Thursday, May 10, 2012

What My Opponent Hopes Conservatives Don't See


House District 70 Candidate Comparison


Issue
Rep David Meeks
Price Dooley
Gun Rights: NRA Grade
A (Solidly Pro-Gun)
D- (Anti-gun) (1)
Same Sex Domestic Partnerships, Civil Unions
Oppose
Undecided (2)
Blocking Obamacare
Sponsored Legislation/Voted multiple times against funding healthcare exchange
“There is nothing a state legislator can do, ultimately…” (3)
States Rights
Support: Co-sponsored resolution
Unsure.  See Above.
Military Service
Yes-Honorable Discharge
No
Endorsements
Arkansas Right to Life
NRA

No Climate Tax Pledge (4)
Signed/ Record of voting against every tax and fee increase.
Not signed (As of  5/10/12)

In addition Price Dooley has voted in Democratic Primaries going back to at least 2004.  So the question he should answer is who did he vote for in 2008?  Barack Obama or Hilary Clinton?  Who did he vote for in 2010? Blanche Lincoln or Bill Halter?  Did he vote for Joyce Elliot for Congress?

If he is voting for the party will he continue to vote with the Democrats?  If he was voting values what values does he have common with all the liberals listed above?

 I have a solid conservative record in the legislature and I will continue to fight for hardworking Arkansas taxpayers.  I will remain focused on important issues like job creation, spending cuts, and working on comprehensive legislation to combat Human Trafficking.

I ask the voters of District 70 to reject the negative smear campaign being run by my opponent and vote to return a proven, solid conservative to the legislature.

As always, you may contact me at david.meeks@arkansashouse.org

References:

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Let's Focus on the Issues


There is a proverb that I was taught growing up and  strive to live by:  "A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches, and loving favor rather than silver and gold." (Proverbs 22:1)

So it’s troubling when my opponent wants to avoid his record and  instead attempt to discredit me with false accusations. 

The reality is I’ve been a strong conservative legislator.  I’ve stood against Obamacare.  I’ve fought for ethics reform.  I’ve been engaged in the concern over our shortfall in Medicaid.  I voted for millions of dollars in tax cuts and focused on job creation.  Throughout this campaign I have stayed focused on vital issues that are important to Arkansas families.

Predictably my opponent has resorted to false personal attacks because he knows I’ve kept my promises and he can’t match my credentials. Slinging the proverbial mud to distract you from the real concerns we face.

The fact he received a D minus rating from the NRA is just one example of how his stance on an issue does not match up with that of the majority of Arkansans.

He also believes Arkansans should just accept Obamacare because, in his own words, “there is nothing a state legislature can do” to protect Arkansans from overreaching government. 

I encourage my opponent to stop the negativity and start telling voters why he would be a conservative voice for Conway.  

Thursday, May 3, 2012

My Reaction to the AG's Opinion on the Contraception Mandate

Late yesterday the Attorney General issued an opinion on two questions I had concerning the contraception mandate.  You can find the complete opinion here:  http://ag.arkansas.gov/opinions/docs/2012-043.html

Here is the bottom line of that opinion: "Second, the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution requires that any valid federal law will override a conflicting state law. Accordingly, if the regulation is a valid federal law, then any conflicting state laws—whether they be regulatory, statutory, or constitutional—will be preempted"

This should bring concern to all Arkansans.  If Obamacare is upheld and we go forward with implementing the healthcare exchanges we will be subject to whatever regulations HHS puts into place regardless of whether it is good for Arkansas or is in line with our values.

I believe this latest mandate is an assault on not only our states rights but also on our religious freedoms and will work diligently to fight against it.

I stand with the majority of Arkansans who oppose this encroachment on our freedoms. I stand with Cardinal Dolan, Pastor Rick Bezet and the others of faith who have said they will not comply with this mandate.  I hope you will stand with us.

Here to Serve,
David Meeks

Monday, March 26, 2012

Attorney General's Opinion on the Contraception Mandate


Recently the Obama administration mandated that all contraception, including abortion-inducing drugs be included in healthcare plans. This raised the question about whether there were any state laws that might come into conflict with the mandate.  After doing some preliminary research, I have found several state statues that may be in conflict with the new mandate.

To that end, I have sent over a request to the Attorney General to get an opinion.  The wording of the opinion and the research can be found below. Thank you to Representatives Kim Hammer and Lori Benedict for signing on to the opinion.

If you know of any other statues that may be in conflict with the new mandate, please contact me at david.meeks@arkansashouse.org

Here to Serve,
David Meeks

_____________________________________________________________

Dear General McDaniel:

I am writing to request your official opinion on the following questions.

1) Would any state statutes and/or amendments, including those I have enclosed with this request, conflict with the Contraception Mandate?

2) Based on Arkansas Constitutional Amendment 68, would the Contraception Mandate prohibit the legislature from appropriating money to entities that may dispense abortion-inducing drugs listed in the mandate?

If there is any way you might expedite your response to this question, it would be greatly appreciated 




Amendments:

---->Amendment 2 § 24. Religious liberty.

 "All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can, of right, be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship; or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority can, in any case or manner whatsoever, control or interfere with the right of conscience; and no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment, denomination or mode of worship, above any other."

---->Amendment 68 I have been told that a possibility exists Amendment 68 could affect certain grants to hospitals, because we appropriate the money. On a separate note, others I have talked to said that the State Employee Health Insurance probably wouldn't be affected by the Mandate and Amendment 68 because it is considered to be self funded.

State Statues:

---->20-16-601  This deals with abortion and would come into play if they required a physician to administer an abortion inducing drug.




---->23-79-510: (2)  EXCLUSIONS.  Subject to the contractual policy form language adopted by the board, the following services, supplies, drugs, or articles whether prescribed by a physician or not shall not be covered:
                    (R)  Any expense or charge for oral contraceptives used for birth control or any other temporary birth control measures;

Subchapter 11
Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act

23-79-1101. Title.

This subchapter shall be known and may be cited as the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act.

23-79-1102. Definitions.

As used in this subchapter:
               (1)(A)  Health benefit policy means an individual or group plan, policy, or contract for health care services issued, delivered, issued for delivery, or renewed in this state, including those contracts executed by the State of Arkansas on behalf of state employees, by a health care corporation, health maintenance organization, preferred provider organization, accident and sickness insurer, fraternal benefit society, hospital service corporation, medical service corporation, provider-sponsored health care corporation, or other insurer or similar entity.
                               (B)  Health benefit policy does not include:
                                               (i)  Accident-only, credit, specified disease, dental, hospital indemnity, Medicare supplement, long-term care, or disability income insurance policies;
                                               (ii)  Coverage issued as a supplement to liability insurance;
                                               (iii)  Workers' compensation or similar insurance; or
                                               (iv)  Automobile medical-payment insurance;
               (2)  Insurer means an accident and sickness insurer, fraternal benefit society, hospital service corporation, medical service corporation, health care corporation, health maintenance organization, or any similar entity authorized to issue contracts under Title 23 of this Code; and
               (3)  Religious employer means an entity that:
                               (A)  Is organized and operated for religious purposes and has received a section 501(c)(3) designation from the Internal Revenue Service;
                               (B)  Has as one (1) of its primary purposes the inculcation of religious values; and
                               (C)  Employs primarily persons who share its religious tenets.

23-79-1103. Parity for contraceptives.

(a)  Every health benefit policy that is delivered, issued, executed, or renewed in this state or approved for issuance or renewal in this state by the Insurance Commissioner on or after August 12, 2005, that provides coverage for prescription drugs on an outpatient basis shall provide coverage for prescribed drugs or devices approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for use as a contraceptive.
---->(b)  Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be construed to require any insurance company to provide coverage for an abortion, an abortifacient, or any United States Food and Drug Administration-approved emergency contraception.

23-79-1104. Extraordinary surcharges prohibited.

(a)  No insurer shall impose upon any person receiving prescription contraceptive benefits pursuant to this subchapter any:
               (1)  Copayment, coinsurance payment, or fee that is not equally imposed upon all individuals in the same benefit category, class, coinsurance level, or copayment level receiving benefits for prescription drugs; or
               (2)  Reduction in allowable reimbursement for prescription drug benefits.
(b)  This subchapter shall not be construed to:
               (1)  Require coverage for prescription coverage benefits in any contract, policy, or plan that does not otherwise provide coverage for prescription drugs;
               (2)(A)  Preclude the use of closed formularies.
                               (B)  However, the formularies shall include oral, implant, and injectable contraceptive drugs, intrauterine devices, and prescription barrier methods; or 
  ------->  (3)  Require any religious employer to comply with this subchapter.

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Washington Politics in the Arkansas House

Today, the Senate voted against suspending the rules to consider the Trucker Tax Repeal resolution so the issue was dead right?  Wrong!

The House Democrats proposed an amendment to the DFA-Disbursing appropriation that would push back the start of the Trucker Tax Exemption to July 2013. The amendment only needed 51 votes to be attached to the appropriation (vs the 67 needed for the resolution).  It was passed via a voice vote then something very interesting happened.

