Role Reversal?
Remember when the Republicans would advocate smaller government and less federal spending?
Freshmen members were typically the most vocal proponents of limited government, as they often brought optimism and a strong ideology to Capitol Hill. After time, some of these GOP ideologues tended to succumb to the culture of Washington and lose their moorings. But this process usually took years.
Lately this phenomenon appears to be happening much more rapidly. Speaking about the recent explosion of pork-barrel spending, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) noted, “We’ve developed a culture, unfortunately, over a number of years where incoming freshmen are conditioned to believe that this is the only way to get reelected.”
Now, it seems even candidates for Congress are talking like inside-the-Beltway porkers. In a hotly contested race for an open congressional seat in Illinois, a “fiscally conservative” Republican is pledging to bring home the bacon if elected.
The Daily Herald said of Pete Roskam, “The 6th Congressional District GOP nominee said he’d support continuing the so-called practice of “earmarks” if elected to Congress to make sure projects like fixing the dangerous railroad crossing at Irving Park and Wood Dale roads continue to get funded.”
Meanwhile, Tammy Duckworth, the Democratic nominee for the Illinois congressional seat, has taken a strong anti-pork stance. She notes, “One of the easiest steps Congress can take to reduce the deficit and reform ethics is to immediately end the practice of earmarking.” Duckworth has even created an “Outrageous Earmark of the Week” section on her campaign website.
It sounds a lot like Congressman Flake’s “Egregious Earmark of the Week.” That is to say, she sounds a lot more like a fiscal conservative than the Republican candidate.
Native Illinoisan Ronald Reagan, who once vetoed a highway bill because it contained too many earmarks, must be spinning in his grave.
Friday, August 25, 2006
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Let us NOT forget
14 years ago we were appalled with the show of force from the federal government, today many would welcome it.
Tom Martz
Massacre at Ruby Ridge
ATF agent I suspect few government officials realized in 1992 the widespread anger and resentment their actions in a remote area of Idaho would inspire. Randy Weaver and his family were just some more "troublemakers" who didn't like the multicultural cesspool and wanted to be left alone. They would be "taken down hard and fast."
While most of the American sheeple paid no attention to this atrocity, a substantial minority on both sides of the political spectrum were outraged and wouldn't forget. Now the story continues.
Please note that, damning as the Justice Department investigation is, FBI officials are now believed to have destroyed evidence to keep it away from investigators.
Don Black
The Wall Street Journal, June 30, 1995, p. A14.
Ruby Ridge: The Justice Report
By James Bovard
The 1992 confrontation between federal agents and the Randy Weaver family in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, has become one of the most controversial and widely discussed examples of the abuse of federal power. The Justice Department completed a 542-page investigation on the case last year but has not yet made the report public. However, the report was acquired by Legal Times newspaper, which this week placed the text on the Internet. The report reveals that federal officials may have acted worse than even some of their harshest critics imagined.
This case began after Randy Weaver was entrapped, as an Idaho jury concluded, by an undercover Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms agent to sell him sawed-off shotguns.
While federal officials have claimed that the violent confrontation between the Weavers and the government began when the Weavers ambushed federal marshals, the report tells a very different story. A team of six U.S. marshals, split into two groups, trespassed onto Mr. Weaver's land on Aug. 21, 1992. One of the marshals threw rocks at the Weaver's cabin to see how much noise was required to agitate the Weaver's dogs. A few minutes later, Randy Weaver, Kevin Harris, and 13-year-old Sammy Weaver came out of the cabin and began following their dogs. Three U.S. marshals were soon tearing through the woods.
At one point, U.S. Marshal Larry Cooper "told the others that it was ['expletive deleted'] for them to continue running and that he did not want to 'run down the trail and get shot in the back.' He urged them to take up defensive positions. The others agreed.... William Degan ... took a position behind a stump...."
As Sammy Weaver and Kevin Harris came upon the marshals, gunfire erupted. Sammy was shot in the back and killed while running away from the scene (probably by Marshal Cooper, according to the report), and Marshal Degan was killed by Mr. Harris. The jury concluded that Mr. Harris's action was legitimate self-defense; the Justice report concluded it was impossible to know who shot first.
Several places in the report deal with the possibility of a government coverup. After the firefight between the marshals and the Weavers and Mr. Harris, the surviving marshals were taken away to rest and recuperate. The report observed, "We question the wisdom of keeping the marshals together at the condominium for several hours, while awaiting interviews with the FBI. Isolating them in that manner created the appearance and generated allegations that they were fabricating stories and colluding to cover up the true circumstances of the shootings."
After the death of the U.S. marshal, the FBI was called in. A source of continuing fierce debate across America is: Did the FBI set out to apprehend and arrest Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris -- or simply to kill them? Unfortunately, the evidence from the Justice Department report is damning in the extreme on this count.
The report noted, "We have been told by observers on the scene that law enforcement personnel made statements that the matter would be handled quickly and that the situation would be 'taken down hard and fast.' " The FBI issued Rules of Engagement that declared that its snipers "can and should" use deadly force against armed males outside the cabin.
The report noted that a member of an FBI SWAT team from Denver "remembered the Rules of Engagement as 'if you see 'em, shoot 'em.' " The task force report noted, "since those Rules which contained 'should' remained in force at the crisis scene for days after the August 22 shooting, it is inconceivable to us that FBI Headquarters remained ignorant of the exact wording of the Rules of Engagement during that entire period."
The report concluded that the FBI Rules of Engagement at Ruby Ridge flagrantly violated the U.S. Constitution: "The Constitution allows no person to become 'fair game' for deadly force without law enforcement evaluating the threat that person poses, even when, as occurred here, the evaluation must be made in a split second." The report portrays the rules of engagement as practically a license to kill: "The Constitution places the decision on whether to use deadly force on the individual agent; the Rules attempted to usurp this responsibility."
FBI headquarters rejected an initial operation plan because there was no provision to even attempt to negotiate the surrender of the suspects. The plan was revised to include a negotiation provision -- but subsequent FBI action made that provision a nullity. FBI snipers took their positions around the Weaver cabin a few minutes after 5 p.m. on Aug. 22. Within an hour, every adult in the cabin was either dead or severely wounded -- even though they had not fired a shot at any FBI agent.
Randy Weaver, Mr. Harris, and 16-year-old Sara Weaver stepped out of the cabin a few minutes before 6 p.m. to go to the shed where Sammy's body lay. FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi shot Randy Weaver in the back. As Randy Weaver, Mr. Harris, and Sara Weaver struggled to get back into the cabin, Vicki Weaver stood in the cabin doorway holding a baby. Agent Horiuchi fired again; his bullet passed through a window in the door, hit Vicki Weaver in the head, killing her instantly, and then hit Mr. Harris in the chest.
At the subsequent trial, the government claimed that Messrs. Weaver and Harris were shot because they had threatened to shoot at a helicopter containing FBI officials. Because of insufficient evidence, the federal judge threw out the charge that Messrs. Weaver and Harris threatened the helicopter. The Justice report noted, "The SIOC [Strategic Information and Operations Center at FBI headquarters] Log indicates that shots were fired during the events of August 22.... We have found no evidence during this inquiry that shots fired at any helicopter during the Ruby Ridge crisis. The erroneous entry was never corrected." (The Idaho jury found Messrs. Weaver and Harris innocent on almost all charges.)
The Justice Department task force expressed grave doubts about the wisdom of the FBI strategy: "From information received at the Marshals Service, FBI management had reason to believe that the Weaver/Harris group would respond to a helicopter in the vicinity of the cabin by coming outside with firearms. Notwithstanding this knowledge, they placed sniper/observers on the adjacent mountainside with instructions that they could and should shoot armed members of the group, if they came out of the cabin. Their use of the helicopter near the cabin invited an accusation that the helicopter was intentionally used to draw the Weaver group out of the cabin."
The task force was extremely critical of Agent Horiuchi's second shot: "Since the exchange of gunfire [the previous day], no one at the cabin had fired a shot. Indeed, they had not even returned fire in response to Horiuchi's first shot. Furthermore, at the time of the second shot, Harris and others outside the cabin were retreating, not attacking. They were not retreating to an area where they would present a danger to the public at large...."
Regarding Agent Horiuchi's killing of Vicki Weaver, the task force concluded, "[B]y fixing his cross hairs on the door when he believed someone was behind it, he placed the children and Vicki Weaver at risk, in violation of even the special Rules of Engagement.... In our opinion he needlessly and unjustifiably endangered the persons whom he thought might be behind the door."
The Justice Department task force was especially appalled that the adults were gunned down before receiving any warning or demand to surrender: "While the operational plan included a provision for a surrender demand, that demand was not made until after the shootings.... The lack of a planned 'call out' as the sniper/observers deployed is significant because the Weavers were known to leave the cabin armed when vehicles or airplanes approached. The absence of such a plan subjected the Government to charges that it was setting Weaver up for attack."
Mr. Bovard writes often on public policy.
Tom Martz
Massacre at Ruby Ridge
ATF agent I suspect few government officials realized in 1992 the widespread anger and resentment their actions in a remote area of Idaho would inspire. Randy Weaver and his family were just some more "troublemakers" who didn't like the multicultural cesspool and wanted to be left alone. They would be "taken down hard and fast."
While most of the American sheeple paid no attention to this atrocity, a substantial minority on both sides of the political spectrum were outraged and wouldn't forget. Now the story continues.
Please note that, damning as the Justice Department investigation is, FBI officials are now believed to have destroyed evidence to keep it away from investigators.
Don Black
The Wall Street Journal, June 30, 1995, p. A14.
Ruby Ridge: The Justice Report
By James Bovard
The 1992 confrontation between federal agents and the Randy Weaver family in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, has become one of the most controversial and widely discussed examples of the abuse of federal power. The Justice Department completed a 542-page investigation on the case last year but has not yet made the report public. However, the report was acquired by Legal Times newspaper, which this week placed the text on the Internet. The report reveals that federal officials may have acted worse than even some of their harshest critics imagined.
This case began after Randy Weaver was entrapped, as an Idaho jury concluded, by an undercover Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms agent to sell him sawed-off shotguns.
While federal officials have claimed that the violent confrontation between the Weavers and the government began when the Weavers ambushed federal marshals, the report tells a very different story. A team of six U.S. marshals, split into two groups, trespassed onto Mr. Weaver's land on Aug. 21, 1992. One of the marshals threw rocks at the Weaver's cabin to see how much noise was required to agitate the Weaver's dogs. A few minutes later, Randy Weaver, Kevin Harris, and 13-year-old Sammy Weaver came out of the cabin and began following their dogs. Three U.S. marshals were soon tearing through the woods.
At one point, U.S. Marshal Larry Cooper "told the others that it was ['expletive deleted'] for them to continue running and that he did not want to 'run down the trail and get shot in the back.' He urged them to take up defensive positions. The others agreed.... William Degan ... took a position behind a stump...."
As Sammy Weaver and Kevin Harris came upon the marshals, gunfire erupted. Sammy was shot in the back and killed while running away from the scene (probably by Marshal Cooper, according to the report), and Marshal Degan was killed by Mr. Harris. The jury concluded that Mr. Harris's action was legitimate self-defense; the Justice report concluded it was impossible to know who shot first.
Several places in the report deal with the possibility of a government coverup. After the firefight between the marshals and the Weavers and Mr. Harris, the surviving marshals were taken away to rest and recuperate. The report observed, "We question the wisdom of keeping the marshals together at the condominium for several hours, while awaiting interviews with the FBI. Isolating them in that manner created the appearance and generated allegations that they were fabricating stories and colluding to cover up the true circumstances of the shootings."
After the death of the U.S. marshal, the FBI was called in. A source of continuing fierce debate across America is: Did the FBI set out to apprehend and arrest Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris -- or simply to kill them? Unfortunately, the evidence from the Justice Department report is damning in the extreme on this count.
The report noted, "We have been told by observers on the scene that law enforcement personnel made statements that the matter would be handled quickly and that the situation would be 'taken down hard and fast.' " The FBI issued Rules of Engagement that declared that its snipers "can and should" use deadly force against armed males outside the cabin.
The report noted that a member of an FBI SWAT team from Denver "remembered the Rules of Engagement as 'if you see 'em, shoot 'em.' " The task force report noted, "since those Rules which contained 'should' remained in force at the crisis scene for days after the August 22 shooting, it is inconceivable to us that FBI Headquarters remained ignorant of the exact wording of the Rules of Engagement during that entire period."
The report concluded that the FBI Rules of Engagement at Ruby Ridge flagrantly violated the U.S. Constitution: "The Constitution allows no person to become 'fair game' for deadly force without law enforcement evaluating the threat that person poses, even when, as occurred here, the evaluation must be made in a split second." The report portrays the rules of engagement as practically a license to kill: "The Constitution places the decision on whether to use deadly force on the individual agent; the Rules attempted to usurp this responsibility."
