Governor Blunt's set conditions for a special legislative session for Medicaid isn't only a smart political tactic, it's a surprising move in an election year. So where do your local lawmakers stand? I attempted to contact each one of them for their reaction. This is what I found.
Rep. B.J. Marsh (#136)
Marsh points out he was against the Medicaid cuts to start with and isn't sure about a special session. "I haven't heard his plan," Marsh told me. "So I really don't have a position yet." Marsh says he questions why the Governor is changing his position now. "Why didn't we do anything during the regular session,?" Marsh says. "I'm the only one who didn't vote for all the cuts on the Republican side. I said all along, these went too far." But Marsh says he's got a lot of paraplegic people in his district and he's hearing from them. "I know people are not happy about it and that's telling," Marsh says. Marsh also says he's not surprised he didn't know much about the special session debate. "I don't seem to be able to get the Governor's attention on things. He certainly doesn't come to me for advice. He's not always on the same page I'm on."
Rep. Charlie Denison (#135)
Denison said he hadn't seen what the Governor said about the special session. "I hadn't seen that, so I'm not ready to take a position," Denison told me. "It's kind of a surprise so I'd want to take a look at it first."
Rep. Jim Viebrock (#134)
Viebrock also said he hadn't seen the Governor's statement yet, but noted his general feeling was to be against special sessions unless they contain an "emergency clause" or deal with an issue of "great consequence." "You're talking about close to a million dollars of taxpayers money, for something that could be done in January when we get back," Viebrock said. Viebrock says he's spent a lot of times looking at services impacted by the cuts. "You hear horror stories, but sometimes I question all the details." Viebrock says many people he's spoken to that were afraid they were going to be affected by the changes, turned out now to be. "Most people I've talked to have been pretty pleased after it all shook out. People were definitely nervous about it at first, but one man even confessed to me that his net income was more after the changes. But there's a lot of politics in it all."
Rep. Mark Wright (#137)
SEE ABOVE ENTRY
Rep. Brad Roark (#139)
Hasn't yet responded to my call.
Rep. Sara Lampe (#138)
Hasn't yet responded to my call.
Rep. Bob Dixon (#140)
SEE ABOVE ENTRY
Sen. Norma Champion
SEE ABOVE ENTRY
11 comments:
Denison or Dixon won't say anything without their www.mattblunt.com talking points firmly in hand.
They should be in Blunt's Cabinet, not representing districts, a duty which requires one to think on their own at least part of the time. At a time when their districts needed leaders, they got sycophants.
Verses say, any other politician Democrat or Republican?
Please! Ninety nine percent of all politicians drink from the party talking points. Sort of like the pot calling the kettle black.
I think this is a good blog entry in that it provides insight into what these elected officials are using as talking points and their specific strategy.
I would like to know which local reps and senators voted for the cuts and which voted against them.
It seems like they all are against them now, but it didn't appear to be the same when the vote was taken.
I think asking for voting records is a good idea. I want to support those who voted to cut the over bloated program.
A full 1/5th of Missouri's population was on medicaid. Somthing HAD to be done.
That doesnt mean we cannot make adjustments and fine tune programs, but the media has done a true drive by shooting concerning the whole reality behind the situation.
Then again, many in the media are either socialist or communist and would probably love to see 100% of Missourians taking a pay check from the government.
Okay, maybe not, maybe just seventy five percent.
Funny thing about BJ being against those medicaid cuts. He was too sick to be there to vote against them. He has a horrible attendence record. I know he's been sick, but come on, know when to hang it up.
Nothing wrong with medicaid; I was a kid, and was in an accident while my father was laid off. The bills for my hospital stay (one month; both legs broken in multiple places and a skull fracture) totalled over 100 grand, and there would have been no way for my family to pay that. My family would have been forced into a tough decision- I would either have to be crippled, or else they would have had to declare bankruptcy. Medicaid prevented that.
So, while there may (please remember in any responses that I said the word MAY) be some corruption somewhere in the medicaid system, I cannot support the overall wide-sweeping cuts that have been made in it, while senators and representatives refused to take even a $100 cut in their own policies.
"...many in the media are either socialist or communist and would probably love to see 100% of Missourians taking a pay check from the government."
You sound like my father: whenever the news reports something that he doesn't agree with, whether it's a fact or not, he calls them commies or socialists.
The days of the media being in lock-step with the Bush Administration are (mostly) over. A lot of people have finally figured out that they were being duped, although it took long enough. And now that some in the media have started to do their jobs (or risk losing all credibility) by not parroting Bush's if-you-don't-agree-with-me-you're-not-a-patriot propaganda, Republicans just can't deal with it. Well too bad.
You are right that something had to be done about Medicaid. But it's the callous way that the program was trashed, with no consideration of those whom the program was intended to help, that is upsetting.
I'd respond, but I'm too busy drinking from *my* party talking points. :)
#dems: The media has NEVER been with Bush. They hate the man. Always have, always will.
@weare: My wife are close friends to a couple who used medicaid when their newborn suffered _severe_ complications during birth.
No one is saying that the program shouldnt be there for people who need the program, but there were also many people making $50,000.00 a year who were mooching off the program. Funny you never heard of those people during the reports by this and other media outlets.
If you do not believe that if a full 1/5th of your state's population is on medicaid is a problem, you probably are socialist.
The problem with that is many of us are not and abhor socialism or communism.
Many of us, especially in this district, seek limited government and want to be left alone.
Teach a man how to fish, and you give him a gift for life. Give a man a fish and you control him politically.
Thing is, bobicus... some people equate "smaller" gov't with "anarchy", which in their minds is "anything smaller than what we have now, especially if you touch MY personal favorite gov't programs".
Seems the RepubliCrat's idea of smaller gov't is to attempt to not grow it as much this year as it was last year.
That's why some of us refuse to be RepubliCrats... if it's a "choice" between the party of tax'n'spend, or the party of tax-cut-and-spend, we say "no, thanks".
What the Repubs forget is, you MUST cut spending *and* taxes, otherwise it won't work. But they're afraid to touch the sacred entitlements, or they won't get re-elected.
What the Dems forget is, it's not the purpose of government to take care of us cradle-to-grave.
And, sadly, ever since the New Deal, most Americans believe it's the job of gov't to take care of their needs. If we'd had that kind of mentality in the Founding days, we'd never have become the country everyone wants to come to...
@libertarian:
You are correct. The job of the government was not intended, nor should it be, to provide entitlments.
What puzzles me is how many Democrats try to use the word "fiscal conservative" while maintaining that many social programs are "underfunded."
Instead of talking about limiting government and improving people's lives by allowing them to take more ownership of things, they seek to take more of our hard earned money and redistribute it to other people. That is socialism/communism plain and simple.
It is also the antithesis of what made America so good and strong in the first place.
Post a Comment