Tag Archive: Frelinghuysen

“Let’s Make America Great”

November 2nd.  That is the day where all voters in the 11th district should go elect a new person for congress.  This person should care about the needs of the people of New Jersey and America.  This person should be aware of the growing number of un-employed, especially in New Jersey where the number grew to 9.7% this past month.  This person’s interests should also satisfy the people he is serving.  The right man for this job is Douglas Herbert (D).

Doug is running against eight-term incumbent Rodney Frelinghuysen (R).  On July 28th Doug challenged Rodney to a debate about the issues facing the hardworking people of New Jersey and America.  Rodney still has not responded to this offer.  This debate is even supported by newspapers across the 11th district. Overall, In a Democracy don’t we debate?  What is Rodney so scared of that he will not respond to this offer?  Maybe, he doesn’t want to show that he doesn’t agree with Doug’s plans to fight un-employment, and help small businesses create jobs and new opportunities.  After all isn’t that what is really needed in this economic climate?  Maybe he is against fighting to reduce our deficit and return our country to its economic prosperity; which is another goal of Doug’s.  With all of the budget cuts to education in New Jersey; the funding of education has become a big topic of discussion.  Doug believes creating greater educational opportunities for students in New Jersey and across America will allow for long-term success. To properly educate the leaders of tomorrow the educators cannot be looked down upon and have jobs eliminated, adding to the un-employment.  Frelinghuysen recently voted against saving 3,900 New Jersey teachers their jobs.  

With our country and state in such a huge debt (in America approx. 13 trillion and NJ approx. 30 billion) we need a deficit reduction, and fast.  Doug believes in “putting common sense behind every cent of our tax dollars.” He also believes that real reform means real fiscal responsibility.  Unlike his opponent, Rodney, who spent money we clearly do not and did not have and continues to spend taxpayers’ money on earmarks totaling $101.5 million in the past two years.

The candidate for this election needs to be Douglas Herbert. We need to “Get America Working Again” and to start turning Washington around.  We can only do this if we change the people being sent there. If you are in the 11th district remember to go put your vote out for Douglas Herbert on November 2nd!

Let’s start changing the problems we are facing now with a new choice for congress!

For more information or to volunteer to the campaign please visit: http://www.douglasherbert.org/  

NJ GOP Delegation Goes Emily Postal

Promoted from the diaries by Rosi, who is represented in Congress by Leonard Lance, damn it.

This is an embarrassment.  Last week Congressman Joe Wilson (Rude-SC) heckled the President of the United States while Mr. Obama was speaking in front of the United States Congress at the invitation of the United States Congress.

Today the United States House of Representatives was presented with a vote that said it disapproved of Joe Wilson for heckling the President when he spoke in front of Congress at the invitation of Congress.

The entire NJ Republican delegation voted against the mild rebuke.  That’s Rodney Frelinghuysen, Scott Garrett, Frank Lobiondo, Leonard Lance (the “moderate”), and Chris Smith who apparently think it is OK to heckle the President.

I mean, here is the text of the resolution that they voted against:

Whereas on September 9, 2009, during the joint session of Congress convened pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 179, the President of the United States, speaking at the invitation of the House and Senate, had his remarks interrupted by the Representative from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson; and whereas the conduct of the Representative from South Carolina was a breach of decorum and degraded the proceedings of the joint session, to the discredit of the House:

Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the House of Representatives disapproves of the behavior of the Representative from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson, during the joint session of Congress held on September 9, 2009.

I mean, holy shit but that is the most mealy mouthed resolution that could possibly be passed.  Wilson was wrong in his behavior, and he was wrong in his facts.  What the hell do these Republicans think is appropriate behavior if embarrassing the United States on national TV is OK with them?

And these morans are members of the same party — the REPUBLICANS — who equated opposing President Bush with treason.  Shit!

The fact is that Wilson embarrassed the House, the Senate and the Country.  All the resolution says is that he degraded the processions, and that the House disapproves of that kind of action.

But Frelinghuysen, Garrett, Lobiondo, Lance and Smith can’t bring themselves to break from the national GOP and make this simple statement?  

To paraphrase the Dixie Chicks, I’m embarrassed these idiots are from the state of New Jersey.

Veterans to Rally at Fort Nonsense to Protest Frelinghuysen’s “Nonsense”

Parsippany, October 22-Veterans of the U.S. armed forces will be rallying at Fort Nonsense, in Morristown, New Jersey, on Saturday, October 25, from 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. to protest the voting record of Rodney P. Frelinghuysen (R, NJ-11) in the United States House of Representatives.

According to a recent scorecard issued by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Frelinghuysen scored only 10 out of a possible 15 points, whereas most of New Jersey’s Representatives scored 14 or 15. Frelinghuysen lost crucial points when he voted against healthcare funding and educational benefits for the veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

According to Ed McLaughlin, 59, a Vietnam Veteran from Butler, “Frelinghuysen slaps the troops on the back and says ‘I’m right behind you guys.’ Then he votes against us every chance he gets. The only time he votes for veterans is when it’s practically unanimous.” McLaughlin served with the First Marines from 1967 to 1969 and has a 100% service-connected disability.

Tom Wyka, D-Parsippany, who is challenging Frelinghuysen for his Congressional seat, says, “If you look at Frelinghuysen’s voting record, you find a disturbing pattern. He voted against most of the items on the Disabled American Veterans’ agenda. The things he voted for passed unanimously, or nearly so. But when disabled veterans needed him to stand up for them, when the vote was close, he voted the wrong way. You see a similar pattern in the IAVA scorecard. So when he says that he supports veterans, that’s nonsense!”

Votes in Congress can have serious consequences. Wyka says, “In 2005, Frelinghuysen voted against the Melancon of Louisiana Amendment. Melancon’s amendment would have increased funding for various veterans’ health care and other benefits programs by $53 million. The additional $53 million would have been used to speed up processing of claims for veterans’ healthcare and other benefits. Unfortunately, the amendment failed by one vote. It’s not unusual for a soldier coming home from Iraq to wait 6 to 9 months to have a claim processed. Maybe this is why.”

“Local veterans are also angry over Frelinghuysen’s position on the New GI Bill. Not only did Frelinghuysen fail to cosponsor this bill (thus missing the opportunity to add 2 points to his IAVA score), he voted against it, and instead voted for an inferior bill that the IAVA called ‘A Second-Rate GI Bill.’ When the better bill passed, Frelinghuysen praised it in his newsletter, claiming that it was a great victory for military families. Yet he failed to mention that he neither cosponsored it nor voted for it.”


Disabled American Veterans’ scorecard: http://capwiz.com/dav/bio/keyv…

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Action Fund Report Card: http://www.veteranreportcard.org

New GI Bill: http://www.gibill2008.org

House vote on New GI Bill: http://www.gibill2008.org/hous…

Wyka for Congress: www.tomwyka.com


VETPAC Veterans Group Endorses Wyka

Parsippany, October 21-The Council for a Livable World’s Veterans’ Alliance for Security and Democracy (“CLW-VETPAC”) has endorsed Tom Wyka (D, Parsippany) to represent New Jersey’s 11th district in the U.S. House of Representatives.

From VETPAC’s Web site: “VETPAC is a political action committee formed by American Veterans to promote the principles and values for which members of the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, National Guard and Reserved Forces have served our country, fought and died. Working together with the American People, through VETPAC we are embarked on a new operation, a ‘search and rescue’ mission. We are searching for national leadership that will help us rescue America’s future from policies that threaten our national security, our civil liberties, and our country’s economy. We are committed to working for a better future for our Nation and its citizens.”

As of October 21, Wyka was one of six non-veterans endorsed by the group for the 2008 election cycle. “We owe our military veterans a debt of service, and my opponent has been trying to renege on that debt,” says Wyka. “My opponent got a low score, only 10 out of 15 points, from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Congressional Report Card in 2008. Nobody in the New Jersey delegation scored lower. He scored far lower than the average Democrat and even worse than the average Republican. He scored low because he voted against healthcare and educational benefits for veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. In particular, he voted against the New GI Bill.”

Wyka said, “Frelinghuysen’s performance on the Disabled American Veterans’ agenda was particularly bad. If you look at his voting record, he voted against everything that didn’t pass unanimously or nearly so. Our veterans don’t need someone who will stand up for them only when everyone else does. They need someone who will stand up when it counts!”

