Jane Norton, Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, speaks during a breakfast meet and greet Saturday at the Egg & I Restaurant.

Photo by Matt Stensland

Jane Norton, Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, speaks during a breakfast meet and greet Saturday at the Egg & I Restaurant.

US Senate candidate Jane Norton stops in Steamboat

Candidate discusses spending, health care Saturday

Advertisement

Online

For information on Republican senatorial candidate and former Colorado lieutenant governor Jane Norton, visit www.janenortonforcolorado.com. Two other Republican candidates also are vying for the seat. They are businessman Tom Wiens (www.tomwiens.com) and Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck (www.buckforcolora...>

Learn more about U.S. Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff, a Denver Democrat, on the Web at www.andrewromanoff.com. Learn about the 2010 campaign of current U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, also a Denver Democrat, at www.bennetforcolorado.com.

— Health care, jobs and governmental spending were at the top of the list of talking points for Republican U.S. Senate candidate Jane Norton at a meet-and-greet event Saturday.

About 15 Routt County residents gathered at The Egg & I Restaurant for the informal discussion. After outlining her background, main issue positions and reasons for her candidacy, Norton fielded questions and concerns about education, the economy, health care and other issues. Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., currently holds the seat for which Norton is competing.

Steamboat resident Lou Harris, a retired attorney, expressed concern about the country’s deficit and ideas moving through the legislative process for health care reform. Norton suggested applying unspent stimulus funds and TARP money toward deficit reduction. For health care reform Norton mentioned “choice in competition, tax equity, purchasing across state lines and high-risk pools for those who really need help” as viable solutions.

Event attendee Will Potter said he wants to know “what specifically the candidate is going to do” about government spending and gave his experience in the transportation business as background for his concerns for small businesses in the economic climate.

Norton responded with her proposed plan to “cut discretionary spending by 20 percent” and freeze it there for three years; abandon proposed health care legislation and formulate a new plan; and “provide tax relief for our small businesses” by putting a three-year moratorium on payroll tax, doing away with estate tax and cutting corporate tax.

In response to an audience suggestion to significantly slash the federal budget, Norton referred to her recent television campaign advertisement criticizing President Barack Obama for spending. Mentioning doing away with the U.S. Department of Education as a way to cut spending and return educational choice to a more local level, Norton was met with applause.

In her opening remarks, Norton outlined her disapproval of policies for stimulus spending, cap-and-trade emissions and health care reform.

“The federal government is out of control, over taxing, over spending, over regulating. It’s striking job creation and it’s striking the core of who we are as an independent people,” Norton said.

After the event, Norton pointed to jobs, security and spending as focus points, highlighting a proposed plan to “halt deficit spending” and efforts at “keeping America free, safe and strong.”

Norton was Colorado’s lieutenant governor from 2002 to 2006. She was executive director for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment from 1999 to 2002. She worked with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services during the George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan administrations.

Also in contention for the Republican nomination are businessman Tom Wiens and Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck. Running for the Democratic nomination are U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet and Denver Democrat Andrew Romanoff.

Norton stopped in Steam­boat before appearances Saturday afternoon in Meeker and Saturday evening in Craig.

Comments

greenwash 4 years, 1 month ago

How come all republicans look like they are 80 years old?

0

ybul 4 years, 1 month ago

Could be that our educational system is run by the D's and so the kids pick up that influence from their education. Unfortunately they do not pick up any real understanding of the founding principles of the country.

0

thalgard 4 years, 1 month ago

Greenwash...they are. Old and White. Feeling Threatened. The new GOP, worshippers of stupid. Let's elect a Beauty Queen. Let's bankrupt the Federal Government.

0

popcan 4 years, 1 month ago

Greenwash ... What do you mean that all republicans look 80 years old? What does that have to do with this article? Are you simple? What I see in this article is Jane Norton giving a speech. There are spectators listening to her and spending money at the Egg and I and they are helping to stimulate the economy. Your comment doesn't do this newspaper any good or this thread. The Today Article here looks good to me. Why the 80 years old comment?

0

popcan 4 years, 1 month ago

Why do you have to be insultive thaigard with my login name?

0

popcan 4 years, 1 month ago

Thaigard ... I have looked at the picture again. These people don't look 80 years old to me.

0

thalgard 4 years, 1 month ago

Sorry Pop, but they look like a dinner party at Archie Bunker's house, all white and old and stuff.

0

popcan 4 years, 1 month ago

Well Thaigard. From what I see of the picture I don’t agree with you. When you say it looks like a dinner party of old folks at Archie's doesn't give any substance to really what these people are doing. First of all, if these people look 80 years old, hats off to them. These 80 year old people fought very bravely for the freedom I have today and that is beautiful. 2. I do believe that they are having a breakfast and not a dinner. 3. I think they are having a meaningful discussion about issues in our country and are discussing ways to improve the country ... That's productive. 4. There spending money at a business and helping the Steamboat economy. So Thaigard ... I really don't understand anyone would bring up the comment "Republicans look like they are all 80 years old". Aren't these old people beautiful and something to be proud of. They gave you your freedom. I think the photographer took a good picture. Show people working together not Archie Bunker.

0

TWill 4 years, 1 month ago

They look old (maybe not 80) because that's are the demographic that actually attends these sorts of political events. I assure you that there are plenty of young, intelligent and more attractive Republicans out there. They're probably at work. Somebody's got to pay your bills you know.

But once again greenwash, thanks for the insightful and considerate commentary. We can always count on you for that.

0

popcan 4 years, 1 month ago

Whoops ... I goofed with a typo. Item 4 I meant to say They’re not "There"

0

seeuski 4 years, 1 month ago

We now know that the left wing posters here are green behind the ears and too young to appreciate the freedoms that these people are trying to preserve from disappearing and leaving the youth of this country to they're and our own demise. The loss of this Republic with it's freedoms, which was fought hard for by our Forefathers and many of our own relatives, is what the Progressives and avowed Communists want and those folks in the picture along with millions of other Americans of all colors, ages and nationalities are joining together to peacefully stand up against the tyranny of this Administration and their agenda. So like it or not, these people are trying to save you from you, whippersnappers, because you are too young to know what it was like under those wonderful Socialist/Marxist rulers. The rest of us don't want to be ruled under a fascist Government drunk with power.

0

thalgard 4 years, 1 month ago

Watch u P, do you mean the government that spies on it's own citizens without warrants, imprisons it's citizens at a greater rate than almost any other country in the world, and is incapable of taking care of its old and infirm?

0

seeuski 4 years, 1 month ago

fallhard, Yea the Obama Administration, that bastion of Communism. Now go have your milk and cookies and get to bed son.

0

thalgard 4 years, 1 month ago

Watch U P, are you part of the Larry Craig fan club or what!

0

thalgard 4 years, 1 month ago

Watch U P, are you part of the Larry Craig fan club or what!

0

ybul 4 years, 1 month ago

Thalgard, maybe it is an inherent flaw in our government, does not matter if Bush/Cheney are in charge or the deity of Obama. The government is not supposed to take care of the old and infirm. The government is doing a wonderful job of turning itself into the family unit. The family/community should take care of the old and infirm.

The Government's sole responsibility should be to ensure that peoples liberties and property are protected. The government needs to take forcibly from others to dole out to others for its pet projects. This is simply sanctioned theft. Who is to say what is right and wrong, one day we think that this is right, then the next we learn that what we thought was right is not.

Take a favorite of mine grain subsidies. The government is taking from others (regulated theft) in order to subsidize the production of corn to primarily fatten cattle. So the governments new mantra is that this action is in the public's good. Though it is not in all of the publics good, those who choose not to eat meat, the environmental problems it causes, health, etc..

While you may believe that we need the government to do good. Would it not be better for the community to work towards eliminating the need for assistance. Making sure that everyone has the ability to earn a decent living. What facilitated the ability of the average immigrant to get ahead in life and become middle class? Then what transpired which has eroded the middle class' standing in the United States. The primary culprit is the banking system and the pension system which has facilitated the concentration of wealth in a few peoples hands. The pseudo conservative mantra has been that we need to keep interest rates low to enable economic growth. However, this goes against free market principles, in that a governing body is pegging the most fundamental component of a free market, money, as all commerce uses money to facilitate it. The pegging of interest rates causes a misallocation of capital. It has also caused many people to take on debt that they should not have. Mortgage derived from the Latin - Mort(death) Gage(grip).

0

ybul 4 years, 1 month ago

The second factor that has concentrated wealth has been energy. Currently energy usage gets off free without having to account for any of its costs that its consumption poses on society as a whole. So in a true free market economy, we would impose some sort of fee such that the true cost of burning coal, oil is actually reflected in it.

Back on the money issue, as Money no longer has any inherent value, many countries print money or issue additional debt to manipulate the value of their currencies.

Maybe the "Progress"ives should really think about the fact that government is simply a middle man who, is sanctioned in legalized theft and if we can figure out how to eliminate them, just as O wants to do with insurance companies only to insert the government as the sanctioned middle man. Government does not create anything and only consume wealth. All the while they have created major unfunded liabilities in their pensions that citizens are liable for.

The current situation reminds me of Robin Hood, yet as opposed to the tales of robin hood stealing from the rich to the poor, he stole from a corrupt government and returned to the overburdened taxpayers.

By the way, I really do not want to see another Norton in office.

0

thalgard 4 years, 1 month ago

ybul...wow...that was the most coherent essay I have read yet in this fishwrapper...thank you. I usually just take the role of antagonist in these blogs, it's more fun that way.

0

seeuski 4 years, 1 month ago

ybul says, "The pseudo conservative mantra has been that we need to keep interest rates low to enable economic growth. However, this goes against free market principles, in that a governing body is pegging the most fundamental component of a free market, money, as all commerce uses money to facilitate it. The pegging of interest rates causes a misallocation of capital. It has also caused many people to take on debt that they should not have." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communit... Interesting take on the Mortgage meltdown, is there any chance that the CRA under Carter and exploded by the Dems in Congress, namely the likes of Barney Frank and other Socialists, worked their magic on the housing bubble and created a debt ridden society through the Government entitlement programs backed by Fannie/Freddie, which by the way lost $16billion$ of OUR tax dollars in Q4? Just curious where you got the info that pseudo conservatives want to redistribute wealth through low interest rates. Or am I misunderstanding your point? Wasn't Greenspan the main player in controlling rates which were lowered largely during the Clinton years? What is he anyway? Dem, Repub.

0

ybul 4 years, 1 month ago

My point was that while conservatives speak of free markets they fail to ralize that the basis of the market, that they want free and unfettered, is a currency that is manipulated and thus not wielding free market principles. So there is a disconnect in the logic.

Greenspan is a monetarist, one who believes that they can control the economy through the manipulation of credit markets. What happens when that much power is concentrated in one position and they make a mistake, the mess we have today. Same problem exists in trying to decide how to legislate from the US or UN level. They do not know the local conditions, that will have negative impacts on that decision.

??? Your welcome, unfortunately I have a deep concern for where we are headed have for many years. WHile it is fun to be the antagonist, I fear that with the internet we are able to only hear the side of the argument that we agree with. We need to listen and try to understand where all are coming from. Unfortunately there is no black or white and trying to understand the others points of views is needed in this day and age.

Unfortunately the government is not our friend today, it is an out of control body that needs reigned in. We all need to agree on this and little perks being thrown in to legislation to win votes for passage of a bill is killing us.

0

seeuski 4 years, 1 month ago

To Mr. Brent Boyer, Do you condone the trash talk by this self avowed rabblerouser thalgard? While reviewing many of this numskulls posts it is apparent that he/she has zero value on this forum except to show how much name calling you allow from a left winger towards the conservative members. I do believe your privacy policy states that......

"You agree to not:

  1. upload, post, distribute, e-mail or otherwise publish or make available on WorldWest Limited Liability Company web sites any libelous, defamatory, obscene, harmful, vulgar, threatening, tortious, harassing, abusive, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, racially or ethnically objectionable, or otherwise illegal material;

You make the call Brent but this person's post dated March 1, 8:05pm seems to fall under the above rule. You have deleted many of this person's posts in the past, when do you draw the line on someone?

0

JasonSalzman 4 years, 1 month ago

The following description of Senate candidate Jane Norton in this article looks innocent enough at first glance, but read it closely:

"Norton was Colorado's lieutenant governor from 2002 to 2006. She was executive director for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment from 1999 to 2002. She worked with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services during the George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan administrations."

The paragraph covers Norton's life from 2002-2006, 1999 - 2002, and 1988 - 1993. But the period from 1994-1999, which should have been sandwiched in the middle there, was mysteriously absent.

That's when Norton worked for Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), which describes itself as the "premier membership association for professional administrators and leaders of medical group practices." Her responsibilities from 1994-1999 included "monitoring health care reform legislative and regulatory proposals in the 50 states on behalf of MGMA's 18,000 clinic administrator members and 6,700 medical group members," according to Norton's website.

Norton's MGMA job became campaign fodder last month when she stated during a radio interview, "I've not been a lobbyist." Her spokesman later told the Colorado Independent that Norton has never been a registered lobbyist. Democrats point to her job at MGMA as proof that she was a lobbyist for the healthcare industry. And MGMA told the Colorado Independent that the arm of the company that Norton's directed conducts MGMA's lobbying activities.

Given the recent debate about Norton's job at MGMA from 1994 - 1999, it's weird that this part of her bio wasn't included in Steamboat Today story, especially when her jobs before and after MGMA were listed.

You hate to be nitpicky, especially when you know reporters are doing seventeen things at once these days.

But this small omission in the story, given the larger debate about Norton's role at MGMA, makes you wonder what happened.

So I called Margaret Hair, who wrote the piece, and asked why she left out the MGMA job.

She said: "I was just trying to highlight her policy experience, trying to provide a quick bio." She told me that Norton's Washington DC experience is more relevant for readers than her job at MGMA.

That's fair enough, and it makes sense from her perspective, as a reporter. The jobs Norton held in Washington were more important. Hair's willingness to discuss the issue helps me believe her, and I do in this case. That's why journalists should talk to the public. Still, I think Hair should have included the MGMA information in her piece, however briefly, because it rounds out the picture of Norton.

To its credit, Steamboat Today directed its online readers to Norton's website bio, which at least lists the MGMA job.

For full citations and links, please visit www.bigmedia.org. />

0

seeuski 4 years, 1 month ago

Thanks Jason, It seams that Jane Norton has a wide breadth of great experience and qualifications with no scandals unlike Ritter and many other Democrats lately. I'll bet she wouldn't use the nuclear option to pass a takeover of health care or ruin the local economy with strangling restrictions on the energy companies.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.