Card image cap

Dave Glissmeyer's Issue Positions (Political Courage Test)

Key

Official Position: Candidate addressed this issue directly by taking the Political Courage Test.
Inferred Position: Candidate refused to address this issue, but Vote Smart inferred this issue based on the candidate's public record, including statements, voting record, and special interest group endorsements.
Unknown Position: Candidate refused to address this issue, or we could not infer an answer for this candidate despite exhaustive research of their public record.
Additional Information: Click on this icon to reveal more information about this candidate's position, from their answers or Vote Smart's research.
Other or Expanded Principles & Legislative Priorities are entered exactly as candidates submit them. Vote Smart does not edit for misspelled words, punctuation or grammar.

Dave Glissmeyer refused to tell citizens where he stands on any of the issues addressed in the 2010 Political Courage Test, despite repeated requests from Vote Smart, national media, and prominent political leaders.

What is the Political Courage Test?

Issue Positions

For Presidential and Congressional candidates who refuse to provide voters with their positions, Vote Smart has researched their public records to determine their likely responses. These issue positions are from 2010.

  • Despite exhaustive research, Vote Smart was unable to find information about this candidate's position.
  • Three Pointing Back: Discussion with Dave Glissmeyer. 4 March 2010. Question: "With Social Security estimated to once again operate in the red again this year, would you support a privatization of our retirement system, similar to what Chile did back in the 80's? If not, what would you propose as a solution to once and for all stabilizing the budget of Social Security?" Response: "While I don't know the exact details of Chile's system, I am against privatizing Social Security. Though now that you've mentioned it, I will take a closer look at Chile's system as I don't want to be close minded on any options that may work best for the people. What Congress and Reagan did back in the 80's, to at least temporarily salvage our Social Security system, amounted to little more than an insufficient band-aid. And the reason that their raising of FICA taxes was so ineffective is that Congress was left with the option of sticking their greedy hands in to a pot of money that does NOT belong to them. No solution can be effective that doesn't include banning Congressional access to the trust fund. Other than that, I believe that if we removed the income caps that are currently in place, allowing everyone to pay in equal proportion to their income, that it would an effective offset the current imbalance." (www.threepointingback.com)
  • Despite exhaustive research, Vote Smart was unable to find information about this candidate's position.
  • Loftin, Josh. 2010. City Weekly: Charging Defendants, Gun Ed & Glissmeyer Out. 30 June 2010. "Glissmeyer's platform had elements that could be attractive to voters on both ends of the political spectrum-he supports health-care reform and also supports "locking down" the border and ending social benefits for illegal immigrants..."
  • Dave Glissmeyer. 2010. Abigail Adams Project: Candidate Questionnaire. Responded SUPPORT to the question: "Do you support or oppose taxpayer funded healthcare mandated and run by the Federal Government?" (78635647493616421-a-1802744773732722657-s-sites.googlegroups.com)
  • Three Pointing Back: Discussion with Dave Glissmeyer. 4 March 2010. Question: "On your website, you do advocate for a "public option" as a part of the heavily debated health care reform issues pressing on Congress right now. First, do you believe that health insurance is, or should be, considered a right? Second, what form of a public option would you advocate is the best to pursue? And what, if any, limitations would you propose be a part of any public option?" Response: "First off, what went through the House is an atrocity! The currently pending legislation focuses on doing what's best for health insurance companies and not the people. Current representatives are too concerned with appeasing the lobbyists hands that feed them. Yes, I do believe health insurance should be a right. I think the best method of a public option would be to allow anyone, regardless of age, be able to opt in to Medicare. Young people, generally speaking, don't need the care, so their payments would apply more towards balancing out with the needs of those who do need more care. As a limitation, I do believe that those with children who choose to opt in should be required to pay extra to cover their children. I really do believe that this would be financially sustainable, however, I don't have access to all the detailed numbers I would have if elected. If I am elected, and see that the numbers show me that this idea would not be fiscally responsible, then I am open to reversing my position. I also believe that it's necessary to mandate cost disclosure by medical providers, and provide a mechanism for patients to challenge charges in a similar manner to how credit card customers can." (www.threepointingback.com)
