Matt Jette (Montana)

Disagree

The goal, regardless of party, is to protect the rights of women and decrease the number of abortions. Those on both sides fail to see this commonality between the parties, the complexity of issue, and the inconsistencies in their own respective stances. Outlawing abortion or restricting funding to healthcare services may lower the number of legal abortions, but not the over all number of abortions performed. Better education, funding, and resources are needed to protect the rights of women.

Neutral

Valid arguments exist on both sides of this issue; and, as I do on most issues, I can find myself, as a result, supporting a policy that protects one's agency, allowing one then to be the author of their own final narrative. On the other hand, I can see such a policy developing into something that it was not intended to become; that is, to have the issue be decided not on agency, but on persuasion.

Abortion should be a right and thus allowed under most circumstances. As such, I can see restrictions to this right, as I do most rights, and these are based on time and circumstance. For example, I can see restricting late term abortion, except under unique and life threatening circumstances. But, these types of abortions are rare and any one who claims they are anything but rare, is essentially lying. I can see restrictions based on the number of abortions, so as to prevent the procedure from being used generously. But, this would need to be matched with better healthcare coverage plans, covering contraceptives and the like. Obviously, abortion ought to be legal when the woman's health is in play or when rape and/or incest has occurred. To deny this right is to deny the rights of women and expose greater harm to countless lives. With that being said, abortion should be legal and a woman's right to a safe medical procedure protected. More funding, not less, is needed for proper education and resources to help guard against unwanted and unplanned pregnancies. Moreover, a discussion on abortion cannot simply be one centered on one particular act. Rather, we need to discuss the issue in the broader context of education, healthcare rights, and social and welfare aid.

Strongly Disagree

I am a strong supporter of a free market economy. I believe people are at their best when they have space and mobility. The key question here should not be centered on redistribution, but whether or not one's skills, knowledge, or assets match the demands birthed in the market. If one finds him or herself suffering from a wide gap between the two, then a choice can be made, but it is that choice that must be protected, rather than the government filling in the gap with redistribution of funds.

Agree

I do agree with some spending cuts. However, it is important to keep in mind that much of the debt we owe, we owe to ourselves. Ironically, it is the result then of government becoming increasingly more complex and the biggest customer for many of the most successful companies today. Also, I am more in line with the monetary school of economics and believe there may be other ways, instead of borrowing, instead of raising taxes, and instead of printing more money, to solve the nation's debt.

This is a very complex question, one in which thousands of books and research articles have been penned by political scientists and economists alike, none finding themselves closer to a better answer. As such, let me begin with a warning. If anyone answers clearly and confidently a tax plan that addresses the issues at hand then they are either ignorant to the complexities of the issues or they are simply trying to win your vote. I will state that whatever tax plan I champion, a simpler plan, a flat tax plan, higher or lower marginal tax rates, altering different taxes, or changing incentives, my goal has been and will remain to increase space for individuals to live and for companies to build and the mobility to change direction, innovate, and adapt. A tax plan that does not rest on these two pillars, pillars necessary for a strong and healthy economy, is a tax plan I will not support. With that, taxes are investments and it is clear that our investments are being swallowed up with greater bureaucracy, rules, and regulations that have increasingly stifled and truncated innovation and mobility, rather than unleashing them in the greater society. A look at our education system provides a clear example of how our investment dollars have been taken and used to fund programs and systems that clearly have not and do not work, cementing in the process a profession that is becoming more concerned with their professional designation and status than with the education of those they are charged with educating. Clearly, the number of steps, the length of time to develop and meet expectations, and the amount of paperwork to address issues have all increased and have moved our economy from one centered on innovation and manufacturing to one built on legalities, finance, and accounting. This has left millions behind and enriching a select few. That is, those who benefit from our tax dollars are not necessarily those for which the dollars where aimed, but to those who administer those dollars or to those who can manipulate those incentives. I am in favor of an older republican idea, one I wish to have a discussion around and one that can give people freedom and mobility and the space to adapt and move. I am in favor of a plan that will lower bureaucracy and place money back the hands of hard working Americans. I am in favor of a Universal Basic Income (UBI). But, unlike other proponents of UBI, I would seek to phase out welfare and some regulations, reducing then the marginal tax rate. I am open to discussing the economic consequences of a flat tax rate as well, say starting at incomes over $35,000. These are ideas that need to be discussed in a constructing and substantive manner...and I am afraid if we elect the same people who are good at winning elections than at governing, these discussions will either be marginalized or made into soundbites, or worse completely ignored. And, as a result, we will still be having these discussions years from now, wondering, why we can not make good on our promise to make tomorrow better than today and today better than yesterday.

