Election Guide 2016: Scott R. Tipton Q&A

Advertisement

Bio: Scott Tipton grew up in Southwest Colorado, attending Fort Lewis College before settling in Cortez where he was a small business owner for 30 years before going into public service. He was elected to Congress in 2010 where he currently serves as representative for Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District.

photo

Courtesy photo

Scott Tipton

Q. What is your position on gun control? Are there any measures you would support to help reduce the incidence of gun violence in the U.S.?

A. Our shared goal is to ensure public safety and protect communities from horrific acts of violence. The rush to restrict law-abiding citizens’ access to firearms and ammunition is not an effective way to prevent the tragedies we have seen, and raises serious constitutional concerns. I urge our elected officials at every level to join me in working towards policies that appropriately analyze and address the causes of violent acts — including focusing on expanding access to mental health care and strengthening our national security — to prevent mass acts of violence.

Q. It has been suggested that big money plays far too large a role in U.S. elections. Would you support comprehensive campaign finance reform? If so, what form would you like to see such reform take?

A. I share some of the same frustrations with campaign finance that many Coloradans do. The Supreme Court has settled the matter of campaign finance by defining freedom of speech to include corporations and unions, allowing them to make campaign contributions. That said, we can continue to have the conversation in this country about how we best achieve the desired outcome of ensuring that Americans’ free speech rights are protected and campaign contributions are transparent.

Q. What should the U.S. do differently to combat the rise in global terrorism and ensure that future attacks do not take place on American soil?

A. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have been asleep at the wheel in terms of the fight on global terrorism. We cannot win this war on our own and convincing our NATO allies to play a bigger role in the War on Terror is an important step in escalating our fight against global terror. We also must ensure that we have thorough screening and vetting of everyone who is coming into our country, whether that’s an H1 B visa or someone seeking refugee status. Homegrown terrorism is a very real threat and we must remain vigilant, both at home and abroad, to confront and defeat this unique threat.

Q. Do you support a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, as has been attempted numerous times in the U.S. House of Representatives? If so, how would you propose replacing it, and if not, what changes might be made to improve the American health care system?

A. I do support a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and if you look at the recent news that health insurance premiums in Colorado will rise an average of 20 percent next year, 40 percent in many rural areas, that is unacceptable. For the first time, there will be 14 counties in our state with only one health coverage option. We must ensure that all citizens have access to health care in our country, that we have a proper social safety net for those that cannot afford coverage and beyond that we need to let the free market back into health care. Getting rid of some of the excessive taxation in Obamacare will be a part of reducing costs, and cutting regulations that will open up the exchanges to more providers, driving down costs and providing better options for consumers.

Q. The jobless rate has fallen in the past eight years, but employment remains depressed, and while economic output seems to have rebounded since the Great Recession, household income continues to lag. What should be done at the federal level to spur employment and boost household income?

A. While some parts of our country, particularly our major metropolitan areas, have rebounded well from the Great Recession, many people are still struggling. This is most noticeable in our rural areas where the president’s Clean Power Plan has taken a toll on coal communities across our country. We have seen time and again that this administration attempts to implement one-size-fits-all regulation from Washington that is unable to adapt to local conditions on the ground. Obamacare and Dodd-Frank are the two best examples of this. Both have drowned out competition and entrenched systems that have failed us. Creating a common sense, business-friendly regulatory environment that works with local authorities and jurisdictions instead of against them is the best way to ensure we have equitable growth that spreads outside of major cities.

Comments

Tim Keenan 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Stop posting the truth! It really screws with the narrative they're trying to feed us.

0

Ken Mauldin 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Eric - It's hard to believe that you place so much faith in the US government and the FBI's ability to write a detailed report that blames the US military for Islamic terrorism when you have consistently promoted a broad distrust of government in general. I think you believe this report because it confirms your bias, not because you have faith in the FBI's findings.

Sure. We've been driving terrorism against ourselves since the Barbary wars in 1801. Those poor, poor, pitiful Muslims have been misunderstood since they first starting attacking US merchant ships and taking our sailors as slaves in the 19th century.