Several members of the House called for a roll call vote.  A couple of seconds afterwards, a member called for a vote by division.  The Speaker of the House ignored the call for a roll call vote and proceeded with the vote by division.

The vote by division is simply members standing and being counted.  It is a way to vote and not have it recorded.

Yes, you read that right.  Democrats didn't want to go on record as to whether they voted for this amendment or not.

If you want to see if your Representative stood or not, here is a link to the video: http://arkansas-house.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=719

The actual standing vote takes place at about the 19 min mark.

What happened today set a dangerous precedent and should have been outright rejected.  The voters in Arkansas wanted the legislature to focus on the budget during the fiscal session. There was a specific way  outlined for other issues outside of the normal fiscal avenue to be addressed.  What happened today was not the way.

The next couple of days will be interesting to watch.




Friday, February 17, 2012

Fiscal Session Update- Week of February 13th


No one knows what goes on behind closed doors, until someone has the courage to force them open. During week one of the Fiscal Session, Republican lawmakers opened the doors of state government by giving the traditionally Democratic-controlled, behind the curtain state budgeting process a kick in the teeth.

Rather than blindly consenting to Gov. Mike Beebe’s budget, Republican lawmakers offered a more conservative state budget proposal which would be $21 million smaller than the Governor’s $4.72 billion general revenue budget for 2013.

House Concurrent Resolution 1008 was filed on Monday to allow a budget alternative to be considered by the majority-Democrat House Rules Committee, yet legislators across the aisle refused to consider our trimmer budget plan.  During the Fiscal Session, a two-thirds vote is required to pass a resolution so that non-appropriation bills like the state budget, also known as the Revenue Stabilization Act (RSA), can be considered and voted on by the General Assembly.  

Battles for efficiency in the way our state spends taxpayer money are battles well fought for the people of Arkansas. With the over half a million dollars recently discovered in one state agency to rescue the drowning state Forestry Commission from a budget shortfall, it’s clear there are meaningful spending reductions to be made, we just have to be willing to find them.

Our Republican budget proposal would reduce some state agency funding levels by 3 percent less than what the Governor has proposed.  As a result, we’re asking agency directors to find where they can operate with less money.  When Arkansas families tighten their belts, government bureaucrats need to as well.  

Asking state agencies to do more with less not only ensures taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely, but also helps our state prepare for the looming $250 million Medicaid shortfall projected for next fiscal year. Because roughly 25 percent of Arkansans are currently enrolled in Medicaid, with that number expected to grow due to President Obama’s health care law, we must be proactive in guaranteeing the money will be there when Arkansas families need it most.

Hardworking Arkansas taxpayers deserve a more responsible, transparent government, but the Democratic-controlled legislature is defiant to change. Both political parties should be given an opportunity to bring constructive ideas and input to the table so that we can reach an agreement and pass a bi-partisan budget that benefits the citizens of this state.

Moving forward, I will keep you updated on our budget proposal and how we are working to reduce spending and protect the benefits of Medicaid.

As I continue to serve you during the Fiscal Session, my focus remains on holding state government accountable to the taxpayers of Arkansas. Please contact me with any issues, questions or concerns you may have. My email is david.meeks@arkansashouse.org

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Rep. David Meeks Joins Supreme Court Brief Challenging Obamacare


Rep. David Meeks Joins Supreme Court Brief Challenging Obamacare

Conway, Ark. – On Monday, Republican Rep. David Meeks of Conway joined an amicus brief to the United States Supreme Court arguing that the individual mandate found in President Barack Obama's health care law is unconstitutional.

“As a member of the state Legislature, I am committed to seeing that President Obama’s job-killing health care law does not take root in Arkansas,” said Meeks. “In addition to the constitutional question of forcing Arkansans to purchase insurance or face a fine, we have also seen how the health care law is directly attacking the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment.”

Last month, the names of several Democratic leaders in the Arkansas General Assembly surfaced on a Supreme Court brief arguing that Obamacare is constitutional and they “are working hard in their States to implement the Act in a timely, efficient, and effective manner.”

“I wholeheartedly disagree with my Democratic colleagues that we must force Obamacare onto the people of this state, and will continue fighting on behalf of hardworking Arkansas taxpayers,” said Meeks.

The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments for Obamacare challenges on March 26, 27 and 28 of 2012.

To read the Supreme Court Brief signed by 58 Arkansas Republican Legislators, click here.

To read the brief signed by Democratic Legislators, click here.