Thursday, October 26, 2006

Schoolcraft is best choice in 139th District

how typical of the SnL to leave me out of the whole article. I went in early to my appointment and also allowed an individual from the community sit in during my interview process. I answered all of Brian Lewis's questions of course the way he was scribling the answers down I should've known something was up. I had never anticipated receiving the nomination however the part written about Shane Schoeller looks like it came from one of my blogs on the subject.
The least they could've done was to include me in the coverage since I filed paperwork up in Jeff City to have my name placed on the ballot.

I'm Tom Martz the unknown Libertarian candidate for the 139th district a vote for me goes toward stemming the tide of socialism in MO.

Real-life experience makes difference.

Voters in the 139th District have a choice between two candidates with distinct differences.

They can vote for a candidate who has learned the ropes of the legislative process by working for elected officials most of his adult life.

Or they can vote for a candidate who has learned the ropes of life by attending the school of hard knocks.

One candidate, Republican Shane Schoeller, has quite the political pedigree, having worked for John Ashcroft, Roy Blunt and Matt Blunt.

The other candidate, Democrat Jamie Schoolcraft, is a paramedic and volunteer firefighter who has been politically active since he was a teenager.

Both candidates are smart, understand the northern Greene County district and would be worthy replacements for outgoing Rep. Brad Roark.

Both men would be conservative in their approach to issues.

Both make faith a central point of their campaigns.

But of the two of them, Schoolcraft, we believe, has more potential to be a strong, independent voice who can truly make a difference in Jefferson City.

Where Schoolcraft rises above Schoeller is in his real-life experience, his firm opposition to school vouchers and in his creative approach to dealing with health care.

Schoolcraft is firmly in the anti-vouchers camp, and he understands particularly how passing pro-voucher legislation could hurt small school districts such as those in northern Greene County. "Our district is proud of their public schools," Schoolcraft says. "The schools are the lifeblood of our communities."

Schoeller tries to walk a tightrope on vouchers, suggesting that in certain school districts — though not those in Greene County — they might work. His approach, however, is problematic, and we believe the best position is total opposition to the concept.

On health care, Schoolcraft has a specific proposal to remake the Medicaid system that involves the sort of public-private partnership that is likely in the ballpark of what the Republican majority will recommend early next year. The plan would take the state out of the medical micromanaging business and create a more direct patient-insurance company relationship among those on state-funded insurance. It's an idea worth pursuing.

Mostly, we give Schoolcraft the nod because while Schoeller has a firm grasp of the legislative process, we believe the Democrat's real-life experience gives him more independence and a better capacity to make the tough decisions. He's seen people at their most vulnerable and knows how to keep them in mind when he's in the Capitol making legislative decisions. As he says, he's "not your average Democrat."

When he was 16 years old, Schoolcraft helped found a booster club in Bois D'Arc that raised money for tornado warning sirens. His entire young life has been marked by public service, as a teacher, paramedic and volunteer.

Voters in the 139th should help him continue his life of public service by electing him their state representative.

Decision 2006

Today's races: 139th District Our vote: Jamie Schoolcraft

Ohio Court Rules BSL Unconstitutional

score one for the freedoms and rights of all individuals for once.

[Tuesday, March 07, 2006]

The Sixth District Court of Appeals in Ohio handed responsible dog owners a monumental victory last week when it ruled that local and state breed-specific "vicious" dog laws were unconstitutional. In a 2-1 decision, the Court held that Toledo Municipal Code 505.14a. (limiting ownership to one "pit bull" per household) and Ohio Revised Code 955.11 and 955.22 (failure of pit bull owner to provide liability insurance) violated several constitutional rights, including the right to due process. The Appellate Court held, just as the Ohio State Supreme Court did in 2004, that such laws do not provide owners with an opportunity to appeal a "vicious" dog finding before being penalized or charged with non-compliance, thereby violating their right to be heard and to defend their property.

The Appellate Court went on to declare these laws unconstitutional for two other reasons, both of which are extremely significant to those who have argued against breed-specific legislation for many years. First, the Court ruled that the laws violated an owner's right to equal protection since there is no rational basis to single out pit bulls as inherently dangerous. It stated that breed-specific laws "have in the past been enacted based on outdated information that perpetuates a stereotypical image of pit bulls." The Court found no new evidence to prove that these breeds are any more dangerous than others. Regulating or limiting pit bull ownership was therefore "arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory."

A final important ruling was the Court's determination that these breed-specific laws were unconstitutionally vague due to the fact that there is no accurate way to properly identify a pit bull. "Based on the facts presented," wrote Judge William Skow, "we conclude that the subjective identification of pit bulls may often include both non-pit bulls or dogs which are not vicious, to the extent that an ordinary citizen would not understand that he was breaking the law and which would result in the occurrence of arbitrary arrest and criminal charges."