FBI headquarters rejected an initial operation plan because there was no provision to even attempt to negotiate the surrender of the suspects. The plan was revised to include a negotiation provision -- but subsequent FBI action made that provision a nullity. FBI snipers took their positions around the Weaver cabin a few minutes after 5 p.m. on Aug. 22. Within an hour, every adult in the cabin was either dead or severely wounded -- even though they had not fired a shot at any FBI agent.
Randy Weaver, Mr. Harris, and 16-year-old Sara Weaver stepped out of the cabin a few minutes before 6 p.m. to go to the shed where Sammy's body lay. FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi shot Randy Weaver in the back. As Randy Weaver, Mr. Harris, and Sara Weaver struggled to get back into the cabin, Vicki Weaver stood in the cabin doorway holding a baby. Agent Horiuchi fired again; his bullet passed through a window in the door, hit Vicki Weaver in the head, killing her instantly, and then hit Mr. Harris in the chest.
At the subsequent trial, the government claimed that Messrs. Weaver and Harris were shot because they had threatened to shoot at a helicopter containing FBI officials. Because of insufficient evidence, the federal judge threw out the charge that Messrs. Weaver and Harris threatened the helicopter. The Justice report noted, "The SIOC [Strategic Information and Operations Center at FBI headquarters] Log indicates that shots were fired during the events of August 22.... We have found no evidence during this inquiry that shots fired at any helicopter during the Ruby Ridge crisis. The erroneous entry was never corrected." (The Idaho jury found Messrs. Weaver and Harris innocent on almost all charges.)
The Justice Department task force expressed grave doubts about the wisdom of the FBI strategy: "From information received at the Marshals Service, FBI management had reason to believe that the Weaver/Harris group would respond to a helicopter in the vicinity of the cabin by coming outside with firearms. Notwithstanding this knowledge, they placed sniper/observers on the adjacent mountainside with instructions that they could and should shoot armed members of the group, if they came out of the cabin. Their use of the helicopter near the cabin invited an accusation that the helicopter was intentionally used to draw the Weaver group out of the cabin."
The task force was extremely critical of Agent Horiuchi's second shot: "Since the exchange of gunfire [the previous day], no one at the cabin had fired a shot. Indeed, they had not even returned fire in response to Horiuchi's first shot. Furthermore, at the time of the second shot, Harris and others outside the cabin were retreating, not attacking. They were not retreating to an area where they would present a danger to the public at large...."
Regarding Agent Horiuchi's killing of Vicki Weaver, the task force concluded, "[B]y fixing his cross hairs on the door when he believed someone was behind it, he placed the children and Vicki Weaver at risk, in violation of even the special Rules of Engagement.... In our opinion he needlessly and unjustifiably endangered the persons whom he thought might be behind the door."
The Justice Department task force was especially appalled that the adults were gunned down before receiving any warning or demand to surrender: "While the operational plan included a provision for a surrender demand, that demand was not made until after the shootings.... The lack of a planned 'call out' as the sniper/observers deployed is significant because the Weavers were known to leave the cabin armed when vehicles or airplanes approached. The absence of such a plan subjected the Government to charges that it was setting Weaver up for attack."
Mr. Bovard writes often on public policy.
a documentry??
I watched the Spike Lee film last night on HBO called "When the Levee's Broke" and it enforced my opinion that people have been led to believe and educated likewise that the job of the federal government is to help those in need no matter what.
Was this a nation tradegy?? YES
Was the city forewarned that this could happen?? YES
Does the city sit in a flood plain?? YES
Did any of the local officials go above and beyond the call of duty to avert this problem?? it doesn't appear to be so, oh sure there are individuals which rose to the occasion but it appears many sat back and waited for government to help.
During Mr. Lee's interview which can be read at the above mentioned link, I find it quite humorous that he laments that only a 1/4 of the actual population is back within the city. Many of these individuals are spaced out in the other continental states living off of the taxpayers dollars just like many of them were doing while living in New Orleans.
When government subsidizes a bad behavior more of the same ensues.
By the way it is much simplier to blame the federal government then it is to blame Ray "I'm not going to drive the bus" Nagin
That is my opinion and I'll stick with it until shown otherwise.
Was this a nation tradegy?? YES
Was the city forewarned that this could happen?? YES
Does the city sit in a flood plain?? YES
Did any of the local officials go above and beyond the call of duty to avert this problem?? it doesn't appear to be so, oh sure there are individuals which rose to the occasion but it appears many sat back and waited for government to help.
During Mr. Lee's interview which can be read at the above mentioned link, I find it quite humorous that he laments that only a 1/4 of the actual population is back within the city. Many of these individuals are spaced out in the other continental states living off of the taxpayers dollars just like many of them were doing while living in New Orleans.
When government subsidizes a bad behavior more of the same ensues.
By the way it is much simplier to blame the federal government then it is to blame Ray "I'm not going to drive the bus" Nagin
That is my opinion and I'll stick with it until shown otherwise.
70 some days to go
At this point I will concentrate more on my oppenents views compared to my own. Last night I spent extensive time reviewing the positions that both my opponents have taken, and I must admit I was quite confused when I got finished.
Both of them seem to have some governmental solution to our problems, then they both lament of how much government intercedes into our lives.
All three of us are second amendment types and believe the citizenry should be allowed to own firearms. I will take this a step further and proclaim that any law abiding citizen should be allowed to purchase any firearm made which is legal in the United States. In this manner the government actually has to pass legislation to prevent "certain" firearms from being allowed in the country. It is quite hard to hide behind this position.
Mr. Schoolcraft says he is pro-choice but says that through the use of government programs we can change the tide of abortion on demand.
Mr. Schoeller is pro-life and even received the nod from the organization which this position is quite important.
I am pro-life, no organization is going to endorse a third party candidate, my feeling weren't hurt. On some issues I completely disagree with the Pro-Life organization. I'm against any government expenditures whether they support the life or choice movement makes no difference to me. I also firmly believe this was a states rights issue not one of the federal government. We used to have 50 sovereign states which could govern the peoples residing within the states boundries, no more however as the fed reigns supreme.
change the face of politics and vote only third party candidates.
Tom Martz
Both of them seem to have some governmental solution to our problems, then they both lament of how much government intercedes into our lives.
All three of us are second amendment types and believe the citizenry should be allowed to own firearms. I will take this a step further and proclaim that any law abiding citizen should be allowed to purchase any firearm made which is legal in the United States. In this manner the government actually has to pass legislation to prevent "certain" firearms from being allowed in the country. It is quite hard to hide behind this position.
Mr. Schoolcraft says he is pro-choice but says that through the use of government programs we can change the tide of abortion on demand.
Mr. Schoeller is pro-life and even received the nod from the organization which this position is quite important.
I am pro-life, no organization is going to endorse a third party candidate, my feeling weren't hurt. On some issues I completely disagree with the Pro-Life organization. I'm against any government expenditures whether they support the life or choice movement makes no difference to me. I also firmly believe this was a states rights issue not one of the federal government. We used to have 50 sovereign states which could govern the peoples residing within the states boundries, no more however as the fed reigns supreme.
change the face of politics and vote only third party candidates.
Tom Martz
Monday, August 21, 2006
Lowering the Cost of Health Care
Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk - A weekly Column
August 21, 2006
As a medical doctor, I've seen first-hand how bureaucratic red tape interferes with the doctor-patient relationship and drives costs higher. The current system of third-party payers takes decision-making away from doctors, leaving patients feeling rushed and worsening the quality of care. Yet health insurance premiums and drug costs keep rising. Clearly a new approach is needed. Congress needs to craft innovative legislation that makes health care more affordable without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. It also needs to repeal bad laws that keep health care costs higher than necessary.
I believe the repeal of bad laws and court decisions which drive up these cost should be handled first. The tenticles of government tend to add more cost then deemed necessary.
We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses- but not individuals- to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.
Hence government has NO legal Constitutional authority to mandate this type of action. It was at this point everyone that voted for this bill should have been given the BOOT.
While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government- in the form of "universal coverage"- is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.
That's just it both the current duopoly parties in POWER want this system to remain, after all they do bring home the bacon for the constituients. The bigger the entitlement the better to remain in office with.
For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.
Most people have been government educated so the understanding of this paragraph is limited to about 2% of the population.
The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone- doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies- to keep costs down. As long as "somebody else" is paying the bill, the bill will be too high.
Just to make sure there is an understanding with the term "third party", Mr. Paul is not reffering to the Libertarian Party, but to the insurance companies.
The following are bills Congress should pass to reduce health care costs and leave more money in the pockets of families:
HR 3075 provides truly comprehensive health care reform by allowing families to claim a tax credit for the rising cost of health insurance premiums. With many families now spending close to $1000 or even more for their monthly premiums, they need real tax relief-- including a dollar-for-dollar credit for every cent they spend on health care premiums-- to make medical care more affordable.
As a business owner I should be in favor of this but the word "tax credit" sounds more like a government give back theme.
HR 3076 is specifically designed to address the medical malpractice crisis that threatens to drive thousands of American doctors- especially obstetricians- out of business. The bill provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase "negative outcomes" insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Under HR 3076, individuals can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost.
"To err is human" can't remember the individual which said this but it is quite true in this case. I understand suing in regards to GROSS NEGLIGENCE, but for items out of the control of either the doctor or the facility is just plain WRONG. Suing a doctor because the baby is born with a handicap can't be controlled by the doctor or the hospitol. That is a risk that we the individual should bare.
If I fall off of a ladder is the manufacturer liable?? Sadly the answer would be yes in todays court system, although I wouldn't sue for my own stupidity.
HR 3077 makes it more affordable for parents to provide health care for their children. It creates a $500 per child tax credit for medical expenses and prescription drugs that are not reimbursed by insurance. It also creates a $3,000 tax credit for dependent children with terminal illnesses, cancer, or disabilities. Parents who are struggling to pay for their children's medical care, especially when those children have serious health problems or special needs, need every extra dollar.
Open up the insurance industry to allow "specific types of policies" Everything has gone via the big box store mentality. As the consumer I should be able to purchase specific types of policies for my families needs.
HR 3078 is commonsense, compassionate legislation for those suffering from cancer or other terminal illnesses. The sad reality is that many patients battling serious illnesses will never collect Social Security benefits-- yet they continue to pay into the Social Security system. When facing a medical crisis, those patients need every extra dollar to pay for medical care, travel, and family matters. HR 3078 waives the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes (or self-employment taxes) for individuals with documented serious illnesses or cancer. It also suspends Social Security taxes for primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child. There is no justification or excuse for collecting Social Security taxes from sick individuals who literally are fighting for their lives.
Once someone is diagnosised with a terminal illness ALL the money contributed to that number should be immediately released to that person, how they spend it is up to them, however keep in mind if the money gets wasted don't come crying back to the taxpayer for your ignorance.
I'm Tom Martz and I'm the Libertarian candidate for the 139th district. If you believe government expenditures are out of control and government has to much POWER over your daily life then I welcome you to vote for every Libertarian on your ballot to make EFFECTIVE change. The more members we get in state congress the more power we can return to the people.
Tom Martz
August 21, 2006
As a medical doctor, I've seen first-hand how bureaucratic red tape interferes with the doctor-patient relationship and drives costs higher. The current system of third-party payers takes decision-making away from doctors, leaving patients feeling rushed and worsening the quality of care. Yet health insurance premiums and drug costs keep rising. Clearly a new approach is needed. Congress needs to craft innovative legislation that makes health care more affordable without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. It also needs to repeal bad laws that keep health care costs higher than necessary.
I believe the repeal of bad laws and court decisions which drive up these cost should be handled first. The tenticles of government tend to add more cost then deemed necessary.
We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses- but not individuals- to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.
Hence government has NO legal Constitutional authority to mandate this type of action. It was at this point everyone that voted for this bill should have been given the BOOT.
While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government- in the form of "universal coverage"- is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.
That's just it both the current duopoly parties in POWER want this system to remain, after all they do bring home the bacon for the constituients. The bigger the entitlement the better to remain in office with.
For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.
Most people have been government educated so the understanding of this paragraph is limited to about 2% of the population.
The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone- doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies- to keep costs down. As long as "somebody else" is paying the bill, the bill will be too high.
Just to make sure there is an understanding with the term "third party", Mr. Paul is not reffering to the Libertarian Party, but to the insurance companies.
The following are bills Congress should pass to reduce health care costs and leave more money in the pockets of families:
HR 3075 provides truly comprehensive health care reform by allowing families to claim a tax credit for the rising cost of health insurance premiums. With many families now spending close to $1000 or even more for their monthly premiums, they need real tax relief-- including a dollar-for-dollar credit for every cent they spend on health care premiums-- to make medical care more affordable.
As a business owner I should be in favor of this but the word "tax credit" sounds more like a government give back theme.