Strongly Disagree

I do not think religious liberty is at risk in America. However, I do believe it deserves the highest level of protection. Religion does not teach one what to do in life, but instead how to live a life. This a fundamental aspect of religion that can help birth, nurture, and develop good citizens. At the same time, it can be used to truncate thought, create barriers to reason, and decrease civility among the people, walling us off from the others and this is not healthy for a democratic society.

Strongly Disagree

As an economist my answer is that it depends. If the individual or business works with or has a contract with the government, then my answer is yes. If it is a private business, I think the answer is a bit more messy and complex and must be taken to the next level of inquiry. That is, what is the service provided? What are the products sold? Are they substitutes? these are and many more questions need addressing before I can take a firm stand either way. But again, these need a discussion.

It is wrong for the state to act out from a religious context. If that is indeed the case, then it must also be wrong for people to vote that way, for voting provides directional cues for the state due to the fact we have a representative democracy. The state was to be protected from religion as much as religion was to be protected by the state. In fact, the framers of the United States Constitution were more concerned with the former than with the latter. Religion ought to be free of government and government ought to be free from religion. The government is many ways a back drop, one in which if it goes unnoticed it is working well. Religion on the other hand is the cornerstone inthe lives of millions of people and thus takes a promement role. Make no mistake then, government needs to be separated from religion, for the former allows society to run smoothly and the economy to be healthy, whereas religion centers on the life of the individual. The importance of religion rests in created sound and moral persons and it is government that highlights the importance of how moral people can become and remain good citizens. We are having a great difficulty in distinguishing between the two, often intermingling them with grave results. Issues like abortion, education, welfare, etc. now have a religious aspect, a religuous coloring and bent to them, worse yet, those who seek elected office will curry favor as fast as they can with religious groups defining, framing, and directing the issue, essentially manipulating people to seek a religious answer, not a civil answer to these questions. I am not here to argue religion or decide which is best, for I am here seeking elected office, and to be frank, regardless of how good a religion is and can be or how bad it has shown itself to be, it does not belong the halls of government. In fact, our founders believed likewise and any other interpretation of them is simply misrepresenting them and doing so with great risk of changing the greatness of our representative democratic system, one built on classical liberalism and classical republicanism. My faith and my beliefs guide how I live and how I live will help determine how I lead and how I govern. But, that is where is stops, I will not mandate or place favor in any, but I will give proper respect to all.

I am saddened that this issue is in fact an issue. Having this question before us highlights how low we regard our responsibilities to the greater American society, the decline in social capital in America, and the refusal to do the right thing. The main reason this continues to be an issue is due to the fact that people are repeat offenders, failing to do the right thing in their own lives to not only help themselves, but to look out for their neighbor as well; that is, we live amongst others and because we have freedoms, we carry with us great responsibilities and obligations to protect not only your own freedoms but the freedoms and rights of others. This begins with living good healthy lives. So, yes, I do believe to protect society, mandates are sometimes necessary, but I do not believe that is because that is or ought to be the role of government, but rather, because we have seen once again people fail at being good and virtuous citizens. This is not the America I learned about, grew up in, and wanted to protect and serve. A good healthy America begins with good and healthy individuals. We were rather fortunate, if that is the correct or right word, with COVID. That is, we were not unfamiliar with these strains and variants and, as such, we were able to adapt rather quickly. We should then applaud our scientists and the healthcare frontline workers who served and continue to serve us so admirably during this rather unique time. But the larger question, for I believe this to be the preview perhaps of what could happen, is: what happens if and when we encounter something we are not familiar with? Will we fight it as much as we fight ourselves? I believe this being a question here and an issue still today highlights with great clarity that when it mattered, when it was required for us to look out for each other, many failed, and failed they did greatly. Government and schools already mandate vaccinations, so I am confused as to why this was such an issue. Moreover, if a private employer wishes to issue mandates on getting vaccinated or requiring masks, then that is their right, in a free market economy, to demand it. I am a transplant recipient and a cancer survivor, I know well the fragility of health...I ask others to do like wise.

