Debating the Issues in Sterling
Sterling, Va.–Before an audience of 40 supporters and concerned residents at Park View High School, both Del. Tom Rust and Stevens Miller squared off to prove which candidate will best represent the 86th District in Richmond. The debate began shortly after 7 p.m. on Tuesday night and was moderated by Sheldon Pratt, who introduced both candidates without their official titles. Del. Rust opened by touting his endorsements.
The first question posed to the candidates was about whether or not they would raise the gas tax. Miller ducked the question, but brings up a local income tax for Northern Virginia as a suggestion to raise revenue. Rust called for more transportation funding, which caused rebuttal amongst the candidates.
Of course, it goes without saying that the next question focused on the abuser fees, and Miller attacked Rust on his support for the abuser fees, then calls for change, as well as bashing the toll road. Both candidates want to use the revenue from the tolls to fund the rail to Dulles.
After talking about transportation, the debate then turned to the state budget. Rust said everything was on the table, while Miller claimed that he lowered property taxes as Dulles district Supervisor on the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors. The claim by Miller is untrue, as pointed out in previous posts.
Lastly, there was a question which focused on the increase of gangs and crime in Sterling. This question asked each candidate what they planned to do to stop this problem. Miller stated that he does not think “enhanced law enforcement” is the answer. Rust discussed his record of protecting the community against gang violence.
Posted on October 14, 2009, in Virginia Politics and tagged 2009 Election, 86th District, General Assembly, Stevens Miller, Tom Rust, Virginia. Bookmark the permalink. 1 Comment.
I attended teh debate -another point Miller bashes Rust unfairly over votes on special needs of families with Autistic children:
During the debate’s give and take, Stevens Miller stated all people have a “right to basic services.” Miller also remarked on the need to redistribute revenue based on need. No questions were directed to either candidate on these statements. Neither the audience nor Candidate Rust seemed to notice these comments. Against the back drop of the national debate on health care and the role of government in our lives, these comments need more examination.
Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution define our basic rights. If candidates are talking about rights to basic services and redistributing taxes – other people’s property – based on need, then we should know what those candidates define as ‘basic services’ and ‘needs.’
This point becomes critically important when a candidate takes up the cause of Autistic children and labels his opponent as uncaring in the face of special needs children and families. No American is unsympathetic or uncharitable towards special needs. Every American should examine and assess the motives of candidates. Candidates choosing heartfelt causes as a means to bludgeon their opponents need to careful scrutiny to validate their motivation. Are they truly asking us to help or are they looking for a stepping stone to increase their political power?
One has to ask, does Stevens Miller truly care about the special needs, or does he care about advancing his political career using special needs families? We may not get an answer to that before we decide on Mr. Miller’s promotion.