Title:
Rogers vs. Lewis: the Simple and Stark Truth
Author:
Webmaster_LPM
Date:
11/1/2012
Year:
2012
Article:
For Immediate Release

A vote for James Lewis is a vote for your voice, for Michigan
(Brighton, Mich.) – Summing up the difference between incumbent Bill Rogers and challenger James Lewis is simple, according to Lewis’ campaign manager: “Rogers plays for big money and special interest; our candidate [Lewis] is in it for the people. That’s the clearest way we can say it.”

“Our government has lost sight of the fact that we are the United States of America,” says Lewis campaign manager Steve Mace. “We are a union of autonomous states, not a central government in Washington. Our state legislature, under the so-called leadership of incumbents like Bill Rogers, has allowed Washington to slowly erode our rights and take power away from Michiganders over decisions about our state.”
Voting for Bill Rogers is tantamount to voting for continued erosion of our state’s ability to govern itself, and further disregard for our state’s Constitution, asserts the Lewis campaign. It is a vote for “pay to play” politics so big companies get special treatment under the law, and big politicians get to fatten their campaign coffers. These assertions are supported by legislation voted for by Rogers that shifted taxes to elderly state residents away from big business, and allows special interests in the insurance industry and others to influence legislation that limits choices for state residents.

“Voting for Bill Rogers is a vote to give away more of our autonomy. The incumbent is satisfied with the status quo, and quite happy to appease party interests over his constituents. Bill Rogers will not protect Michigan’s rights on the national stage, and will not protect your rights if they conflict with the money stream,” says Mace.

Lewis vows to represent the voice of the people of his district, disregarding party politics and special interests. He promises to introduce legislation that will eliminate the non-homestead property tax that makes investing in real estate more difficult in this state. He has already refused PAC and special interest money, and will continue to do so once elected. He will bring parents and taxpayers back into the discussion on education, instead of supporting the expanded P-20 education plan favored by his opponent. And he vows, above all else, to uphold the state’s Constitution and the rights of its citizens.
“I am fully prepared to tell special interests “no way,” says Lewis. “I will not be a part of the current pay-to-play legislation landscape. I will fight to lower property taxes, and I will go to the mat for small businesses.”

The Lewis campaign says now is the time to send a message to Lansing, and elect a candidate who will truly represent the voice of his constituents.  A vote for James Lewis is a vote for having your own voice in the House of Representatives, not just another representative who will put a party before the best interests of the District. A vote for Lewis means voting for a man who will call on the House of Representatives to fight for Michigan’s autonomy and fight to protect Michigan’s rights under the Tenth Amendment.

Share this:

Why the Numbers Don’t Work for Michigan’s “ObamaCare” Bill – HB4714

What Passage Would Really Mean for the “Medically Indigent”

For Immediate Release
For more information and
interview requests, contact:
Heather Richards-Wodrich
Director of Media Relations
Libertarian Party of Michigan
P.O. Box 27065, Lansing, MI 48909
Media@MichiganLP.org
August 20, 2013

(Lansing, MI) — “Now that the Legislature’s two-month summer break is almost over, a vote on Medicaid expansion in the Senate could be around the corner. Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville, R-Monroe, said there is likely to be a vote when the full Senate returns for regular session on Aug. 27.” – Crain’s Detroit Business, August 14, 2013

HB4714, or “The Social Welfare Act” that was passed by the Michigan House of Representatives earlier this summer, is the Republican answer to the Affordable Care Act, or “ObamaCare” as it’s more commonly known. The bill proposes an expansion of the current Medicaid prerequisites to extend the definition of the medically indigent to allow more people to qualify for benefits.

While it may sound good, the numbers tell the real story. And the story is anything but good.

HB4714 proposes an implementation of Medicaid reform that expands the medically indigent definition to anyone in Michigan making 100-133% of the federal poverty guidelines. (It would qualify 22% of Michigan residents for Medicaid benefits, or roughly 2.2 million people.)

Again, on paper, it looks like it will help those who are medically indigent afford better healthcare, and would provide healthcare to those who previously had none.

But here’s what the numbers say: “Those who make the specified monthly income ($610-811.30 for individuals and $777.92-1034.63 for married couples) will be covered… until they go over the allotted income. If and when they do, they would have to pay a deductible as an extra 15% of their income”, according to Brad Wheelock, Director at Large of the Libertarian Party of Michigan.

“This ‘Cost Sharing’ plan in HB4714 is in reality a tax on lower and middle class Michigan families who are already struggling,” says Wheelock. “In addition, it’s a huge disincentive for those in a household to get better paying jobs. It keeps families constantly dependent on the government, with no incentive to get out of the system. It literally compels the economically disadvantaged to stay right where they are.”

But that’s not the end of the story.

