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
3 comments:
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'd respond, but I'm too busy drinking from *my* party talking points. :)
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...
Post a Comment