For years, the American Kennel Club, many animal organizations, and countless responsible dog owners have opposed breed-specific laws in favor of reasonable, enforceable dangerous dog laws that hold all owners responsible for their dogs' behavior, regardless of breed. The Court's ruling last week supports those arguments, and AKC applauds its decision. Although the City of Toledo has indicated it will appeal, this case will hopefully serve as a precedent for legislators in their future efforts to address dangerous dog issues in their communities and states.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Pit bull registrations push past deadline

Just a group of animal lovers that have been swept up in the political firestorm which has led to an unjust end. mans best friend has now been micro-chipped, tagged, muzzled, and put out to pasture within a closed in kennel. Sad really because I know some of these individuals and have met there dogs. I have a ferret that is more vicisious then the Rushing's dog and it irritates me to no end they are being treated like convicts because they own an animal which some people have turned into an unreliable breed.
Let's jail the owner not the animal which has been neglected or trained to defend to its death or someone elses.
Wake up people it is only a matter of time before this list grows to include Doberman Pinchers, German Shepherds, Chows, Rottweilers and rumor has it Labs. Lets not forget the Dalamation which has shown tendencies to be aggresive.
Should we talk about Siamese cats next??

Remember this valuable lesson if you learn nothing else today:
When you ask government to impose your values upon others, you wind up with government imposing someone else's values on you.

I'm Tom Martz the only candidate in the 139th which will fight to defend YOUR rights.

Owners keep up complaints that city keeps them on too short a leash.

Jane Huh

Jose Arroyo on Monday joined about 50 others in registering their pit bulls after the city ordinance deadline, bringing the total tally up to 255.

Arroyo registered his 6-year-old pit bull, Kane, to comply with the new rules regulating pit bull ownership in Springfield.

But on the other side of the law, at least 21 tickets have been issued to Springfield dog owners since Oct. 16, when the ordinance went into effect.

As the second week of enforcement begins, the volume of complaints and concerns seem to have "settled down a lot," said Ron Boyer, assistant health director.

But, "those who are not registered are still at risk for getting ticketed," Boyer warned.

The city registers the dogs at the Springfield Animal Shelter near Kansas Expressway and Norton Road.

According to the city, an estimated 4,000 pit bulls live in Springfield. The figure is based on a formula using national statistics.

Dog owners who get ticketed for not registering their pit bulls can face fines of up to $1,000. With permission from municipal court, the city can confiscate unregistered pit bulls found at large.

At the city's animal shelter, there are already half a dozen pit bulls given up by the owners. As a result, the shelter has maxed out its capacity to take any more pit bulls.

Shelter employees put pit bulls in separate pens. Other dogs can be grouped.

Randy Barnts, animal control supervisor, said those dogs may be euthanized as early as today to make more room for other pit bulls that the officers pick up.

The owners who gave up their pit bulls to the city were told that giving up the dogs could result in euthanization.

"We tell them that upfront," Barnts said.

Owners who want to give up their dogs to the city for no charge can still contact the health department.

While there have been some reports of pit bulls getting dumped outside the city limits, the Springfield-Greene County Health Department cannot do anything about it.

No effective date has been set for a proposed Greene County ordinance that would give the city's health department legal authority to pick up free-running nuisance dogs outside Springfield limits, Boyer said.

Besides Barnts, there are seven animal control officers and two full-time shelter employees who are responsible for maintaining the pound and euthanizing animals.

The ordinance has at least two pit bull dog owners still fuming.

Last week, Joshua Hunter contacted local media outlets to express his opposition to the ordinance — in particular, its requirement to keep pit bulls in a fenced-in enclosure with a top and an opening latch. Hunter has registered his dog with the city.

The ordinance requires pit bull owners to keep their dogs inside an enclosure if they are outside and unattended for a long period of time, Barnts said.

Brian Rushing, who also has registered his dog with the city, emphasized that he and Hunter realize that the animal control officers are doing their job. But Rushing said he feels the city is treating him like a criminal for having a pit bull.

"You can't violate everybody's rights for the few bad apples," Rushing said. "That's what's upsetting people like me. We went through the trouble of training our dogs, we went through the trouble of being responsible, and we're being treated like criminals."

Arroyo shared those sentiments Monday after his dog, Kane, was registered and microchipped.

He said could never give up Kane, which he raised since it was "a little pup."

Arroyo said he considers himself lucky for being able to foot the cost associated with compliance.

"I call (this law) discrimination against pits," Arroyo said. "I think all animals are equal. It's how you raise the animal, really."

