Promises Made, Promises Kept

One of the most important, if not most important thing a person can and should do is keep promises they have made.  In a day and age when people are disgruntled at those they have elected because of those officials not keeping their campaign promises, I looked back at the promises I made.  These promises are posted were posted on my previous website found here: http://whoisdavidmeeks.com/issues.html


Below is just a summary of the promises I made and kept.  As we go along, I will post more on my record.  If you have any questions about anything in particular, feel free to contact me:  dmeeks72@gmail.com

Create Jobs by Cutting Taxes

□  Co-sponsored the Capital Gains Tax Reduction, the Grocery Tax Cut, and the Back to School Sales Tax Holiday.  Also supported the reduction in the Used Car Sales Tax.

□  Fought against an increase in the severance tax which threatened to cost jobs in the natural gas industry.

□ Voted against every tax or fee increase.

Curb Spending and the Growth in Government

□  Voted against the state budget, which increased state spending by over $80 million.

□  Supported the Online Checkbook Bill, which will bring greater transparency to state spending.

Protecting State’s Rights

□  Sponsored HB1053- Healthcare Freedom Act (To protect Arkansans from being forced to purchase health insurance)

□  Co-Sponsored HCR1010- Claiming State’s Rights Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Family/Life

□  Co-sponsored SB113, An Act To Prohibit Health Insurance Exchange Policies From Offering Coverage For Abortions Except Thru a Separate Rider.

Gun Rights

□  Supported several Pro-Gun bills such as the Arkansas Firearms Freedom Act.

Healthcare Exchanges Dead in Arkansas? Nope...

Yesterday, I read a blog post written by Jason Tolbert which you can review here:

http://talkbusiness.net/article/ARKANSAS-AVOIDS-FEDERAL-GRANT-FOR-HEALTH-CARE-EXCHANGES/2320/

In the article he quotes Governor Beebe's spokesman Matt DeCample as saying:

“As far as any other federal grants to help the state set up their own health-insurance exchanges, the Legislature made it clear that they wanted the federal government and not the state government to control the establishment of our health-care exchange. The governor has said before that he will not act unilaterally against those wishes, and he does not plan to change that stance,” 

I found this statement quite interesting as just last week at the Healthcare exchange meeting I attended the steering committee was still moving full steam ahead on implementing the exchanges to include requesting additional grant money.

So I sent an email to Cynthia Crone, who is leading the effort to implement the healthcare exhanges asking her:

What grants were turned down and/or sent back?
Will the planning meetings that we have been having continue as scheduled?
Are there any other plans to request any grants in the future?

Her reply:

We did NOT send back any money We are continuing our planning. The workgroup meetings will continue as scheduled.  We are now getting the results from our background research efforts.  Four of our workgroups have met this week--two yesterday and two today.

We do plan to apply for Level One Establishment funding in September--this is the next funding opportunity for States that have made progress with their initial planning grant--which we have.  More than half the states now have exchange authority or are otherwise planning their exchange.  Sixteen states have now received the Level One grants that we plan to apply for in September.   Please don't hesitate to let me know of additional questions/concerns.

So based on this reply nothing has really changed.  The planning on the exchange will continue and the grants for planning will still be requested.

Governor Beebe is already trying to frame the debate.  Look for a battle during the fiscal session over whether we will give the insurance department permission to start implementation of the healthcare exchange at the state level.  This, of course, all hinges on if the Supreme Court decides the constitutionality of the law by then.