Less government control
Jack Taylor - Lake Kahola
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Tim Huelskamp strongly opposes government run health care legislation, has never voted for a tax increase, has defended traditional values, and fought reckless government spending. If you want a representative in Congress who believes in small government, low taxes, right to life and opposes judges who legislate from the bench, vote for Tim Huelskamp.
Jim Barnett claims he is a strong supporter of free-market solutions in the health care industry and that he opposes Obama’s health care plan but actions speak louder than words. He claims to be a conservative while espousing liberal ideas.
In 2007 he introduced SB 309, known as “The Kansas Healthcare Connector Act” or “BarnettCare” an Obamacare-like bill, which would have included an individual health care insurance mandate for all Kansans as well as giving the government the authority to withhold tax refunds and garnish wages up to $10,000 of those who failed to purchase insurance through a government exchange. Thank goodness it didn’t pass!
Sen. Barnett has proven he likes more government control of our individual lives. Kansans want a representative who will vote for less government control — not more.
Jack Taylor
Lake Kahola
kseyetie (anonymous) says...
Some good points here, but the issue is too complex for demagogues. Those who are lucky enough have insurance are supporting those who don't have it or choose to take their chances and go without. We already have govt. control of health care through 50 state insurance commissioners' offices and we already have the famous 'death panels;' they are called insurance agents who are paid to deny claims and treatment. The debate will continue, but it's much more complicated than 'big government bad' and 'small government good.'
July 6, 2010 at 11:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUY_01...
It is a complicated issue but what makes it easier to be a "big government bad" kind of person is the government's performance. Before they passed hcr the potus said that if we stopped all the medicare fraud we could pay for it. What this told me is that if the government wants me to trust them with a huge medical bureaucracy they have had plenty of opportunities to earn that trust but they have failed. They say "Look at all this fraud we could stop and how much money we could save that we haven't yet. We will though if you trust us and support this new government bureaucracy we want to start up. You can trust us this time and quite frankly we are offended that you don't trust us." Sorry government, my trust needs to be earned and you just haven't done it. Social Security? We are constantly hearing how it is in trouble and at my age(mid 30s) I don't plan on seeing a dime of the money I'm putting into that sinking ship. That use to bother me but now I just ignore that line on my check stub as if it weren't even there. Boarder security? Just ask Arizona how they feel about the federal government's performance on that issue. I'll give you a hint as to what they might say .... it is not good.
How about small government? I pretty much fall in the category of folks that believe small government is better. However, I have learned a thing or 37000 over the last several years with the financial meltdown and other things that perhaps too small of a government is not so hot either. We definitely need regulation in industries from the banking industry to the realestate industry to manufacturing and so on. Police, fire, military ... of course. Infrastructure ... definitely.
I think what we need is a government that does things well and doesn't make excuses why they can't or aren't and certainly does not tell us if we support them in hcr that they will start doing a better job at controlling medicare fraud. That doesn't give me more confidence in the government. That just makes me very angry.
July 6, 2010 at 1:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
Sorry Mr. Taylor, but you need to take a much deeper look into this candidate's history and see what type of politician he really is. Do not base your vote on what he claims to represent and stand for during his campaign. Ask current and past Legislators from our area about him. If they tell you he is qualified candidate for a US office and is an all around nice guy, well I'll be very surprised. The only thing your endorsed candidate supports are laws that will benefit himself personally or benefit his buddies at the top two agriculture lobbying groups. I recognize your dislike for Senator Barnett's politics and that is great you are looking for a different candidate, but this candidate is a arrogant career politician that most likely wouldn't have gotten voted into Topeka had there been other choices on the ballot in his home district. Please check his legislative record in Topeka, you will find little to nothing to read about bills he authored or sponsored. Sure he supported many bills, but he killed many more worthwhile bills by adding rediculous amendments in the last minutes of the legislative process on bills that he opposed just so they would fail. He bounced around from committee to committee at first and if memory serves me correctly, he was removed from committees following disturbances he created. He has bided his time into senior status on the Senate Natural Resources Committee promoting legislation that has allowed him to profit off deer hunting on his land thru his association with commercial hunting operations. He and other family members profitted off the sales of non-resident deer licenses(transferrable deer licenses aka t-tags that he helped make possible) thru tag agents operating out of state. That bill has since been repealed, you will find he fought against that effort as well.
Please keep looking for a better candidate. The only good thing about this candidate winning the election would be having him out of Topeka and meddling in Kansas politics.
July 6, 2010 at 4:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )