Ted Cruz & Mark Meadows on Health Reform

From  Jeff Duncan’s FB page:

In an effort to keep you informed about the ongoing Repeal/Replace of Obamacare debate here in Washington – I want to provide you commentary from Senator Ted Cruz & Congressman Mark Meadows in the WSJ that sums up the things that really need to be addressed in the Repeal/Replace effort to make this bill truly effective in reducing premiums, expanding access and protecting the most vulnerable assisted by Medicaid programs. These are things that Conservatives and, anyone – including the White House – should get behind:

Wall Street Journal: Three Criteria for Health Reform
The House repeal-and-replace plan doesn’t go far enough.
By
Ted Cruz and Mark Meadows

Republicans have a historic opportunity to follow through on our promise to repeal ObamaCare. The recent elections that focused on the law’s repeal—2010, 2014 and 2016—were massive GOP victories. The American people gave our party unified control of the federal government, and a mandate for meaningful change.

After years of talk, we know that the Republican repeal-and-replace effort will soon be judged by three criteria: Does it make health care more affordable? Does it give consumers more choices? Does it provide Americans more control over their families’ health care?

As of now, the House’s bill neither fully repeals ObamaCare nor passes these three tests. Yet there’s a path forward—if the administration and Republicans from across the political spectrum can put aside past differences to find consensus. Here is how we propose the House and Senate come together to do just that:

First, we must lower insurance premiums. Nothing matters more. The current House bill would not achieve this, because it doesn’t repeal all of ObamaCare’s insurance mandates. Of the few it addresses, the bill delays their repeal. We must abolish ObamaCare’s mandates immediately; Americans need relief from higher premiums and cannot wait until 2020 or beyond.

The single biggest factor causing frustration with ObamaCare is skyrocketing costs. The average family’s annual premiums on employer-sponsored plans under the law have increased by more than $5,000. The insurance mandates are a primary driver of these spikes. If we leave these mandates in place or delay their repeal, premiums will remain too high for too long, as studies by the Congressional Budget Office and others have shown. If premiums continue to skyrocket, we will have failed, and Americans will rightly direct their frustration at the ballot box toward the Republican majority.

We cannot give voters a procedural excuse for why we couldn’t get the job done. Some have argued, incorrectly, that the Senate’s Byrd Rule precludes repealing these insurance mandates through the reconciliation process. That simply isn’t true. The current version of the bill already repeals or modifies a few of the mandates. Why wouldn’t we repeal all the major insurance mandates for the sake of truly lower health-care costs? How can modifying a mandate comply with Byrd, but repealing it not comply? Both have billions in budgetary effect, the central prerequisite for reconciliation.

We should follow the text of the Budget Act, which establishes the reconciliation process. Fully repealing the insurance mandates would comply with both the letter and the spirit of the statute. More important, the Senate parliamentarian does not ultimately determine what is allowable under reconciliation. That authority falls to the Senate and the vice president, the chamber’s presiding officer. As the former Senate parliamentarian Robert Dove once explained, the vice president is “the ultimate decider” on reconciliation: “The parliamentarian only can advise. It is the vice president who rules.”

To further lower premiums, we should allow families to pay for health insurance from expanded health savings accounts. Allowing premium payments from HSAs would reduce costs, provide greater parity between employer and individual coverage, and encourage insurance portability, which also directly addresses concerns related to pre-existing conditions.

We should also include in the reconciliation bill additional reforms that will drive down costs: Consumers should be enabled to purchase insurance plans across state lines to create a true 50-state marketplace. Small businesses should be allowed to pool together in association plans to get better rates for their employees.

Second, we shouldn’t replace ObamaCare’s subsidies with yet another health-care entitlement. Instead, we should implement nonrefundable tax credits, which can be deducted from payroll taxes for lower earners. Anyone who gets a paycheck has a large amount withheld by payroll taxes. Thus, this nonrefundable credit would benefit lower-income individuals by letting them keep more of what they earn.

Third, ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion should be immediately frozen and then phased out over time. A freeze wouldn’t take away coverage from any person currently enrolled—it wouldn’t pull the rug out from anybody—but it would prevent states from adding more enrollees to the expansion population, which the federal government would be responsible for funding.

During the phaseout, we should implement work requirements for healthy working-age adults in the Medicaid expansion population. ObamaCare overextended Medicaid beyond those people that the program was intended to serve—the disabled elderly, pregnant women and needy children. Too often now, these people and their families have been forced onto waiting lists while money has poured into the expansion population. Freezing ObamaCare’s expansion immediately will stop this misdirection of the Medicaid program without taking away anyone’s coverage.

We should also implement true Medicaid block grants to the states. Republicans understand that in its current form, Medicaid does not work well. Much of the dysfunction is the result of one-size-fits-all federal rules that are forced on every state. Instead of per capita caps with federal strings still attached, we should allow states to innovate to help produce better health results. That’s why the reconciliation bill should include true block grants for Medicaid funding, which actually would allow states to transform their Medicaid programs and better serve vulnerable populations, without having to ask “Mother, may I” of the federal government.

In any case, a comprehensive plan to reform Medicaid must restrain the program’s growth rate if it is to be fiscally responsible in the long term and not allow for out-of-control spending.

Republicans have pledged for six years to repeal ObamaCare and return choice to America’s health-care system. The time to act is now upon us. If Republicans join together with united purpose and tackle these areas of concern, we will have finally delivered on our promise.

Mr. Cruz, a Texas Republican, is a U.S. senator. Mr. Meadows, a North Carolina Republican, is chairman of the House Freedom Caucus.

By |March 17th, 2017|Uncategorized|1 Comment

Mark Sanford comments on a few bills

From Mark’s FB page:

Today has been something of a wild day here on Capitol Hill. There is much to report.

Of greatest significance was the vote in the House Budget Committee GOP. The committee voted to send the American Health Care Act – House leadership’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) repeal bill – to the House floor. I was joined by two other Republicans and fellow members of the House Freedom Caucus, Congressman Dave Brat and Congressman Gary Palmer, in voting against the motion.

Since last week, when a number of us held a press conference in front of the Capitol on the importance of changes to the American Health Care Act, conservatives in the House have been looking for ways to get to yes. It is the squeaky wheels though that get greased in politics. If you don’t object, they simply move the bill as it is.

In fact, it’s been interesting to watch Speaker Ryan’s evolution over the past week on the bill itself. On March 9th, he said the bill would not be amended and that it would be a straight up or down vote. But because of resistance from conservatives, he said yesterday that we can make necessary improvements and refinements to the bill.

This very much fits with what the president has said all along, as he has labeled it “a big, fat, beautiful negotiation.” Secretary Price has called it a “work in progress.”

The point in these hold-out votes is that while they’re not fun, they are necessary to improving the bill. Indeed, that’s why I said at our press conference that I viewed leadership’s original bill as the starting point in a negotiation. My point then was that President Donald J. Trump would never take the first offer in a real estate deal, and we shouldn’t either. This is particularly the case given the way that there have not been the traditional congressional hearings and debate that you would see in an issue as big as healthcare.

The point in all of this is that the Affordable Care Act is not sustainable and is not working for the majority of people who help pay for it in the individual insurance marketplace. I am pushing for change, but in this rush to get a bill, I think that it’s important that the conservative principles that I believe in – and that so many at home who sent me to Washington to represent their point of view believe in – should not be erased in the headlong rush to get a “political win” and the headlines that say healthcare got dealt with. What people want to see is a drop in their premiums and greater choices in the way in which they can buy insurance. If Republicans’ reform does not do this, I think a lot of people will be upset, given their need for remedy.

In my continued laundry list of issues for the day, this evening the House voted on H.R. 1181, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, and it passed 240 to 175.

