Saturday, March 27, 2010

Mark Painter vs Tom Quigley in the 146th

Incumbent Republican Tom Quigley of the 146h state house district is being called out by Democratic challenger Mark Painter (no campaign website yet). The 146th Legislative District in Montgomery County includes Limerick, Lower Pottsgrove, Pottstown, Royersford, Upper Pottsgrove, West Pottsgrove, and a portion of New Hanover.

A note received from Painter:


LIMERICK, PA – State House candidate Mark Painter criticized Republican incumbent Tom Quigley’s for signing a letter in support of Attorney General Tom Corbett’s lawsuit to overturn the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which became law just days earlier. The ACA would finally provide health insurance to hundreds of thousands of working Pennsylvanians and their children and families, who currently have no way of getting coverage.

“With all the economic problems Pennsylvania faces, our elected officials have more important things to do than grandstanding on the taxpayer’s nickel,” Painter said. “If Corbett and Quigley don’t like the ACA, they have every right to say so. But leave my tax money out of it.

“A solid majority of Pennsylvanians voted for Barack Obama because they wanted health care reform. Now that we finally won it, the Attorney General wants to spend our money to take away from us in court what we won at the ballot box.

“And here I thought Republicans didn’t like frivolous lawsuits.”


chickenhawk said...

I'm curious if Mark has read the US Constitution. I'd like to know under what Constitutional authority the Congress (and Pres. Obama) can force me to buy medical insurance. Thus, I support AG Corbett's lawsuit as do a large percentage of Pennsylvanians.

Has Mark checked the public opinion polls lately? >60% want "Obamacare" repealed. Obviously that includes many who voted for Obama. This isn't what THEY thought they were getting.

At least Mark makes it clear what he is selling (or wants to FORCE us to buy). I'm not buying his fertilizer, thank you.

AboveAvgJane said...

It's always a toss up on whether or not to let ill-mannered comments go through. In this case I will.

The latest polls I've seen have about 50% of people in favor of health insurance reform. Of those who want it repealed some do so because they think it should be stronger.

As for the constitution I believe Article 1 section 8 allows for Congress to tax people for the general welfare. This would surely fit that classification. But you are, of course, welcome to disagree.

Anonymous said...

Jane, I respectfully disagree. Although you're correct about the taxing authority vested in the Commerce Clause, the clause itself does not apply to ACA because the Individual Mandate was designed to be a penalty, not a tax. The clause, or the Constitution for that matter, doesn't grant Congress the ability to implement such a mandate on the American people, nor is there any government agency, not even the IRS, who can properly enforce it. In conclusion, the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional.