“Republicans Eat Their Young”

There is a challenge in understanding this statement.  Just a hint – it has nothing to do with age.  It starts with defining the word “young” in the political sense of the word.  What this means, is rather than encouraging and nurturing those “young in experience” people interested in serving in elected government, Republicans chew them up and spit them out, essentially eating them.

Those folks “young in experience” are those people who have been willing to learn and study the issues and the procedures at more grass root levels before they jump into the deep end of the pool.  Several of our local politicians have been touted as serving on this local committee and that city commission.  These politicians are also touted as having served on city councils and as city mayors before they ventured out into races covering larger geographical areas and serving greater responsibilities.

Well, as these politicians learned and practiced at the city and borough levels; and networks and word of mouth a valuable commodities, one might expect with all this local experience and “on the job” training, they could count on a “leg up” from those politicians who have previously traveled this route of education and experience.

However, with the Republican Party this is not the case.  It is the practice of Republicans to discount and negate the efforts of those people coming up behind them; essentially destroying the possibilities and potential of those “young in experience” following along behind.   I have been told, the Democratic party does not do this to their up and comers. But might actually support and encourage them.  Could this true??

It could be imagined that at a minium the more experienced politican would vote for  the “young, new in experience” community servant.  But to openly profess to others an unwillingness to support another person working on  behalf of the same political platform.  Well, folks, that is in a nutshell the Republican Party Eating Their Young.

Then comes the Spin!!   The excuse – well those grass-roots contests are non-partisan so whoever is supported is of no consequence.  Having a designation of non-partisan for local Borough elections is definitely true at this point in time.  I, for one, would like to know the why and wherefore of that practice.  Keeping the local contests as non-partisan, without being able to identify the motives and values of these public servants, does not serve the local voter.

Therefore, the local voter  is left to past history (years in the legislature) and voting record (supporting $2.4M in bed tax) and open assembly statements (increasing tax on seniors) to recognize the blue color of the ethics of the local politican.  So when one partisan politican openly expresses an intention to vote in a non-partisan race for someone of the other party, the ethics of that partisan politican are severely called into questions and that partisan politican can be considered as having “eaten his young.”

 

 

CURRENT KPB ADMINISTRATION AND VOTER CONCERNS

 

I learned today at the Industry Day event talking to liberal democrat voters that in spite of the exemplary and fantastic resume of Mike Navarre, they were unaware the current administration activities with regard:

  • to the transfer agreement between the Kenai Surgical Center and the Central Peninsula Hospital; and
  • to the attempt to raise taxes in the amount of $2.4M without a definite plan for the use of this money.

The several people that I talked to that are/were committed liberal voters did not understand that part of the current mayor’s resume is his association with the local hospital and how influence can currently be exerted.  One of these persons ask explicitly how this can be done if the hospital is owned by the community.  It took a few minutes to explain what a small amount of research can turn up.  Several times I had discussions with interested voters on how the failure of the hospital to work with the community in this transfer agreement did not serve the members of the community, but served the profit-driven bottom line of the hospital. It was also necessary to explain that this position of (1)  the bottom line over the medical care needs of the peninsula was the position of the current administration.

It needs to be understood with regard to this transfer agreement that without this agreement the Kenai Surgical Center cannot provide services to Tricare, Medicaid or Medicare patients.  Now the availability of services and the cost of those services may not be of critical interest to everyone, but these issues are of critical interest to the people who need the service (with and without insurance), and are interested in getting the best service for the amount of money spent.  To these people it would of critical interest that the Central Peninsula Hospital (2) charges almost exactly twice the amount of the surgical center and this excessive charge is not necessary, not necessary at all.

The purpose of this reluctance to work with the community is unclear because as soon as more people realize how this hospital is operating, there will be less and less requirement for their services as more and more people will (3) go to Anchorage for the service they need, at a cost they can afford.  How exactly does that support our community, as more and more medical care funds and associated lodging costs are transferred to Anchorage? This was another conversation that came up with cost conscious voters.

It should be stated as well, that along with the failure to work with the community on a transfer agreement with the Kenai Surgical Center, the Hospital is busy buying up various competing services here on the Peninsula; a continuing effort to (4) expand on the current monopoly we call a hospital.

The second issue found interesting to numerous voters was the effort to request voters to approve a bed tax that would generate $2.4M and not having a specific plan for the use of that much money.  The voters quickly appreciated the fact that the bed tax went no where, but the mere fact that this came very close to a public vote and the plan for use of this amount of collected tax dollars was unclear right up to the end of the bed tax discussion concerned many of those voters.