Rick Crawford for Congress

U.S. Representative for Arkansas' 1st Congressional District

Obama’s Healthcare Pitch High and Outside

by

In his televised address to a joint session of Congress last night, President Obama’s pitch for a nationalized healthcare system missed the strike zone by a mile. His speech served only to fan the flames of partisan wrangling and politics as usual in Washington. President Obama did nothing more than change the wording on a few key issues, but did not eliminate key areas of contention that so many Americans have with this proposed nationalization of our healthcare system.

President Obama’s plan would federally mandate coverage on every American, whether they want it or not. This is nothing more than another power grab allowing the Federal Government just one more avenue of intervention into the lives of private citizens. Instead of a government mandate, Congress should consider free market principles and actions that would make insurance coverage more affordable in a competitive marketplace. Not only does the President’s plan propose further government mandates on individuals, it would also impose fines on businesses that do not provide coverage for employees. Small businesses, the engine that drives our economy, would essentially be further hamstrung by more unnecessary government regulation. My question to such a ludicrous notion is this: if a family or small business doesn’t have the money to pay for healthcare in the first place, how can they be expected to pay the fine for not having that coverage?

The answer is simple; universal coverage. I believe that this proposal, made by Sen. Max Baucaus (D-MT), is a way to coerce the American people into a “public option” that would simply be a more affordable alternative to a government imposed fine or private healthcare insurance. Simply stated, if an individual decides (for whatever reason) to forgo health insurance coverage, he or she would then be forced to either pay a sizable federal fine, or “opt in” to a public option “insurance exchange.” Of course they could go the private route, but the fine would most certainly be high enough force them into the public option, but low enough to make private coverage cost prohibitive. The end result being an increase in public “option” participants, and ultimately the beginning of system that mimics the Canadian or European policy – hardly a model of efficiency.

In his speech, the President himself stated that a not-for-profit “insurance exchange” – public option – would be part of his proposal and no more than 5% of the American public would likely sign up. But consider this: how can insurance companies – or any other private business for that matter – be expected to compete with Uncle Sam? When the federal government levies a fine on those individuals or businesses who choose not to carry health insurance, it would obviously be more cost effective to exercise the public option. It doesn’t take an economist to figure out that the initial projection of 5% participation will grow exponentially in a very short span of time. This is nothing more than a back door to a single payer universal coverage system and the people in the First District are far too intelligent for the President to try and slide that past them the way he did last night.

Since he made no mention of it in his address, the people of the First District may still wonder if President Obama will continue to work with Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) and Sen. Reid (D-NV) in a way that keeps the details of a government run healthcare scheme – and its associated hidden costs and controversies – buried in a 1,000-page bill that no one will have an opportunity to read before rushing it to the President’s desk for his signature.

Another unanswered question – how will the entire proposal be paid for? President Obama told the American people that he would not sign a bill that would add one single dime to our deficit. How can he make such a promise when the numerous plans that are currently being drafted all have a cost well over $500 billion dollars? He also talked about cost cutting measures he would impose that would eliminate costs if the proposed savings are not realized. Yet, in Medicare alone as one example, we see billions of dollars every year wasted and the system routinely defrauded with no plan in place to address those lost billions. How can we count on President Obama and this liberal Congress led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to lead the way on healthcare reform when they’re not even willing to start by implementing cost cutting measures, trimming waste, and ending the fraud rampant in our already existing programs? More promises that will never be fulfilled.

Lastly, and most importantly to the people of the First District, we still don’t know where Congressman Berry stands on this critical issue. However, we do know that late yesterday, the Majority Whip List was made public detailing those 44 House Democrats who oppose HR3200. Congressman Berry was not on that list. So where will Congressman Berry come down on this issue? Will he go against his party and vote ‘no’ on a program that a significant majority of his constituents have indicated they do not want? Or will he go along with his party and vote ‘yes’ on a program that is destined to be a major burden on every single American family and cripple our government while lowering our standard of care? That is the biggest question, and I anxiously await an answer.