This bill would prohibit the Department of Veterans Affairs from submitting veterans’ names to the FBI simply because they are not managing their own benefits. This vote was similar to one that had occurred earlier, wherein the Social Security Administration was unilaterally attempting to take from people a constitutional right because someone was not administering their own paperwork. Our Founding Fathers set up a system of checks and balances and with something as significant as constitutional rights, it’s vital that we adhere to them.

Finally, in the news today, there was brief discussion of a portion of the president’s proposed budget that would privatize the Air Traffic Control system in this country. This provision was taken from the bill that the Transportation Committee, that I sit on, marked up last year. We will have another bite at the apple on this proposal this year, but it was encouraging to see the president come out in support of what we’ve been trying to do on this front. I say this because I have long believed that that which only government can do, government should do…but that which can be done by the private sector should be left to the private sector. In the case of Air Traffic Control systems, there are a host of examples around the world wherein this activity has been well-handled by the private sector, and I believe that it’s something that could work here.

By |March 16th, 2017|Uncategorized|1 Comment

Gas Tax Rally and Press Conference at State Capitol Tuesday

TUESDAY, 3/21 – Americans for Prosperity-South Carolina will be leading a rally and press conference at the State House this coming Tuesday to urge South Carolina’s legislators to oppose a gas tax increase. The grassroots advocacy group will be joined by several of South Carolina’s state legislators who are standing in opposition to a gas tax increase.

If you are interested in covering the rally and attending the press conference or scheduling an interview, please contact Daniel Brennan atDBrennan@afphq.org or 803-636-5166.

WHO: AFP-SC grassroots activists, pro-freedom senators and anti-gas tax coalition
WHAT: Gas Tax press conference and grassroots rally in the State House
WHEN: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 1:30-2:30 (press conference begins at 1:45pm)
WHERE: State House, First Floor Lobby
WHY: The purpose behind this rally will be to build on growing momentum to defeat a stand-alone gas tax and call for reform at the South Carolina’s Department of Transportation

Americans for Prosperity-South Carolina State Director Daniel Brennan issued the following statement:

“We are gathering at State Capitol to demonstrate our opposition to this tax because we don’t want to see our tax dollars wasted by unchecked bureaucracy. Before any discussion can be had about raising South Carolina’s gas tax, serious reform is needed within our state’s Department of Transportation. Thanks to a total lack of accountability in our laws, the Department of Transportation has a track record of prioritizing legislators requests rather than statewide needs which has contributed to the poor condition of our roads. It is time to put taxpayers ahead of bureaucracy.”

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) exists to recruit, educate, and mobilize citizens in support of the policies and goals of a free society at the local, state, and federal level, helping every American live their dream – especially the least fortunate. AFP has more than 3.2 million activists across the nation, a local infrastructure that includes 35 state chapters, and has received financial support from more than 100,000 Americans in all 50 states. For more information, visit www.AmericansForProsperity.org
By |March 16th, 2017|Uncategorized|0 Comments

Jeff Duncan continues to speak the truth re: GOP Health Bill

From his Facebook page:

House Leadership’s Health Bill Is Not What Republicans Promised. We Can Do Better.

Rep. Jeff Duncan / March 15, 2017

President Ronald Reagan once said, “We should carry a banner of no pale pastels—but one of bold colors, which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on the issues.”

The 2010 mid-term elections were historic. Running opposite of President Barack Obama’s agenda—primarily the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare—the Republican efforts resulted in 63 seats changing hands, the highest loss of a party in a House mid-term election since 1938 and the largest House swing from one party to the other since 1948.
Americans were angry with the Democrats’ efforts on health care reform, feeling hoodwinked by a 1,400-page bill crafted in such a fashion that members of Congress were urged to “pass [it] so we can find out what is in it,” as then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is remembered for saying.

After four years of further Democratic control of the Senate, Republicans were able to wrest control in the 2014 mid-term elections from Majority Leader Harry Reid, keeping it for the remaining two years of Obama’s term.

Republicans would finally be able to send some legislation to the president’s desk. The big target? Obamacare.

The Full Repeal

In order to send an Obamacare repeal bill to the president’s desk with only a 54-46 Senate majority, congressional Republicans had to use a budgetary tactic known as budget reconciliation, which requires only a simple majority of votes in the Senate (51) in order to pass. (This is the same method Democrats had to use to pass the bulk of Obamacare in 2010.)

The Restoring Americans’ Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015 (H.R. 3762) was the reconciliation legislation for fiscal year 2016, and the vehicle used to repeal Obamacare. Predictably, Obama vetoed the bill on Jan. 8, 2016.

During the presidential election cycle in 2016, Republicans were once again given the nod by the nation by retaining the majority in the House of Representatives, keeping a 52-48 majority in the Senate, and winning the White House with the election of Donald J. Trump as the 45th president of the United States.

Obamacare was once again in the crosshairs of the Republican majority.

The New Plan

Now, House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell hope to use the budget reconciliation tactic to once again overcome the Democrats’ ability to filibuster general legislation in the Senate.

On the evening of March 6, House leadership rolled out the American Health Care Act, a reconciliation bill aimed at making changes to Obamacare. Many have dubbed the bill “Obamacare Lite” since it does not repeal the Affordable Care Act, but instead nibbles around the edges in an attempt to make Obamacare less harmful.

House leadership promises a multi-pronged legislative process involving three phases: Phase I, the reconciliation bill, Phase II, the top-down repeal of regulations by Secretary Tom Price at the Department of Health and Human Services, and Phase III, additional bills that will make the necessary reforms to how insurance is sold across America.

The problem with Phase III, as many conservatives like Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., have pointed out, is that it will be a general bill that requires 60 votes to pass in the Senate.

This is a heavy lift for Senate Republicans and a deal-making president, who will need to win over eight Democratic senators to pass such legislation.

What the House Bill Does (And Doesn’t Do)

First and foremost, the American Health Care Act does not repeal Obamacare.
The bill does repeal some facets of Obamacare, and there are some things to like about the bill. These include:
• Defunding of Planned Parenthood, something Republicans should have already been able to do.
• Repeal of the individual mandate, which requires everyone to purchase health insurance or pay a gradually increasing fine.
• Repeal of the employer mandate, which subsequently changes the definition of full-time employment.
• Repeal of the medical device tax and other taxes on health insurance premiums and pharmaceuticals, while increasing the expense threshold for medical expense deductions.
• Ending the Medicaid expansion after three years.
• Repeal of the government subsidy for health insurance premiums.

These are good things that were all included in the 2015 budget reconciliation bill, which passed both houses of Congress.
The American Health Care Act also repeals the individual mandate that requires everyone to have health insurance or pay a gradually increasing tax. But the House GOP plan replaces the individual mandate with its own penalty—a 30 percent penalty to the insurer if there is a lapse in coverage.

In essence, this is requiring people to have health insurance or risk paying more when they do obtain it. The penalty will just be retained by the insurance companies instead of being collected by the government in the Obamacare tax.

We Can Do Better

The biggest question to ask ourselves is: Is this the best that we can do? And, is this bill what Americans expected Republicans to do with their control of government? Is this the bold effort so many across America have expected?

Is this the bill on which, while campaigning on the repeal of Obamacare in 2010, Republicans pinned their hopes of winning the majority in the House? Is this what “draining the swamp” looks like?
As written, is this the bill that enabled candidates like former Rep. Steve Southerland, R-Fla., to capture that Panama City House seat for Republicans for the first time since 1882? As written, is this the bill that compelled the people in South Carolina’s 5th congressional district to elect Rep. Mick Mulvaney (now a key Trump Cabinet official) over incumbent Democrat and Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt?

Is the bill put forth by Speaker Ryan the bill that 400,000+ patriotic Americans flooded Capitol Hill to push for at the Tea Party rally in 2009? Is the language in this bill what Republicans had in mind when they embraced the 2010 Pledge to America, which promised the repeal of Obamacare?

And lastly, is the current language in the bill what Republicans were fighting for in 2013 when the government shut down for 16 days during the Continuing Resolution fight over Obamacare?
I ran for Congress on repealing Obamacare. Not nibbling around the edges. Not exchanging one mandate for another.

I ran to unwind government, limit the size and scope of government, and unleash the things that make America great. One of the most powerful institutions that has built this country is the free market. Capitalism.

Government has no business being in health care or the health insurance business. We have allowed safety-net programs like Medicaid and Medicare to become big bureaucratic nightmares that restrict choice, dictate terms, and mandate coverage—enforced with a carrot-and-stick mentality and funded by the tax dollars of hard-working Americans.

Medicaid and Medicare are no longer safety-net programs. They have become the health insurance for many Americans.
These programs entangle the federal government (with its money), the states (who run Medicaid programs), and hospitals and doctors who must comply with bureaucratic mandates, which are often crafted by people with little to no understanding of the doctor-patient relationship, medical diagnoses, or treatments.

Betraying Our Voters

Is this the set of policies the American people expected when Trump ran in 2016 on the repeal of Obamacare? How do you think they will react when these are the only parts of repeal that pass because some members of Congress cannot sell free markets and less government back in their districts?

I believe they will feel betrayed. That is why the bill that House Leadership has introduced, in its current form, is not one that I can support.

That doesn’t mean that I will vote No on the final package. We don’t know what that is going to look like yet. There are enough conservative members like me who have the same problems with the current language of the bill to push for substantial changes.
Negotiations remain ongoing, including those between House and Senate conservatives, House and Senate leadership, as well as with the White House.

I believe that the House Rules Committee may present us with a “Manager’s Amendment”—one that seeks to address our concerns—to the final bill. My hope is that we, along with the American public, get a good chance to study that text before we vote on it, thus avoiding a Pelosiesque moment and fulfilling our promise of transparency to the American people.

This is a defining moment in our own rendezvous with destiny, and we owe it to the American people to get it right.

By |March 15th, 2017|Uncategorized|0 Comments

Hugh Leatherman and the DARK MONEY bill

Hugh Leatherman tried this last session and is trying it again.  S255 is a bill that would force citizens and organizations like the Spartanburg Tea Party, who focus on issues, to register with the government as if they were campaign or election entities.

SC Policy Council reports:

In its present form, S.255, sponsored by Sen. Hugh Leatherman (R-Florence), would substantially encroach on South Carolinians’ right to criticize politicians. The bill would require groups engaging in “election communication” – broadly defined as communication that supports or opposes a candidate, ballot initiative, or influences an election – to disclose not only their top donors but also the donors’ mailing address, occupation, and employer. Groups that aren’t currently required to disclose their donors, moreover, would face tougher reporting requirements at the state level than full-on political action committees that are directly involved in elections. Unlike other recent attempts to regulate free speech, which would have applied only in the run-up to an election (30 days before a primary election, 60 days before a general), Sen. Leatherman’s bill would apply all year round.

The courts have drawn a very clear line between protected political speech and political speech that “expressly advocate[s] the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate.” As the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in Buckley v. Valeo, government’s interest in regulating political speech is related exclusively to corruption – defining “corruption” as large contributions “given to secure a political quid pro quo from current and potential office holders.”

S.255 wouldn’t protect the general public from the quid pro quo concern, and it would only protect politicians from criticism – the same politicians, incidentally, who have appointment power on the State Ethics Commission, the agency tasked with interpreting the langue of this bill.

Avery G. Wilks at TheState.com reports:

An effort to require so-called “dark money” political groups to reveal their donors hit a snag Tuesday when right-leaning advocacy groups asserted it would discourage S.C. residents from criticizing politicians.

A state Senate panel put off voting on the bill, sponsored by Senate President Pro Tempore Hugh Leatherman, after two hours of testimony – most of it from groups who said the Florence Republican’s proposal would set up their donors for retaliation.

“I’m prepared to accept the consequences of being out in public,” said Talbert Black Jr., president of S.C. Campaign for Liberty. “But there are many people who care deeply about issues in this state but don’t want their names out there, who fear for their jobs, who fear for their livelihood. … They should not be subject to that retaliation and intimidation.”

So-called “dark money” groups use donated money to push political issues or defeat candidates during elections but do not reveal the identities of their donors.

Critics say that means voters do not know the agenda or motives of the donors.

But advocacy groups — including the Concerned Veterans for America, another Koch brothers-backed group and an AFP affiliate — contend Leatherman’s bill is unconstitutional and unfairly targets groups that primarily focus on legislative issues, not elections.
So, keep your eye on this.
By |March 15th, 2017|Uncategorized|0 Comments

Freedom Action Network visits Spartanburg Tea Party

We had a good meeting tonight, heard from Clerk of Court Hope Blackley with an update on the Courthouse and she shared about her Spartanburg County Criminal Justice Youth Institute, which had its third meeting today – 45 kids from 11th and 12th grades learning all about law enforcement opportunities and how our justice system works by engaging with those who serve in that system every day. Well done!

We were also pleased to hear from Councilmen Roger Nutt and Justin Bradly who informed us about some budgeting issues on the horizon, and the direction of council.  They stuck around to speak after the meeting, and answered any questions.

Finally we had the Freedom Action Network folks visiting, and after the tea party meeting I sat down for a few minutes with Seth Powell and we did a live podcast.  You can view that on their Facebook page – which you should join!

 

By |March 14th, 2017|Uncategorized|1 Comment

Jeff Duncan on the GOP bill

Jeff Duncan has got to be one of the best if not THE BEST communicator in Congress.  From his Facebook page:

 

Wanted to dive back into the healthcare discussion. So far I’ve outlined some of my concerns with the House GOP bill, and wrote a post specifically on the section dealing with pre-existing conditions. In this post I hope to explain the “process” arguments for and against the bill, and gather your feedback.

One concern I have about this healthcare debate is I keep hearing from people who hate ObamaCare, but also oppose the House GOP bill. When I try to dig deeper into why people oppose the House bill, I’m not getting very specific answers. This tells me that Republicans (myself included) need to do a better job explaining what is and what is not in this bill. Without people being able to specifically tell me what is wrong with the bill, it’s difficult to know where the goal posts are in making this a bill that people can support. I have a pretty good idea of what kinds of changes I want to see in this bill, but I want to know where the people are in this process.

The process we are using to repeal ObamaCare is called budget reconciliation. Reconciliation eliminates Senate Democrats ability to filibuster the bill and allows legislation to pass with 50 votes (assuming the Vice President breaks the tie) in the Senate. This is extremely important to remember since Senate Republicans only have a 52 vote majority in the Senate, significantly smaller than the majority Democrats had in 2009. Secondly, it’s important to know that reconciliation does have some limits as to what it can accomplish. It is primarily a budget tool, and is not designed for major legislating. However, since reconciliation is the process Democrats used to help enact ObamaCare, it is entirely appropriate that we use it repeal the law. Reconciliation can allow us to repeal 90% or more of ObamaCare but not the entire law. If you want to see how much can be repealed using reconciliation look at the bill Congress passed in 2015 that President Obama vetoed. Third, in order for reconciliation to work, the bill has to save the taxpayers money. This is easier to do in reality than it is on paper due to restrictions concerning the budgetary process. For example, ObamaCare is filled with over $500 billion in tax increases. For budgetary purposes, every time we repeal a tax increase that is a “cost” to the government. This is extremely important to remember when you start hearing statistics on the “cost” of this bill, verses the “cost” of ObamaCare, but it also makes repeal tricky.

Examining the House GOP bill, you will find that it repeals less than the reconciliation bill in 2015, but why? I believe the reason is because House Republicans are trying to use reconciliation to both repeal AND replace ObamaCare, instead of just repeal.

The White House and House of Representatives strategy is a three phase approach. Phase I is the House GOP bill, Phase II is regulatory reform, Phase III is additional legislation. The White House and GOP leadership only have confidence in being able to implement Phase I & II. In my opinion, the House GOP bill was written to be self sustaining in the event Phase III never happens. Unfortunately, Phase III has a lot of the reforms that conservatives like such as expanded HSAs, selling across state lines, and association healthcare plans.

I know this is extremely complicated, so let me explain it another way. Using reconciliation to repeal AND replace ObamaCare is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. It involves strategically repealing large parts of ObamaCare, but using the hull of the law to implement conservative reforms. Then Sec. Tom Price uses the broad authority granted to him under the parts of ObamaCare that you don’t repeal to smooth out the edges and make reform possible.

My preference would be to pass the 2015 reconciliation bill that repeals most of ObamaCare. Once the law is off the books, we then move forward on a replacement bill even though that bill would require 60 votes. At that point, Democrats can either join Republicans in supporting an overhaul to free-market based healthcare or they can be responsible for things going back to way they were before ObamaCare. That way, Democrats have an incentive to work with us on reform and we have a greater chance for a bipartisan, free-market based bill. But the question is, would we have enough votes in the Senate to pass a repeal without a replace, and if we did would the President sign it?

By |March 13th, 2017|Uncategorized|0 Comments

Palmetto Senior Expo, Friday May 19, Spartanburg Memorial Auditorium

I think many of us have family, friends who may be interested in this event!

For more information, to inquire about being a vendor, contact Jeff Hesla, 864.621.3211 – Cell
JLHesla@gmail.com

By |March 11th, 2017|Uncategorized|0 Comments

Rex Rice introduced Registration by Party Bill

Finally. This is how you fight for registration by party. NOT with a lawsuit. That was an utter waste of time.

CLICK HERE to read S536.

Now … unless voters in SC are serious about having conversations with their legislators about this bill – and making it clear that we know how to identify challengers, fund them, and run winning primary campaigns – well … more time will pass.

So get yourself up to speed on this bill and begin challenging your legislators now.  Ask your Senators to immediately sponsor this bill.

Then … spend the next 7 days speaking with 20 people, not people like me and you, we already KNOW this.  20 people who have naively wondered why nothing gets done in Columbia.  Talk to them about an issue that pains them.  Explain how legislators in less conservative counties drag down their liberty.  Point out to them how legislators in very conservative counties like Spartanburg have four House Representatives (Allison, Cole, Forrester, Tallon) who vote for gas tax increases with no SCDOT reform.  And how closing the primaries is the first step to that voter GETTING WHAT THEY WANT.

Good governance, based on conservative principles and the Republican platform.

 

By |March 9th, 2017|Uncategorized|1 Comment

Four Spartanburg House Reps betray taxpayers and vote for Gas Tax without reform

If you live in a “yellow” county (see graphic below) and your House Rep voted for the tax increase bill … you got screwed by them. Seriously shafted.

Without reform to the SCDOT and the State Infrastructure Bank system what purpose did that vote serve for you, their voter and their taxpayer?

SPARTANBURG VOTERS – DO YOU KNOW HOW YOUR HOUSE REP VOTED?

Yes votes:

Allison, Merita A.

Cole, J. Derham, Jr

Forrester, P. Michael

Tallon, Edward R., Sr.

No votes:

Chumley, William M.

Long, Steven Wayne

Magnuson, Josiah

Well at least we’ve improved a little here in Spartanburg, in 2011 only Bill Chumley upheld Republican platform by voting correctly on School Choice.  Now we have 3 out of 7 Reps who vote along with our Republican values.

But we still have some work to do…

 

No automatic alt text available.

 

By |March 9th, 2017|Uncategorized|0 Comments
Load More Posts