PPC Homepage

Tipton Wants Economic Liberty, Social Controls

by | 9:25 am, August 27, 2010 | 5 Comments

The following article originally was published August 20 by Grand Junction Free Press.

August 27 note: Linn and I had asked for Congressman John Salazar, against whom Scott Tipton is running in Colorado's Third Congressional district, to answer comparable questions before our article about Tipton was published on August 20. We sent our questions via email to Salazar's office on August 12 and followed up with multiple contacts by phone and email. Finally on August 25 we received word from Salazar's office that our initial email was received. Originally we had asked for Salazar's answers by August 18. We still await his reply. -Ari Armstrong

Tipton wants economic liberty, social controls

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Now that Scott Tipton has won the Republican primary for the Third Congressional race, we expect he'll offer a tough challenge to incumbent John Salazar. Obviously many voters are sick of the Democrats impeding economic recovery with wealth transfers, takeovers, and controls.

But the real question is whether Tipton deserves to win, and mostly that comes down to the ideas and policies he advocates. That's why we gave him a call. (We'll write about Salazar, too.)

Tipton emphasized economics: "We need to be dealing with economic issues; we need to be focused on creating jobs."

Tipton said, "Right now the issues that I think Congress needs to be addressing [concern] getting Americans back to work. We've got to be reducing the size and the expenditures of government. We simply cannot afford the spending coming out of Washington right now."

As some first steps, Tipton suggested reducing discretionary spending by ten percent (except for defense) and "unleashing entrepreneurial investment" by moving to a flat, lower corporate tax rate.

"We need to make American business competitive;" bad federal policies have "been driving jobs out of America," Tipton warned.

Tipton looks to policies "geared toward empowering free enterprise." He said his interest is supporting "people looking out for their families, trying to put a roof over their heads... rather than just paying to sustain government."

Unfortunately, like many Colorado Republicans these days, Tipton wants to reduce liberty in the personal sphere.

Let us preface our criticism with praise for Tipton's openness and accessibility. Tipton's campaign staff immediately put us in contact with the candidate, and Tipton answered his phone right away and agreed to address some tough questions.

Tipton suggested that, when candidates speak plainly and get attacked for it by narrow-minded interest groups that pull quotes out of context, that creates the incentive for candidates to avoid the tough issues. Despite the dangers of going on the record, Tipton answered our questions candidly, and he deserves credit for that.

Yet Tipton worries us with some of his views on social issues.

Tipton expressed an overly narrow view of the significance of the separation of church and state, saying it "keeps the state from annointing one particular religion or one particular church." That's part of the meaning of the separation of church and state, but the broader purpose is to protect government policies from religious dogmas as much as to protect religious worship from the government.

"I do support faith-based initiatives," Tipton said of welfare programs involving churches. What about the teaching of "intelligent design" in tax-funded schools? "I'm a faith-based person. Faith plays a very important part in my life, and I don't think that should be excluded from the school."

Tipton opposes gay marriage, though he added: "I think if somebody wants to have a contractual relationship, we have that opportunity already."

However, Tipton does not support adoption by gay couples; "I would not be supportive of adoption outside a traditional family." Our question for social conservatives is this: would you rather a woman abort a fetus or give birth and let a gay couple adopt the child?

On his web page, Tipton states, "Abortion should be limited to cases that involve rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother." His view is at least more sensible than that of Ken Buck, who said, "I don't believe in the exceptions of rape or incest."

On his web page, Tipton says he wants "a 24-hour waiting period for women seeking an abortion." That prompted us to ask whether he also favors a waiting period for women seeking to buy a gun. While Tipton claimed that's "not a fair comparison," we think it's as ludicrous to require a waiting period for either one.

"I would support a constitutional amendment to protect the unborn human life," Tipton states on his web page. What about Amendment 62, the so-called "personhood" measure? He replied, "I'm going to take a look at those. I've not looked at all the ballot initiatives that we're going to have."

Tipton struggled a bit over the question of what criminal penalties would be imposed on women who get abortions and doctors who facilitate them. The question is "worthy of further discussion," he said. It certainly is. Many abortion banners call for lengthy prison sentences or even execution for those women and doctors, which is pure Taliban-style insanity.

If fully implemented, Amendment 62 would ban forms of birth control (including the pill) and fertility treatments that may harm a fertilized egg. But Tipton emphasized, "I think that we need to take advantage of birth control."

We sympathize with Tipton's goal to "not look at abortion as a means of birth control," but his concern does not justify abortion bans.

We like Tipton's pro-liberty stance on economics. We only ask that he more carefully consider why liberty is the right answer when it comes to personal decisions, too.
Category: Colorado Politics, PPC
Tags:

Comments

  1.   Chris
      August 27th, 2010 @ 3:34 pm

    Since when did Republicans support the “liberty” to destroy the life of a pre-born child? That’s not liberty, that’s tyranny. I, for one, am glad that Tipton’s pro-life message is resonating in the district. I do think he has a great shot at knocking off Salazar and I do think at least part of that will be due to his principled defense for the traditional values that has formed this nation.

  2.   Laura Victoria
      August 28th, 2010 @ 12:20 pm

    I think the key point on abortion is that a congressman is unlikely to have any impact on same, given the issue is a constitutional one essentially under court control. A senator or congressman can prohibit government funding or impose waiting periods.

    We should not forget, though, that the abortion issue is hardly as simple as Chris suggests. After all, the affirmative assistance of another human being is necessary to maintain that life. Certainly, a rape and incest scenario where there is no consent for the pregnancy and no negligence at least makes that a viable issue for debate, does it not?

    Ari is pointing out that if we conservatives limit liberty concerns to the purely economic we are vulnerable, justifiably, to charges of hypocrisy. Since there are no life and death matters involved in gay marriage, where do you stand on that one Chis? And if the vote is no, where do we then draw the line on what are appropriate government social prohibitions? Majority rules? How about drug legalization? How about mandatory calorie disclosures for vending machine snacks? Smoking bans? Sunday alcohol sale prohibitions? Full prohibition? Salt restrictions in restaurants? Anti-cyber bullying laws?

    I’m not saying I have all the answers, except to agree that Scott Tipton is easily my guy over the ultimate loser, handed-everything-on-a-silver platter, Juanitito Salazar. But conservatives will be really messing themselves up if we don’t draw some real clear lines on personal liberty protections. It cannot be case-by-case. That kind of bunk should be reserved for liberals and “moderates.” We need to be principled about it.

  3.   Chris
      August 28th, 2010 @ 1:21 pm

    Well, Laura, it should be pointed out that Bart Stupak would most definitely disagree that a congressman’s views on the sanctity of life are only minimally important.

    And I do support a federal marriage amendment, because I believe that We the People do have a vested interest in proporting healthy, solid families, since the family forms the basic foundation of our society and culture. So then where do I draw the line? Well, I do think that there is at least a thin line between economic and cultural matters. I don’t think that the common good will at all be threatened by salt shakers. But I do think that the dissolution of the family actually does pose a real threat.

    So what it really comes down to is whether or not the government will protect the common thread of values and principles that underlines our Constitution and the foundation of the country. The Judeo-Christian values system really is the only cohesive force capable of returning the country to its consititutional roots. And, as it so happens, it’s families and human life, not salt shakers and cigarettes, that make the country-go-round.

  4.   Laura Victoria
      August 28th, 2010 @ 7:06 pm

    My reading of the bible is that Christianity is about an individually accepted, personal relationship,and nothing suggests it should be imposed on people by government. I don’t find the least threat to traditional, biblical marriage or the family by a tiny minority of same sex marriages.

    That’s the whole issue. One can value something without believing laws are necessary or even beneficial to safeguard it.

  5.   Kevin J Jones
      August 29th, 2010 @ 10:48 am

    “Our question for social conservatives is this: would you rather a woman abort a fetus or give birth and let a gay couple adopt the child?”

    False dilemma. Both situations are bad for kids and they shouldn’t be victimized by either. Also requirements to make same-sex adoptions have been used to shut down Christian adoption agencies, which make adoptions even harder to do. So once again “libertarians” are serving left-wing totalitarianism.

    On another point, there are reports that when same-sex adoptions are allowed children are being placed with same-sex “couples” instead of with non-pseudogamous couples. The social workers are either homosexual activists themselves, or people who think homosexuals need to be favored because they can’t possibly have children naturally. We shouldn’t enable that kind of corruption, especially since homosexuals are becoming one of those special groups protected from public criticism.

    Also it’s hypocritical to appeal to conservatives’ opposition to abortion when you yourself show indifference to it and think regulations on it are “ludicrous.”

    “Many abortion banners call for lengthy prison sentences or even execution for those women and doctors, which is pure Taliban-style insanity.”

    Cite please? Most pro-lifers actually haven’t thought about it very much. The smarter ones, who are likely to write the laws, tend to support strict penalties for the doctors and minimal punishments for women, who after all must be the witnesses against the abortionists. See the NRO symposium “One Untrue Thing.”

    Laura Walker writes: “I don’t find the least threat to traditional, biblical marriage or the family by a tiny minority of same sex marriages.”

    Is the real value of currency undermined by counterfeits? Won’t the real value of marriage be similarly affected? Your life can go wrong if you get a few $100 counterfeits in your wallet. What happens when counterfeit marriages enter your neighborhood?

    Adoption agencies in DC have been shut down by SSM laws. People have been fired from their jobs for opposing SSM. Businesses will be forced to grant spousal benefits to a man’s “husband” or a woman’s “wife.” Churches will be demonized as the equivalent of anti-miscegenationists. Children in public schools will be taught that SSM is the same as real marriage. I suggest you think about the issue more.

    I’ll also repeat my claim that SSM would expand government power and further ban conservative institutions unless anti-discrimination laws are repealed first.

    Finally, SSM is a cause backed by “liberal” Christianity and other liberal religions, so it’s still the imposing of religious beliefs. Why change our laws because of pressure from a bunch of progressive churches and synagogues which decided to go loopy and “marry” members of the same sex?

Praise for PPC From Our Lefty "Fan"

  • "Zany-ass bombast-entertainment...Hackneyed weirdo communist pseudo-nostalgia" --Alan Franklin, ProgressNow

Featured Posts




  • When a young girl gets close to the truth about a long-forgotten mystery, a harmless adventure becomes a threat to the future of the independent commercial settlements on Mars.

  • Advertise Here!

    info-at-peoplespresscollective-dot-org

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Meta




  • Buy a Tea Party Poster!