“I’m honored and grateful that VETPAC has endorsed me. When I look at their Web site, I see that we are concerned about the same issues, such as the great strain on our National Guard. VETPAC argues that ‘the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans’ planning for the care of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan has been as poor as the planning and execution of the wars themselves.’ VETPAC feels that services to veterans have been unfairly delayed or denied as a result. This has to change. If I am elected, I will work hard to solve these problems.”


VetPac Web site listing of Wyka endorsement: http://www.vetpac.org/index.ph…

VETPAC issues: http://www.vetpac.org/index.ph…

Disabled American Veterans’ scorecard (notice that the items for which Frelinghuysen voted correctly passed unanimously, or nearly so): http://capwiz.com/dav/bio/keyv…

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Action Fund 2008 Congressional Report Card: http://www.vetpac.org/images/s…

Web site about the New GI Bill: http://www.gibill2008.org/abou…


Poll Says Wyka Can Win

Parsippany, October 21-Although New Jersey’s 11th Congressional district has long been considered a Republican stronghold, unaffiliated voters will determine the outcome of the 2008 race, and those who are aware of Democratic challenger Tom Wyka strongly support him.

The 11th Congressional district consists of all of Morris County, plus parts of Somerset, Essex, Sussex and Passaic Counties. Although the 11th is believed to be a Republican majority district, the largest group of registered voters within the district are “unaffiliated,” and the percentage of registered Democrats is growing, particularly in the eastern portion of the district. As of September 2008, there were 150,000 unaffiliated voters, 135,000 Republicans, and 95,000 Democrats.

“We calculate that Tom needs 65% of the unaffiliated vote in order to win the seat,” says Milin Shah, Campaign Coordinator of Wyka for Congress. “Our current polling indicates that 26% of the unaffiliated voters are undecided, with 49% leaning Democratic and 25% leaning Republican. If we can get our message out to those undecided unaffiliated voters, we will win.”

“Both candidates had surprisingly low name recognition among unaffiliated voters. Only 9% of the unaffiliated voters could name their current Congressman, as opposed to 2% who could name Wyka. But only 11% of the unaffiliateds who could name Frelinghuysen supported him. That’s compared to 100% support for Wyka among the unaffiliated voters who could name him,” said Shah.

Wyka’s campaign message focuses heavily on the incumbent’s voting record. Shah said, “Since 2006, more and more people have been paying attention to how Frelinghuysen has been voting. For years, he’s sent out newsletters that talk about how he ‘works with’ various groups and ‘supports’ their causes. So people are really stunned to discover that he doesn’t necessarily vote for the things he claims to work for and support. Voters deserve to know that their Congressman has voted against the best interest of homeowners, women, children, vets, and seniors. Rodney has voted against equal pay for men and women, voted against reforming the mortgage industry and against consumer protection in the Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights; voted against children’s healthcare, voted against expanding Medicare. Environment New Jersey says that Frelinghuysen’s environmental voting record is ‘dismal.’ Frelinghuysen is one of the lowest-rated members of Congress in the entire country in the eyes of Disabled Veterans of America and continues to vote in lockstep with the Bush administration on the war in Iraq but often failed to vote to support the troops when they come home. In contrast, Tom Wyka has been endorsed by the National Organization for Women, the New Jersey Education Association, and the Council for a Livable World’s Veterans’ Alliance for Security and Democracy. Our campaign will continue to inform the electorate about Rodney’s voting record, and we are optimistic that on election day New Jersey’s District 11 will send Tom Wyka to Congress.”






Wyka: Frelinghuysen No Champion of Iraq/Afghanistan Vets


October 7, 2008


Wyka for Congress

P.O. Box 350

Lake Hiawatha, NJ 07034




Frelinghuysen No Champion of Iraq/Afghanistan Veterans

Parsippany, October 7-Representative Rodney P. Frelinghuysen, R-Harding, and Scott Garrett, R-Wantage, were tied for the lowest score in the New Jersey Congressional delegation in a scorecard issued by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) Action Fund, an organization representing veterans of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.

