difference then for you, folks.

Campaign Commercials

Lindsay: I would prefer to focus our discussion on your vision for what you would do while in office, but I would be blind to the fire storm swirling about this campaign. Let me ask you a couple of questions about what you're doing to try to get this office.

I just know what I hear on the radio and on t.v. in terms of ads, and I'd like you to clarify some things for me. Mr. Smith, your ad suggests.. that your opponent is hiding his real agenda, that he isn't telling voters the truth. That's the innuendo that I'm picking up. I want to ask you directly: Do you think Mr. Matheson has a hidden agenda, and that he's not telling the whole truth?

Smith: Well, what I think, Bruce, is that to campaign on a set of promises about fiscal conservancy and other issues isn't the same as being able to execute on that vision once you're elected, because you've got to be able to get 218 votes in the House of Representatives to pass legislation. So, control of congress is a vital issue.

So I feel that when I talk about being able to deliver on a tax cut or being able to return local control to education, that means that it's vital that the republicans retain control of the House of Representatives to get there.

Lindsay: So, my question again is, are you saying that he's not telling the truth?

Smith: Well, I'm not saying those things in those ads. That's an independent expenditure..

Lindsay: Allright, then do you repudiate those ads?

Smith: I think we need a clear statement to the voters about control of Congress and what it means.

Lindsay: You don't repudiate the ads. You didn't buy them, but you don't disagree with them?

Smith: That's correct.

Lindsay: But you won't say here and now that you don't believe Mr. Matheson?

Smith: Well, I believe that he's sincere. But when he gets in the congress, if he were elected and if that threw control to the democrats, it wouldn't be up to him.

The new speaker of the house isn't going to say, 'Gee, Jim, since you campaigned on those issues, I guess we can't raise taxes, we can't have bigger government.' So, I believe that it's a little disingenuous.

Lindsay: Mr. Matheson, I heard you on a commercial.. say, 'I was always taught to respect everyone, but this time Derek Smith has gone too far.' Now the implication may be that you don't respect Derek Smith. Is that what I correctly should understand?

Matheson: The commercials that are on television are simply guilt by association and they're just not true and he knows that. My image is put up on the screen with a bunch of issue positions, and I have taken the exact opposite position from those issues. So I think it's disingenious and I think we ought to talk about the positions we support and not make up positions about what the other candidate's saying.

Some of those commercials are independent expenditures. Some of them are his own campaign expenditure.

Lindsay: All right. Do you not respect him?

Matheson: I didn't say that. What I said is we shouldn't do this type of campaigning. And I've got to say, I've tried to run a campaign about which people can feel proud, and I hope that is also a reflection of the type of member of congress that I would be.

Smith: These ads don't say that these are Jim's positions. What they're saying is Al Gore's president and the democrats control congress, it won't be up to Jim, it'll be up to people like Dick Gephardt who will become Speaker of the House...

Wilderness

Lindsay: Let's talk about an environmental issue that's a national issue and a local issue. The congress has spent decades debating how much federal wilderness land there ought to be in Utah. How would you advance that debate and move it to a closure?

Smith: Well, this debate has been so polarized. I want to find the middle ground. My family enjoys fishing, hiking, camping. I want to make sure that these lands are open for everybody and not completely closed off.

So I support a balanced mixed-use approach, that wouldn't call for, you know, nine million acres. Something less than that in terms of wilderness designation. I think we need to work both sides together to find the middle ground, that still allows access to families.

Matheson: It's an issue that's been characterized by a lot of emotion and very little progress. And we haven't had someone on our congressional delegation for a long time that's willing to stand up in advocate for wilderness designation. That is who I would be.

My concern though, is it's regressed into a simple numbers game. People throw out different acreage numbers and I don't think that does justice to the issue. We need to have an inclusive process when we look at different sections of land and make decisions about what has wilderness qualities and what doesn't.

And I think there are many places in this state that deserve to be preserved for future generations with wilderness designation.

Derek Smith's Web site

Jim Matheson's Web site