The three main pillars to healthcare are: cost, quality, and access. If we address one, it will without question effect the other two, often times negatively. With that in mind, it is important to note that the issue of healthcare and healthcare coverage is framed in either a right or privilege I will argue it does not matter how the issue is framed, for the issue is about tradeoffs, as the three pillars highlight. I believe in a more expansive healthcare system, but it must come with the right type of reimbursement plans for physicians and hospitals and it must be clothed in patient responsibilities. That is, America has the most chronic illnesses in the world, ranging from cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, and obesity, yet we are living longer and healthier. That is the result of the great work are healthcare professionals continue to do for us. But that great work occurs with proper incentives, without which great research and development will be strangled, doctors and hospitals will be decrease in number, and in the end, a greater strain will be placed upon our healthcare system. On the other hand, can we do more to increase access, while controlling costs and maintaining, if not increasing, quality. I believe the answer is yes. I would want a mixed system, a basic universal system for which patients hold some responsibility in how well they live. After all, we live a great country that requires each of us to be responsible. I would tie this type of responsibility with the UBI I mentioned previously. Next, I would still allow for private insurance to exist. In the end, the greatest expense in healthcare is chronic illnesses and the consequences arising from those conditions. As such, more patient responsibility is required by way of changing incentives. Finally, we need to begin require proper expectations from ourselves instead of relying on an already taxed healthcare system to treat and cure us. For those not responsible for their illness and children, universal care is a must.

America is exceptional! We are the last and longest standing example of whether man can govern himself, and govern himself well. I believe the world is better when we are better, when we are strong, and when we are good neighbors. The question as to whether we should be active internationally or more focused on issues at home is not a fair question. That is, we are required to be the best and must be able to do both and do both well. We must erase tyranny wherever tyranny is found...to be an example to other nation-states of what is possible in the world and maybe then inspire other countries to do better themselves. Historically, option D has been a disastrous strategy. Option C is a normative claim, asking me and others what "too involved" means and, as a result, creates in us greater divisions, divisions we are seeing today. Option B creates a problem of how we select, based on economic interests, democratic interests, etc.? I believe the answer is A, because to be great, to teach our greatness in classrooms across the nation, requires and demands from us to be just that...great! It is hard work, it is difficult work. It requires great sacrifice, but that is our history, that is who we have been, are, and must remain!

Disagree

Strongly Agree

China may very well represent the single greatest threat to America and the West in the next 30-40 years. From a single party driven market economy, to a growing middle class of over 300 million, to questions of rights and freedoms, to the simple trashing of intellectual property and rule of law, China is becoming a threat to allies and will be the main challenge on the progress we have historically made.

First, we have to acknowledge some beliefs carry with them bad ideas, threatening ideas. Liberalism requires us to call those bad ideas, well BAD! It matters not where they originate, but they do in fact exist and we know they are bad when they lead to terrorism. Second, we must either be champions of liberalism (i.e., classical liberalism) and in that effort to protect and expand it, we must defend it. We must not placate to others when the ideas they disagree with us on are in fact dangerous to our lives, to the way we live, and to the rights and freedoms we have some bravely fought for. To do anything other than that is to show disrespect to everyone who have served. Look, here is the thing, we are America and we are advancing that which the world has never seen until recently in history. We must progress, do not blink, and stomp out terrorism. In that effort, we need to remain militarily strong...I do not heistate to spend money on our military. One of the dangers we face is that younger generations are becoming too far removed from how bad the world can be, worse, they are not being educated properly on this matter. America is not the default setting in the world nor in its history. We are unique, but we were not simply born, we were forged with blood, sacrifice, honor, duty, and bravery. Terrorism does not terrorize Americans, nor can it ever!