In the 2008 IAVA Congressional scorecard, four of New Jersey’s members of the House of Representatives scored an A+ (a perfect score of 15): Bill Pascrell, (D-8) Steve Rothman (D-9), Rush Holt (D-12), and Albio Sires (D-13). Six others scored an A, which represented a score of 13 or 14: Robert Andrews (D-1), Frank LoBiondo (R-2), Chris Smith (R-4), Frank Pallone (D-6), Michael Ferguson (R-7), and Donald Payne (D-10). Jim Saxton (R-3) got a B for scoring 11 out of 15, and Scott Garrett (R-5) and Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-11) each got a B for scoring only 10 out of 15.

Tom Wyka (D, Parsippany), who is running against Rodney Frelinghuysen in the 11th district, explains:

“You might think that a B is good, but it means that Frelinghuysen voted against healthcare and education for veterans.”

“The IAVA’s grades are generous. Ron Paul got the only F. Only four members got a D, and only 34 members got a C. All of those who got a C, D, or F were Republicans. In contrast, all of the 122 members who got an A+ were Democrats.”

“Only one Democrat in the entire House of Representatives scored as low as Frelinghuysen did, but it was because of absences, not hostile votes. In contrast, 100 Republicans scored better than Frelinghuysen did.”

“Frelinghuysen and Garrett’s scores of 10 out of 15 are an embarrassment for the New Jersey delegation, most of whom got A+ or A. Both Frelinghuysen and Garrett have provided poor support to veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom. The same can be said of the Republican Party as a whole.”

“Not only does Frelinghuysen have a poor voting record on veterans’ issues, he seldom introduces or cosponsors legislation endorsed by major veterans organizations.”

“The IAVA is a nonpartisan organization, so we had to put the scores into a spreadsheet and add the data on party affiliation,” explains Wyka.

According to the IAVA Action Fund’s report, the scorecard for the House of Representatives is based on 13 key votes on veterans’ issues. Each of these votes was an opportunity for the Representative to take a stand on behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. The Representative got one point for each vote that was in line with IAVA Action Fund’s position. The Representative didn’t get a point if he or she voted against the IAVA position or failed to vote on the issue. Because the fight for the new GI Bill was considered to be so important, Representatives who cosponsored the bill (H.B. 5740) got two additional points in the scorecard. The scorecard included a score for all of the Representatives except those who did not serve a complete term, such as Tom Lantos, who died in office. Nancy Pelosi was also excluded from the scoring, because as Speaker of the House, she votes only in the case of a tie.


Cosponsorship of H.B. 5740

Frelinghuysen lost 2 points because he was not among the 302 cosponsors of this bill.

Funding Veterans’ Health Care, 2007

January 31, 2007; Roll Call Vote No. 72

IAVA Action supported this legislation, which passed 286 to 140; Frelinghuysen voted against it.

The IAVA scorecard says, “More than five million American veterans rely on the Department of Veterans Affairs for their health care. Although veterans’ hospitals provide some of the best health care in the country, the VA has been underfunded for years; for FY2007, the Bush Administration requested almost $4 billion less in VA funding than the amount suggested by major veterans’ organizations. In early 2007, Congress made veterans’ health care a priority, increasing the funding for veterans’ health care by $3.6 billion. The budget passed by a vote of 286-140.”

The Post-9/11 GI Bill: Fair Education Benefits for Veterans (first vote)

May 15, 2008: Roll Call Vote No. 330

IAVA Action Fund supported this legislation, which passed 256 to 166; Frelinghuysen voted against it.

The IAVA scorecard says, “For the 1.7 million veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the transition to civilian life can be challenging. Veterans of World War II were aided in their reintegration by the “GI Bill,” which paid for the education of eight million combat veterans. The GI Bill changed the lives of millions of American veterans and their families. Sadly, Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, still covered by the peacetime Montgomery GI Bill from 1984, received a far smaller benefit. Many new combat veterans were struggling with student loans or dropping out of school altogether. A new GI Bill was the number one priority for IAVA and IAVA Action in 2008.