HR 3076 is specifically designed to address the medical malpractice crisis that threatens to drive thousands of American doctors- especially obstetricians- out of business. The bill provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase "negative outcomes" insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Under HR 3076, individuals can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost.
"To err is human" can't remember the individual which said this but it is quite true in this case. I understand suing in regards to GROSS NEGLIGENCE, but for items out of the control of either the doctor or the facility is just plain WRONG. Suing a doctor because the baby is born with a handicap can't be controlled by the doctor or the hospitol. That is a risk that we the individual should bare.
If I fall off of a ladder is the manufacturer liable?? Sadly the answer would be yes in todays court system, although I wouldn't sue for my own stupidity.
HR 3077 makes it more affordable for parents to provide health care for their children. It creates a $500 per child tax credit for medical expenses and prescription drugs that are not reimbursed by insurance. It also creates a $3,000 tax credit for dependent children with terminal illnesses, cancer, or disabilities. Parents who are struggling to pay for their children's medical care, especially when those children have serious health problems or special needs, need every extra dollar.
Open up the insurance industry to allow "specific types of policies" Everything has gone via the big box store mentality. As the consumer I should be able to purchase specific types of policies for my families needs.
HR 3078 is commonsense, compassionate legislation for those suffering from cancer or other terminal illnesses. The sad reality is that many patients battling serious illnesses will never collect Social Security benefits-- yet they continue to pay into the Social Security system. When facing a medical crisis, those patients need every extra dollar to pay for medical care, travel, and family matters. HR 3078 waives the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes (or self-employment taxes) for individuals with documented serious illnesses or cancer. It also suspends Social Security taxes for primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child. There is no justification or excuse for collecting Social Security taxes from sick individuals who literally are fighting for their lives.
Once someone is diagnosised with a terminal illness ALL the money contributed to that number should be immediately released to that person, how they spend it is up to them, however keep in mind if the money gets wasted don't come crying back to the taxpayer for your ignorance.
I'm Tom Martz and I'm the Libertarian candidate for the 139th district. If you believe government expenditures are out of control and government has to much POWER over your daily life then I welcome you to vote for every Libertarian on your ballot to make EFFECTIVE change. The more members we get in state congress the more power we can return to the people.
Tom Martz
Friday, August 18, 2006
copied but important info pertaining to the audit
The Libertarian Guy said...
The Greene County Libertarian Party has scheduled a public forum for interested citizens to provide their concerns to be submitted to the State Auditor's office. On Saturday, August 26th, our first forum will begin at 7:00 p.m. in the Frisco room at the Library Station. Audit suggestions can also be phoned in to the G.C.L.P. at (417) 300-9148 or by e-mail at auditinfo@intergate.com.
Let your voice be heard to what departments should be audited.
The Greene County Libertarian Party has scheduled a public forum for interested citizens to provide their concerns to be submitted to the State Auditor's office. On Saturday, August 26th, our first forum will begin at 7:00 p.m. in the Frisco room at the Library Station. Audit suggestions can also be phoned in to the G.C.L.P. at (417) 300-9148 or by e-mail at auditinfo@intergate.com.
Let your voice be heard to what departments should be audited.
Friday, August 11, 2006
Medicaid reform is the real issue
Lawmakers spend too much time on fraud.
A legislative committee was in Springfield on Wednesday looking for fraud in Medicaid.
Perhaps there is some to be found, but we suggest lawmakers are once again focusing on the wrong priorities when they talk about Medicaid. What they ought to be doing is figuring how they're going to remake the system. When the legislature slashed Medicaid two years ago to balance the state budget, they passed a bill that wipes out the current state system of state-funded indigent care by 2008. The plan, Gov. Matt Blunt and Republican legislators said, was to remake the system from scratch.
It stands to reason when the tenticles of government get intwined in areas which should be the private sector cost will definetly GO UP.
So what are they doing? They're still talking about fraud and abuse, which was their rallying cry when they made the cuts in the first place. In the meantime, real people are suffering. Children have lost their insurance. Disabled adults have quit their jobs to keep their Medicaid. We're about two years away from the system going away and we're nowhere closer to figuring out the plan to develop a sustainable Medicaid program.
If you look at the BUDGET for mediScare there wasn't a cut in cost or budget so how does the SNL proclaim there was one. Easy the electorate buys into it via the SOB stories we see on TV nightly.
The good news is that Blunt seems to understand the key issue. In an interview with the News-Leader editorial board recently, he decried the liberal myth that too many people in our system today don't have access to health care.
"Everybody has access," Blunt says. "It's the emergency room. We need to change that."
The irony, of course, is that was the Democratic criticism two years ago when he slashed the Medicaid rolls and forced too many folks to use the emergency room as their sole source of health care. That Blunt today understands that reality of our system speaks well for the potential reform of the Medicaid system, if only the governor and lawmakers can get past political hurdles and focus on the real issues.
Personally using the Emergency Room as my source of medical resourses isn't actually an intelligent idea. My pet ferret knows emergency room cost will skyrocket, so how come it is people with college degrees don't understand this?
Reforming Medicaid has little to do with fraud and abuse, and everything to do with determining sustainable levels of care that provide security for our state's residents who need it, but mostly as a transitional benefit, not a permanent state-provided health insurance system. The problem with the old system is that it grew out of control. Like other forms of welfare — from food stamps to public housing — it didn't provide the sort of flexibility that helps folks as they help themselves. Under the old way of thinking about welfare, services are provided until a certain income level is attained, and then they're cut off. That forces people who are still in poverty to choose between food and medicine, shelter or a better-paying job.
The new model of Medicaid, we believe, must include sliding scales of service that help those who need it most and charge co-pays — or slowly reduce services — for those who can afford it. The new model must reward those who improve their income by keeping services in place until folks have climbed out of poverty, rather than just cutting them off when an arbitrary new income level is reached. The new model must recognize the truth that Blunt realizes: sending folks to the emergency room is not a solution.
Remaking Medicaid should be about providing incentives for those who can help themselves and access to health care for those who can't.
It's time for state lawmakers to make real Medicaid reform a priority.
A legislative committee was in Springfield on Wednesday looking for fraud in Medicaid.
Perhaps there is some to be found, but we suggest lawmakers are once again focusing on the wrong priorities when they talk about Medicaid. What they ought to be doing is figuring how they're going to remake the system. When the legislature slashed Medicaid two years ago to balance the state budget, they passed a bill that wipes out the current state system of state-funded indigent care by 2008. The plan, Gov. Matt Blunt and Republican legislators said, was to remake the system from scratch.
It stands to reason when the tenticles of government get intwined in areas which should be the private sector cost will definetly GO UP.
So what are they doing? They're still talking about fraud and abuse, which was their rallying cry when they made the cuts in the first place. In the meantime, real people are suffering. Children have lost their insurance. Disabled adults have quit their jobs to keep their Medicaid. We're about two years away from the system going away and we're nowhere closer to figuring out the plan to develop a sustainable Medicaid program.
If you look at the BUDGET for mediScare there wasn't a cut in cost or budget so how does the SNL proclaim there was one. Easy the electorate buys into it via the SOB stories we see on TV nightly.
The good news is that Blunt seems to understand the key issue. In an interview with the News-Leader editorial board recently, he decried the liberal myth that too many people in our system today don't have access to health care.
"Everybody has access," Blunt says. "It's the emergency room. We need to change that."
The irony, of course, is that was the Democratic criticism two years ago when he slashed the Medicaid rolls and forced too many folks to use the emergency room as their sole source of health care. That Blunt today understands that reality of our system speaks well for the potential reform of the Medicaid system, if only the governor and lawmakers can get past political hurdles and focus on the real issues.
Personally using the Emergency Room as my source of medical resourses isn't actually an intelligent idea. My pet ferret knows emergency room cost will skyrocket, so how come it is people with college degrees don't understand this?
Reforming Medicaid has little to do with fraud and abuse, and everything to do with determining sustainable levels of care that provide security for our state's residents who need it, but mostly as a transitional benefit, not a permanent state-provided health insurance system. The problem with the old system is that it grew out of control. Like other forms of welfare — from food stamps to public housing — it didn't provide the sort of flexibility that helps folks as they help themselves. Under the old way of thinking about welfare, services are provided until a certain income level is attained, and then they're cut off. That forces people who are still in poverty to choose between food and medicine, shelter or a better-paying job.
The new model of Medicaid, we believe, must include sliding scales of service that help those who need it most and charge co-pays — or slowly reduce services — for those who can afford it. The new model must reward those who improve their income by keeping services in place until folks have climbed out of poverty, rather than just cutting them off when an arbitrary new income level is reached. The new model must recognize the truth that Blunt realizes: sending folks to the emergency room is not a solution.
Remaking Medicaid should be about providing incentives for those who can help themselves and access to health care for those who can't.
It's time for state lawmakers to make real Medicaid reform a priority.
Teens are OK with drug tests
this will be interspirced with some of my commentary.
The News-Leader says that student drug testing is misguided and disturbing. So are the reasons it gave for opposing it. It cites the so-called failure of the DARE program as a reason not to test. That doesn’t mean this also will fail. If that educational program failed, then why insist on more? Why not attempt to curb drug use in a different way? Why not try a way that puts students in a position where taking a drug test will affect their extracurricular activities?
Since there are many ways to teach a student from private schools to home schooling I have no problem with this. After all going to government schools is voluntary not FORCED upon the citizenry.
If one student turns down drugs for fear of failing a drug test, then it does work. The purpose of student drug testing isn’t necessarily to catch students doing drugs. The purpose is to be a deterrent from doing drugs in the first place. It gives teens a solid reason to turn down the lure and pressure of drug use.
Once more government schooling is voluntary not FORCED!!
The News-Leader also cites personal freedoms as a reason not to test students. It’s not a disturbing trend, as it says. It’s a way to respond to drug problems in our schools. A good reason to test students is safety. It protects the student and those around them. But shouldn’t our society be used to measures that limit our personal freedom all in the name of safety? Speed limits, DUIs and underage driving laws restrict personal freedom all in the name of safety. Laws and decisions are made for our good. This decision isn’t out of the ordinary and isn’t misguided.
I'm not to complaint on the way the writer has decided to use safety as a means to limit personal freedoms. The Autobahn in Germany clearly shows that speed limits have nothing to do with safety. Many people die in auto accidents when they are complaint to the speed limit, obeying the law didn't save their lives.
DUI's don't tend to offer any safety either. Should I choose to go get drunk and drive it would be a RARE instance if I were to be stopped by the police.
I was driving at the age of 12, I still haven't been involved in an accident that has been my fault, hense the underage driving law protected NO ONE.
Drug testing isn’t intrusive or against the Constitution, as some say. The Supreme Court says this. It isn’t discriminatory either. Educators will say that participating in extracurricular activities isn’t a right, but a privilege. Those who want to participate need to submit to random drug tests. Drug testing isn’t punishment or discrimination. We shouldn’t view this as something negative, but helpful based on the current drug use by teens.
BAD argument!!! The SCOTUS also says that stealing ones property to give to a developer for economic gain to a community is constitutional as well.
I wonder if Mr Loomis would mind if Wal-Mart or any other retailor absconded with his property???? I would wager he would be complaining loudly.
However I still agree with random drug testing in the government school system since attendance is voluntary.
I offer my viewpoints based on personal experience. I am employed by the company who performed the drug tests on the Branson students and on the board members who approved it. I have given hundreds of drug tests to students.
Countless times a teen will tell me they don’t do drugs because they have so much to lose. More teens tell me they think it’s a good idea than those who complain about it. If they are the ones taking the tests and don’t mind, then why should the News-Leader mind?
Bill Loomis resides in Springfield and is a drug technician.
The News-Leader says that student drug testing is misguided and disturbing. So are the reasons it gave for opposing it. It cites the so-called failure of the DARE program as a reason not to test. That doesn’t mean this also will fail. If that educational program failed, then why insist on more? Why not attempt to curb drug use in a different way? Why not try a way that puts students in a position where taking a drug test will affect their extracurricular activities?
Since there are many ways to teach a student from private schools to home schooling I have no problem with this. After all going to government schools is voluntary not FORCED upon the citizenry.
If one student turns down drugs for fear of failing a drug test, then it does work. The purpose of student drug testing isn’t necessarily to catch students doing drugs. The purpose is to be a deterrent from doing drugs in the first place. It gives teens a solid reason to turn down the lure and pressure of drug use.
Once more government schooling is voluntary not FORCED!!
The News-Leader also cites personal freedoms as a reason not to test students. It’s not a disturbing trend, as it says. It’s a way to respond to drug problems in our schools. A good reason to test students is safety. It protects the student and those around them. But shouldn’t our society be used to measures that limit our personal freedom all in the name of safety? Speed limits, DUIs and underage driving laws restrict personal freedom all in the name of safety. Laws and decisions are made for our good. This decision isn’t out of the ordinary and isn’t misguided.