Wheelock also says, “Another aspect of the Bill that neither Party is addressing is the affect price ceilings have on the healthcare market. When the prices for healthcare services are ‘capped’ for a certain economic group by a subsidy, many providers won’t be able to offer services without it costing them money. This, in essence, pushes them out of the market for patients who are in the subsidized group. This also ‘back-fires’ for the patient, who will have limited choices when it comes to places to go for their care.”

“In addition,” Wheelock adds, “the Department of Community Health would be in charge of the whole program, making an already huge state-run entity an even larger behemoth.”

###

PDF form of release here: http://www.michiganlp.org/News_Releases/20130820.pdf

Share this:

News Release from the National Libertarian Party

Republican allies in Michigan courts subvert justice to block Libertarian competition

Gov. Gary Johnson, 2012 Libertarian Party candidate for president, and the voters of Michigan were robbed last year, and the Republican Party is the thief.

Johnson was barred from appearing on the ballot during November’s election at the behest of the GOP establishment and Republican Secretary of State Ruth Johnson, who used their insider political power to block competition at the polls. The district court ruling blocking Johnson’s ballot appearance was a gross violation of the rule of law, and contrary to long-established precedent stretching back for 100 years during which time many candidates appeared on presidential ballots despite being in the same circumstances as Johnson during his campaign.

These public officials, along with the Republican Party, subverted the rule of law by keeping 2012 Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gov. Gary Johnson off the Michigan ballot in the November election — in a callous display of indifference to voter rights.

Ruth Johnson, Michigan Secretary of State Judge Paul Borman, Eastern District of Michigan

Judge John Rogers, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit Judge Damon Keith, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit Judge Boyce Martin, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

The Republican Party has selectively ignored such candidates when it doesn’t perceive a threat, but Johnson’s Libertarian Party campaign had the GOP establishment running scared. Today, judges John Rogers, Damon Keith, and Boyce Martin of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the district court decision that barred Johnson from the ballot, thereby striking a blow against ballot access and real voter choice.

This disgraceful action by the Republican Party is part of a nationwide trend by Big Government Republicans and Democrats, who are determined to maintain their monopoly on the electoral process by restraining their competition. The Republican Party also attempted to throw Johnson off the ballot in Iowa, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. — all to prevent voters from having the opportunity to vote for smaller government.

The Republican Party fights tooth and nail to keep real alternatives off the ballot, so they’re assured that they can continue business as usual: Spending our tax dollars hand over fist, borrowing still more that future generations must pay, passing a dizzying array of new rules and regulations, waging interventionist wars in foreign countries and on the personal liberties of American citizens, expanding the size and scope of government at every turn.

Republicans have good reason to fear competition from the Libertarian Party, which offers a real choice to dramatically limit government.

Johnson had originally sought to run for president as a Republican, but withdrew before the Michigan primary and instead sought the Libertarian Party’s nomination, which he won. The Republican Party, seeing a chance to protect their Big Government presidential candidate from competition by a truly small-government opponent, sought to have Johnson removed from the ballot under Michigan’s “sore loser” statute, which bars a candidate who loses one party’s primary from appearing as another party’s candidate on election day.

However, it’s clear from precedent that this statute did not apply to the Johnson campaign. The “sore loser” statute has never before been applied to a presidential candidate. For 100 years, “sore loser” laws did not apply to presidential primaries, including during the presidential campaign of Theodore Roosevelt. Only in 2012, against Johnson, did a court rule that “sore loser” laws apply to presidential primaries.

The district court judge, Paul Borman, who originally ruled Johnson would not appear on the November ballot cited the case of 1980 presidential candidate John Anderson, who first ran as a Republican and later as an Independent and set precedent that the “sore loser” statute did not apply in the presidential race. Borman asserted, however, that case did not establish precedent because Anderson had not actually appeared on the Republican primary ballot. As Richard Winger, of Ballot Access News, pointed out, this assertion is false.

“Anderson’s name did appear on the Republican presidential primary ballot in 1980 and his votes were counted,” Winger wrote. “John Anderson appeared on the primary ballot and polled 48,947 votes, 8% of the total. And he also appeared on the November ballot that year in Michigan as a minor party nominee.” Winger also notes that a valid method for independent candidates to appear on the Michigan presidential ballot had been established by the 1976 campaign of Eugene McCarthy and the 1980 campaign of Gus Hall.

“We have dealt with many challenges in this campaign from the major parties, who clearly don’t want voters to have a viable third option in this election, but this attack on voting rights and democracy is over the top,” the Johnson campaign wrote in an August press release, charging that the Republican Party was making a concerted effort to “deny citizens the right to vote for the candidate of their choice.”

This decision must not stand. The Republican Party may believe that it has to hold voters captive in order to maintain a stranglehold on the democratic process, but no matter how much Republicans try to eliminate ballot competition, voters still have a choice. The Libertarian Party will continue to fight this monopolistic behavior every step of the way, arming voters with knowledge about how freedom brings prosperity and offering them candidates who will take big, bold steps to shrink Big Government and advance liberty.

Share this: