Our party platform has three key philosophies compared to a traditional campaign agenda. First, we believe that the party system in Washington is broken. Second, we believe in a foundational return to the spiritual heritage of our country. Third, we believe it is time government act selfless and not selfish with the future of this country.
We have great passion to be part of a larger movement under God of real change in this country. Enjoy the site and let’s MOVE! Learn why all individuals who interviewed Todd of the York County GOP leadership committee endorsed Todd Watson for US Senate.
This site is designed to give you the information you need quickly while yet thorough enough to move the dialogue of the debate to “How” from “What”. “Todd’s Stances” has quick positional stances (read the bold if you have no time). Second, we have three Philosophies with quick excerpts to learn more about our beliefs. Finally, we thoroughly blog on any given topic to give those passionate about a subject details they can depend on. The details in these blogs gives you a roadmap to solving problems and details on specific views. You will rarely find disclosure of this level of detail as well as belief structures. Campaigns want to be general to appeal to the most voters. We fundamentally believe in giving specific guidance to move the debate forward and show we are serious about solving problems–not being popular.
Thanks for your support!
The Watson Campaign Team
June 26, 2014
We are continuing to try and run this campaign in a professional manner. I’m compared to Ben a lot on key issues because we have similar positions (see interviews with media). However, I think our approaches to civil issues are very different. I think we need a pragmatic approach of engaging both sides of the isle to move this country back to a more centric position on civil (as opposed to Moral and Constitutional) issues. I believe extreme civil positions only lead to further divide and non-controversial legislation continues to stall (The Farm Bill for Example).
Yes, I’m Independent but I’m still conservative. I believe in Pro-Life, Pro-Family, less government, etc. In a nutshell I believe there are some moral absolutes and many of the social and constitutional issues cannot be compromised. However, on civil issues where there is no moral or constitutional element at play I believe we need to work together to find solutions. I believe the vast majority of legislation involves civil discussion and I believe this takes bipartisan engagement. I leave the line in the sand arguments to those I believe reinterpret or violate what I would define as traditional Biblical and Constitutional guidance.
In this campaign the rumor mill can be a nasty game. I do not think it is a secret that I do not like the agenda of some of the donors in the Republican Party. Ben has not made an official policy statement on several issues that relate to the passions of his donor base or the Republican Party. I think we need to know where Ben stands on some of these civil issues.
Instead of taking my assumptions to the media and online of his policy positions I only thought it fair to go to Ben and his camp first and seek direct answers on relevant issues. I will relay those exact sentiments (with as many direct quotes as possible) to the people in a professional manner. We will be meeting on Tuesday morning where I will give some positions I would like answered and give them a brief period to respond (on the spot answers to numerous questions are unreasonable–I know–been there). I will go public with where I strongly differ with the traditional donors of these campaigns and the party if we don’t obtain a forthright answer. I’m not really concerned if he is for or against as much as I think Nebraskans deserve to know how we would vote on an issue. I only think it is fair to go to his camp first with many of my concerns and give him a chance to define himself first on policy issues before I try to define his views without seeking clarification first.
We will continue to work hard at approaching this campaign professionally. If you have a fair question you think needs answered–Please write. All the best – Todd
June 17, 2014
Democrats – Big government + Crony Capitalism
Republicans – Small government + Crony Capitalism
Todd Watson – Small government + No Crony Capitalism
No Big Donors from Wall Street, Big Pharma, and PAC’s with Big Oil. I appreciate the fact Nebraskans are loyal and trained to be Conservative. Just understand Conservative is not Republican anymore. The Republican Halls are full of big donors that fund their campaigns. Many donors are working against a free market system.
Join me and be an Independent Voice. Crony Capitalism is as big of a detriment to the free market as big government. We can help all people rich and poor with a robust marketplace. Stand up to the money controlling the halls of government AND the free market. Let’s return this government to the people and reinstall free markets for the sake of all our people. Please support Todd Watson, an Independent Conservative for US Senate
June 7, 2014
My middle son woke up in pain today and my wife took him to the Dr. The Doctor diagnosed him with Swimmer’s ear. My wife went to Walgreens and filled the prescription. The cost of the prescription was $156.95 AFTER THE $50 the insurance covered (see photo on Facebook – watsonforsenate). I went online and saw the prices of the drugs around the world. Our bottle (see photo) is 7.5ML. I logged on to pharmacychecker.com and I can pay $57. 76 for the same drug if I was in Canada (see below).
Bottom line is that “Big-Pharma” were given price protection capabilities for Special Interest Contributions—mainly by Republican representatives in America (75% of estimated donations go to Republicans). The Republicans always argue R&D (Research and Development) costs are expensive –they are right. However, I have a solution. They don’t have to bill Americans for the entire bill. My point is that every user of the drug around the industrialized world should pay for R&D — not just an American. The drug lobby is cited by Wikipedia as one of the largest donors of any industry group. They have donated to Ben Sasse as well in this campaign (opensecrets.com).
The CBO estimates we could save $112 billion in Medicare if we reversed just one piece of legislation that gives our government negotiating power back for Medicare. The Republicans took price negotiation away from the government and let “Big Pharma” set their own prices back in 2003. Taking price negotiation away from the marketplace is not conservative but it is Republican.
Here is one article that highlights how price negotiating or other changes need to be re-instilled into Medicare.
As I cited in my February blog, the Republicans did not address drugs in their healthcare plan they proposed in February. This is one of the most powerful lobbies of the Republican Party and I had a hunch they were going to protect their donors. Shouldn’t any healthcare plan address drugs?
The link below is Ben’s healthcare plan he released in March. Ben made a nice improvement by not taxing the worker (he didn’t bring it up but it appears not to be in there) as the previous Republican plan did but please notice one topic remains unaddressed…drugs. This indicator is what scares me most with any Republican candidate. Are they bought by Special Interest? I’m seeing contributions still buy influence in this race. To be fair, Ben attacks healthcare insurance companies (most Republicans historically do not do this but many seem to finally be conceding this ground). This is a huge step forward to reintroduce competition into the insurance arena.
I want to be fair to Ben and give him a chance to address drug companies. I Ask Ben, “Will you propose repealing price protection mechanisms in the Medicare and Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003?” Yes or no.
We can make Medicare more solvent, make less severe cuts to the program, and re-instill $110+ billion in savings for the American people. This is just the savings in Medicare. Think what Americans would save if we had a competitive marketplace for drugs in all aspects of Healthcare—not just Medicare (like Swimmer’s ear). Democrats will tax you with government but the Republicans will just make you pay more for your goods in the marketplace. Pick your poision. Making the market efficient and competitive is the best solution we have in a fallen world to help people lead better lives.
For what it is worth….maybe we can allow moms to bring their own Tylenol after birth to the room so we don’t pay $5 for one capsule? I digress……
I’m not against drug companies. Profit is a good thing. However, I’m for free markets. Price protection is not part of a free market. Spreading out R&D to the users of a particular drug around the industrialized world as opposed to just America makes sense. If a drug company will sell to Canada for $40 then American buyers should be paying $40 (or whatever the world free market rate is). Americans deserve to get as good of a deal on the open market as any other country. Let these drug companies make and seek a profit so they keep innovating. However, let their profit come equally from users of the product by citizens around the industrialized world.
I’m still not for the Affordable Care Act. Ask Dave Domina, “How will the government succeed at taking care of American citizens when we have our heroes (a drastically smaller subset) from our wars dying under the watch of government care right now at the VA (to be fair this problem in the VA started materializing under Bush and got worse under Obama).” We can’t trust a government to take care of its citizens when it can’t even take care of its freedom fighters.
I believe the solution lies in the market that is not represented by either party. Government run and Multi-National protected healthcare both fail in addressing care and cost. We need a simultaneous battle against Government run and Multi-National controlled healthcare. The free market offers large solutions for the healthcare industry. Carve outs should be reserved for rural health care where competition is not as feasible. A less competivie rural health care system should still be designed in a way to keep healthcare costs competitive. Regardless of location, commoditized products (like drugs) should be similar in price regardless of where the product is consumed.
Unfortunately, it appears that the Affordable Care Act will not be overturned. The Republican Party is moderating around the country as they take positions for the general election in November (including McConnell who wants to give Kentucky the option to keep their exchanges–don’t get me started). Many states are not as conservative as Nebraska. I see it highly unlikely these Republicans win their election wihtout moderating their stances in many of these races. “Talk Tough Primaries” are so misleading to Americans. The positions for primaries are seldom the positions they take for the general election. It appears “the will” to overturn the Act is not there in the Republican Party as they moderate for power–not principle.
I’m committed to standing with Republicans (if they have the collective fortitude) to make sure the Affordable Care Act is defunded, minimized, or overturned. However, I’m quite clear that pre-exisitng conditions (especially born with conditions) have to be covered as the marketplace has no real plausible solution for these situations. At the same time, I would stand with Democrats if they went after these price protection mechanisms put in place by Republicans as a thank you for campaign donations. We need both to be eliminated. My view is overturning both the ACA and special interest healthcare is the best way to improve cost and quality of service for the majority of Americans.
I’m worried that the Republican nominee in Nebraska that has pledged to be a “team player” and will “absolutely” support Senator McConnell as the Republican leader will moderate (and he already has with Senator McConnell) so as not to stand out and move up the ranks in the party. To be fair “Obamacare” is his main issue and I would guess he has to stay as strong as possible on an issue that defines his campaign. However, I frankly wish Ben would go back to 2013 Ben who called out Senator McConnell “to show some real leadership” on the healthcare issue as opposed to 2014 Ben who has pledged his support of McConnell and has funded his campaign. This flip flop of support to the old guard establishment is no way to go. Ben was right in 2013–it is time to show some real leadership in the GOP.
Back to the Swimmer’s ear, we are fortunate to be able to afford the medicine for David. This is not the case for many Americans. As a person who tries to follow the Bible I know oppression of the poor is a big deal for a nation.
Isiah 10:1 strikes fear in me if I were to win this race. Pray for any elected leader to do their best at observing this verse if elected. This verse goes through my mind as I look at laws on the books that cause overpriced drugs (needs) for our citizens.
Woe to those who make unjust laws,
to those who issue oppressive decrees,
There are more verses on oppression. People have rights to their opinions on what oppression and “cause of the poor” is. I don’t want to come off as having the correct singular interpretation as one who knows God’s actual opinion on a multitude of issues. However, as a personal interpretation I believe one of the modern day versions of oppression is hiking the prices of needs (medicine being one need) through protectionism of large companies in the marketplace. There is a distinguishing line of promote (not provide) in the preamble of the Constituion and I believe our founder’s knew this to be the best course of action. I believe it is my duty to promote the general welfare through competition of the marketplace. Domesitc price protections hurt our citizens. Eliminating domestic price protections “promotes the general welfare” and enables the best possible prices for our citizens with needs. Handouts equate to “provide” and creates long term dependency that creates an unsustainable burden on each American. We need to avoid this situation for the majority of Americans and seek to cover those that the market is unable to solve in a reasonable manner (Seniors and those with Pre-Existing conditions).
My job is not to provide every need (promote vs. provide the general welfare) but it is to liberate this market to work for the benefit of all citizens (including our very poorest). I believe this relates to banking, oil companies, food companies, etc. Free the market, not protect the market, is my cause. Increase the buyers and suppliers of a given market and remove protectionism of a small set of consumers/providers. I believe this will cause a robust and efficient marketplace that produces the most ideal outcome for producers AND consumers.
I think of the single working mom with kids. We are asking her to go to work roughly 11 hours extra (assume her wage is $10/hour) so her kid can get over Swimmer’s ear (we have employment taxes). What if we can get that cost down to 6 hours instead of 17 hours so she can spend that eleven hours with her son/daughter instead? If you have 2 children and spend an extra $100 each year for each child on medicines (this is a VERY conservative estimate)– you are asking that parent to work an extra 10 weeks over another mom in another country during the 18 years of life of her kids. This shouldn’t happen. We need parents investing in kids not working to pay for over priced medicines on the open market.
Providing for the poor and oppressing the poor are different things. These drugs have real costs. The best we can do is free the market to work for better prices for these goods. Keeping profit motivations in place for companies to innovate new drugs is good. Profit motivations have improved our standard of living to the greatest heights the world has ever seen. Let’s just spread those dollars that pay for profit around the world and incent competition to keep innovation and cost efficiency high. Protecting profit centers for campaign donations is just outright wrong.
Drug patents are at the core of our Constitution and must be protected to keep innovation in place and reward the skilled scientists who innovate. However, we must debate how long those patents need to be in place. Generics bring much needed price competition but innovators must be rewarded for improving our healthcare situation. America needs to have that open debate. We have to find the middle where profit centers are balanced with standard of living concerns for all citizens.
Let’s compete in the marketplace. Let’s protect our poorest citizens by giving them a marketplace that promotes the best price options for the products they need. Let’s destroy these anti-market mechanisms created by legislation. Let’s quit subsidizing the healthcare of other industrialized nations at the cost of the American citizen. Expanding market forces is my over-arching philosophy to healthcare. Government run healthcare is not the answer and Republican Special Interest Protected Healthcare does not “Promote the General Welfare”. The answer is in the middle. Come join me! Support Todd Watson, Independent for US Senate-Nebraska. Maybe we can solve the next Swimmer’s ear problem for $100 cheaper the next go around. – Todd