  • Dave Glissmeyer. Issue Position: Healthcare. "I see no reason why elected officials or public employees should have medical care plans that are not available to every citizen of the USA, regardless of whether it is public or private. Elected officials and public servants are not a privileged class and they should not enjoy benefits that are above what the citizen taxpayer can take advantage of. The current debate over single payer and public option has spun hysterically out of control; we can't even sit together and have a calm rational discussion about the options. I know this much - as a former small business owner in Utah who provided partially paid health care as part of our benefit package, something HAS TO CHANGE because the nation's current health care system is both unsustainable and excludes too many. Without some change, health care premiums will soon rival salaries...Some form of Public Option simply must be part of the discussion of the means to the solution." (votesmart.org)
  • Dave Glissmeyer. Issue Position: Medical Litigation Reform. "Medical litigation reform to reduce healthcare costs. High malpractice premiums resulting from outrageous malpractice claim awards lead to increased healthcare costs that are ultimately passed down to healthcare consumers. Physicians' malpractice premiums began skyrocketing beginning in the 1970s and now are about $15,000/year for non-surgical physicians with OBGYNs and other surgeons often pay FOUR TIMES or more as much. Many improvements have been made recently by encouraging other forms of settling for damages by arbitration and mediation. The largest percentage drop in malpractice premiums has occurred recently in Texas which reformed it's tort law as well. The overhead of the malpractice system as it presently exists in most states is large - with only 28-46% of the money in the malpractice system returned to patients who are injured through negligence. This is poor even compared to the woefully inefficient insurance industry that has administrative costs that run in excess of 20% of premiums for medical expenses." (votesmart.org)
  • Loftin, Josh. 2010. City Weekly: Charging Defendants, Gun Ed & Glissmeyer Out. 30 June 2010. "Glissmeyer's platform had elements that could be attractive to voters on both ends of the political spectrum-he supports health-care reform and also supports "locking down" the border and ending social benefits for illegal immigrants..."
  • Dave Glissmeyer. 2010. Abigail Adams Project: Candidate Questionnaire. Responded OPPOSE to the question: "Do you support or oppose taxpayer funded benefits for illegal aliens?" (78635647493616421-a-1802744773732722657-s-sites.googlegroups.com)
  • Dave Glissmeyer. 2010. Abigail Adams Project: Candidate Questionnaire. Responded SUPPORT to the question: "Do you support or oppose verification of employment eligibility using E-verify or other status verification system to confirm federal working status on any new employees?" (78635647493616421-a-1802744773732722657-s-sites.googlegroups.com)
  • McKitrick, Cathy. 2008. Salt Lake Tribune: Dave Glissmeyer to challenge Matheson. 26 November 2008. "In addition, he recommends fining employers who hire undocumented immigrants, and shutting down low-priority military bases to redirect tax dollars to secure the country's Southern border." (www.congressmandave.org)
  • Dave Glissmeyer. Issue Position: Immigration. "Redirect taxpayer dollars from inefficient uses (i.e., there are hundreds of very low priority/low security value military bases scattered around the world) and do what is needed to lock down the border between the USA and Mexico. Here is the touchy one - fine employers for hiring illegal immigrants. (To be fair, employers also must have EVERY federal documentation resource at their quick disposal). Leave immigration control to the Federal government. Frankly, I do not see how we can possibly continue to extend social benefits to illegal immigrants. We live in a different time now from when the 14th Amendment was created (at that time the USA was actively looking to rapidly expand it's population) which gave automatic citizenship to any child born in this country regardless of the status of the child's parents." (votesmart.org)
  • Dave Glissmeyer. Response To The President's Address Of 12-1-09 Concerning Additional Troop Deployment To Afghanistan. 1 December 2009. "The president...has committed the U.S. to an additional 30,000 troops in the conflict and a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal. As a justification for this strategy, he offered two rationales - ridding the region of Al-Qaeda, and stopping the spread of the Taliban to allow civil government to take hold in the country. Respectfully I submit that neither of these strategies makes sense and the president is taking us down a path destined to end in a highly unsatisfactory outcome. In our efforts to defeat Al-Qaeda, we fumbled our initial opportunity under the Bush administration when we failed in our goal of capturing Osama bin Laden and bringing him to trial. In part, that decision, made years ago, has left us where we are today. Nonetheless, we made measurable strides against Al-Qaeda in the ensuing years, shattering the pre-9/11 command structure and killing important Al-Qaeda leaders. The Al-Qaeda terrorist network remains a threat, but it is fragmented and dispersed into other nations and continents. As such, it can hopefully be dealt with by our intelligence networks and the diligence of our Homeland Security personnel. Nonetheless, Al-Qaeda's presence in Afghanistan is now rather small and focusing our military resources on that region is not an efficient strategy. With respect to the task of nation-building in Afghanistan, let me be clear. Afghanistan and its inhabitants present no real clear and present danger to the citizens of the U.S. or our homeland. Ultimately, we will not ever change the centuries old tribal rule that is at the core of the Afghan nation, if you can call that fragmented group of tribes a nation. If change is going to come to that part of the world, it must come through the Afghan people themselves, not through a foreign intervention which they deeply resent." (www.congressmandave.org)
  • Bob Bernick Jr. 2009. Deseret News: 2 independents announce candidacies for Utah's 2nd Congressional District. "Said Glissmeyer, "Everywhere we turn, our political system is plagued by fiscal madness, partisan bickering and inadequate leadership." America has expensive health care, is fighting two wars, Wall Street is corrupt and bailed out with our tax dollars, he said." (www.deseretnews.com)
  • Cathy McKitrick. 2008. Salt Lake Tribune: Dave Glissmeyer to challenge Matheson. 26 November 2008. "He also believes in a balanced budget and that America's two wars should end in a quick and orderly fashion." (www.congressmandave.org)
  • Dave Glissmeyer. 2010. Abigail Adams Project: Candidate Questionnaire. Responded OPPOSE to the question: "Do you support or oppose the war on terror as an important component of National Security?" (78635647493616421-a-1802744773732722657-s-sites.googlegroups.com)
  • Dave Glissmeyer. Issue Position: Wars. "STOP THE WARS. I have become convinced that we can provide for national security without having to chase "terrorists" in caves located in a foreign land. America's national security has everything to do with keeping our citizens safe in their homes and little to do with U.S. troops occupying a foreign country. Why do we continue to throw money and lives at a conflict that has no specific goal other than to stop terrorism? Common sense dictates that terrorism is not an object that can be bombed, killed or otherwise rendered unthreatening. It will not go away and thinking we can make it do so is diverting our attention from the more important task at hand... We are using our tax dollars to prop up a corrupt and unsustainable government in Afghanistan and to what purpose? A rational person realizes that the moment our troops leave the country the citizenry of Afghanistan will revert to their way of tribal law. If so, then we need to be prepared to keep an expensive military presence in that country indefinitely, as we have in Korea, Japan, Germany, and so many other nations. It is my opinion that we can no longer afford to sustain these endless military campaigns, while borrowing money from the Chinese and indenturing our grandchildren, if we expect to continue in our role as a great nation. The amount of money being spent daily in both the occupation of Iraq and in doggedly pursuing the Jihadist in the Afghan hills is staggering. This waste of cash and the expenditure of lives and limb must be brought to an end. Our military personnel could be brought home, and those resources redirected to more fruitful endeavors such as securing our own borders. That one simple step will make us more secure as a nation against terrorist's threats, while at the same time deterring drug smuggling and violations of our immigration laws. It is past time that we as a nation realize there are better, most cost-effective ways to secure our safety and freedom than through our current policies. We must begin to define and adopt alternative strategies as quickly as possible. Let us bring our warriors, our children, husbands, wives and daugthers home, now. Let us give them the grand welcome home and thank you for serving they deserve, along with every benefit our government promised them for their years of service and duty that they are counting on. We owe them a great debt and we should spent the money on their future." (votesmart.org)

Vote Smart does not permit the use of its name or programs in any campaign activity, including advertising, debates, and speeches.

arrow_upward