It was a memorable highlight in the health care reform debate, one that will undoubtedly be replayed often in the coming months. Afterwards John McDonough, professor at the Harvard School of Public Health credited Mitt Romney with the "most effective and persuasive rationale and defense of the individual mandate" to date during the Presidential campaign.
Rick Santorum elicited the response from Romney during the January 27 debate between the remaining Presidential candidates in Florida. When he tried to attack "Romneycare," what many believe to be Gov. Mitt Romney's biggest policy success in Massachusetts and a model for the federal health care overhaul, Romney responded with one of his best moments of the evening. "If you don't want to buy insurance, then you have to help pay for . . . your bill . . . no more free riders. We're insisting on personal responsibility. Either get the insurance or help pay for your care."

TOPEKA, Kan. - As reported in a recent Topeka Capitol Journal article, KanVote exposed a major discrepancy in new voting restrictions which has
resulted in a functional poll tax.

KanVote found that in order to obtain a free voter ID, voters without access to necessary proof of citizenship would be forced to pay for a birth certificate. KanVote made the discrepancy known this week at a rules and regulations hearing held by the Secretary of State's office.

After hearing KanVote's findings, Kris Kobach stated that free birth certificates are available for accessing the free voter ID. He claimed the discrepancy was mere confusion caused by his senator, Kelly Kultala. Kobach blames Kultala for postponing the implementation of voter registration regulations and creating confusion among related agencies regarding when free birth certificates are available.

Upon further investigation, KanVote discovered that the new voting restrictions do not make free birth certificates available to those applying for a voter ID.

BOGUE, Kan. - A Jan.11 writer to Reader Forum [Hays Daily News] blustered about "non-factual distortion" by the Obama administration and supporters, then made his own claims.

[CLAIM: "All the money from the richest 400 Americans wouldn't pay our bills for a week."] In 2011 the richest 400 were together worth $1.5 trillion. (Forbes Magazine) Current annual federal spending is estimated at $3.6 trillion; state at $1.43; local, $1.63 trillion. So, the 400's wealth would fund all federal spending for 5 months, state for one year, local for 11 months. All federal, state, and local spending for about 3 months.

Incidentally, the richest 400 gained 12 percent. from 2010 to 2011. Since 2006, their net worth increased by $250 billion, about 17 percent. On the other hand, "Over the past five years Americans, on average, have seen no disposable income growth if you adjust for population and inflation. This also explains why they're spending like it's 2006 -- because they don't have more money to spend. No wonder the recovery continues to feel like a recession: that's an awfully long time to go without a raise."

WICHITA, Kan. - The recent enactment of Kansas' controversial voter ID law has many concerned that some citizens will not have equal access to the polls on election day and for the soon-to-come referendums.

Those concerned with the law fear that citizens who lack access to the photo ID now required to vote will be disenfranchised this election year. Though the new law requires all DMV's to provide free voter ID's, there has been little effort to educate voters on the new requirements and how to access the free ID's. The Kansas Secretary of State's Website contains incomplete instruction on how to access a free photo ID, and many doubt that DMV employees are prepared to answer these questions.

With Cimarron's first test of this bill happening on Tuesday and Wichita's on Feb 28th a coalition of concerned citizens are ready to take action to ensure that nobody is disenfranchised.

WICHITA, Kan. - As the Kansas legislature gears up for another session of spending most of their time on abortion bills, I could not help but reflect that Rick Santorum would be the presidential candidate to win Kansas.

Everyone knows a candidate in Kansas only has to support one issue to be electable; support the unborn. Nothing else matters; not a good jobs bill, not money for the arts or providing good healthcare and funding public education, but forcing women to give birth is the ticket to elective office in Kansas. This one issue defines evangelical conservatism across America as well.

Nothing illustrates this better than Rick Santorum's campaign leading up to the Iowa Caucus. A voter in Newton, Iowa asked Santorum about his reaction to a liberal journalists who criticized Santorum's decision to take his deceased infant home to show his other children.

The question quite naturally caused Santorum's wife to tear up.

BOGUE, Kan. - Today, piles. No, not the physiological kind. Although the comparison will be useful.

What prompted this column was an unsolicited, anonymously authored email forwarded from an Ellis deep thinker. Well, maybe not so much. It goes like this --

A kindly (or smug, your choice) man accosts his neighbors' "little girl." Both parents, "liberal Democrats," stand by. He asks her what her goal in life is. Wants to be President, she says. Okay, the kindly-smug man asks her what she'd do. Give food and shelter to the homeless, she says. Her parents nod approvingly.

Kindly-smug man says, 'Wow. What a worthy goal. You don't have to wait until you're President to do that!" She can mow his lawn and pull weeds for $50 bucks. Then, he says he'll escort her to where the "homeless guy hangs out," so she can give him the $50 for "food and a new house."

Little girl thinks it over. "Well, why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do
the work, and you can just pay him the $50?"

Kindly-smug man says, "Welcome to the Republican Party."

Hoo boy, gotcha!

See, it's just that simple, right? Homeless and hungry people are all alike. Lazy bums won't work. Democrats (aka liberals, progressives, socialists, commies) don't get it. Right?

This article is a continuation and the third in a series of three. To read Part 1, click here, and Part II, click here.

BOGUE, Kan. - I had hoped the opinion we sought from Stovall would also deal with the problem of irrigation lobby dominance of water politics. I sought a one-person, one vote representational scheme but unfortunately the Kansas State Attorney General disagreed. "The definition of an eligible voter found in K.S.A. 82a-1021 does not violate the one man, one vote rule of the United States Constitution." Unfortunately, only a tiny fraction of the people living in the area directly affected by GMD policies, the thousands who have stake in the future and an opinion about what should be done and when, have any vote in GMD decisions. That ought to change.

As to takings, the AG essentially ducked the question: "Whether a reduction of a water right constitutes a compensable taking depends upon the purpose for which the reduction is made. Without consideration of the purpose for which the reduction is made, no balancing test can be applied to determine whether the taking is compensable."

In other words, a critical issue -- whether private disputes over water appropriation rights takes precedence over the Chief Engineer acting in the broader long term stewardship of the resource -- was not, and hasn't been, addressed, either by the Attorney General or by the courts. It must.

SALINA, Kan. - As he campaigned for governor around Kansas last year Sam Brownback felt little need to lay out any specifics on what he wanted to do once in office. With Republicans having succeeded in nationalizing state and local elections he offered little more than cliches on the need to grow our economy.

A year later his true agenda has come into focus. Brownback's main goal appears to be to shift of the state's tax burden from the wealthy to the middle and lower classes. Two items that will fit into his push during the next legislative session are the revamping of the state's Medicaid program and a push to eliminate the state income tax.

SALINA, Kan. - If anyone doubted Thomas Frank's thesis in his book What's the Matter with Kansas? he or she need look no further than the current drama playing out with the U.S. Post Office.

For those who haven't read Frank's best seller, he made the case that Kansans frequently vote for their politicians based on social issues, particularly abortion, and the leaders they elect, once in office, tend to vote against the economic interests of the very constituents they represent.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - In a vote that surprised no one (just in case you missed it), our hard working representatives in D.C. reaffirmed for all Americans by a vote of 396 to 9, the unconstitutional national motto: "In God We Trust".

Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), who is also an ordained minister voted against this resolution. Cleaver stated he didn't think Congress should be telling anyone to trust in God. That's something people have to choose for themselves. It's not the business of Congress to force this on the people.

Talk about being religiously incorrect! If only more representatives had the backbone to stand up to the bullies in the House but sadly, they dare not if they want to keep their seats in Congress. This pandering to religious beliefs when the going gets tough, has been a hallmark of politics since Washington took office. Until men and women of BOTH parties have the courage to denounce it, the trivialization of religion and the real threat to freedom of conscience for all Americans will continue.

Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said he voted against the resolution because Congress already reaffirmed the motto back in the 107th Congress . He noted that the resolution has no force of law. Bobby Scott (D-VA) voted no because "when we were sworn in as members of Congress, we took an oath to uphold the Constitution. This resolution is inconsistent with that oath."