The Contradictions of Marion Berry

by

Recently, Congressman Berry has made some public statements about the leadership in his own party that leaves residents in the First District scratching their heads and understandably so. When President Obama was first elected, he was working under incredibly high approval ratings and a perceived mandate from the voting public that this administration was not going to be politics-as-usual. In just a few short months, all of these euphoric attitudes would shift and shift dramatically.
This shift was not unique to just voters across the country but also to Congressman Berry. Shortly after President Obama’s joint address to Congress concerning the supposed crisis the country was in due to some of the financial breakdowns going on, Congressman Berry issued this press release decrying the previous administration and its excessive spending habits that resulted in record deficits. The tenor of that press release was one of a new era being ushered in and that President Obama was going to be the one who was going to take this country in a new direction.
Soon after this press release was issued, key legislation started to get introduced and we started to learn what Cap & Trade was all about and just how long the proposed legislation was. We also learned, from the speech of John Boehner on the floor of the House, details within the bill that the American people would otherwise have not known about and more than likely what a majority of Congress did not know about as well, including Congressman Berry.
Congressman Berry voted for the Cap & Trade Bill in conference where no Republican voted for it and it was decided along party lines. It gave some indication how it would turn out on the final floor vote. But there were eight Republicans who voted for Cap & Trade and that would provide cover for some Democrats, including Congressman Berry, that could vote no. Congressman Berry was for Cap & Trade before he was against it. Had he and others voted against such a terrible bill in conference, of which Berry stated at a recent town hall in Jonesboro, “Senator Waxman wrote a bad bill” and “Cap and Trade is a bad idea”, and voted in accordance with the values and desires of the people in the First District, maybe Cap & Trade would have met a different fate. Also of note, it was revealed after the June 30th FEC filing period that Congressman Berry received, along with many others, donations to his PAC from Majority Whip Clyburn, D-SC, quite possibly for his work to help get Cap & Trade passed.
Since Cap & Trade, the current health care debate has caused Congressman Berry and many others to reconsider their position on the issue much closer because the average American realizes what this attempted power grab by the administration is all about. Through town halls, which Congressman Berry had none of until the very end of the August recess he appeared unannounced with Senator Lincoln, Americans have made their voice heard and the Democratic Party is having issues internally where representatives of conservative districts are not willing to go along with a liberal congress and administration for fear of losing their seats. Even Congressman Berry was reported to have said to a senior White House official before leaving for the August recess that “your President” was causing problems on health care reform.
Just this year, Congressman Berry has contradicted himself on three major issues and has also contradicted himself to the people of the First District. The real question is how long will the voters of the Firs District allow him to continue to contradict them in Washington? What we need is someone who will represent the people of the First District to Washington, not represent Washington to the First District. Marion Berry has shown time and again how he is not fit for the job of representing the First District and the voters will have a chance to let their voices be heard in 2010.

On The Air With 104.9 The Fox

by

Thursday morning Trey Stafford and Jim Frigo of KDXY, 104.9 “The Fox” – Jonesboro’s number one morning radio show for the last several years – graciously invited me to visit with them about our campaign. It was certainly a pleasure to talk with them. As you will hear, they were both absolute delights and very fair in their questions and comments. I spent about 20 minutes on the air with them and we have the audio in two separate segments.


Get your own playlist at snapdrive.net!

Here’s the second segment…


Get your own playlist at snapdrive.net!

Trey and Jim are true professionals and I appreciate them opening their studio and sharing their valuable time.

“Cash for Clunkers” Is A Non-Starter

by

It appears the Obama administration and the Democrat “leadership” in Congress continue to have no shame when it comes to their attempts to buy votes. The latest example – the extension of the “Cash for Clunkers” program that passed in the Senate today.

In less than a week, the $1 billion allocated for the program was gone so Congress quickly appropriated an additional $2 billion that will supposedly extend the program and see it through until Labor Day.

The program, officially known as the Car Allowance Rebate System, or “CARS” provides $3,500-$4,500 rebates to consumers (depending on model and fuel efficiency). In the early going “CARS” appears to be popular. However, I hasten to remind you that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were once popular as well, but fell out of favor after it became obvious that they were an integral part of the housing meltdown that led to the current recession.

CARS is essentially a small scale, vehicular “Fanny Mae” if you will, that serves the same purpose as the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) designed to “encourage” commercial banks and savings associations to provide low interest home loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers.

That certainly sounds good, but as they say, the devil is in the details. Ultimately the CRA morphed into a political tool for liberal politicians who used the program to force lenders to provide loans to unqualified borrowers. The political motive for these unscrupulous politicians was pure demagoguery – pandering to a particular socio-economic class that would ultimately translate into more votes.

Barely six months removed from that historic, government-induced economic crash, the Obama administration is driving headlong into another one with this politically motivated scheme that is ostensibly designed to sell cars and stimulate the economy. On its face, there are a number of flaws with the “CARS” program that should have car dealers slamming on the brakes.

First, the dealers who take these clunkers in trade are not allowed to resell them to offset any losses they may incur. Instead they are forced to have the cars crushed, and where they go after that is any body’s guess.

Second, the reality is these rebates amount to little more than a 9-10% discount in real dollars. I don’t see shoppers hurrying to Wal-Mart to save 27 cents on a gallon of milk. However, perception is reality, so the rush to buy a new car is especially urgent when the program may run out of money by Labor Day.

Ultimately, nobody wins here and, as usual the taxpayer picks up the check. The car manufacturers, some of whom have already been bailed out once, are stuck with piles of scrap metal that they can’t do anything with. (I wouldn’t be surprised if the EPA levied fines on them for improper disposal.) Get ready for another car bailout.

Then there’s the new car owners. Many are already experiencing financial strain, and that strain is likely to increase before the new car smell fades. Like many others, I’ve been there, and I can tell you that not having to make a car payment every month – particularly in an economy like this one – is truly a blessing.

Like the recent housing meltdown that led to mass foreclosures across the country, we could be looking at a nationwide wave of car repossessions within six months putting even more pressure on our already vulnerable car industry and further slowing an economy that can’t get out of first gear.

Bottom line – “CARS” is the wrong lubricant for our seizing economic engine.

White House Trying to Ferret Out Anti-Obamacare Groups, Individuals

by

In an effort to quell free speech, the Obama Administration has enlisted the help of “concerned citizens” to help them identify those who oppose Obamacare. Dissenters associated with anti-universal healthcare rhetoric – either by their connection to “chain e-mails” or even through “casual conversation” – should be reported to the White House according to a post at www.whitehouse.gov published Tuesday, August 4th, 2009 at 6:55 AM.

An excerpt of the post follows:

“There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”

What seems fishy to me is this administration’s complete disregard for, and utter contempt of, the Constitution. What also seems fishy is that our elected representatives seem to have taken little, if any, notice of this blatant flouting of our First Amendment rights.

Rest assured that as your Representative of Arkansas’ First Congressional District, I will not let actions like these go unchecked.

ABC: All Barack – All the Time

by

The Obama healthcare infomercial scheduled to air tonight on ABC (All Barack Channel) is on the minds of a lot of folks and for good reason. The fact that ABC is not allowing any opposition opinion or coverage is just one more indication that the tentacles of state controlled enterprise – in the media, car business, insurance, banking and elsewhere – are extending further and further everyday.

While the temptation to tune in and watch this spectacle may be great – driven primarily by curiosity – I think the best thing concerned citizens can do is tune out. By watching this broadcast you’ll be helping to improve ABC’s ratings which they will then report as a rousing success and a complete buy-in by the American public. They will then use this as a propaganda tool to help buttress the Obama healthcare plan. This will ultimately even improve their bottom line by presenting stronger ratings to potential advertisers.

I’m not buying it, and they shouldn’t be selling it.

