After reading this post about another union backing Tarryl Clark, I’m left wondering why the media didn’t dig into who she really was representing.

On the AFL-CIO’s website, they posted this about health care reform:

What Works: Medicare, Children’s Health
What Doesn’t Work: HSAs, Medicare Prescription Drugs

I know that Tarryl supports single-payer health care, which is what Medicare is. I know this because I attended a health care forum in January, 2008 that Tarryl held at Whitney Senior Center. Spoeaker after speaker talked about the virtues of single-payer health systems. One woman representing the Central Minnesota Health Care Coalition stood up and said this:

“We don’t need health insurance. We need health care.”

Another woman, Loretta Linus, said this:

“The doctors are wonderful. You get good care. And it just makes me mad when they talk about how they have to come over here to get good care & that’s not true.”

“Now they say that Canadians have to come over here for good treatment. Well don’t you believe it. Don’t you believe it one bit. That government is so good to all its people. I don’t care if you’re rich or poor. They take care of you. And so many of the people come & they talk crap about how awful their system is. Well, don’t you believe it. Single payer is wonderful if it’s run right.”

Tarryl sat there, soaking this all in with a smile on her face. She obviously didn’t find anything objectionable to what was said. The other hint that Tarryl is a single-payer advocate was her inviting State Sen. John Marty to be the special guest for the forum. John Marty’s been advocating for a single-payer health care system since before I paid attention to the state legislature.

Another thing that the unions support is higher taxes, especially on “the rich.” It isn’t a coincidence that Tarryl has supported every major tax increase that the legislature has voted on the last 3 years.

The DFL has kept up a persistent whining seemingly forever that Tim Pawlenty’s actions were dictated by his ambition for higher office. Why shouldn’t we ask if Tarryl’s actions were the result of her ambition for higher office? It’s certainly as plausible as saying that Gov. Pawlenty’s actions were dictated by his ambitions.

The real test, though, isn’t whether you represent various special interest groups interests. It’s whether your votes were in the best interests of the constituents that elected you. After going door-knocking with Steve Gottwalt last summer and fall, I’ll guarantee that raising taxes wasn’t a majority sentiment.

Based on how little support single-payer health care legislation has right now, I’m confident that central Minnesota voters don’t support that, either.

At the day’s end, I’m still wondering whether Tarryl cared more about gaining the union’s support for when she ran for higher office or if she cared more about her constituents in SD-15. Something tells me that it isn’t the latter.

I tried finding out where Tarryl stands on EFCA from her campaign website. Unfortunately, Tarryl’s website doesn’t have an issues page. That’s pretty shoddy considering the fact that Tarryl announced her candidacy in late July.

Is Tarryl attempting to hide her position on EFCA because it’s a controversial issue? Perhaps, though I suspect that all this union support means that she’d support Card Check legislation if she was elected.

Finally, according to the SEIU’s report card, Tarryl voted with the SEIU 100 percent of the time, giving her an A+ rating.

One of the things that the SEIU opposed was David Hann’s amendment that would have prohibited school employee salary increases. I guess Larry Pogemiller’s talk about the need for shared sacrifice didn’t extend to school employees. Of course, Tarryl enthusiastically opposed this belt-tightening measure.

A cynical man might say that the unions got exactly who they paid for.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Who Did Tarryl Represent?”

Leave a Reply