I'm not to complaint on the way the writer has decided to use safety as a means to limit personal freedoms. The Autobahn in Germany clearly shows that speed limits have nothing to do with safety. Many people die in auto accidents when they are complaint to the speed limit, obeying the law didn't save their lives.
DUI's don't tend to offer any safety either. Should I choose to go get drunk and drive it would be a RARE instance if I were to be stopped by the police.
I was driving at the age of 12, I still haven't been involved in an accident that has been my fault, hense the underage driving law protected NO ONE.
Drug testing isn’t intrusive or against the Constitution, as some say. The Supreme Court says this. It isn’t discriminatory either. Educators will say that participating in extracurricular activities isn’t a right, but a privilege. Those who want to participate need to submit to random drug tests. Drug testing isn’t punishment or discrimination. We shouldn’t view this as something negative, but helpful based on the current drug use by teens.
BAD argument!!! The SCOTUS also says that stealing ones property to give to a developer for economic gain to a community is constitutional as well.
I wonder if Mr Loomis would mind if Wal-Mart or any other retailor absconded with his property???? I would wager he would be complaining loudly.
However I still agree with random drug testing in the government school system since attendance is voluntary.
I offer my viewpoints based on personal experience. I am employed by the company who performed the drug tests on the Branson students and on the board members who approved it. I have given hundreds of drug tests to students.
Countless times a teen will tell me they don’t do drugs because they have so much to lose. More teens tell me they think it’s a good idea than those who complain about it. If they are the ones taking the tests and don’t mind, then why should the News-Leader mind?
Bill Loomis resides in Springfield and is a drug technician.
How have we allowed plundering of taxpayers' money go on?
could it possibly be that the citizenry has become complaint to what the mainstream politicians tell them??
could it be that when someone questions the expenditures of the elite elected officials they are BEATEN down by a news media organization for being a "MOONBAT"??
One only need to look in the mirror Ms. Sarah Overstreet and to where this article was printed to discover the answer.
Funny I thought the newspapers had INVESTIGATIVE REPORTERS, to write about this type of stuff.
KUDOS to Doug Burlison and the members of the Libertarian Party of Greene County for getting this subject on the forefront. Many thanks to the individual members of the police department, firefighters, and concerned citizens of Springfield.
There are two crimes I really can't understand:
a.) Serial killing. I've watched documentaries titled such as "The Mind of a Serial Killer." It's like I'm watching videos voiced in Farsi. Nothing computes.
b.) Embezzlement. I have to keep my bank account current (by subtraction, mostly), or My Good Friends Who Gave Me the Toaster to Sign Up With Their Bank will charge me a hefty fee for overdrawing.
So doesn't that beg the question, "How does someone in public life get away with it so easily, if the Gestapo at the bank are looking at every jot and tittle of my finances?"
Easy. In public life, sometimes no one's watching. The emperor has no clothes. No one wants to say anything, lest he or she be pilloried for pointing it out or suggesting we need CPAs, too.
Just a couple of examples — from the most current to the mists of history — where there were no checks and balances in southwest Missouri's past.
Some $1.2 million disappeared from the Springfield Municipal Court between Jan. 1, 2000, and June 13 of this year.
This is the court where we pay our fines for all the sins we commit, from driving transgressions to having our dogs roam at large. These tickets are not inexpensive. Look at the city's record of keeping watch of the money, and all you can do is get sick. The City Finance Department told News-Leader reporter Jenny Fillmer earlier this year that the city does not regularly check to make sure the money that gets deposited into city bank accounts balances against the money it collected.
What happened to the money, before and now? "It would be very difficult for us to know," the city's director of finance, Mary Mannix-Decker, told Fillmer. Again, since the city's Finance Department doesn't check the dough to see where it goes, they dunno. Why?
The official excuse the city has used is that it doesn't have the money to look after our money, even after a state audit showed in 2000 that "vulnerabilities" have existed in our Municipal Court for years.
And how long has this kind of thing been going on?
That would be a great game-show question.
At least since the late 1980s. That's when ex-Greene County Collector's Office employee Lois Long, former Collector Gene Wickliffe's head bookkeeper and cashier, took an estimated $94,000 from the office.
It seems like every few weeks, there's a new news release about a local embezzlement: a Springfield PTA treasurer, a children's basketball organization's treasurer, lawyers for private trusts, all kinds of bookkeeping burglary in private industry.
It's reprehensible when parents and supporters sweat buckets to plump up children's activities and someone steals it. It's gut-wrenching when crooks rob old people who think they're making investments that will take them through their lives. When employees are allowed to plunder from the taxpayers. Why have we let it go on so long?
Are we NUTS?
could it be that when someone questions the expenditures of the elite elected officials they are BEATEN down by a news media organization for being a "MOONBAT"??
One only need to look in the mirror Ms. Sarah Overstreet and to where this article was printed to discover the answer.
Funny I thought the newspapers had INVESTIGATIVE REPORTERS, to write about this type of stuff.
KUDOS to Doug Burlison and the members of the Libertarian Party of Greene County for getting this subject on the forefront. Many thanks to the individual members of the police department, firefighters, and concerned citizens of Springfield.
There are two crimes I really can't understand:
a.) Serial killing. I've watched documentaries titled such as "The Mind of a Serial Killer." It's like I'm watching videos voiced in Farsi. Nothing computes.
b.) Embezzlement. I have to keep my bank account current (by subtraction, mostly), or My Good Friends Who Gave Me the Toaster to Sign Up With Their Bank will charge me a hefty fee for overdrawing.
So doesn't that beg the question, "How does someone in public life get away with it so easily, if the Gestapo at the bank are looking at every jot and tittle of my finances?"
Easy. In public life, sometimes no one's watching. The emperor has no clothes. No one wants to say anything, lest he or she be pilloried for pointing it out or suggesting we need CPAs, too.
Just a couple of examples — from the most current to the mists of history — where there were no checks and balances in southwest Missouri's past.
Some $1.2 million disappeared from the Springfield Municipal Court between Jan. 1, 2000, and June 13 of this year.
This is the court where we pay our fines for all the sins we commit, from driving transgressions to having our dogs roam at large. These tickets are not inexpensive. Look at the city's record of keeping watch of the money, and all you can do is get sick. The City Finance Department told News-Leader reporter Jenny Fillmer earlier this year that the city does not regularly check to make sure the money that gets deposited into city bank accounts balances against the money it collected.
What happened to the money, before and now? "It would be very difficult for us to know," the city's director of finance, Mary Mannix-Decker, told Fillmer. Again, since the city's Finance Department doesn't check the dough to see where it goes, they dunno. Why?
The official excuse the city has used is that it doesn't have the money to look after our money, even after a state audit showed in 2000 that "vulnerabilities" have existed in our Municipal Court for years.
And how long has this kind of thing been going on?
That would be a great game-show question.
At least since the late 1980s. That's when ex-Greene County Collector's Office employee Lois Long, former Collector Gene Wickliffe's head bookkeeper and cashier, took an estimated $94,000 from the office.
It seems like every few weeks, there's a new news release about a local embezzlement: a Springfield PTA treasurer, a children's basketball organization's treasurer, lawyers for private trusts, all kinds of bookkeeping burglary in private industry.
It's reprehensible when parents and supporters sweat buckets to plump up children's activities and someone steals it. It's gut-wrenching when crooks rob old people who think they're making investments that will take them through their lives. When employees are allowed to plunder from the taxpayers. Why have we let it go on so long?
Are we NUTS?
Monday, August 07, 2006
U.N.?
for years most republicans tried to distance themselves from the U.N. for obvisous reasons. It is an organization which is hell bent on controlling the world. The democrats like this as it fits into the social agenda of which guides the party.
the party that baffled me to some extend was the complaince with the party leaders and the mainstream republicans. this notion however has subsided since I've come to the conclusion that the current administration is using the U.N. resolutions as the scapegoat for going into Iraq.
No longer can many mainstream republicans, nor can the party faithful object to the status of the U.N. after all they used it quite nicely to deflect some criticism with our current quagmire.
the light has been shown on the party of principle and we have learned they have none, which means the faithful that don't agree with the U.N. position should either not vote or vote third party right?? not a chance they will continue to support their party, since people like me are deemed conspiracy theorist. it isn't until its too late that we find out post like these were correct.
government, government schooling and a complaint media have dumbed down a whole generation and a half of the citizens. is it too late to retrieve "our" country from the ruins of which it is headed?? for my kids sake I hope so.
the party that baffled me to some extend was the complaince with the party leaders and the mainstream republicans. this notion however has subsided since I've come to the conclusion that the current administration is using the U.N. resolutions as the scapegoat for going into Iraq.
No longer can many mainstream republicans, nor can the party faithful object to the status of the U.N. after all they used it quite nicely to deflect some criticism with our current quagmire.
the light has been shown on the party of principle and we have learned they have none, which means the faithful that don't agree with the U.N. position should either not vote or vote third party right?? not a chance they will continue to support their party, since people like me are deemed conspiracy theorist. it isn't until its too late that we find out post like these were correct.
government, government schooling and a complaint media have dumbed down a whole generation and a half of the citizens. is it too late to retrieve "our" country from the ruins of which it is headed?? for my kids sake I hope so.
GIVE UP RIGHTS FOR THE "COMMON GOOD"?
Sound like anyone here in the local area??
Where people fear the government you have tyranny; where the government fears the people, you have liberty.
Politicians, bureaucrats and especially judges would have you believe that too much freedom will result in chaos. Therefore, we should gladly give up some of our RIGHTS for the good of the community. In other words, people acting in the name of the government, say we need more laws and more JURORS to enforce these laws -- even if we have to give up some RIGHTS in the process. They believe the more laws we have, the more control, thus a better society. This theory may sound good on paper, and apparently many of our leaders think this way, as evidenced by the thousands of new laws that are added to the books each year in this country. But, no matter how cleverly this Marxist argument is made, the hard fact is that whenever you give up a RIGHT you lose a "FREE CHOICE"!
This adds another control. Control's real name is BONDAGE! The logical conclusion would be, if giving up some RIGHTS produces a better society, then by giving up all RIGHTS we could produce a perfect society. We could chain everybody to a tree, for lack of TRUST. This may prevent crime, but it would destroy PRIVACY, which is the heartbeat of FREEDOM! It would also destroy TRUST which is the foundation for DIGNITY. Rather than giving up RIGHTS, we should be giving up wrongs! The opposite of control is not chaos. More laws do not make less criminals! We must give up wrongs, not rights, for a better society! William Pitt of the British House of Commons once proclaimed,
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
INALIENABLE, [UNALIENABLE] OR NATURAL RIGHTS!
NATURAL RIGHTS ARE THOSE RIGHTS such as LIFE (from conception), LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS eg. FREEDOM of RELIGION, SPEECH, LEARNING, TRAVEL, SELF-DEFENSE, ETC. Hence laws and statutes which violate NATURAL RIGHTS, though they may have the color of law, are not law but impostors! The U.S. Constitution was written to protect these NATURAL RIGHTS from being tampered with by legislators. * Further, our forefathers also wisely knew that the U.S. Constitution would be utterly worthless to restrain government legislators unless it was clearly understood that the people had the right to compel the government to keep within the Constitutional limits.
Where people fear the government you have tyranny; where the government fears the people, you have liberty.
Politicians, bureaucrats and especially judges would have you believe that too much freedom will result in chaos. Therefore, we should gladly give up some of our RIGHTS for the good of the community. In other words, people acting in the name of the government, say we need more laws and more JURORS to enforce these laws -- even if we have to give up some RIGHTS in the process. They believe the more laws we have, the more control, thus a better society. This theory may sound good on paper, and apparently many of our leaders think this way, as evidenced by the thousands of new laws that are added to the books each year in this country. But, no matter how cleverly this Marxist argument is made, the hard fact is that whenever you give up a RIGHT you lose a "FREE CHOICE"!
This adds another control. Control's real name is BONDAGE! The logical conclusion would be, if giving up some RIGHTS produces a better society, then by giving up all RIGHTS we could produce a perfect society. We could chain everybody to a tree, for lack of TRUST. This may prevent crime, but it would destroy PRIVACY, which is the heartbeat of FREEDOM! It would also destroy TRUST which is the foundation for DIGNITY. Rather than giving up RIGHTS, we should be giving up wrongs! The opposite of control is not chaos. More laws do not make less criminals! We must give up wrongs, not rights, for a better society! William Pitt of the British House of Commons once proclaimed,
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
INALIENABLE, [UNALIENABLE] OR NATURAL RIGHTS!
NATURAL RIGHTS ARE THOSE RIGHTS such as LIFE (from conception), LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS eg. FREEDOM of RELIGION, SPEECH, LEARNING, TRAVEL, SELF-DEFENSE, ETC. Hence laws and statutes which violate NATURAL RIGHTS, though they may have the color of law, are not law but impostors! The U.S. Constitution was written to protect these NATURAL RIGHTS from being tampered with by legislators. * Further, our forefathers also wisely knew that the U.S. Constitution would be utterly worthless to restrain government legislators unless it was clearly understood that the people had the right to compel the government to keep within the Constitutional limits.
take it for what you will!!!
