Thursday, July 30, 2009

A Delaware Libertarian exclusive: Interview with Libertarian State Senate candidate Wendy Jones

Although I have explained my disagreement with Libertarian 19th District State Senate candidate Wendy Jones regarding childhood immunizations, I also believe strongly [contra Barbie] that people should know exactly what a candidate stands for--particularly Libertarian candidates. So I sent Wendy five questions and requested responses. Here they are:

1. At least one blogger has suggested that in the 19th District Senate race there are really four conservatives running. She says this from the perspective of being an LGBT citizen who does not see anyone in the field addressing the issues that concern her. What do Libertarians (in general) and you (in particular) offer such an individual that is distinct from the Democrat-Republican status quo?

Firstly, while I am a hard-line Libertarian, I am also a member of the alternative community & have an alternative relationship. Before I can address the concerns of anyone in that community, I first have to hear from them. Anybody questioning my stance on the topics which I have addressed already have to first realize just where these questions are coming from and to whom I was addressing. The venues so far have been in the SCCOR meeting in the Oak Orchard VFW & the Crossroads Community church. Both venues have been strongly right-leaning as well as christian-fundamentalist. While risking sounding simplistic and over-generalizing, also noting that there were certainly others from different groups there, my responses have been to questions from those two main groups of voters.

One must also keep in mind as to what office I'm running -- I'm running to represent the citizens (hopefully most of whom will be voting, for me!) in District 19 in Sussex Co. The questions I've answered so far, and will probably be answering this afternoon (Wednesday) at 5:PM on 92.7FM and again on this Saturday 7:AM, same station/site, as well as 93.5FM tomorrow after 7:AM (Thursday) will most probably be from the same area. If anyone has additional concerns which might allow me to elucidate on additional topics, now's your chance. I'll also be participating in the Candidate's Debate, hosted by the League of Women Voters, Thursday evening @ 7:PM at the Sussex Co. Council Chambers on The Circle, in Georgetown, Sussex Co. DE. There is a link on our website where anyone may click into both the audio & video of the proceedings. It is my understanding that all four candidates will be present; it will be the first and only time to my knowledge that Polly "Adams" Mervine has decided to make herself available in a public debate.

I'm also planning on being available to meet-n-greet at the Smith's family Restaurant & the Greenwood Volunteer Fire Dept. Chicken BBQ, both in Greenville, both Friday & Saturday. If there is a specific time & place where anyone would like me to meet, either personally or publically, please contact either myself or my campaign manager, Brian Shields, either through this address, my home ph# 302-684-5373, or my cell# 302-682-2061. I'll let Brian decide whether he wants his cell# publicized. I see it as my duty. One of us will get back to anyone who contacts us ASAP.

Regarding the last point, what do I & the Libertarians have to offer that is distinct from the Dem-Rep status-quo, both I & the Libertarian philosophy stand for less government & more individual responsibility. The Reps would have "Big Brother" abuse the government's function by restricting/dictating such civil & religious issues, specifically SB121, for instance. It is both my & the general Libertarian stance that it is not the government's place to interfere & intrude upon the rights of consenting adults to contract (which is what marriage basically is) within the sanctity of their home (& church, whichever that may be, or not, if that is their choice). Of course, it is neither the government's function to interfere with the citizen's rights of freedom of association & to do business.

On the other hand, the Dems would have "Big Brother & the Nanny State" play "Robbin' Hood" & interfere with those who are trying to make use of their entrepreneurial skills & willingness to take chances in order to make & run a business for themselves & their families. The Constitution guarantees equal opportunity, not equal results. Those who, for one reason or another, cannot do as well can be helped much more positively & efficiently by private charities rather than by the present system of equalizing poverty.

The sticking point comes in when one or another specific group calls upon "Big Brother & the Nanny State" to intercede on their behalf when they perceive they are being injured in some way. Instead of accepting the responsibility of taking action themselves & making their own lives better, they would have the government force their own views & attitudes upon others. This is as much a crime as what originated the problem, & makes matters only worse. And, once one or more particular groups are singled out for special consideration, then what do we do with all the others we've left out? The only solution is to give everyone the same special consideration & ban all discrimination, which is really a "thought crime". Now, do you see just how complicated this gets, & where this is going? While we're at it, why don't we just ban all crime, & all evil while we're at it? Thoughts & attitudes are changed by deeds, not my force or law.

The solution is to vote with your dollar & the ballot box & your feet. Associate with people who like you, who want to do business with you, who value you as a person & who are willing to join together to boycott and/or vote together, or, even run for office themselves? How's that for a positive solution? Calling in "Big Brother & the Nanny State" to do what is really your own responsibility is actually the worst thing that you can do... because then you have handed your power (& responsibility) over to a faceless, self-serving entity that is just as likely to be turned against you tomorrow. Thoughts & attitudes cannot be legislated. The best solution is to earn one's place in society & gain that respect. Never forget, a government big enough to give you everything you want is also strong enough to take everything you have. And it will, just as the "other side" bends its ear too!

2. If you win the 19th District Senate race, you will become a party of one in the General Assembly. As such, how will you effectively represent the interests of your constituents?

I regard the challenge of performing this duty most seriously -- and it will be my honor I hold in exchange. It will be my duty to represent those citizens of the 19th district, but I will also not work to try to maneuver "pork-barrel" projects described in an unequal or unfair share in relation to the other districts around mine. I will do as much as I possibly can while still being honest & transparent to them as well as myself. No backdoor games or deals, & promoting & supporting the use & expansion of petition & referendum so that specific issues can be addressed directly by those directly affected. I will not play games with tricks like "desk-drawer vetos" & will do everything possible to have legislation written & understandable so that each citizen can have the opportunity to read & understand it, & not in such volumes that they simply cannot be read in time & are too often rushed through in late-night sessions without even being read. It is also my goal of being accessible to each & every citizen to be able to have a direct connection as to what may be of most concern to them.

3. Everyone in Delaware has watched the trainwreck that is the 2009 State budget. Everyone knows it will get worse next year. What perspectives and specific proposals do you bring to the table to deal with the State's fiscal situation?

As it has been said, Delaware doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. There are many jobs that can be done more efficiently & effectively by using Delaware-based private businesses competing by a sealed-bid process. The prevailing-wage law needs to be ditched. The huge burden placed upon our healthcare system by undocumented immigrants can be addressed by utilizing & expanding the existing enforcement framework & expanding enforcement officersas required, & funded by increasing the fines for any businesses caught violating current employment & immigration laws. We also need to minimize the tax burden on both current & prospective businesses in order to allow for them to move into DE & expand. Minimizing the size & involvement of government on all levels while encouraging private Delaware-based businesses to complete to replace the services that the State already does. We have state-owned golf courses, marinas & a helicopter which it has no business owning. They should be sold to benefit the budget & their use be replaced by the same private-competition process mentioned above. Getting more ideas & input from the citizens will bring an untold pertinent & effective solutions to the table as well.

4. Explain Del Pointe to readers in the rest of the universe, and explain your position on it.

Del Pointe is basically a DE state-sponsored, huge multi-gaming racino complex proposed in the Millsboro general area. Citizens in that area are outraged because not only does it conflict with their religious sentiments, it will prey upon those who can least afford it. Also, it will present a huge new competitive element to the already existing infrastructure & private businesses, & be subject to the strong effects of cronyism & special interests. It is also basically an unhealthy practice to draw almost 50% of its income from the most vulnerable families in the area. For those who still want to gamble, there are already gaming facilities available a relatively short drive to the north. Plus, diversifying the types of games to include those of skill & thought (vs. simple slot machines) will give the gamers a fighting chance & promote active thought.

5. Delaware is among one of the highest spenders, per capita, on public school education, and yet our test=2 0scores are consistently mediocre (despite some recent small advances). As Senator from the 19th District, what will be your position on the best way to improve public education in the First State.

I am a strong supporter of a school voucher program. Parents have the right to choose what type & quality of school their children attend, whether it be public, parochial, charter, private or homeschool. Parents should have more influence as to what their children are taught & will be strongly encouraged to get more personally & actively involved. Parents should only pay for the type of school, & the number of children, which they are using. Those with no children in the school system should not be taxed.

And Wendy's closing comments

My apologies for the delayed response, Steve, but I have been swamped. You did, indeed, have some hardball questions. Thank you for allowing me the latitude to answering them!

I look fwd to hearing from any who might still have questions & encourage anyone interested to listen to the Candidate's Debate this evening 7:PM either at the Sussex Co. Council Chambers in Georgetown or through the link-click (once for video & once for audio) through our campaign website Also, don't forget your one last chance to call into 92.7 this Saturday 7:AM & also meet me as I've mentioned above if there are any concerns which I might have inadvertantly left unaddressed.

The one last thought I want to leave you with:

If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten! If you like what has been happening, & want more of the same, just keep doing the same thing. If you want a real, new, innovative opportunity for an honest, personal, Constitutionally-based representative, I'm really the only choice there is. Unless, of course, you choose not to vote at all, & then you won't have any right to complain.

So, Empower Yourselves! Activate Yourselves! Legalize Yourselves! Get out & VOTE FOR ME on Monday, August 3rd!

Yours, In Liberty,

Gwendolyn "Wendy" Jones,
Libertarian Candidate for Sussex Co. Senate District 19

I'd like to thank Wendy--especially after I just wrote a post very critical of her--for responding to these questions. You may not like her positions, but at least you now know them. That's a hell of a lot more than can be said for some of the competition.


Anonymous said...

What a horrible candidate. This so-called "Constitutionally-based" candidates wants to funnel tax dollars to religious and fundamentalist schools while at the same time offering such nonsense as "Those with no children in the school system should not be taxed."

I guess that she is a nice person personally, but she is an utterly moronic, ill-informed, and unqualified candidate for any public office.

This is the best Libertarians have to offer?


Brian Shields said...


Why should the tax you pay for schools not go to the schools you send your children to?

Why should those with no school aged children pay for services they don't need?

Anonymous said...


A well-run and productive public educational system benefits everybody - whether or not you have children in the system. Not to mention the fact that those people who say "I don't want to pay because I don't have children in school" were likely beneficiaries of a free public education themselves paid for in part by other people who also didn't have children in school.

If people want to send their children to private or religious schools, fine. But they shouldn't do it on the taxpayer's dime or at the expense of the public school system.

I recommend that you visit a country where there is not good public education system to see what living there is like. Having large numbers of functionally illiterate people may be a Libertarian ideal but the poverty, crime, and misery that it causes is no fun.


Delaware said...

What it appears to me that Anon is confused about is their expectation of what they consider as an "entitlement" to education & support to everyone based upon the federalized, mandated & directed institutionalized educational system.

Not only do families with children presently receive tax breaks according to the number of children they have, their children's education is also paid for by everyone else, more so per capita by those who do not have children. Some of them have been educated in public schools, but it was their parents' who paid for that too.

School vouchers aren't a complete remedy to those who would prefer to have their children be educated more according to their ideals, but it seems to me that the most equitable solution would be to have families directly pay for their childen's education directly, fairly, each according to the number of children & the type & quality of school they'd be willing to support. The only result is that parents who make that choice wouldn't be paying for _Anon's_ children... & that seems to be the real crux of the biscuit.

The school voucher program can merely be a transitional function in order to transition over to a direct pay-per-use program. Taxing everyone for the benefit of those who choose to have an unsupportable & irresponsible amount of children reeks of the old "taxation without representation" issue.

Anon writes of an ideal "well-run & productive school system"... but that's not at all what we have, & if the solution was to continue doing the same thing, throwing more & more money at it, the situationw ould be improving, correct? NOT! Completely the reverse is true... which is why more & more parents are opting to homeschool or remove their children from the mess that the "government" school system has become. Having alternatives to choose from, while not having to also pay into a failing school system at the same time, seems to be both the most fair & the best way to introduce the element of competition amongst the different schools & that by its very nature would be the most cost-effective solution to what otherwise is merely circling the drain.

Where Anon gets the idea of "funneling tax dollars" is completely beyold me... unless they already assume that whatever potential funds others may have to pay for the costs of bringing up their children must already belong to them. How arrogant... the sense of entitlement!

The "ad hominem" attacks do nothing for their legitimacy but reduce it to the point of myopic pettiness.

Speaking of being ill-informed, Anon contradicts themself on a number of points; as the saying goes, "those in glass houses..."

I would recommend that Anon goes back to Basic Economics 101 & consider attending the free public non-partisan Constitutional-education classes offered regularly through the local Libertarian party. Wherever Anon's perspective comes, it doesn't seem to be from Real World 101 taught in the Hard Knock University.

Plainly paid for by Friends of Big Brother & the Nanny State.

PS - At least I've got the Spine & the Stones to admit my identity!

Anonymous said...

Where to begin?

Yes, I believe every child is entitled to the opportunity for a quality education paid for by the state and funded by all taxpayers. Apparently you don't. I guess you also believe that people who don't drive cars shouldn't pay taxes for roads and that people who don't agree with defense spending shouldn't pay taxes for national defense. In your silly world only people who have a fire in their house should be required to pay for the fire department. I mean, why should I have to pay to have the fire in my neighbor's house put out?

I never said anything about " support to everyone based upon the federalized, mandated & directed institutionalized educational system." Nor did I say that the current public school system currently provides a well run and productive school system for all children or that throwing more and more money at the situation would make it better. The discussion wasn't about that.

But most of your comment is just making up stuff so that you could try to win an argument with yourself. And even then, you still lost. But I hope you had fun.

Your comment about "Taxing everyone for the benefit of those who choose to have an unsupportable & irresponsible amount of children" is a prime illustration of your heartlessness and callousness towards children. But then again, maybe you never were one. I suppose that you would prefer a situation where educational opportunity was provided for only the first one or two children in a family.

If you can't see the benefits to society of providing a quality public education system for all children regardless of their parents ability to pay for that education, there is nothing that I can do or say to remedy such an ill-informed viewpoint.

If there is a benefit to having Jones in this race, it is that so many consequences of the crazy ideas of Libertarians are bubbling to the surface.