Strongly Agree

I lived in Arizona and was on the front lines of the immigration issue back in 2009 forward. I do believe in strong border security, but a wall is simply not the right answer. One, it will not work. Two, the costs will out strip any perceived benefit. Three, we can utilize proper technology that will allow us to limit the number of boots on the ground personnel. We must also monitor and create in other countries better economies and better political structures.

Strongly Agree

We must be on the same page...immigration is not a state issue, but a federal issue. Cities and states that do not adhere to the nation's aim and policies will then necessarily have consequences.

Those who are healthy, skilled, and wanting to integrate well into our economy, political system, and culture. Unskilled labor is also very necessary as well, but I strongly believe an easy answer to this question of immigration is to allow "working visas." We have that already for skilled labor, we can simply apply it to unskilled labor. This will allow those wanting and willing to work here in the United States to do so, without having to bring across the border entire families. The largest costs arising from illegal immigration (i.e., undocumented workers) is healthcare, education, and security. Although economically, the costs are off set by a certain amount by the taxes paid, the costs are not merely numerical. There is a decline in education, placing greater stains on schools and districts. There is a greater costs to healthcare coverage (increases to premiums, deductibles, and co-pays), and there is of course a higher cost to security. As such, better efforts are needed, not simply more of the same and more promises made by those seeking elected office.

Agree

Strongly Disagree

This is personal...but each night I reaffirm a promise I made when I was five years old laying in a hospital bed. I also, laying in bed, provide my thank you to last, being thankful for making through another day. After countless surgeries and countless days and nights in hospitals, overcoming ailments in my health and learning disabilities, my beliefs are what has carried me forward. My values rest in the teachings from my parents, my father a twenty year Marine Corp veteran and the winner of two Purple Hearts and a Navy Cross and my mother who was and remains the anchor of our family instilled discipline, honesty, courage, passion, hard work, and education. I am one of a set of triplets, my brother a minute younger has shown me what virtue is, my identical twin/triplet brother saved my life twice showed me courage and passion, and my older brother is an example of character.

Disagree

Voting is the most important and most fundamental duty we have here in America. I believe having proper ID is such a low bar to perform this great and honorable task. Moreover, I find it ironic those who claim such a bar is too high do not acknowledge a greater problem. That is, functioning in our complex society without ID is nearly impossible and certainly will lead to inequalities. As such, an easy way to correct for some of the perceived inequalities in America may simply rest in ensuring everyone has a proper ID. The result will be a better America and more opportunities for millions of others. This is not a voting issue, this is a participatory issue. Moreover, I think we all need to be better voters...we owe it everyone who has sacrificed for America to be better educated, more reasoned, and less responsive to hyperbolic, divisive, and ignorant comments. I ask everyone reading this to be better, for you have a great responsibility you must pay back, as do I!

Strongly Disagree

I believe the greatest threat to America is ignorance and the lack of commitment to classical liberalism and classical republicanism. As such, cancel culture, intolerance, siloed thinking, and echo chambers represent the greatest security threat. Finally, the cash nexus in elections, voting for those who can win elections versus those who can govern well, and soundbite campaigns are destroying the very representative democratic system we have come to cherish and promised to protect.

Agree

Neither. These choices are not mutually exclusive and they are both true. There are tradeoffs. The key question is what are the tradeoffs, what are the incentives, and can we devise a policy that can adhere to our responsibility to the environment that does not cost us jobs or a decline in the economy. We can do better, but not at the expense of hurting families and our economy.

Moderate

Upon graduating with my doctorate, I entered into what was to be a ten-year research study. This research included seeking political office, first as a republican in the AZ gubernatorial race of 2010, then as a democrat and independent in the 2012 AZ US CD 6 race, and finally as no-party affiliation in the 2015 city of Phoenix mayoral race. I traced and tracked the differences between the parties, outside of my own academic research, coming to find great differences, but also great similarities. I cannot possibly be completely for one without ignoring completely the other side of what my reason shows me. I have entered into the classrooms to study education, becoming a high school teacher (teaching subjects that include IB and AP Economics, AP Gov., US History, European History, Comparative Gov. Classical Literature, and English) learning that what troubles and ills our education system and along the way made enemies among those who proclaim to be for the students. I have traveled around the country, retracing the route my brother and I biked in 1995, interviewing people, recording the differences in America over the last several decades, to find that what troubles America are not merely disagreements on policy, but a deeply rooted, unshakeable dependence on a particular team, for which one would rather go down in flames on issues and in elections, that admit when wrong. I worked with non-profit organizations on both sides of the political aisle, and in those experiences I have come to a better understanding, not of the issues, but of my own ignorance. I am not a moderate because I do not believe in this or that policy or do not hold this or that value. I hold firm to many universal values, for which others in this election do not hold. Rather, I am a moderate because I have those values of wisdom, virtue, goodness, education, reason, perseverance, passion, hard work. More specifically, I hold to the highest standard wisdom and the need to see all sides before deciding. Whatever your issue, whatever your belief, you have in me someone who is strong in the pursuit to get it right, not to find a answer that is right for now.

No

America is hard work! America is exceptional and must be work at and worked for. I value the place that is America, the people wo serve America, the idea that is America. But without that hard work, to discuss, deliberate, to debate issues in a civil and constructive manner, that idea will fade, be replaced with bickering, fighting, and great division. With me, the sun is not setting on the great American experiment; rather, a new dawn is appearing and something great can be viewed. Those who work hard, with their hands, work the land, and know the struggles in supporting their families, neighborhoods, communities, and states know that out of conflict arises either destruction or a new beautiful birth. We all have been struggling and now I promise you something different this election and in the time I serve and that is a better tomorrow, and some peace to live your lives in peace. I am the only candidate who has learning disabilities, overcome over 40 major surgeries, and been on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. I have grown up studying the main issues, running for office under both parties for a research book, and devoted my life to a promise I made when I was five. I am committed to reshaping healthcare, rethinking education, and changing our economy that is geared towards individual excellence. That is, we should create a society that makes us better not worse, makes us better neighbors and not closed off isolationists, and develops skills and knowledge that allows us to create, not to destroy. We are required to cultivate the soil that is our American political system, for if we fail to do so, weeds will grow. We must take care of the lives that occupy our lands, for if we fail wolves will come to hunt. We each can do a little better, but you know with me, I will be out in front so that you can live the lives you want, with the freedom to do so, the mobility to adapt, and the space to excel. Finally, a warning to America, to Montana, and more specifically, to all Montana voters. I moved to Montana and I started a campaign to protect what is good about American democracy. I have sacrificed greatly since being here in the effort to stop bad people from winning. I stand behind my principles that reason, logic, virtue, and wisdom will once again win the day. However, if Zinke wins, if Trump wins, our representative democracy loses. If Zinke wins office, the people of Montana must know it happened on their watch and the shame of our political system will be on their hands. I want to say that American democracy is built for these moments, I hope I am not wrong. If I am wrong, then both Zinke and Trump will win in November, with devastating potentialities for our electoral and political systems. The trust and faith that made America great will be diminished, if not permanently deleted. It is a strategy designed to dismantle the very thing that has kept this great American experiment going; that is, trust in the system itself and trust in each other. I am running against Zinke. I have been called a moderate, a democrat, a Reagan Republican, and countless other names. I do not care about the labels; just know I stand so that you can stand. Well, I am standing!

Agree

Neutral

The work the brave men and women perform in the call to protect our communities needs to be accompanied by proper funding. With that, I do not agree in militarizing our police departments. I support funding for mental health and community program, but these are to work in conjunction with, not in place of police.

Enforce the current laws.

Disagree

First, gun violence is a tragedy! Second, my heart goes out to those who suffered at the hands who have used guns to attack, terrorize, and kill innocent people. The actors involved highlight the fact that to own guns requires and demands great responsibility and it is here we must enforce current gun laws and ensure those who own guns, and most do already, own them properly.