Vaughn Cook

#1 Affordable Housing

Home prices in Utah are the 7th highest in the nation. Between 1991 and 2023 housing prices in Utah have increased 593%, the highest in the entire country. That’s great if you bought your home in 1990, but if you’re just entering the market, it can be challenging.

The cost of rent follows a similar trend; as home prices go up, so does rent; and interest rates are currently higher than they have been in 20 years.

There are lots of reasons for these increases. Short supply, high demand, an unprecedented infusion of new money into the economy by the federal government, more people working from home, an exodus from the coasts, Utah’s beauty and culture, our strong economy, and more. Utah’s a great place to live!

Even though there are lots of reasons why housing is expensive, we need to facilitate individual home ownership. The challenge for me, personally, isn’t “How can I afford a home?” it’s “How can my grandchildren afford a home?”

I like the ideas put forth by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, candidate for President in this year’s election. He proposes to create a government mortgage guarantee program that will create an incentive in the mortgage market that will allow people (not corporations or hedge funds) to obtain 3% mortgage financing. His idea is a free-market solution that won’t require the federal government to print more money and it won’t create a ‘too big to fail’ situation that will need to be bailed out at some future date.

There are solutions that the federal government can facilitate.

Is there anything we can do without the federal government’s help? Is there anything we can do in the 4th District to help our neighbors buy a home?

I think there is. One idea is to create partnerships between for-profit and charitable organizations, allowing both to contribute to the production of high-quality housing that can be sold for less than what would be required if the program was entirely for-profit.

Individual home ownership is one of the pillars of our economy and our society. It’s more than just financial, it impacts family stability, social support, and culture. Let’s keep the housing market strong for future generations.

#2 Immigration and Securing Our Border

Have you ever wondered why some problems never get solved, like immigration and border security? It’s because politicians have more to gain by talking and acting self-righteous about the problem than solving it. Immigration is one of those.

This year, a bill was introduced in Washington offering a bipartisan course correction to this problem, but Donald Trump didn’t want the problem solved before he could take credit for it, so he flexed his political muscle and cowed most of the Republican legislators into condemning the most substantive immigration bill in over 35 years. It died before it even got a chance, because the problem, to a few powerful politicians, is more valuable than the solution. This isn’t just a Republican problem, both major parties are actors in this kind of political football.

The southern border is a problem. It needs fixing. There are feasible solutions. We don’t have to continue to endure the damage that’s perpetuated by political dysfunction and opportunism.

Our immigration system needs attention. We’re working under laws that are decades old; laws that need updating to address today’s reality. There are very few U.S. citizens who think immigration is bad. We need new blood to keep our country prosperous and vibrant. Most of us are immigrants or descendants of immigrants.

As your congressman, I’ll work to solve these problems. Because I’m not a member of either major party, my loyalty will be exclusively to you. That means my incentive is to resolve problems, not just complain about them and deny responsibility. I’ll be able to work with like-minded representatives from any political party to get the job done.

By sending me to Washington, you send a message of democracy to the entire country: “We want solutions, and we want Congress to represent the people not the political parties or the power brokers.”

#3 Raising Healthy Children

As a doctor with decades of experience watching, and treating, and learning from patients, I’ve grown to appreciate how central, physical health is to everything else in life.

Over those decades I’ve observed a decline in the overall health in America. We’re more obese. Autoimmune diseases are more common. Cancer is on the rise. Mental health problems are ubiquitous. Autism impacts more and more families.

What’s happening? Aren’t we smarter than this? Can’t we figure this out?

I believe the answers are available, the problem is we’re a bunch of frogs being boiled.

Do you know how to boil a live frog? You don’t throw him into a kettle of boiling water. If you did that, he’d immediately jump out. You put him in a kettle of water at a comfortable temperature, and then you slowly turn up the heat. He doesn’t notice the temperature rising, so he stays in the pot until it’s too late. That’s how you boil a frog and that’s what’s happening to us. We tolerate more pollution, more drugs, more chemicals, and more processing of our food.

No one denies the declining health trends, but if you propose a solution that calls attention to who may be turning up the heat, your intellect will be challenged, and you may be censored. Why? Because any idea that threatens the status quo, or weakens the grip that the pharmaceutical, chemical, and food industries have around our necks is portrayed as domestic terrorism. So, like frogs in a kettle, we tolerate deteriorating health, expecting relief from those who are responsible for the problem.

However, the solution to our health crisis isn’t to find a bogey man to blame, it’s to recognize our children are suffering because the system is broken, and we need to fix the system. We need policies that make human health the priority, rather than the health of some corporation with its hand on the gas, turning up the heat.

In Washington, I’ll stand up to the powers that be. I’ll speak truth on your behalf, I’ll work to improve our health and the health of our children.

#4 Are Corporations People?

Corporations are not people! Even though corporations are autonomous legal entities, they are not people.

What’s the difference?

1. People are born with unalienable rights.
2. Corporations are created for specific purposes with rights given them by government.
3. People die.
4. Corporations don’t die.
5. People are actors, they have choice.
6. Corporations are non-actors, they only function when acted upon by an actor (person).

If corporations are under the control of people, why shouldn’t we extend ‘people rights’ to them?

The primary reason is because of the immortal nature of a corporation. What would happen if you could live and be healthy for 400 years? What could you accomplish in that much time? How much wealth could you accumulate? Could you use that wealth to influence society?

You would become very wise, and wealthy, and powerful as you continued to exert your influence on generation after generation.

Because corporations don’t die, they can become the 400-year-old influencer. And even though corporate wisdom may not grow, accumulated wealth and influence does. Corporations can become more powerful than governments.

The difference between people and corporations is so significant that we need to be very careful how much political access we grant to these immortal, non-actors. We should restrict corporate (any business entity) participation in any election, including contributing to super PACs or dark money endeavors.

Corporations are not people.

#5 Ranked Choice Voting

Probably the single more impactful thing we could do to restore sanity to politics is to adopt ranked choice voting.

Here’s how it works. On your ballot you’ll not just vote for one person as you do now, you’ll rank your preference. You’ll indicate who you want to see elected, but, if that person doesn’t get a majority of the votes, then you’ll indicate your second choice, and so on until you’ve ranked your preference for all candidates.

If no candidate gets a majority of the votes in the first round, the candidate with the fewest votes is kicked off the ballot and all their votes are distributed to the remaining candidates in the order of the preference of the voters who voted for the eliminated candidate. This process continues until one candidate gets a majority of the votes. Here’s why this will make government more representative.

The most common way a candidate gets on the ballot is to be selected by a political party. Political parties are controlled by people, party bosses, who have the passion to invest time and money to support a party and advance its political agenda. These party bosses are the people candidates must appeal to if they want to get on the ballot, and party bosses want their party to succeed and grow and become more powerful. This means candidates must pledge loyalty to the party’s positions no matter how extreme or dysfunctional.

Ranked choice voting forces candidates to appeal to a broader base, not just party bosses, because if they don’t win the majority in the first round, they must appeal to voters whose political views may not be aligned with their party. To get elected a candidate needs a majority of the votes (more than 50%), not a plurality (the most of any candidate) and we end up electing candidates with a broader, more democratic appeal.

#6 Campaign Finance Reform

Money is the life blood of politics; any political scientist will tell you that’s true. But it shouldn’t be that way, especially not today when we have so many effective, inexpensive ways to communicate.

There are two primary reasons people and organizations contribute money to politics. The first is that they believe in a candidate and want to help them get elected. The second is they want to have greater access to the candidate in the event they get elected.

What if money wasn’t such a big deal in elections?

What if corporations were prevented from participating in elections?

What if dark money wasn’t allowed at all? (Dark money is money that’s used to influence elections and the source of the money is undisclosed.)

What if candidates were given a specific amount of money and that was all they could spend? Wouldn’t this give us a really good idea of a candidate’s ability to manage money effectively?

Changing the way campaigns are financed would absolutely change politics, with the possibility of turning what is too often a race for power and control, into an opportunity to serve.

Campaign finance reform is a very sticky problem because so many people have so much to lose if the system changes, but I’m committed to explore better ideas and to bring those ideas to Congress. ^[3]