Monday, October 22, 2007

Swiderski on S-CHIP

I've asked all the Pennsylvania 10th Congressional District candidates to share their thoughts on the S-CHIP legislation.

Here is Paul Swiderski's reply:


Like many other social welfare programs, S-CHIP is designed to provide temporary relief and assistance for lower-income families. However, the families who use these resources nationally tend to form a long-term dependence. S-CHIP is a liberal attempt to push our nation towards a nanny state. Rather than focusing on the rising cost of health insurance, Nancy Pelosi and the misguided San Francisco liberals are promoting increased government involvement in the health care system. I believe in the ability for our state to administer its own program, but I do not trust other states and localities to act in the best interest of taxpayers.

If we do not contain the involvement of the Federal Government, we will be issuing a blank check for those who act against the best interests of the 10th Congressional District. Other states have made it clear they will use such assistance to indirectly pay for the health and welfare of illegal immigrants in this country.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-07-sf-health-plan_x.htm

Can you trust “Nanny Pelosi” to make the best use of taxpayers money? Can you trust “Nanny Pelosi” to take care of you?

Involvement by the Federal Government in education and health care has increased costs for everyone. Inflation for education increases at twice the national rate. Health care costs have averaged double-digit inflation for the last decade. This is all due to the failure of the Federal Government to provide.

We cannot fall for the Democratic Party’s red herring of “protecting the children”. “Protecting the children” has limited our freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. The Democrats “protecting our children” has led to families with both parents working full-time jobs to provide the basic necessities. “Protecting our children” has given us a society of children raised by television and outsiders versus parents. “Protecting our children” has led to a national crisis of people looking for the next quick buck instead of promoting innovation and hard work. Instead of letting the government protect our children, we should better empower parents to provide the financial and emotional needs for their families.

We must look for new ways to contain costs within the health care system. We will continue to receive “hamburger” care at “caviar” prices because the free market is not allowed to operate. The government pays for half of all medical expenditures in this country. The government has no incentive to control costs. Instead, we pay too much for lawyers looking for their one big lottery ticket.

I promote we should assist the health care system in this country by tackling the root causes of the problem:

Ending the practice of frivolous law suits within the medical profession

Capping medical malpractice damages

Investing in medical technology advances

Promoting greater education for healthier living

Empowering the government to better negotiate medical costs

Protecting the doctors and medical professionals who take care of us

Tax breaks for small and medium-sized businesses to join purchasing cooperatives with other local businesses

Improving the local economy to promote the affordability of health insurance for all citizens within the 10th

My solutions will not make national headlines because they do not involve the extension of a larger national bureaucracy. My solutions are neither sexy nor do they contain any buzzwords drawn up by numerous advertising agencies. If given the opportunity to serve you, my solutions would just work.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

So far, so good. When is he havin' that get-together at the bagel place?

Anonymous said...

Is he running for Congress or for Shawn Hannity's replacement. Nancy Pelosi this Nancy Pelosi that. I wonder if he has ever had an original thought

Anonymous said...

anon 4:44, just because someone else said it first doesn't make it any less important a point.
What is the point you're trying to make??

Kelly said...

Anon 4:44,

Nancy Pelosi is important to the discussion of national politics. Not to give too much of a civics lesson, but here's an important snippet from Wikipedia:

"The Speaker is responsible for ensuring that the House passes legislation supported by the majority party. In pursuing this goal, the Speaker may utilize his or her power to determine when each bill reaches the floor. He or she also chairs the majority party's House steering committee."

Like it or not, Nancy Pelosi's importance is equal to the President when they are of different political parties. Chris Hackett and Dan Meuser both represent the playbook that cost the Republican party its majority status. Both campaigns are a repetition of failed policy. The time to take back the House is now. Hackett and Meuser run the option in a spread-offense world.

If you want to debate ideas, please feel free. Regardless of the election's outcome Chris Hackett and Dan Meuser will continue to earn a wealthy living from a result of government spending. Chris Hackett will continue to provide substandard health insurance to his temporary staff. Dan Meuser will continue to sell out American manufacturers.

Joe Paterno saved his legacy because he adjusted his philosophies to continue to win. Remember when top talent left the state because JoePa refused to play freshmen talented enough to start games? Maybe it's time the party looks to re-energize itself before your government decides to take away all the vestiges of what you hold dear.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Nancy Pelosi should be added to the list of 10th district candidates since that who the Republicans are running against.

Anonymous said...

now we are going to quote wikepedia?

wow. the dumbing down of society through the internet

running against pelosi is a failed strategy. it didn't work last time as evidenced by the major losses in the house. run on you own stea. m and tell us what you dislike about carney

it is obvious paul is clueless and gets his talking points from the radio..

i think someone who can think for themselves might be a little better

Eddy Turkiewicz said...

Anon 4:44, 6:46, and 3:00, at what time did you fall off the stupid train and hurt your head? When did Hackett and Meuser say anything unique? Those two do nothing except sing and dance the GOP tune as dictated by their marienette in the White House. The last election wasn't lost because people ran against Pelosi. The last election was lost because of the domino effect when the majority of the party falls behind a leader the people don't believe in. So Swiderski sides with Hannity on SCHIP and this makes him clueless but Meuser and Hackett rubber stamp Bush's actions and this makes them beacons of light and the epitomy of intelligent thought? I hear the 12:15 Stupid Express is coming to pick you up. All Aboard!!!

Anonymous said...

I forgot to add one more thing anon (4:44/3:00/6:46). Why don't you just tell everyone which campaign you're with than just hide behind the name anomymous? Inquiring minds want to know. Are you a Hackett blogger or a Meuser blogger?

mavedog said...

What makes Paul clueless is that he is preaching policies that the district has rejected. And the fact is they are not running against Pelosi no matter how much they wish it to be true. Carney is clearly more qualified then any of these guys and he is much more impressive to meet in person. We need a credible voice in Washington to insure our country is safe. I assure you if any of these guys were to beat Carney they would not be spending time in the White House with the ear of the President discussing national security, no matter who is in the White House.

Kelly said...

mavedog,

Why is it important to have the ear of the President when it comes to National Security, when the people of your district are dying due to decisions you had a hand in making. Chris Carney is the Michael Brown of military intelligence. We are on the hook for trillions of dollars to shore up a region that didn't necessarily need immediate action.

If Chris Carney is so effective as a man of national security, why has he stonewalled efforts to vindicate his role in pre-war intelligence? For a group of legislators elected on the basis of providing oversight, they have somehow turned a blind eye to our representative's involvement. When it comes to the Iraq war, Chris Carney has more skeletons in his closet than Larry Craig.

As for your assertion for Paul being clueless, where do you have evidence that the district has rejected his ideas out of hand? What individuals enjoy their premiums increasing at a 10% clip a year for the last decade? What individuals like seeing the choice of doctors decline due to the burdens of medical malpractice insurance? What individuals have been against controlling the costs of government-run health care? Have you been so far out of touch to see that people from the district take bus excursions to Canada to reduce their drug expenses? Paul is backing solutions that look to solve real problems versus placing a band aid.

Chris Carney is in the House of Representatives because he was at the right place at the right time. We got rid of Sherwood but now inherit a man who has weakened the defense resources we have at home by advising this crusade. Have you seen the sectarian violence? Have you seen the price of oil? Have you seen the deaths of thousands of good men and women who will not have the same opportunities and freedoms you and I have today?

If this is the expertise of Chris Carney's national security, we would be much better off preparing our resources at home than ruining our reputation abroad.

Alas, Chris Carney's major accomplishment thus far has been promoting the interests...of the 5th District of Iowa. That's right, for as much as we complain about Dan Meuser's foray into the district, we should look at the real problem. Chris Carney will never understand the people of this district because he was never one of us. We should all be glad that his friends and neighbors from his original hometown of Cedar Rapids, IA are much better off as we turn more food into fuel.

P.S. Corn prices are up over 30% since Chris Carney became your representative.

Eddy said...

hmm... I think Kelly is on to something. I wonder if she's as hot as she is smart. Do you think that the northeast ethanol plant is an extension of Carney's policy? After all the parent company is in IA. What a way to kill dairy farmers in PA. Didn't Carney work with Obama on these corn tariffs? Mavedog you gottsa look past your nose here the candidates are not running against Pelosi but they will have to face her and her ideals and bills in opposition on the Hill. If we're going to take back the seat in the 10th we need to get someone in office who can clearly see the whole picture not just what's right in front of them. Otherwise all you'll get are bandaid solutions.

mavedog said...

Kelly you said:

"Why is it important to have the ear of the President when it comes to National Security, when the people of your district are dying due to decisions you had a hand in making."

Are you serious? As an intelligence officer your job is to provide information to the president and his advisors. Carneys information has been proven to be accurate and he repeatedly has said that there was no operational relationship between Sadam and Al-Qaeda. You can read the article here where Carney said:

“On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 was no connection and 10 was operational control, I would say it’s about a 2½,” he said in an interview. “It was a relationship of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer,” he added. “Saddam was a savvy guy, and I think he wanted to make sure that if Al Qaeda someday became a force, that he wanted to keep his options open. I thought that there was a relationship. Whether it was strong enough to go to war, that’s the president’s decision.”

Carney was not in a decision making role as a Lieutenant Commander, he was providing information. This administration decided to distort that information with terms like “Mushroom Clouds” to justify the war and then displayed incredible incompetence in its execution. In an interview with James Risen he reported:

“Mr. Carney said he was far more troubled by the way the Bush administration dealt with Iraq after the invasion, when he said it became clear that the United States was not prepared to deal with the growing chaos in the country. Mr. Carney recalled that there was a wealth of prewar intelligence predicting that an insurgency would develop quickly after the invasion, and he said he was stunned by the Pentagon’s failure to plan for it or even acknowledge its scope.”

Given the events in Iraq following the fall of Bagdad Carney’s analysis was correct. Blaming him for the death of anyone is pretty pathetic. If you really want to criticize someone for the deaths of our soldiers I think you need to focus on the Chicken Hawks in the White House. But there in lies the problem. I have not heard one of these guys considering a run for this seat criticize any of the President’s decisions, or the fact that for six years the Republican controlled congress failed in their responsibility of oversight. But that won’t happen. Instead you attack someone who is serving his country as a public servant and a soldier. This is nothing new for the far right but it is very out of touch with the district.

And as far as you and Eddy claiming that Carney is somehow trying to help Iowa farmers at the expense of local farmers, this goes to show you guys are clueless. I have lived in this district for my whole life and my family owns a farm in Wayne County. Most of the farmers in this district are encouraged by the opportunity alternative energy provides for their future. They have been dealing with rising prices for the last 7 years due to higher oil prices caused by the “ill advised” war. As they have done since this country began, farmers will be providing innovation that will make this country stronger.

Kelly said...

Mavedog,

When was the article written? That's right, it was well after the fact. The article's citation is 11/28/06. When did we go to Iraq again? Why is Carney blocking the investigations of why we went to war in the first place? Instead of vindication, it is more likely Carney was silent. The question is what truth do the families of this district deserve? Why didn't he make these possibilities public BEFORE we went to war?

As for attacking Carney, I love how you can assume because he is a Congressman and a soldier, he is above reproach. Maybe we should elect a full military legislature to ensure no one is able to question our government actions. Chris Carney should decide which position he wants to fill and quit using his position in the military as a scapegoat to censure debate. The American public wants answers and Chris Carney wants to take us a government of Sandinistas. Maybe as a soldier, he should wear his uniform in the halls of Congress. Maybe the Republican candidates will concede as he wears his uniform proudly on campaign stops and blares "Up Where Belong" from an Officer and A Gentleman from his campaign vehicles.

Maybe you should read up on the candidates before you assume no one has fielded any debate against current policy. Paul Swiderski at least has proposed splitting the country along sectarian lines. There's an obvious split of population lines if you look at the map within this article:

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9764232

Iraq as a country was hastily put together. Maybe we should spend more time placing a round peg solution into a round hole instead of trying to force friendship and brotherhood. We have a tough enough time handling that in this country.

As for the obvious corn conflict of interest, corn ethanol as a science does not work. If you took all of the corn and all of the soy produced in the United States, it would be enough to cover 10% of our oil use.

On the other hand, ethanol has been tried before, Henry Ford actually used it in engines back in the early 1900s:

" SOMETIMES you do things simply because you know how to. People have known how to make ethanol since the dawn of civilisation, if not before. Take some sugary liquid. Add yeast. Wait. They have also known for a thousand years how to get that ethanol out of the formerly sugary liquid and into a more or less pure form. You heat it up, catch the vapour that emanates, and cool that vapour down until it liquefies.

The result burns. And when Henry Ford was experimenting with car engines a century ago, he tried ethanol out as a fuel. But he rejected it—and for good reason. The amount of heat you get from burning a litre of ethanol is a third less than that from a litre of petrol. What is more, it absorbs water from the atmosphere. Unless it is mixed with some other fuel, such as petrol, the result is corrosion that can wreck an engine's seals in a couple of years. So why is ethanol suddenly back in fashion? That is the question many biotechnologists in America have recently asked themselves."

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9861379

It doesn't change the fact corn producers have won with the change of policy. As an area, we have a vested interest in dairy production. I still haven't seen the logic why we should shoot ourselves in the foot to protect Carney's family in Iowa?

The purpose of technology is to move the country forward not backward. We still have a couple of years before we see the failures of ethanol as fuel, again. Corrosion of engines may require people to purchase more vehicles, but that logic says we can improve the economy by breaking everyone's windows at the peak of home heating season.

Farmers should be able to produce what is best for themselves and the economy as a whole. The problem is that when you favor one crop over another, everyone loses.

When this election season is all over, we can laugh about it over a few beers:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21491206/

"Barley and wheat prices have skyrocketed as more farmers plant corn to meet increasing demand for ethanol, while others plant feed crops to replace acres lost to corn."

Just too bad we'll have to pay at least 10% more for a beer next year due to the shortage of hops the corn market has caused. The farmers of America have kept our food supplies safe because they haven't fallen for the quick buck schemes and cyclical trends. Now is not the time to plant crops in the same fashion as Wall Street traders chase after Google.

Eddy said...

Mavedog if Carney knew there was no connection between Al Quaeda and Sadaam Hussein then why did he tell the President of the United States otherwise? Do some solid research and check into something called the Feith Memo. See what it is who wrote it and why the intelligence committee that looked over the evidence leading to this memo was created. Chris Carney co-wrote it specifying 50 examples of cooperation between Al Quaeda and Sadaam Hussein. Many of these points are unconfirmed intelligence and proven to be so through many sources including the CIA and the Senate Report on Iraq Intelligence. This was Carney's specialized involvement as a "Senior terrorism and intelligence advisor in the Pentagon". His involvement was limited to the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group. Carney was brought in as a college professor to help draft the phony report and create links between Al Quaeda and Iraq. He was no intelligence officer as he would make you think. He and Shelton were the low men on the totem pole who did all the work to fudge intelligence. Your man Carney did exactly what this committee was created to do. He fudged intelligence and lied to the President members of congress and the American people. If you fail to accept this fact then you are the clueless one.

I hardly call a 2 1/2 out of 10 a reason to go to Iraq. If Carney truly feels that way then he should not have co-written the Feith Memo providing 50 lies to convince the President to go to war.

This isn't an attack on a soldier. Its a criticism of a man's integrity. He co-writes a memo based on faulty intelligence to convince the President to go to war. The end result? thousands dead. This is the guy you want representing you in Congress?

As far as alternative energy maybe you don't remember or did your research on the 1970s gas crisis. Ethanol was becoming the new fuel then and went dormant until now. It was a fad. It is becoming one now. Do you want to promise people 50 manufacturing jobs based on a fad? What happens when the current oil crisis is resolved? Where will those 50 people be? My guess is the unemployment line. the area could use good paying manufacturing jobs but the ethanol plant will only provide those job for a short period.