A SUMMARY OF THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO
The Communist Manifesto represents a misguided philosophy, which teaches the citizens to give up their RIGHTS for the sake of the "common good," but it always ends in a police state. This is called preventive justice. Control is the key concept. Read carefully:
1. Abolition of private property.
2. Heavy progressive income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights on inheritance.
4. Confiscation of property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Central bank.
6. Government control of Communications & Transportation.
7. Government ownership of factories and agriculture.
8. Government control of labor.
9. Corporate farms, regional planning.
10. Government control of education.
Looks to me like our citizenry has allowed the federal government along with the willing accomplises sitting on the Supreme Court to achieve all 10.
We may not be living in a communist nation yet but every vehicle is in place for the allowance of the tranisition.
The Communist Manifesto represents a misguided philosophy, which teaches the citizens to give up their RIGHTS for the sake of the "common good," but it always ends in a police state. This is called preventive justice. Control is the key concept. Read carefully:
1. Abolition of private property.
2. Heavy progressive income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights on inheritance.
4. Confiscation of property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Central bank.
6. Government control of Communications & Transportation.
7. Government ownership of factories and agriculture.
8. Government control of labor.
9. Corporate farms, regional planning.
10. Government control of education.
Looks to me like our citizenry has allowed the federal government along with the willing accomplises sitting on the Supreme Court to achieve all 10.
We may not be living in a communist nation yet but every vehicle is in place for the allowance of the tranisition.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Vote yes on city/county parks tax(News-Leader take)
YES, folks this is the very same news forum jounalism which gave us the infamous WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING AUDIT.
Doug Burlison was made out to be a nut case with an axe to grind, the individual members of the Libertarian Party,with individual police officers, fire fighters, and concerned citizens of Springfield were told we were barking up the wrong tree. After all KPMG is such a world reknown auditing firm that the concept of mismanagement of funds was unthinkable.
Once again the SNL has decided to recommend that we the taxpayers allow a government entity to take even more of our hard earned money so the City of Springfield can achieve some status within the state.
The following links dispell the notion that somehow building all these extravagant venues is going to raise the revenue into the city coffers by people visiting the area. When something is built with taxpayer funds then continues to need taxpayer funds for maintenance and upkeep it is hardly a windfall for the citizenry. If parks are so needed and generate revenue why isn't the private sector stepping up to the plate to funds these MONEY making propositions?
Quite easy really they don't make money and the cost to maintain these properties isn't offset by any financial gain.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2830
Growth demands need for parks improvement.
There are two simple reasons to support the Springfield/Greene County parks tax increase when you vote on Tuesday:
1. The parks board has been a good steward of your tax dollars.
2. If the city and county want to continue to have a world-class parks program as the area grows, then more revenue will be needed.
We believe both of those premises are true, and that's why we encourage voters to say yes to a quarter-cent sales tax increase for parks in Greene County.
The proposal, which will raise $50 million over five years, is a continuation of a long-term vision that was developed by citizens and has been supported by the community time and time again. Voting yes finishes improvements to Dickerson Park Zoo that were started with the last parks tax increase. Voting yes spends money on improved parks and aquatic facilities in the north (Doling Park and Grant Beach Park) and gets the ball rolling on a park and family center east of U.S. 65, a fast-growing and underserved corridor. Voting yes continues to improve sports complexes such as the Cooper Tennis Center that serve as an economic development engine, bringing millions of dollars to our city when families fill up hotel rooms and buy food and other goods in our community during trips to Springfield for soccer, softball or tennis competitions. Voting yes protects watersheds and brings about necessary improvements to historic parks such as Sequiota Park. Voting yes continues an efficient cooperation between the parks board and the Springfield Public Schools as taxpayers dollars create flexible green spaces that can be used by schoolchildren and taxpayers.
Voting yes fulfills the promise of a higher quality of life for our community.
There is a downside, of course, to higher taxes. If voters say yes, they will have created a permanent quarter-cent sales tax over the past 10 years. Eventually, these fractions of a cent add up. In Springfield, with its multitude of taxing districts, recently approved bond issues for a power plant and better schools, eventually the added taxes will create a burden for those on fixed incomes. Frankly, we hear the voices of some critics who wonder why we would continue to approve parks taxes in our community while saying no to higher law enforcement taxes or sitting idly by as our city struggles to find money for raises for police officers and firefighters.
But we believe it's important to see the bigger picture. Saying no to the parks tax will not magically free up some money in the general revenue accounts of the city. Quite the opposite. Better parks lure businesses to town and help others maintain quality employees. Better parks help pay for themselves by bringing visitors to town who help produce higher sales tax revenue. This year's sales tax collections in Springfield, for instance, increased by more than 8 percent as of March — more than triple last year's increase during the same time. This doesn't happen by accident.
Our city is growing because it's a wonderful place to live. The parks are a big part of that equation.
Tuesday's vote continues to fulfill a vision that citizens had long before some of us came to the Ozarks. It's a vision that sees a growing city and makes sure that we have a connection to all parts of the city through our parks and trails system. The brilliance of the plan is that with every yes vote, the parks board secures enough money to pay for the future improvements. That's important because some day, money might be tight and we will have to say no.
That's not the case today. The parks board has earned the trust of voters in Springfield and Greene County. It has a job to do to continue to make this a beautiful place to live.
Let's give it the money to do that job.
Vote yes on the local parks tax.
VOTE NO on all tax increases, bond measures, and vote out all incumbents. We demand accountability.
Tom Martz(libertarian)
candidate for the 139th
Doug Burlison was made out to be a nut case with an axe to grind, the individual members of the Libertarian Party,with individual police officers, fire fighters, and concerned citizens of Springfield were told we were barking up the wrong tree. After all KPMG is such a world reknown auditing firm that the concept of mismanagement of funds was unthinkable.
Once again the SNL has decided to recommend that we the taxpayers allow a government entity to take even more of our hard earned money so the City of Springfield can achieve some status within the state.
The following links dispell the notion that somehow building all these extravagant venues is going to raise the revenue into the city coffers by people visiting the area. When something is built with taxpayer funds then continues to need taxpayer funds for maintenance and upkeep it is hardly a windfall for the citizenry. If parks are so needed and generate revenue why isn't the private sector stepping up to the plate to funds these MONEY making propositions?
Quite easy really they don't make money and the cost to maintain these properties isn't offset by any financial gain.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2830
Growth demands need for parks improvement.
There are two simple reasons to support the Springfield/Greene County parks tax increase when you vote on Tuesday:
1. The parks board has been a good steward of your tax dollars.
2. If the city and county want to continue to have a world-class parks program as the area grows, then more revenue will be needed.
We believe both of those premises are true, and that's why we encourage voters to say yes to a quarter-cent sales tax increase for parks in Greene County.
The proposal, which will raise $50 million over five years, is a continuation of a long-term vision that was developed by citizens and has been supported by the community time and time again. Voting yes finishes improvements to Dickerson Park Zoo that were started with the last parks tax increase. Voting yes spends money on improved parks and aquatic facilities in the north (Doling Park and Grant Beach Park) and gets the ball rolling on a park and family center east of U.S. 65, a fast-growing and underserved corridor. Voting yes continues to improve sports complexes such as the Cooper Tennis Center that serve as an economic development engine, bringing millions of dollars to our city when families fill up hotel rooms and buy food and other goods in our community during trips to Springfield for soccer, softball or tennis competitions. Voting yes protects watersheds and brings about necessary improvements to historic parks such as Sequiota Park. Voting yes continues an efficient cooperation between the parks board and the Springfield Public Schools as taxpayers dollars create flexible green spaces that can be used by schoolchildren and taxpayers.
Voting yes fulfills the promise of a higher quality of life for our community.
There is a downside, of course, to higher taxes. If voters say yes, they will have created a permanent quarter-cent sales tax over the past 10 years. Eventually, these fractions of a cent add up. In Springfield, with its multitude of taxing districts, recently approved bond issues for a power plant and better schools, eventually the added taxes will create a burden for those on fixed incomes. Frankly, we hear the voices of some critics who wonder why we would continue to approve parks taxes in our community while saying no to higher law enforcement taxes or sitting idly by as our city struggles to find money for raises for police officers and firefighters.
But we believe it's important to see the bigger picture. Saying no to the parks tax will not magically free up some money in the general revenue accounts of the city. Quite the opposite. Better parks lure businesses to town and help others maintain quality employees. Better parks help pay for themselves by bringing visitors to town who help produce higher sales tax revenue. This year's sales tax collections in Springfield, for instance, increased by more than 8 percent as of March — more than triple last year's increase during the same time. This doesn't happen by accident.
Our city is growing because it's a wonderful place to live. The parks are a big part of that equation.
Tuesday's vote continues to fulfill a vision that citizens had long before some of us came to the Ozarks. It's a vision that sees a growing city and makes sure that we have a connection to all parts of the city through our parks and trails system. The brilliance of the plan is that with every yes vote, the parks board secures enough money to pay for the future improvements. That's important because some day, money might be tight and we will have to say no.
That's not the case today. The parks board has earned the trust of voters in Springfield and Greene County. It has a job to do to continue to make this a beautiful place to live.
Let's give it the money to do that job.
Vote yes on the local parks tax.
VOTE NO on all tax increases, bond measures, and vote out all incumbents. We demand accountability.
Tom Martz(libertarian)
candidate for the 139th
Contractors group supports tax
This is a no brainer. An organization that receives fees from the very same people that are going to be bidding on these contracts for so called improvements only makes sense. The city has already proven it is NOT to be trusted with any funds let alone supplying them with MORE.
Sorry but if the citizenry of this area willingly bows over and allows this to happen then they deserve NO less representation then they get. Sometimes I wonder if the people in this area ACTUALLY pay attention to the matters at hand, or are they to busy trying to get little Johnny and Suzy to be world class athletes in a town not known for its athletic prowess.
The people of this area need to wake up and observe the people they place into office. We the people are being lied to, ripped off and NO ONE seems to care. Well I care and will carry that voice to Jeff City to stop the abuses of government. I am but one voice but together we can and will be HEARD.
The Board of Directors of Springfield Contractors Association encourages the citizens of Greene County to "vote yes, to continue your parks' success" and approve the proposed quarter-cent sales tax on Aug. 8 ballot.
The sales tax is expected to raise approximately $50 million over the next five years. These funds will be used to continue to improve existing parks and provide new parks in under-served areas of Greene County.
Besides the direct economic benefit a vibrant and comprehensive parks system provides by serving our citizens and attracting visitors, the $50 million spent to improve our quality of life will also turn over in our hands to deliver about $150 million in impact of dollars spent in our community.
Several necessary water quality projects have been designed into the overall parks plan. Improving our water quality with the same dollars we use to improve our parks is good use of taxpayer money.
The comprehensive details of the planned improvements are available at www.voteyesparks.com.
We encourage you to find the answers to any questions you might have and most important: Go vote yes on Aug. 8.
Sheryl Letterman, Springfield The author is the executive director of the Springfield Contractors Association
Make a break from politics as usual, support third party candidates and throw out the people that refuse to listen to the voice of the people.
Vote Libertarian
Tom Martz
candidate 139th district
Sorry but if the citizenry of this area willingly bows over and allows this to happen then they deserve NO less representation then they get. Sometimes I wonder if the people in this area ACTUALLY pay attention to the matters at hand, or are they to busy trying to get little Johnny and Suzy to be world class athletes in a town not known for its athletic prowess.
The people of this area need to wake up and observe the people they place into office. We the people are being lied to, ripped off and NO ONE seems to care. Well I care and will carry that voice to Jeff City to stop the abuses of government. I am but one voice but together we can and will be HEARD.
The Board of Directors of Springfield Contractors Association encourages the citizens of Greene County to "vote yes, to continue your parks' success" and approve the proposed quarter-cent sales tax on Aug. 8 ballot.
The sales tax is expected to raise approximately $50 million over the next five years. These funds will be used to continue to improve existing parks and provide new parks in under-served areas of Greene County.
Besides the direct economic benefit a vibrant and comprehensive parks system provides by serving our citizens and attracting visitors, the $50 million spent to improve our quality of life will also turn over in our hands to deliver about $150 million in impact of dollars spent in our community.
Several necessary water quality projects have been designed into the overall parks plan. Improving our water quality with the same dollars we use to improve our parks is good use of taxpayer money.
The comprehensive details of the planned improvements are available at www.voteyesparks.com.
We encourage you to find the answers to any questions you might have and most important: Go vote yes on Aug. 8.
Sheryl Letterman, Springfield The author is the executive director of the Springfield Contractors Association
Make a break from politics as usual, support third party candidates and throw out the people that refuse to listen to the voice of the people.
