a:1:{s:15:"field_news_body";a:1:{i:0;a:2:{s:5:"value";s:4696:"<span style="font-size: x-large;">-----------------------------------------------------------------<br />
YOU CAN NOW COMMENT ON STORIES AND POLLS<br />
LET US KNOW HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THE ISSUES.<br />
-----------------------------------------------------------------<br />
----------------------------<br />
NEW POLL OVERVIEW:<br />
----------------------------<br />
Two recent Republican initiatives seek to change the special treatment that public employees will receive to help defer the cost of Obamacare.<br />
<br />
The first is an amendment offered by Senator David Vitter (R-La.) that would remove the subsidies Congress and its staff will get to pay for their increased costs once they start buying their health insurance on ObamaCare exchanges (as required by an earlier amendment). The amendment focuses attention on the key issue that, if this law is so good, why don't the people who wrote and passed it want it for themselves?<br />
<br />
The second is a constitutional amendment that will be offered by Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.)&nbsp; would&nbsp; require all federal workers &mdash; including the president and the justices of the Supreme Court &mdash; to buy their health care on ObamaCare exchanges. Though a constitutional amendment is a long shot, the debate it would provoke would also put the Beltway</span><span style="font-size: x-large;">'</span><span style="font-size: x-large;">s double standard on ObamaCare in the spotlight.<br />
<br />
Both efforts are tactics borrowed from Saul Alinsky, who advised his fellow community organizers to make their enemies </span><span style="font-size: x-large;">'</span><span style="font-size: x-large;">'</span><span style="font-size: x-large;">live up to their own book of rules.</span><span style="font-size: x-large;">'</span><span style="font-size: x-large;">'</span><span style="font-size: x-large;"> We&rsquo;d put it another way: The more pain our governing class feels from ObamaCare, the more eager they will be to help us get rid of it.<br />
----------------------------<br />
NEW POLL QUESTION:<br />
----------------------------<br />
Should ALL Federal Employees, Congress, and Supreme Court be required to get Insurance through Obamacare Exchanges?<br />
<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
Undecided<br />
<br />
TO VOTE IN THIS POLL CLICK ON THE&nbsp;FOLLOWING LINK:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.clinton-countygop.org/content/should-all-federal-employees-congress-and-supreme-court-be-required-get-insurance-through-ob">http://www.clinton-countygop.org/content/should-all-federal-employees-congress-and-supreme-court-be-required-get-insurance-through-ob</a><br />
<br />
(To enter your comments click on </span><span style="font-size: x-large;">'</span><span style="font-size: x-large;">'</span><span style="font-size: x-large;">Add new comment</span><span style="font-size: x-large;">'</span><span style="font-size: x-large;">'</span><span style="font-size: x-large;"> after you vote.)<br />
<br />
-----------------------------------<br />
PREVIOUS POLL QUESTION:<br />
-----------------------------------<br />
Should Michigan pass a law to allow teachers, administrators, or other school employees to carry a gun in school?<br />
<br />
YES - 79%<br />
NO - 13%<br />
UNDECIDED - 8% <br />
<br />
TWO COMMENTS WERE MADE ON THIS POLL:<br />
&nbsp;<br />
COMMENT #1<br />
<br />
Sen. Green's bill<br />
<br />
While I support the premise of this legislation, I hesitate to say that this bill in its current form should be supported. I am not fully comfortable transferring the licensing authority to the state police. I would need a very good explanation of why this is a good idea to change my mind - my initial reaction is that we don't want the state police telling us who can and cannot have a concealed weapon. They are too unaccountable to the people.<br />
<br />
<br />
COMMENT #2<br />
<br />
Senator Green's Bill<br />
<br />
Having teachers and other school administrators trained to carry guns would make schools safer in my opinion. However I could not support this bill because it will transfer responsibility for the gun boards to the Michigan State Police. I would rather have that handled locally with the &quot;constitutionally elected sheriff&quot;. Little by little, the local jurisdictions are being stripped of their powers and it is being transferred to larger &quot;districts&quot;. In time, the local citizens, when they have a concern or problem, will have to deal with someone they do not know and who has not been elected by them..<br />
<br />
---------------------------------<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</span>";s:6:"format";s:1:"1";}}}