Publication One, Contrast Corner

Richard Smith’s Democratic opponents at this juncture, Jessica King, Christina Hartman, and John George, are long on platitudes, hopes, and dreams, but very short on the specifics of how to realize those dreams. Among other things these three political policy novices don't say how they are going to put their platitudes into effect or how they are going to pay for them. They have no tax or fiscal plan, no infrastructure plan, and no specific healthcare reform plan. Smith’s opponents expound the kind of nonspecific platitudes that might work in an uncontested Democratic Congressional District in California, but such nonspecific platitudes don’t stand a chance of success in Pennsylvania’s 16th right-of-center Congressional District. Their admirable, though unspecific, left-of-center hopes and dreams will never attract enough Independent and Republican voters to turn the 16th District Democratic. In Pennsylvania's 16th Congressional District, where there has not been a Democratic Congressman since 1943, the Democrats can’t expect to beat something with nothing. In contrast, Smith proposes exciting, specific initiatives of conscience in his 35-slide PowerPoint presentation with numbers and specifics that will attract interest across the political spectrum.

Christina Hartman, after only about nine months following her loss to Congressman Smucker, will find it impossible, in such a short period of time, to genuinely restructure her political approach in the fashion required to defeat Congressman Smucker. LancasterOnline.com’s July 10, 2017 article elevating Mrs. Hartman’s second congressional try denies reality. The reality is that Christina Hartman lost to Lloyd Smucker by 34,083 votes in 2016. She received 4,890 votes less than Hilary Clinton in Lancaster County. The 2016 congressional election was not even close. Christina Hartman had, and has to date, no specific initiatives to offer the Independent voters and open-minded Republicans necessary to change her result against Lloyd Smucker. Contrast this with Smith’s positions of conscience as outlined in his 35-slide PowerPoint. These positions will allow him to put together a coalition that will include the left,

the center, the moderate right, and even a few right-wing voters. Smith’s positions of conscience fit the District at this moment in time.

Regarding Jessica King, her statements on healthcare, the most important domestic issue in America today, disqualify Mrs. King as a candidate for Congress. Jessica King saidto LancasterOnline.com on June 28, 2017 that she is for “Medicare for all,” but she said to the Reading Eagle on July 3, 2017 that she is supporting a single-payer healthcare system. Further, on her Facebook page, there is a May 21, 2017 article by Ms. King where she states, referring to other developed countries, “Most have systems that are equivalent to ’Medicare for all’ (often called single payer).” Such well-intentioned, but misinformed statements seriously mislead the public at a crucial time. Medicare Part A and Part B only pay for 80% of the medical bills. A private sector supplemental insurance policy is required in conjunction with the Medicare to keep a person on Medicare from going bankrupt if the individual has a serious illness. A single-payer healthcare system that pays for 100% of medical costs is not the same as Medicare for all that pays for 80% of medical bills approved by Medicare. This never has been the case, despite any article Mrs. King might read to the contrary. So, which system is Jessica King for? Does she not know? Does she even know that she doesn't know? In contrast, on slide 16 of his 35-slide PowerPoint, Smith recommends a specific healthcare plan that exists in today’s market place.

The Campaign to Elect Richard Smith to Congress © July 28, 2017