Monday, October 23, 2006

Do Tax Cuts Cost the Government Money?

far to often the media and those that live off the system have portrayed a tax cut as something BAD. I might mention the government should provide only one service of which we should be billed for, The cost of the defense of this nation should be shouldered by ALL that reside within the border.
As an ex-military person I have no regrets for my service except during my term of service just like now I am taxed on the very income I was earning to defend this nation. I don't believe ACTIVE members of the military should be taxed to help pay their own salary. It is quite an oxymoron but then why don't we charge them to purchase the bullets as well?? I will have others that will suggest that police officers, firefighters, teachers, and probably government workers should receive the same treatment, however my opinion on that matter is easy to explain. I don't need the police to defend my household or me personally, most generally they get there after the fact anyhow. I don't need the firefighters to help me put out my house fire most generally they would tell me to leave if I'm battling one anyhow. As far as teachers go we home schooled and had no need for government education nor the teacher which is paid to do the teaching.
I do however need the military to defend the borders of this nation and to keep it secure from attack, something our current crop of politicians haven't done.

I'm Tom Martz libertarian candidate for the 139th district and I offer you a voice in Jeff City not just the same old warn out record.

October 23, 2006

Whenever tax cuts are discussed in Washington, the media and most politicians use the phrase, cost to government. How much will this tax cut cost the government? we are asked, as though some crime is being contemplated when we consider reducing taxes. The American people have every right to fund the federal government at whatever level they deem acceptable, and if they choose-- through their elected representatives-- to reduce that funding level, they are not somehow injuring the government. If Congresses passes a new law that results in you paying $1000 less in taxes next year, have you taken something from the government that rightfully belongs to it? Or has the government simply taken less from you?

You don't cost the government money, the government costs you money!

Of course it's reasonable to demand that politicians cut spending when they cut taxes. That's the definition of real fiscal conservatism: government should not take too much from the private economy in taxes, but neither should it spend too much and run up deficits. That's why I vote against the wasteful appropriations bills that relentlessly increase federal spending year after year.

I reject the notion that tax cuts harm the economy. The economy suffers when government takes money from your paycheck that you otherwise would spend, save, or invest. Taxes never create prosperity. Private-sector innovation and productivity are the engines that drive our economy, regardless of what politicians tell us.

Tax reduction is my first priority in Congress. The reality is that most working Americans lose about half of their incomes to federal, state, and local taxes. Tax Freedom Day, representing the portion of the year you must work to pay for government at all levels, is roughly June 1st for most Americans. Imagine all of your hard work this year between January and the end of May going to the government!

One tax in particular should be eliminated as soon as possible-- the tax on Social Security benefits. Those benefits were never taxed between the 1930s and 1984. Treating them as taxable income represents nothing more than a trick to reduce Social Security benefits by stealth. I supported legislation that successfully repealed a 1993 tax increase on benefits, and my own bill, HR 180, would go further and eliminate all taxes on Social Security. Our seniors paid taxes throughout their working lives to fund the Social Security system, and it is immoral to tax them again on their benefits.

Various other taxes also must be reduced. Capital gains taxes are terribly counterproductive, punishing those who save and invest. Payroll taxes impose a tremendous compliance burden on businesses, especially smaller entrepreneurs who cannot hire an accounting department. Federal gas taxes should be slashed to provide taxpayers relief at the pump. Most importantly, federal spending must be dramatically reduced so that all Americans can go back to working for themselves instead of working to pay their taxes.

Sunday, October 22, 2006

Election judge banned from polls for double voting

this story got much more attention then the double voting Mayor Kathy Taylor of Tulsa,OK but then again she is a democrat.

The Associated Press

Maplewood — A veteran Republican election judge will not be allowed to work at the polls Nov. 7 after acknowledging he illegally cast two absentee ballots.

St. Louis County Election Board Chairman John Diehl said the man — the second judge caught double-voting this year — was elderly and told election officials that he hadn't meant to vote twice. Diehl declined to identify the judge.

County election officials took the action Friday after the St. Louis Post-Dispatch called inquiring about a tip.

Diehl confirmed the tipster's account, that the judge cast one vote before and a second vote after an Oct. 9 election-judge training class at the county Election Board's headquarters in Maplewood.

Diehl said that the Election Board learned of the man's actions Oct. 10 and was planning to confront him.

"He has worked for us for a while," Diehl said. "We don't believe it was an intentional or devious act."

Diehl said evidence of the man's double voting will be turned over to county prosecutors, who will decide whether to take legal action.

People convicted of voting more than once face a minimum fine of up to $2,500 and a maximum penalty of five years in jail.

They also permanently lose their right to vote.

The election board previously turned over evidence involving a Democratic election judge who was fired over the summer after officials determined that judge had illegally cast two absentee ballots for the Aug. 8 primary.

Diehl said the board has not been told of any action in the earlier case.

Diehl said an unexpectedly high number of absentee voters are casting ballots for a midterm election.

"The line is out the door," Diehl said, referring to the board's office in Maplewood.

So far, almost 5,000 absentee ballots have been cast by mail or in person in St. Louis County, election officials said.

Missouri voters can cast absentee ballots for reasons that include being disabled or expecting to be away from home on Election Day.