Vote Libertarian
Tom Martz
candidate 139th district
Saturday, August 05, 2006
the run off for the 139th
so lets see if I have this right. Shane Schoeller is a political insider, and has the support of Republican bigwigs Darrell and Dinette Proctor of Willard.
Karen Roark(Brad's mom)put her name on the ballot and NO one knows why except for maybe Karen. Both of these people were NO SHOWS @ the Families for Change political candidate forum.
My personal favorite is Joe Pyles. WHY because I met him at the above mentioned forum and he seems like a reasonable Republican. Yes he is the classic underdog just like I will be during the general election.
Personally having experience in politics is the reason why most people distrust government, and they should since past experience has proven not to be of any value.
I wonder if KY 3 will send out a reporter to cover me when I start walking door to door to introduce myself to the voters of this district. I'm not well known even to my neighbors, however that will change in the next few months as I am going to try to make inroads in an area well known for voting for the status quo of government.
One thing is for certain no matter how much the 3 republican candidates differ on the issues, they will walk in lockstep come election time. Some will say my tone is HARSH, however I live in REALITY and even the most social republican will walk in lockstep with the most conservative republican over 90% of the time, excluding one, Ron Paul, TX HoR district 14. A man with principles, charisma, and a firm understanding of the Constitution. Since I have started following politics this man has been my guiding light in times of dispair, and political mayhem.
#139 SCHOELLER: A TEST OF PARTY POWER
Some Republicans believe Shane Schoeller's success or failure Tuesday will be a test of how strong the party regulars remain in local politics. Privately, some G.O.P. insiders are just baffled about the candidacy of Karen Roark, Rep. Brad Roark's mother. When I asked one Republican resident in the #139th if she was qualified to be a lawmaker, he replied, "don't ask me that."
Many of the committee people in the 139th threw their support to Schoeller early on, and haven't even heard from Roark yet. "I've never even talked to her," said one party official. "She's made no effort to contact me."
The theory goes that Schoeller is stronger in the western end of the district, while Roark will perform better in the eastern part. "She obviously gets a lot just from the name. You see a lot of Brad's signs and a lot of her signs, real close to each other" says one Republican.
"I think Schoeller will pull it off in the end," says the #139th party official. "But it will be a real test to see if the party rank and file make a difference in picking and endorsing candidates anymore."
posted by David Catanese
Shane Schoeller Aims To End Roark Legacy
Republicans privately say this was supposed to be the year Shane Schoeller finally got his due, easily cruising to the G.O.P. nomination in the 139th legislative district.
But now Schoeller is locked in a 3-way primary race, where one of his opponents carries a popular political name in the district.
Schoeller is running against Karen Roark, Rep. Brad Roark's mother, and media consultant Joe Pyles.
I got to catch up with Schoeller today as he was going door-to-door in the 139th. Refreshingly, Schoeller wouldn't say anything even close to disparaging about either of his G.O.P. rivals. He seems not to hold a grudge or take anything for granted. Instead, he focused on issues and experience.
"The main difference is experience. I have it on the federal, state and local level," Schoeller said referring to his work for John Ashcroft, Kit Bond and both Matt and Roy Blunt.
"Karen Roark is running a good race. Joe Pyles is a nice man, very friendly," Schoeller said.
Schoeller said he spoke to Rep. Brad Roark about his mother running and said there were no hard feelings on either side. "I said to Brad, that's what's great about our country. Anybody can run," Schoeller recalled.
Just a note . . . I have contacted several top G.O.P. officials about ways to get in touch with Karen Roark to get her views. I have not received calls back yet. Any tips on how to get in touch with Ms. Roark would be greatly appreciated. Maybe I'm just bad at tracking down campaign sites?
Regarding Pyles, Schoeller said he believes he is more conservative than Pyles. "I think Joe may be a little more moderate than I am. I don't know if that's the message for this district. It's fairly conservative."
Here's Schoeller on the issues:
Medicaid Cuts - He'd vote to reinstate the MAWD program for working people with disabilities, but wouldn't say the Medicaid cuts went too far. "I think it is a smart investment to give the working disabled a chance to work. Anytime you have reforms, unfortunate things happen, I understand that."
Special Session - He'd only support a special session to reinstate Medicaid if it was held during the veto session so it wouldn't cost taxpayers any extra money.
Minimum Wage Hike - He said he'd only support a minimum wage hike as part of a larger package that would include tax breaks for businesses. "That's the only circumstance I'd support it," Schoeller said.
Stem Cell Amendment - He is against the stem cell initiative because he said it's a controversial proposal that destroys human life. "It's not a smart choice for Missouri. I certainly believe an embryo is a human life. Adult stem cells offer so much more results." What about embryos that are going to be discarded anyway? Schoeller is against using any type of embryos for research. "Once you do that, you hit a slippery slope. My position is firm on these issues."
License Fee Office Reform - This may be a touchy topic for Schoeller because his wife operates a fee office in Nixa. He said he does not yet have a position on Rep. Mark Wright's plan to change the way the offices are awarded and run. "I haven't taken a position, I'd have to see the details but so much has been mischaracterized about these license offices. Unfortunately it has become an issue, but for me it is already out there. My wife has one office in Nixa, but we didn't ask for it. We were approached about running it and I encouraged my wife to do it. People rarely ask me about it, most aren't interested in it."
Biggest Issue for #139 Voters - Iraq . . . You read it right, Iraq. Of all the issues Schoeller hears about, he said he gets the most questions, comments and concern about the war. As a potential state lawmaker, Schoeller obviously doesn't have much control over that issue, but he said that's what people want to talk about. "People have a lot of different opinions, but overall they want victory, a conclusion, some type of closure."
Here's his campaign website . . . http://www.electschoeller.com/
I appreciate the heads-up on it. As much as I googled and tried other searches, I couldn't find it.
Schoeller said while Roark has name identification, his biggest strength is organization. "I feel like I've done all the things necessary to win this race," Schoeller said. But he admits that getting people energized about voting in the middle of vacation season is difficult. "It's very hard in a primary. I hear people all the time say, 'When's that election again?,'" Schoeller said.
Of all the politicians he has worked for Schoeller said he's learned the most from his four years serving as a legislative aide to Rep. Roy Blunt. "He helped me set priorities and figure out what can and can't be done," Schoeller said. "I learned the most important thing is keeping your word to people. If you can't help them, you have to tell them that. It's better to tell them instead of telling them you'll look into it and you never get back to them. People will respect that," Schoeller said.
posted by David Catanese
Can Joe Pyles Pull An Upset in the 139th?
Can a candidate for a higher minimum wage, for the stem cell ballot initiative, supportive of restoring Medicaid cuts for the working disabled and revamping the license fee offices really win a northern Greene County G.O.P primary?
That's what Joe Pyles is trying to do in the 139th.
The Republican primary for the 139th legislative district includes three candidates, Shane Schoeller, Joe Pyles and Karen Roark. I couldn't find campaign websites for Schoeller or Roark, so Pyles gets the only web profile for now.
On his campaign website, Pyles tries to make the case that he's the only candidate in this race that is serious about representing the 139th. "I didn't move to the 139th to run for office or file on the last day. I am not part of any political machine," Pyles writes.
A Fair Grove resident, Pyles has served on the West Plains city council and fought in Operation Desert Storm. He's now a media consultant, so it's not surprising he has a website. He talks about bringing "political attention" to northern Greene County, by holding community meetings and town hall events. His list of issues include noting his "pro-life, anti-gun control" stands, but his positions on hot-button topics like Medicaid and stem cells do stand out above all. You certainly don't see those positions on the campaign websites of many Republicans running in southwest Missouri.
Still, he seems to reject the label of a "progressive or moderate." We gave him that label in a previous entry. And he's responded on his site. "The media tries to label Joe as a progressive, moderate. He just reminds you that he is just a human being that's offering his services to represent all parties, all views."
Pyles is attempting to reach out to moderate Republicans and even Democrats. He says he's chosen the Republican party because it best governs free enterprise, prevents government intervention and doesn't find ways to raise taxes. But Pyles promises he'll listen to Democratic ideas respectfully and work with the other side effectively.
Pyles also tries to take the populist approach when it comes to money, pledging that while he may be outraised and outspent, it won't matter. He says he has a "conservative budget" of $45,750 to spend on this race. On the donation part of the site, he recommends an $80 contribution for a primary victory . . . and a $110 contribution for a general election win.
I haven't seen any evidence of where this primary race stands, but insiders say Karen Roark will be the favorite just because of her name. That means if Pyles is able to pull off a win this primary night, it would be one of the big stories of election night.
Vote Libertarian,
change the face of politics
Tom Martz(L)
candidate for the 139th
Karen Roark(Brad's mom)put her name on the ballot and NO one knows why except for maybe Karen. Both of these people were NO SHOWS @ the Families for Change political candidate forum.
My personal favorite is Joe Pyles. WHY because I met him at the above mentioned forum and he seems like a reasonable Republican. Yes he is the classic underdog just like I will be during the general election.
Personally having experience in politics is the reason why most people distrust government, and they should since past experience has proven not to be of any value.
I wonder if KY 3 will send out a reporter to cover me when I start walking door to door to introduce myself to the voters of this district. I'm not well known even to my neighbors, however that will change in the next few months as I am going to try to make inroads in an area well known for voting for the status quo of government.
One thing is for certain no matter how much the 3 republican candidates differ on the issues, they will walk in lockstep come election time. Some will say my tone is HARSH, however I live in REALITY and even the most social republican will walk in lockstep with the most conservative republican over 90% of the time, excluding one, Ron Paul, TX HoR district 14. A man with principles, charisma, and a firm understanding of the Constitution. Since I have started following politics this man has been my guiding light in times of dispair, and political mayhem.
#139 SCHOELLER: A TEST OF PARTY POWER
Some Republicans believe Shane Schoeller's success or failure Tuesday will be a test of how strong the party regulars remain in local politics. Privately, some G.O.P. insiders are just baffled about the candidacy of Karen Roark, Rep. Brad Roark's mother. When I asked one Republican resident in the #139th if she was qualified to be a lawmaker, he replied, "don't ask me that."
Many of the committee people in the 139th threw their support to Schoeller early on, and haven't even heard from Roark yet. "I've never even talked to her," said one party official. "She's made no effort to contact me."
The theory goes that Schoeller is stronger in the western end of the district, while Roark will perform better in the eastern part. "She obviously gets a lot just from the name. You see a lot of Brad's signs and a lot of her signs, real close to each other" says one Republican.
"I think Schoeller will pull it off in the end," says the #139th party official. "But it will be a real test to see if the party rank and file make a difference in picking and endorsing candidates anymore."
posted by David Catanese
Shane Schoeller Aims To End Roark Legacy
Republicans privately say this was supposed to be the year Shane Schoeller finally got his due, easily cruising to the G.O.P. nomination in the 139th legislative district.
But now Schoeller is locked in a 3-way primary race, where one of his opponents carries a popular political name in the district.
Schoeller is running against Karen Roark, Rep. Brad Roark's mother, and media consultant Joe Pyles.
I got to catch up with Schoeller today as he was going door-to-door in the 139th. Refreshingly, Schoeller wouldn't say anything even close to disparaging about either of his G.O.P. rivals. He seems not to hold a grudge or take anything for granted. Instead, he focused on issues and experience.
"The main difference is experience. I have it on the federal, state and local level," Schoeller said referring to his work for John Ashcroft, Kit Bond and both Matt and Roy Blunt.
"Karen Roark is running a good race. Joe Pyles is a nice man, very friendly," Schoeller said.
Schoeller said he spoke to Rep. Brad Roark about his mother running and said there were no hard feelings on either side. "I said to Brad, that's what's great about our country. Anybody can run," Schoeller recalled.
Just a note . . . I have contacted several top G.O.P. officials about ways to get in touch with Karen Roark to get her views. I have not received calls back yet. Any tips on how to get in touch with Ms. Roark would be greatly appreciated. Maybe I'm just bad at tracking down campaign sites?
Regarding Pyles, Schoeller said he believes he is more conservative than Pyles. "I think Joe may be a little more moderate than I am. I don't know if that's the message for this district. It's fairly conservative."
Here's Schoeller on the issues:
Medicaid Cuts - He'd vote to reinstate the MAWD program for working people with disabilities, but wouldn't say the Medicaid cuts went too far. "I think it is a smart investment to give the working disabled a chance to work. Anytime you have reforms, unfortunate things happen, I understand that."
Special Session - He'd only support a special session to reinstate Medicaid if it was held during the veto session so it wouldn't cost taxpayers any extra money.
Minimum Wage Hike - He said he'd only support a minimum wage hike as part of a larger package that would include tax breaks for businesses. "That's the only circumstance I'd support it," Schoeller said.
