Response:

My top priority will be promoting alternative solutions that usually go unaddressed to the complex problems we face. Often all the choices we have on an issue are polar opposites that force us to choose the lesser of two evils—that is not good enough. We need more reason and less rhetoric. We don't need to agree completely to find solutions that respect rights, follow the Constitution, and avoid creating yet another government bureau.

Response:

* Step 1: Sort. Issue visas with identification at the border and to all current illegal immigrants who can pass a background check, the visas should allow them to seek work (provided they renew the visa regularly) but not entitle them to Federal assistance. This step is necessary to separate the criminals & terrorists for the citizens seeking jobs and better lives thus reducing the workload of our border protection forces tremendously. Domestic benefits will include eliminating a black market in documentation fraud and a visitor population now willing/able to work with the police and other local organizations to improve the community around them.

* Step 2: Secure the border. Even with the workload greatly reduced this task will be difficult without the assistance of Mexico. Currently the government of Mexico assists those trying to enter the United States to help bring wealth to their country; however, in exchange for Step 1 they will be enthusiastic to support measures to secure our border from both sides and remove reentry tariffs and fees that may deter some visitors from returning home.

* Step 3: Acknowledge state rights. While the Federal government should retain the responsibility of naturalization and entry, states should have the right to determine whether non-citizens may seek employment inside their borders. This policy keeps the states empowered to do business as they see fit but permits immigrant-visitors the mobility to seek states interested in their services.

* Step 4: Long term issues. Securing the border with Mexico is a costly solution only intended for the short term, it doesn't really fix the problem. Prohibition seems light years away from immigration as a political issue, but in truth prohibition is largely to blame for much of our immigration problems. Drug cartels, funded by US consumers and supplied by South America, are creating a violent and corrupt environment that is overwhelming the legitimate government of Mexico.

* I do not believe we need to create additional avenues to citizenship; while I agree we need to simplify our system, granting special access to those who came here illegally gives future immigrants no motivation to follow the law.

Response:

I would not choose a single payer system and I oppose being forced into a single payer system, that being said—I would've preferred a single payer system to the complex monstrosity commonly referred to as "Obamacare." Ideally I would prefer the Federal government stay completely out of healthcare as it is not an enumerated power of Congress under the Constitution.

As we provide more money specifically to certain services we raise the price of those services by artificially inflating demand (see also Housing Bubble). The higher price of the product creates more people who cannot afford it and require assistance to get it, this cycle is endless. Politicians are fine with this because they are helping needy voters and receiving campaign contributions from healthcare companies, the healthcare companies are fine with it because they have a product that sells as if it were free.

Simple solution: free the market. Instead of offering assistance only to pre-approved procedures, give the recipient cash and let them choose for themselves how to spend it. Instead of demanding a prescription for a specific medication, let the buyer work with their healthcare provider (doctor) to find what works for them and let them choose how much to spend.

Our system is suffering from a severe lack of competition, can you imagine what would happen to food prices if everyone had an extra $1000 a month to spend only on food? And what would happen to those outside of the program, how would they afford to eat?

Once competition sets in and product development refocuses from subtle improvement to affordability we will see the cost of these goods & services go down and we can responsibly remove the Federal government from this role.

As the prices of these goods and services go down insurance will become a program of shared risk again (instead of shared cost) reducing its cost.

Response:

* Stop trying to create jobs out of thin air, jobs are a means of exchange inside an economy and not the cause of an economy. These projects only sacrifice future jobs for current jobs and do it very inefficiently.

* Reform entitlement programs to create price competition and reduce their costs over time until phased out.

* Create a cash-out option for social security and make entry into the program voluntary, either option would reduce future payments.

* End the war in Afghanistan and refocus our military on defense.

* End prohibition, stop spending money arresting and incarcerating people for their own good and start collecting taxes on what they now buy illegally.

Response:

While Utah's scenic landscapes provide a needed source of revenue through tourism and various fee-bearing activities, we can overuse these areas and ruin them for future generations. Balancing these two tasks is a job best done by those who live here and appreciate it most. I will work to bring land inside Utah's borders that is currently under Federal control into Utah's care.

Response:

I believe stem cell research, both embryonic and adult, has exciting possibilities to cure a wide range of maladies and I personally support it. However, this is not a power delegated to Congress, it does not protect a basic right, and it is opposed on ethical grounds by many of the people in my district, and so I cannot justify using Federal funds to further stem cell research.

Response:

I'm a Libertarian ... if I were not willing to work with other political parties I'd be awfully lonely in Washington. I absolutely would be willing to work with other parties! We need to stop partisan stonewalling and start working together whenever possible to find the most innovative solutions to the issues of our day.

Response:

For what purpose? Commercial—pro. Military—con. Government's role in nuclear testing and research should be to ensure protections are in place to prevent harm to it's citizens, not to conduct research itself. As nuclear weapons are concerned I think the ideology of future warfare has shifted and a stepped reduction in our stockpile is prudent.

Response:

Currently I do, and I think in the future I will, gather advice to form opinions from as many different people as I can find. Joining impromptu conversations at gun shows, near colleges, Libertarian meetings, on my commuter bus, can provide remarkable insight that I otherwise would not have considered.
I formed a greater understanding of our military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Policy while discussing it with several former servicemen... while manning a Libertarian booth at Gay Pride 2010. Input on this particular issue could be gathered from Washington insiders, servicement in the field, retirees at home in Utah, etc.

Response:

A few times after speaking with people they've complimented me on my sincerity, I think a lot of voters in this race are not comfortable with the few choices they've been given in the past and are looking for someone genuine. I would like voters to know that I'm not interested in this office for a career change, I just want to spend 2 years working to get us back on the path to liberty and prosperity.