1

Eric Morris 5 months, 2 weeks ago

The fact the FBI tried to keep it secret and Barbara Starr didn't report it breathlessly from the CNN booth at the Pentagram as "Breaking News" confirms it is probably a decent report.

One man's pirate is another's Patriot, or Propheteer (intended).

http://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2008/06/27/the-unlikely-role-of-patriot-pirates

1

Ken Mauldin 5 months, 2 weeks ago

OK. So, blaming the military on terrorism is the one thing that you have complete faith in the US government to get correct. Got it. I completely disagree with the conclusion of the report and think that many of these foreign interests have brought trouble to themselves. I'll also point out this is the same DOJ/FBI that has found Honorably Discharged US Military Veterans are more of a domestic threat than Islamic extremists. That "Alice in Wonderland" threat assessment brings into question all other DOJ/FBI conclusions related to the potential sources of domestic terrorism.

Muslim extremists have been causing international trouble for the United States since at least 1801, when they were attacking our ships and enslaving US citizens. Although I think that it's clear that Muslim extremists started the conflict with the US, we can set who started it aside and hope the United States finishes it decisively and drives ISIS, and all related Islamic-extremists-psychotic-murderers into oblivion.

1

Eric Morris 5 months, 2 weeks ago

The military agrees that the military is a large part of the problem.

http://www.salon.com/2009/10/20/terrorism_6/

Is it possible that people who worship the false prophet of war profiteering don't want these wars to end anytime soon? The next intervention is the one that rids the world of Muslim extremists ...

And I agree that there are many motivations for these actions, but blaming the religion as the main or only reason is wrong, as admitted by the ones supposedly protecting us and our way of life. Could it be the way of life they want to protect is the military-industrial-lobby dreamland of DC and immediate environs?

0

Ken Mauldin 5 months, 2 weeks ago

I don't share the conspiracy-idea that a corporate-military-industrial complex is in control of America for the sake of conducting never-ending wars.

Also, to be 100% certain, I never blamed a religion, but rather extremists members of a religion. Beyond the extremists, however, it appears that the main tenants of Islam is not compatible with the western values of tolerance and open debate. For example, executing gays and suppressing woman from voting are acceptable in moderate Muslim countries but will never be acceptable in the western world. These western values are superior, in my mind, to the values that condemn gays and subjugate women. It's perfectly acceptable to reject and criticize values of violence and oppression. Does that open criticism and speaking out for basic human rights make them hate us? Maybe, but so what. Does pointing out that Mohammad was married to a little girl make them mad? Does pointing out that the only active slave trades on the planet are operated in Islamic countries make them mad? Does recognizing that Muslims are the only people murdering others because of religious beliefs make them mad?

Who cares if religious extremists that celebrate the murder of innocent people get mad? I'd prefer they were dead.

I'll never understand why some people make excuses for religious extremists that burn people alive and sell little girls into slavery.

1

Scott Wedel 5 months, 2 weeks ago

"I don't share the conspiracy-idea that a corporate-military-industrial complex is in control of America for the sake of conducting never-ending wars."

Nearly 60 years ago, President Eisenhower identified the military industrial complex of how military supplier companies have a profit motive and lobbying elected officials by promising local jobs to justify ever larger government contracts. Officers in the military advance their careers by successfully procuring more equipment. The military industrial complex is no conspiracy, but an economic reality driven by the profit motive, politicians seeking votes and military careerism.

Also, in the past 60 years, the military is a smaller part of the overall economy and fewer politicians are reliant upon defense contractor jobs for votes. So the military industrial complex is hardly in control of the country. Though, they certainly took advantage of 9/11 to sell a whole lot more equipment and assisted the Bush's administration war strategy. Obama administration has resisted attempted to go to war in Iran, Syria, Yemen and whatever other country.

I don't read that anyone is apologizing for extremists that commit atrocities. The relevant question for the US is whether we go to war in every country with extremists committing atrocities and whether US military action would weaken or strengthen the extremists. At some point, the local population has to be the force that puts their country together and eliminates the extremists.

0

Ken Mauldin 5 months, 2 weeks ago

The question between Eric and I is who is to blame for centuries-old geo-political conflicts and the source of domestic terrorism. I'm not saying the US is blameless, I just disagree with the FBI's finding that the US military is the biggest driver of homegrown terrorism. That narrative is designed to make victims of the people that sell children as slaves and blame the US military for acts of domestic terrorism.

0

Ken Mauldin 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Scott - Although I don't want the US to be the police of the world, I'm glad that the Allied Nations liberated German concentration camps in WW2. We're all free to sing the praises of Lockheed Martin (formerly Bell Bomber) today in English because Germany wasn't quite production-ready with their rocket and jet system that was far superior to the Allied weapons.

Should the American military be called again someday for a similar effort or to defend our homeland, I hope we have the technology to prevail. Remember, capitalism and the resulting speed of weapons-systems development won the Cold war. I don't deny the military industrial complex exists, I just don't think it's running the country or keeping us perpetually at war.

1

Scott Wedel 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Ken,

We didn't go to war in WWII in order to free Nazi concentration camps.

Also, Germany would not have won WWII if their rocket and jet systems had been more production ready. First, their jets were in production in 1944, but jets then were only good for defense as they had limited range. Second, the British were also experimenting with their Gloster Meteor was given to the USA for study. We looked at it and made the calculation that we were destroying enough of the Me262s that we could make more P51 Mustangs than they could shoot down before losing their planes. That we would "lose" more P51 Mustangs by switching to making jets than the Nazis would shoot down. And by then we weren't looking to defend our airspace.

The US was so far ahead in military production that in summer of 1943 that we turned some military production back to civilian.

And Nazi missiles could kill civilians as they could hit before setting off air defense warnings, but they weren't accurate enough to be a problem for the Allied forces all over England prior to D-Day.

Our current military is way more than needed to defend the homeland, but is instead meant so that US can project military force around the world.

0

Ken Mauldin 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Hi Scott - I never said that we entered WW2 in order to liberate concentration camps. I said "I'm glad that the Allied Nations liberated German concentration camps in WW2."

There are many historians that believe Germany would have fared much better, and potentially prevailed had they another year to improve and mass produce their technology.

0

Scott Wedel 5 months, 1 week ago

Ken,

So then why include that sentence on concentration camps? Apparent context is the rather banal point of while occupying Germany that we were also freeing concentration camps. It isn't as if there was an alternative to leave the concentration camps as pockets of Nazi controlled territory.

Different historians look at things differently. I find the analysis from those that look at logistics as being the most convincing. Clever generals with better battlefield tactics can often win battles, but very rarely does the country with inferior logistics win a war. Germany had no chance to win once they attacked the USSR and Stalin wasn't going to surrender.

Once the USSR relocated military production to the Urals and further east then Germany had no chance logistically. They started off with a large advantage in equipment that was never being replaced as fast as it was being destroyed once fighting began. In contrast, US and USSR once fighting started and got military production cranked up were able to crank out equipment faster than it was being lost. USA military production was so dramatic that by summer of 1943 that US war planners determined we were building tanks faster than they could be shipped to Europe and faster than they could be used. So, in 1943 we converted some tank production lines back to civilian vehicles.

Even if Germany had more jet planes then they were years away from the advances to make a longer range jet fighter able to operate at longer range. And then soon enough the Allies would have captured enough of ones that were either shoot down or had mechanical problems to figure out the design and make ones of our own. We were also experimenting with jet planes so it isn't as if we couldn't recognize the technology of what we were finding.

If somehow Nazi Germany and communist USSR could have maintained a peace then air battle over Britain might have continued for years. That could have evolved to Germany having offensive jets and England having defensive jets.

An interesting side note is that USA laid down keels for aircraft carriers originally expected to provide air cover for North Atlantic shipping convoys. Thus, the Hornet was undergoing sea trials in the Atlantic when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and several other carriers were under construction. Ended up that all carriers were sent to the Pacific as we developed long range fighters able to provide cover for convoys from airbases in Greenland, etc.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.