Stem Cell Amendment - He is against the stem cell initiative because he said it's a controversial proposal that destroys human life. "It's not a smart choice for Missouri. I certainly believe an embryo is a human life. Adult stem cells offer so much more results." What about embryos that are going to be discarded anyway? Schoeller is against using any type of embryos for research. "Once you do that, you hit a slippery slope. My position is firm on these issues."
License Fee Office Reform - This may be a touchy topic for Schoeller because his wife operates a fee office in Nixa. He said he does not yet have a position on Rep. Mark Wright's plan to change the way the offices are awarded and run. "I haven't taken a position, I'd have to see the details but so much has been mischaracterized about these license offices. Unfortunately it has become an issue, but for me it is already out there. My wife has one office in Nixa, but we didn't ask for it. We were approached about running it and I encouraged my wife to do it. People rarely ask me about it, most aren't interested in it."
Biggest Issue for #139 Voters - Iraq . . . You read it right, Iraq. Of all the issues Schoeller hears about, he said he gets the most questions, comments and concern about the war. As a potential state lawmaker, Schoeller obviously doesn't have much control over that issue, but he said that's what people want to talk about. "People have a lot of different opinions, but overall they want victory, a conclusion, some type of closure."
Here's his campaign website . . . http://www.electschoeller.com/
I appreciate the heads-up on it. As much as I googled and tried other searches, I couldn't find it.
Schoeller said while Roark has name identification, his biggest strength is organization. "I feel like I've done all the things necessary to win this race," Schoeller said. But he admits that getting people energized about voting in the middle of vacation season is difficult. "It's very hard in a primary. I hear people all the time say, 'When's that election again?,'" Schoeller said.
Of all the politicians he has worked for Schoeller said he's learned the most from his four years serving as a legislative aide to Rep. Roy Blunt. "He helped me set priorities and figure out what can and can't be done," Schoeller said. "I learned the most important thing is keeping your word to people. If you can't help them, you have to tell them that. It's better to tell them instead of telling them you'll look into it and you never get back to them. People will respect that," Schoeller said.
posted by David Catanese
Can Joe Pyles Pull An Upset in the 139th?
Can a candidate for a higher minimum wage, for the stem cell ballot initiative, supportive of restoring Medicaid cuts for the working disabled and revamping the license fee offices really win a northern Greene County G.O.P primary?
That's what Joe Pyles is trying to do in the 139th.
The Republican primary for the 139th legislative district includes three candidates, Shane Schoeller, Joe Pyles and Karen Roark. I couldn't find campaign websites for Schoeller or Roark, so Pyles gets the only web profile for now.
On his campaign website, Pyles tries to make the case that he's the only candidate in this race that is serious about representing the 139th. "I didn't move to the 139th to run for office or file on the last day. I am not part of any political machine," Pyles writes.
A Fair Grove resident, Pyles has served on the West Plains city council and fought in Operation Desert Storm. He's now a media consultant, so it's not surprising he has a website. He talks about bringing "political attention" to northern Greene County, by holding community meetings and town hall events. His list of issues include noting his "pro-life, anti-gun control" stands, but his positions on hot-button topics like Medicaid and stem cells do stand out above all. You certainly don't see those positions on the campaign websites of many Republicans running in southwest Missouri.
Still, he seems to reject the label of a "progressive or moderate." We gave him that label in a previous entry. And he's responded on his site. "The media tries to label Joe as a progressive, moderate. He just reminds you that he is just a human being that's offering his services to represent all parties, all views."
Pyles is attempting to reach out to moderate Republicans and even Democrats. He says he's chosen the Republican party because it best governs free enterprise, prevents government intervention and doesn't find ways to raise taxes. But Pyles promises he'll listen to Democratic ideas respectfully and work with the other side effectively.
Pyles also tries to take the populist approach when it comes to money, pledging that while he may be outraised and outspent, it won't matter. He says he has a "conservative budget" of $45,750 to spend on this race. On the donation part of the site, he recommends an $80 contribution for a primary victory . . . and a $110 contribution for a general election win.
I haven't seen any evidence of where this primary race stands, but insiders say Karen Roark will be the favorite just because of her name. That means if Pyles is able to pull off a win this primary night, it would be one of the big stories of election night.
Vote Libertarian,
change the face of politics
Tom Martz(L)
candidate for the 139th
Stay out of our business
GAMBLING »
BRAVO Bill there really isn't to much I could add to this. Nice to see that others are picking up on the "fish wrapper" and there attempt at a nanny complex. This area is Christian central and most churches don't want gambling this close, it corrupts people you know!!
I seen corrupt politicians, business owners, people in general, and corrupt clergy, but don't ever call them out on it.
Again Bill you have your finger on the pulse of common sense thinking on this issue.
What does an editorial writer for the paper know about the needs or options of our community? "Find a way to ride the wave of success of Branson," were his words. Wake up to the facts. Branson Landing was built and continues to be built by taxpayer funding, i.e., Tax-Increment Financing.
The bills aren't in yet, the failure of anything in the Landing will bring the costs to a head. Who will end up paying? The taxpayers of Branson and Taney County.
Where did the money to fight our first venture to get gambling come from? A businessman who was afraid that the boat would take money away from his multiple ventures. That same person also fought to keep NASCAR from building a track in Hollister for the same reasons. Think about how many people that would have brought to the area!
Let's look at the facts. Rockaway Beach needs a break. Manufacturing isn't an option because of limited space.
The cost of the gambling boat will be paid 100 percent by the developer, not the taxpayers. More than 1,000 construction jobs to build the casino and 700 to 900 year-round jobs with benefits would be created. The tax money generated would benefit Rockaway Beach, Taney County and the state.
Lastly, bus tours come to Branson in droves, they stay in Branson for three days, leave and go to Tunica for the next two days. Why not keep it all here?
I can assure you that no one will be dragged kicking and screaming into the casino.
Mr. Editor, get your facts together before you try to tell us how to run our community.
Bill Petrovic, Rockaway Beach
BRAVO Bill there really isn't to much I could add to this. Nice to see that others are picking up on the "fish wrapper" and there attempt at a nanny complex. This area is Christian central and most churches don't want gambling this close, it corrupts people you know!!
I seen corrupt politicians, business owners, people in general, and corrupt clergy, but don't ever call them out on it.
Again Bill you have your finger on the pulse of common sense thinking on this issue.
What does an editorial writer for the paper know about the needs or options of our community? "Find a way to ride the wave of success of Branson," were his words. Wake up to the facts. Branson Landing was built and continues to be built by taxpayer funding, i.e., Tax-Increment Financing.
The bills aren't in yet, the failure of anything in the Landing will bring the costs to a head. Who will end up paying? The taxpayers of Branson and Taney County.
Where did the money to fight our first venture to get gambling come from? A businessman who was afraid that the boat would take money away from his multiple ventures. That same person also fought to keep NASCAR from building a track in Hollister for the same reasons. Think about how many people that would have brought to the area!
Let's look at the facts. Rockaway Beach needs a break. Manufacturing isn't an option because of limited space.
The cost of the gambling boat will be paid 100 percent by the developer, not the taxpayers. More than 1,000 construction jobs to build the casino and 700 to 900 year-round jobs with benefits would be created. The tax money generated would benefit Rockaway Beach, Taney County and the state.
Lastly, bus tours come to Branson in droves, they stay in Branson for three days, leave and go to Tunica for the next two days. Why not keep it all here?
I can assure you that no one will be dragged kicking and screaming into the casino.
Mr. Editor, get your facts together before you try to tell us how to run our community.
Bill Petrovic, Rockaway Beach
Friday, August 04, 2006
Approve fire district tax increase
It is the opinion of this candidate that if more houses are being constructed, more people moving into the area, more businesses moving into the area, that equates into more revenue into not only the fire district, but that of the police department and the schools.
For some reason this local area has a fire truck or two respond to every auto and/or truck accident even if the chance of fire is non existant. We have EMS/EMT and a host of other services that respond quite well to these types of accidents, why is a fire truck sent to a simple fender bender???
It would seem to me that the fire department should allocate its money to be an effective branch of civil government and stop playing politics. I grew up in an area about the size of Rogersville which had NO full time fire fighters nor did they have a large tax levy district to allot funds for new fire trucks and the like. My goodness what did they do when times were in need of fire equipment??? They approached the residents of Fayetteville, PA with the problem and had a fund raising campaign to purchase the equipment with cash so no loans were carried.
What happened to the days where instead of confiscating money via taxes the departments would approach the citizenry to finance a cash strapped entity? In this day an age 28% of the eligible voters will go to the polls of which 60%+ of that will inform the homeowners, business owners, that your cost are going up even though the case hasn't been made for more money.
Approve fire district tax increase
Logan-Rogersville has good plan for growth.
More people. More houses. More roads. More accidents. More fires.
To deal with burgeoning growth southeast of Springfield, the Logan-Rogersville Fire District is asking voters for a 12-cent property tax increase. We endorse their request.
Twice in the past few years the fire district has asked voters to approve a bond issue to help deal with growth in its three-county, 160-square-mile district, and both times voters said yes, but not by the supermajority needed to pass the bond issue. So fire district officials went to the citizens and asked for advice. They came up with a mill levy increase instead that will cost the owner of a $200,000 home about $45 a year. That seems like a lot of money for those folks who never have a fire or end up in a car accident.
But pick up the phone and dial 911 just once and you'll realize how important it is for firefighters to get to your home quickly.
That's what passing this tax increase will do: improve response times, particularly in the fastest growing area in Greene County.
The tax increase will fund 11 full-time firefighters and will allow the district to staff its busiest station — Station 2 on Blackman Road — 24 hours a day. That's the sort of protection homeowners in an urban area expect, and it's what Logan-Rogersville wants to provide.
Fire service takes care of one of our most basic government functions — safety — and it's why we wholeheartedly endorse this tax increase. As the area grows, we must pay for that growth sometimes by providing additional services. But there's a reward for our generosity. One of the benefits of improved fire coverage is decreased cost for homeowners insurance.
The Logan-Rogersville district has reduced their ISO rating to a 4, and that puts money right back in the pockets of taxpayers.
As calls for service increase, the only way to keep response times down is to increase personnel or build new stations. This will accomplish at least half the job by increasing paid staff and placing them at the busiest station.
Finally, the board of the fire district has spent its money wisely. Following the model of most fire districts in the Ozarks, Logan-Rogersville spends its money on paid personnel in the fire stations providing the day-to-day service to taxpayers. Money is not spent on bloated salaries for administrators. The district should be commended for that approach.
We urge citizens in the Logan-Rogersville Fire Protection District to vote yes on Proposition 1 on Tuesday.
For some reason this local area has a fire truck or two respond to every auto and/or truck accident even if the chance of fire is non existant. We have EMS/EMT and a host of other services that respond quite well to these types of accidents, why is a fire truck sent to a simple fender bender???
It would seem to me that the fire department should allocate its money to be an effective branch of civil government and stop playing politics. I grew up in an area about the size of Rogersville which had NO full time fire fighters nor did they have a large tax levy district to allot funds for new fire trucks and the like. My goodness what did they do when times were in need of fire equipment??? They approached the residents of Fayetteville, PA with the problem and had a fund raising campaign to purchase the equipment with cash so no loans were carried.
What happened to the days where instead of confiscating money via taxes the departments would approach the citizenry to finance a cash strapped entity? In this day an age 28% of the eligible voters will go to the polls of which 60%+ of that will inform the homeowners, business owners, that your cost are going up even though the case hasn't been made for more money.
Approve fire district tax increase
Logan-Rogersville has good plan for growth.
More people. More houses. More roads. More accidents. More fires.
To deal with burgeoning growth southeast of Springfield, the Logan-Rogersville Fire District is asking voters for a 12-cent property tax increase. We endorse their request.
Twice in the past few years the fire district has asked voters to approve a bond issue to help deal with growth in its three-county, 160-square-mile district, and both times voters said yes, but not by the supermajority needed to pass the bond issue. So fire district officials went to the citizens and asked for advice. They came up with a mill levy increase instead that will cost the owner of a $200,000 home about $45 a year. That seems like a lot of money for those folks who never have a fire or end up in a car accident.
But pick up the phone and dial 911 just once and you'll realize how important it is for firefighters to get to your home quickly.
That's what passing this tax increase will do: improve response times, particularly in the fastest growing area in Greene County.
The tax increase will fund 11 full-time firefighters and will allow the district to staff its busiest station — Station 2 on Blackman Road — 24 hours a day. That's the sort of protection homeowners in an urban area expect, and it's what Logan-Rogersville wants to provide.
Fire service takes care of one of our most basic government functions — safety — and it's why we wholeheartedly endorse this tax increase. As the area grows, we must pay for that growth sometimes by providing additional services. But there's a reward for our generosity. One of the benefits of improved fire coverage is decreased cost for homeowners insurance.
The Logan-Rogersville district has reduced their ISO rating to a 4, and that puts money right back in the pockets of taxpayers.
As calls for service increase, the only way to keep response times down is to increase personnel or build new stations. This will accomplish at least half the job by increasing paid staff and placing them at the busiest station.
Finally, the board of the fire district has spent its money wisely. Following the model of most fire districts in the Ozarks, Logan-Rogersville spends its money on paid personnel in the fire stations providing the day-to-day service to taxpayers. Money is not spent on bloated salaries for administrators. The district should be commended for that approach.
We urge citizens in the Logan-Rogersville Fire Protection District to vote yes on Proposition 1 on Tuesday.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
City to look at storage unit rules
Here's a wonderful idea to solve this problem. The company that supplies these containers can paint them with wonderful scenes from around the nation, which can blend into the landscape of the city of Springfield. The City Council will be happy so they can still continue to IGNORE the ordinance that they passed. The whiners that complain about the storage containers won't realize they are storage containers because they blend in with the landscape. The owner of the storage container company will have BEAUTIFUL containers which can have historic scenery painted on the sides or different places from around the country and (s)he can charge a little extra for the cost of the container beautification. All of this WITHOUT GOVERNMENT intervention, a proper Libertarian solution.
Permits to stop for six months, but staff say it will make little difference.
Jenny Fillmer
jfillmer@news-leader.com
The Springfield City Council voted Monday to stop issuing permits for on-site storage containers for the next six months, so it can review regulation of the units.
City staff members say the vote doesn't really change anything, because nobody ever asked for a permit in the first place, leaving thousands of the containers, on-site storage trailers and temporary storage units in the city out of compliance.
Containers the size of the trailer portion of a tractor-trailer rig often are placed near businesses to store extra merchandise on site, especially while stockpiling for the holiday season.
The permit suspension forces storage container owners who had neglected to obtain permits to either continue operating illegally or stop renting out units in the city.
But Mayor Tom Carlson said the six-month suspension isn't intended to put anyone out of business."If they're getting away with it, they're going to continue getting away with it."
Councilman Gary Deaver said widespread disregard for the law was why he asked the council to review it.
"Six years ago the council passed a law, but (no unit owners) have gone through the process and been approved," said Deaver.
Based on a consultant's recommendation, the council during its six-month review of the law also will consider environmental and aesthetic issues related to the containers, as well as how they affect neighboring property values.
The suspension rattled Brenda Teeslink, owner of Springfield-based Mobile Storage Solutions. Her company rents containers to local retailers.
"I don't have a problem with a study being done, but to say we can't rent trailers for six months, I might as well shut my doors," said Teeslink.
"Why do we need to stop us doing business for 180 days if you're just trying to determine if there's a detriment to the land values?" asked Teeslink.
Councilwoman Mary Collette pointed out a provision in the ordinance allowing for written appeal in certain instances. But neither council members nor city staff offered Teeslink additional guidance for operating her business legally during the next six months.
However, city staff said, unless someone files a complaint about a particular container, the city probably won't do anything about them.
"I don't know that we'd be enforcing (the law), because it would be hard to keep up," said city planning director Ralph Rognstad. "We don't have inspectors looking at every property every day."
Make your VOTE count.
VOTE third party candidates and scare the bejesus out of the monopoly parties
Tom Martz
candidate 139th district
Permits to stop for six months, but staff say it will make little difference.
Jenny Fillmer
jfillmer@news-leader.com
The Springfield City Council voted Monday to stop issuing permits for on-site storage containers for the next six months, so it can review regulation of the units.
City staff members say the vote doesn't really change anything, because nobody ever asked for a permit in the first place, leaving thousands of the containers, on-site storage trailers and temporary storage units in the city out of compliance.
Containers the size of the trailer portion of a tractor-trailer rig often are placed near businesses to store extra merchandise on site, especially while stockpiling for the holiday season.
The permit suspension forces storage container owners who had neglected to obtain permits to either continue operating illegally or stop renting out units in the city.
But Mayor Tom Carlson said the six-month suspension isn't intended to put anyone out of business."If they're getting away with it, they're going to continue getting away with it."
Councilman Gary Deaver said widespread disregard for the law was why he asked the council to review it.
"Six years ago the council passed a law, but (no unit owners) have gone through the process and been approved," said Deaver.
Based on a consultant's recommendation, the council during its six-month review of the law also will consider environmental and aesthetic issues related to the containers, as well as how they affect neighboring property values.
The suspension rattled Brenda Teeslink, owner of Springfield-based Mobile Storage Solutions. Her company rents containers to local retailers.
"I don't have a problem with a study being done, but to say we can't rent trailers for six months, I might as well shut my doors," said Teeslink.
"Why do we need to stop us doing business for 180 days if you're just trying to determine if there's a detriment to the land values?" asked Teeslink.
Councilwoman Mary Collette pointed out a provision in the ordinance allowing for written appeal in certain instances. But neither council members nor city staff offered Teeslink additional guidance for operating her business legally during the next six months.
However, city staff said, unless someone files a complaint about a particular container, the city probably won't do anything about them.
"I don't know that we'd be enforcing (the law), because it would be hard to keep up," said city planning director Ralph Rognstad. "We don't have inspectors looking at every property every day."
Make your VOTE count.
VOTE third party candidates and scare the bejesus out of the monopoly parties
Tom Martz
candidate 139th district
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Report: Missing court funds top $1 million
I wonder if our esteemed City Council still believes it is a waste of money for the citizens of Springfield to see the city get a REAL AUDIT.
I guess we should also demand a refund from KPMG since there auditing procedures didn't catch this missing cash. I wonder if KPMG also audits the Springfield Government School System as well?? After all our government school system misplaced over five million dollars a few years back, and when the voters said NO to a tax increase for the schools this five million was found hiding under a desk drawer some where in the administration office.
To those of you that don't believe the city should be audited, well if this was YOUR million dollars you want it back wouldn't you??
http://www.sbj.net/db/docs/municipalcourtreport.pdf
Report: Missing court funds top $1 million
Funds missing from SpringfieldÂ’s Municipal Court are now estimated at $1 million or more.
The new figure — more than double previous estimates — was announced this afternoon in a report released by the city manager’s office.
The report summarizes the cityÂ’s monthlong administrative investigation of the suspected embezzlement, which was discovered in mid-June.
The investigation included the services of a certified forensics examiner, who audited the courtÂ’s financial records dating from Jan. 1, 2000, to June 13 of this year. The new estimate comes from this examinerÂ’s findings. The city has now asked the examiner to expand the scope of the investigation to Jan. 1, 1997.
“The discredit this has caused, and will continue to cause the Court and the City of Springfield, is enormous,” the report reads. “It will be extremely difficult to repair the damage that has been caused from this incident, as well as mend the public trust.”
A criminal investigation, led by the Springfield Police Department, is ongoing, aided by the forensics examiner. A former court employee was arrested and released June 23 on suspicion of felony stealing. No charges have been filed.
To change the monolopy of American politics
VOTE LIBERTARIAN
Tom Martz
district 139 candidate
I guess we should also demand a refund from KPMG since there auditing procedures didn't catch this missing cash. I wonder if KPMG also audits the Springfield Government School System as well?? After all our government school system misplaced over five million dollars a few years back, and when the voters said NO to a tax increase for the schools this five million was found hiding under a desk drawer some where in the administration office.
To those of you that don't believe the city should be audited, well if this was YOUR million dollars you want it back wouldn't you??
http://www.sbj.net/db/docs/municipalcourtreport.pdf
Report: Missing court funds top $1 million
Funds missing from SpringfieldÂ’s Municipal Court are now estimated at $1 million or more.
The new figure — more than double previous estimates — was announced this afternoon in a report released by the city manager’s office.
The report summarizes the cityÂ’s monthlong administrative investigation of the suspected embezzlement, which was discovered in mid-June.
The investigation included the services of a certified forensics examiner, who audited the courtÂ’s financial records dating from Jan. 1, 2000, to June 13 of this year. The new estimate comes from this examinerÂ’s findings. The city has now asked the examiner to expand the scope of the investigation to Jan. 1, 1997.
“The discredit this has caused, and will continue to cause the Court and the City of Springfield, is enormous,” the report reads. “It will be extremely difficult to repair the damage that has been caused from this incident, as well as mend the public trust.”
A criminal investigation, led by the Springfield Police Department, is ongoing, aided by the forensics examiner. A former court employee was arrested and released June 23 on suspicion of felony stealing. No charges have been filed.
To change the monolopy of American politics
VOTE LIBERTARIAN
Tom Martz
district 139 candidate
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Candidate forum
Last night I and several other LP candidates attended a political forum for all candidates hosted by Families for Change, here in Springfield. All three parties were represented by different people in different districts. The web page for this group is www.familiesforchange.com. This group is comprised of concerned citizens that are fed up with the abuses of DFS(department of family services).
The meeting started with a prayer and then on to the introductions. All candidates were invited to participate in this forum, however many didn't show up. There were a few that allowed the moderator to know they couldn't attend the event, the others just blew off this organization of concerned parents.
The introductions seemed destined to pit republicans against democrats in a political bickering contest. Our very own Kevin Craig running in the 7th district against Roy Blunt brought out many failures of the so called conservative legislator.
GREAT JOB Kevin as I believe you woke up a few in attendance.
Many of those in attendance talked about their background and why they decided to run for public office, there were only 3 of us that informed the attendees that we weren't going to continue the bloated government theme.
MediScare was the first topic brought up and I was quite surprised how many in attendance were of the essence that they should be able to rely upon government services for their well being. This topic became a political hot potato(e)(thanks Dan) between the detractors of the two political parties NOW in POWER. The talks of funding cuts of the MediScare program were rampant. All one needs to do is look at the budget for that program over the past decade or two and you won't find any spending cuts. The Democrat hopefuls once again used the tried and true method of scaring our elderly without the facts to back up their claims, but then again the two major political parties have never had to prove anything since they are both destined to have POWER.
We did have one actual current representative on hand and that was Bob Dixon. Bob is a nice enough guy, and it seems his heart is in the right place, but he just like most republicans realize the only way to get re-elected is to bring the bacon back to your own congressional district. This is why many have become addicted to government services.
By the way Bob the states budget isn't balanced, technically you can say it is, however there is a 400 million dollar loan floating around in Jeff City which allowed for you to be able to make that comment last night. Call it a slight of hand, a technicality, or a lie either one you chose would be correct. You can't possibly balance a budget on BORROWED money.
There was one particular person at this event which brought back memories of Hillary to me. Yes he was brash, passionate, and a defender of government programs, but his demeanor will probably cost him the election. The trend of the evening was how some people have helped others since they got involved in the campaign process, I wonder why they don't do that even when they aren't running for political office??
All things being equal I learned much from my first foray into the political world and will use this knowledge to help me when I finally learn who my competition is going to be for the general election.
Vote Libertarian it's the only way to change the government of status quo.
Tom Martz
district 139 candidate
The meeting started with a prayer and then on to the introductions. All candidates were invited to participate in this forum, however many didn't show up. There were a few that allowed the moderator to know they couldn't attend the event, the others just blew off this organization of concerned parents.
The introductions seemed destined to pit republicans against democrats in a political bickering contest. Our very own Kevin Craig running in the 7th district against Roy Blunt brought out many failures of the so called conservative legislator.
GREAT JOB Kevin as I believe you woke up a few in attendance.
Many of those in attendance talked about their background and why they decided to run for public office, there were only 3 of us that informed the attendees that we weren't going to continue the bloated government theme.
MediScare was the first topic brought up and I was quite surprised how many in attendance were of the essence that they should be able to rely upon government services for their well being. This topic became a political hot potato(e)(thanks Dan) between the detractors of the two political parties NOW in POWER. The talks of funding cuts of the MediScare program were rampant. All one needs to do is look at the budget for that program over the past decade or two and you won't find any spending cuts. The Democrat hopefuls once again used the tried and true method of scaring our elderly without the facts to back up their claims, but then again the two major political parties have never had to prove anything since they are both destined to have POWER.
We did have one actual current representative on hand and that was Bob Dixon. Bob is a nice enough guy, and it seems his heart is in the right place, but he just like most republicans realize the only way to get re-elected is to bring the bacon back to your own congressional district. This is why many have become addicted to government services.
By the way Bob the states budget isn't balanced, technically you can say it is, however there is a 400 million dollar loan floating around in Jeff City which allowed for you to be able to make that comment last night. Call it a slight of hand, a technicality, or a lie either one you chose would be correct. You can't possibly balance a budget on BORROWED money.
There was one particular person at this event which brought back memories of Hillary to me. Yes he was brash, passionate, and a defender of government programs, but his demeanor will probably cost him the election. The trend of the evening was how some people have helped others since they got involved in the campaign process, I wonder why they don't do that even when they aren't running for political office??
All things being equal I learned much from my first foray into the political world and will use this knowledge to help me when I finally learn who my competition is going to be for the general election.
Vote Libertarian it's the only way to change the government of status quo.
Tom Martz
district 139 candidate
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)