Mums the Word on Iran

by

I’m a bit of a history buff – but not a historian. That is to say while I love to read and study history, occasionally I get my dates confused and sometimes speak in general terms as they apply to specific historic events. However, I do vividly remember the late 1970s, the early days of the “Islamic Revolution”, and the blatant non-response to an attack on what is considered by international law sovereign U.S. soil – a critical event that forever changed the geopolitical landscape in the Middle East and around the globe.
I was only in the seventh grade when all this took place, but I do recall the outrage of our nation as we viewed the televised images of our accosted countrymen and women held hostage for 444 days with only an impotent response, at best, from a President who evidently placed little value on our national sovereignty.

Since then, I have read several historical accounts of the Islamic Revolution and feel like I have a pretty good handle on the events that precipitated the 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the ensuing hostage crisis.

What I think our leadership today appears to be overlooking is the fact that 30 years removed from those historic events, the very people who implemented the Islamic Revolution – radical, extremist mullahs and their followers under the direction of the Ayatollah Khomeini – are the very people now “governing” Iran, a rogue nation and state sponsor of international terror on the cusp of nuclear capability.

The regime currently wielding power in Iran is harshly suppressing the rights of its citizens, silencing their dissent in a manner reminiscent of Tienanmen Square in 1989. At the very least, I would expect a modicum of disapproval verbalized by the administration, but thus far the White House has been virtually mum on this issue that has even the president of France (among other historically liberal European leaders) expressing condemnation. This apparent lack of moral indignation is cause for concern.
All that to say this: I think the citizens of our own country are as hungry for genuine leadership as citizens of other nations around the world are for liberty and freedom, evidenced by the unfolding events in Iran.

It seems apparent that our President and his administration have no intention of addressing this potential crisis in the making in a meaningful way. That responsibility then falls to our elected officials in Congress. I wonder how much longer we’ll have to wait for someone in Washington to take an official position.

30 years is long enough.

Patriotism: The Cowboy Way

by

What could be more American than being a cowboy? I had the opportunity as a teenager (and a young adult) to live the dream of being a cowboy, and that way of life is still a big part of who I am today.
Some years back, I wrote a patriotic monologue that I think captures the cowboy way of life and embodies the true spirit of America. This was my signature presentation as a rodeo announcer, and no matter where I recited it – from Minnesota to Florida – it never failed to evoke an emotional, patriotic response and a rousing ovation as “Old Glory” made her pass in true cowboy (or cowgirl) fashion. Take a listen.


That’s my beautiful wife Stacy presenting “Old Glory” at a bullriding event in Rochester, Minnesota.

While I’m certainly proud to have been a cowboy (once a cowboy, always a cowboy), my abiding love of our country is the driving force behind my motivation to serve, as I did in the military, and as I now seek elected office. Your support in that endeavor is graciously and sincerely appreciated.

True Faith and Allegiance

by

I remember well the day I took the oath of enlistment – January 2, 1985. On that day I solemnly swore to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

This oath is very similar to the oath that military officers take to which he/she solemnly swears (or affirms) that he/she will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that he/she will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that he/she takes this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that he/she will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.

The oath of office above is virtually identical to the oath of office taken by Senators, Congressmen and Congresswomen, as well the President of the United States. In each case, the individual swears to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that he/she will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. Again, very similar to the oath of enlistment.

However, note the responsibilities the enlisted service member is charged to uphold in addition to supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States. The enlisted man or woman swears to obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over him/her, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

What that means to me is that we are to rely on the sound judgment of those officers above us – military, Congressional, or Executive – to discern right from wrong and communicate that to their subordinates.

Notice that the oath of office, versus the oath of enlistment, does not prescribe obedience to the President of the United States, but does require the officer or officeholder to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”

Implicit in this oath is that the officer (or office holder) should discern those orders which would be morally questionable or would put the Constitution of the United States in peril. By deliberately obeying an order that is morally questionable or would put the Constitution of the United States in peril, the officer is not bearing true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States.

All that to say this: I believe the Constitution is in peril and we need officers – office holders – who “will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” We need leadership that we can trust to discern right from wrong, communicate that to those they represent, and stand for the right – whether it’s popular or not, politically correct or incorrect.

The day I entered the U.S. Army – January 2, 1985 – I swore an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”

My oath has no expiration date.