Some Reasons for Opposing Chris Cannon

Obviously Chris Cannon's campaign promise was pretty safe to make - he'd not likely have to vote on the amendment again, since it was already out the door, waiting for the Senate to act on it. When the amendment was introduced by Republican Representative Porter Goss from Florida, he said, "As we look toward Flag Day this Saturday, we want to be able to send to our nation's veterans -- and in fact to all Americans -- the simple gift of knowing that the flag that stirred their hearts, that so many have fought for, that so many have died for, will be as sacred and secure as the freedom and liberty it embraces. This is an overwhelmingly popular idea whose time has come. " Interestingly, Chris Cannon's biography gives every indication that he missed his chance to die for the flag. If he did serve in Vietnam, which was all the rage with the less well-to-do kids of this country, he doesn't mention it. And anyway, he just would not have had time to go, since he was busy with school, and an LDS mission, and similar important responsibilities.

Fiscal Responsibility

You would think that the $40 million bill run up by Mr Starr in his fishing expedition would give a "no-frills government" Republican like Chris Cannon pause. But no. "The money is well spent," he proclaimed. In case you are wondering how spending a million dollars a month on keeping some lawyers happy squares with Chris Cannon's avowed political allegiances, you only need to look in his checkbook.

Where does Chris Cannon spend his money? Well, to get elected, of course. While there are some private donors (a little over a hundred reported to the FEC, in a state with almost 3 million people, and more millionaires per capita than almost any other state in the union), most of the money he uses to support his campaign comes out of his own pocket. (The money is reported as "Loans from the candidate".) It's a deep enough pocket, as pockets go, but he must be looking with no small admiration at Mr Starr, who has managed to wield incredible power, without spending a red cent of his own!

Public Health

I am listening to the radio on Tuesday, March 31, 1998, when I hear an interview with Chris Cannon. The interviewer, a woman who is audibly trying to restrain her incredulity, is asking questions about a proposed bill that will limit minors' access to certain contraceptive methods, unless they get their parents' consent. This is fairly common practice amongst conservatives the world over: sex is evil, and to punish people for having sex, they must pay the consequences by getting pregnant. Particularly if they happen to be women.

But the interviewer is asking about teen pregancy. It is a major problem in the USA. It is a huge problem even in conservative Utah, where thousands of children live below the poverty line, and most of them are the children of teenage mothers. Isn't this bill going to make the problem worse?

Well, as I said, the purpose is to punish girls for having sex. But you can't really say that on the radio, not even in Utah. Chris Cannon explains that the bill is supposed to encourage girls to get their boyfriends to use condoms, to prevent sexually transmitted diseases.

The interviewer grudgingly admits that in fact diseases like AIDS are spreading the most rapidly among sexually active teenagers. Wouldn't it be better to educate the kids, she asks. Chris Cannon says that education just doesn't work.

Instead of educating kids about using condoms, he says that he hopes that the fear of pregnancy will cause girls to think about using a condom. He says that girls who are afraid of asking their parents for a prescription to birthcontrol pills will also be afraid of getting pregnant, and therefore behave more responsibly.

Sure. That makes a lot of sense. While we're at it, let's prohibit kids from wearing seatbelts unless they get a note from their mom. Fear of having a car crash might just get them to drive more carefully.

Conservatism

Well, no.

That is, Cannon is conservative, and he votes for the conservative agenda. But he does so in a knee-jerk fashion that is embarrassing to watch. Take a look at his anti-crime actions, for example.

H.R.1493 was passed into law in 1997. The bill is a good example of conservative law making, but a bad example of conservatism, or for that matter good law making. Here's why. The bill basically sends the INS into local jails to find illegal aliens, who are then supposed to be moved to federal prisons. This way, in theory, local and state governments don't carry the burden of paying for crimes committed by foreigners.

Cannon expanded the bill to include 20% "interior" states, like Utah. He says that the Salt Lake City police department told him that 80% of their drug crimes are committed by illegal aliens. Sounds bad, doesn't it? What it doesn't say, though, is how the SLPD knows their man is an illegal. All some of these guys have to do is babble "No comprendo" and show no ID. Must be an illegal, right?

It's worse than that, though. So the illegal goes to jail, is processed by INS, and sent to federal prison, right? Well, there are some problems with that

Do Canadians never deal in drugs? Or is it that we don't mind because they are Whites who speak English? And exactly who is it that buys the drugs?

assumption. First, there often is no room at the jail, so the non-violent suspects are let go. That means drug dealers, drug possession, etc. Even if they go to jail, the INS has a miniscule staff of a handful of men (last year only two) to try and work out who is a citizen and who isn't. And federal prisons are no less overcrowded than the Salt Lake County jail. Mostly because of small-time drug possession convictions in federal court with huge mandatory sentences.

And if they are held there for trial, then there's no guarantee that they get arrained before the Habeas Corpus rule lets them go free. One way or the other, if the INS is on the ball, they eventually get a free ticket to Cancun. Yup, they won't do that again!

Anyway, you see what I'm saying. There may or may not be a problem with drug related crimes. And it certainly is tempting to blame the whole mess on the damn furriners from south of the border. But if the laws we pass do little more than get us to churn our wheels, what good do they do?

But instead of doing something that might make a difference - build more jails, come up with alternatives to long prison terms for minor drug possession, or other steps that should be acceptable to conservatives - Cannon has been busy trading federal lands for state lands in Utah so that his industrialist buddies can have a shot at digging for oil or coal.

There are other examples of this decidedly non-conservative behavior. For example, after twenty years of neglecting Utah's highways, the state has finally decided, what with the 2002 Winter Olympics coming to Salt Lake City, it would be a bad show if some crumbling freeway overpass dropped a chunk of concrete on a Russian skating star. So they've set a $1.7 billion reconstruction project in motion to rebuild and widen the freeways.

But instead of raising gasoline taxes to get the money from the folks who made the reconstruction necessary, Governor Leavitt sent the Utah delegation to Washington, hat in hand. Cannon has been busy begging for money, right alongside his colleagues Hansen and Cook in the House, and Bennett and Hatch in the Senate.

I didn't realize that "States' Rights" included the right to feed at the public trough.