|
Published on 4/15/2004 The first in a series of question-and-answer sessions with local political candidates The son of a retired Spokane policeman, Todd Mielke, 39, was born and raised in Spokane. He's a graduate of Eastern Washington University and holds degrees in Operations Management and Finance. He's a Republican running for County Commissioner, 1st district, against incumbent John Roskelley. Up until a couple of weeks ago, you were running for Congress. Now you're running for county commissioner. Why the drastic switch? Everyone I talked to said, "Congress is nice, the federal government is nice...but if you really want to help me on a day-to-day basis, why don't you do something for me locally, because that's what impacts me every day." I keep hearing that message over and over and over again. Economically, the challenges are here locally. And I can make more of a difference locally. That was the decision behind the switch. Why would someone vote for you instead of Roskelley? A couple of very important reasons: 1) The primary issue facing this community is jobs and the economy. If you take a look at some of the economic development programs that we have in this community-EDC, INTEC, and economic development tools we've been trying to gain through the state legislature-John has typically been opposed to those. I don't think economic development is a bad thing. I don't think bringing more jobs to Spokane is a bad thing. I think that, philosophically, [Roskelley] does. 2) Respect for private property rights. If you own property and want to develop it within the zoning laws it's under, you should be able to do that. You shouldn't have hurdles placed in your way. I continue to hear story after story about John being the lone "no" vote when it comes to these property rights issues. I think these are the biggest differences between the two of us. The Spokesman-Review pointed out in an April 11 story that Roskelley is known for his strong opposition to smoking, while you were a lobbyist for the tobacco industry. How will that play in this election? It'll play. I expect that issue to be brought up. It's interesting: many people hire a CPA to make sure they don't get sideways with the IRS. The tobacco companies made a deal with the federal government and the Department of Justice, and in their agreement they agreed to a certain number of conditions they would live by in every state they do business. After they cut that deal, they went out to every state and hired a bunch of people to make sure they wouldn't get sideways with the Department of Justice. I was one of those people. My job was to make sure the tobacco companies supported programs to reduce youth smoking, and that they would work diligently to close black-market and gray-market loopholes. That's about 99% of the work I've done for the industry. It's funny: The issue John Roskelley seems most focused on is smoking. I don't know if cholesterol's next-while we're at it, why don't we test every potential county employee's cholesterol levels? "Sorry, I spotted you at McDonald's. You're out of luck." Imposing your personal views is not what you're elected to do. Respect what's legal. Respect what people do in the privacy of their own lives. Leave it alone and move on. Focus instead on the issues that move us forward as a community. The funny thing is, I'm a non-smoker. If you could go back in history and smack somebody upside the head, who would it be? This is actually timely, since we're probably looking at the re-election of George W. Bush for President. You can't help but remember his father's famous quote: "Read my lips..." If there's a moment in time where you'd want to slap somebody upside the head, that would probably be it. What was he thinking? Your answer is surprising... You know, as a congressional candidate, one of the things I parted with my opponents over is that I refuse to give a blank check to the President of the United States about where my support's going to go. I don't care whether it's this president or any other. If the president were to get sideways with the views of my constituency and the interests of my district, I'd remind him-and we'd part ways if we couldn't find common ground. We talked about fiscal policy. I'm still one of those Republicans who believes in a balanced budget amendment. And I disagree completely with the president's immigration policy. I mean, if you're really so concerned with national security, why would you grant amnesty to undocumented aliens? Final thoughts? If there's any motto I have in my pursuit of public life, it's that good public policy always makes good politics-not the other way around. |
||