“The popular and bipartisan ‘Post- 9/11 GI Bill,’ introduced on the House side by Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-AZ-5), Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA-3), Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL-5), and Rep. Peter King (R-NY-3), offered a new future to Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. The new GI Bill dramatically increases education benefits by providing tuition payments up to the cost of the most expensive public university in the state, a monthly living allowance, and a book stipend. It also creates a new ‘Yellow Ribbon’ program that matches any scholarship given to a veteran by a school more expensive than the tuition cap. In spring 2008, the new GI Bill was included as part of the domestic spending amendment to the Iraq war funding bill. Because of the concerns of some fiscally conservative ‘Blue Dog’ Democrats in the House, the cost of the GI Bill was given a budget offset (although the cost of the war funding as a whole was not). The offset chosen was a tax increase on individuals making over $500,000 a year, or couples making over $1 million annually. The offset lead many Republicans to vote against the measure despite their support for the GI Bill. ”  

A Second-Rate GI Bill

May 23, 2008; Roll Call Vote No. 364

IAVA Action opposed this legislation, which failed 186 to 223; Frelinghuysen voted for it.

The IAVA Scorecard says, “For over 18 months, IAVA and IAVA Action worked closely with a bipartisan coalition of Senators and Representatives on a new Post-9/11 GI Bill that would make college affordable to veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan. The model for the new legislation was the World War II GI Bill that paid for the education of eight million combat veterans, and helped rebuild America after a half-decade of war. The Post-9/11 GI Bill quickly gained the support of 300 cosponsors in the House, almost 60 cosponsors in the Senate, and all the leading Veterans Service Organizations, including the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, and of course IAVA.

“A small but vocal opposition in Congress argued that the benefit was too generous. In an effort to derail the popular and bipartisan Post-9/11 GI Bill already a part of the war supplemental funding, a motion was made to advance a meager and ill-conceived ‘alternate’ GI Bill before the Post-9/11 GI Bill had the opportunity to be passed and signed into law. This alternative GI Bill did not meet any of IAVA’s requirements for a new GI Bill; it did not cover the cost of college, it did not create fairness for National Guardsmen and Reservists, and because it was not linked to the cost of college, it would lose value every year. It did include a ‘transferability’ benefit, which offered current service members who agree to remain in the military for ten years the opportunity to transfer their GI Bill benefit to their spouse or children. However, because 75% of those serving in the military get out after their first term of service, this benefit will apply to relatively few Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. Moreover, transferability was already possible at the discretion of the Department of Defense service secretaries. The weak ‘alternative’ GI Bill received the support of no major veterans’ service organizations.”


The IAVA Action Fund is not the first organization to point out Frelinghuysen’s poor voting record with regard to veterans’ issues:

Disabled American Veterans

Frelinghuysen voted against everything on the Disabled American Veterans’ agenda, except for items that passed unanimously or nearly so.


American Legion

Frelinghuysen seldom introduces or cosponsors legislation endorsed by the American Legion:


Veterans of Foreign Wars

Frelinghuysen seldom introduces or cosponsors legislation endorsed by the Veterans of Foreign Wars.


Vietnam Veterans of America

Frelinghuysen seldom introduces or cosponsors legislation endorsed by the Vietnam Veterans of America.



Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America 2008 Congressional Report Card: http://www.veteranreportcard.o…

List of party affiliations from the Clerk of the House of Representatives: http://clerk.house.gov/member_…


Wyka Renews Call to Fix Earmarks

Parsippany, September 2, 2008-Tom Wyka is asking the New Jersey Congressional delegation to support a moratorium on “earmark” spending. “Earmarking has become an industry, with campaign contributions being viewed as ‘investments.’ Last March, the Senate failed to pass an amendment banning earmark spending for a year. I suggest that the New Jersey Congressional delegation support a moratorium on earmarks. Dick Zimmer, John McCain, and Barack Obama have already expressed support.”

An “earmark” is a provision in legislation that directs funds to be spent on specific projects. Typically, legislators use it to direct a specified amount of money to a particular organization or project in their home state or district. Earmarking is different from the appropriation of money to a particular government agency, because the appropriate executive department can exercise discretion as to where and how those funds are spent. The use of earmarks in the House of Representatives and the Senate has has expanded significantly over the past few decades, but it is becoming increasingly controversial. Some nonprofit organizations, such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the nation’s top universities, refuse to accept grants and contracts funded by earmarks.

“I’m all for getting funding for worthy projects in your district. But what bothers me is the process,” explained Wyka. “Earmarks undergo little or no debate in Congress, they are not subject to competitive bidding or administrative review, and they are seldom reported on by the press. Earmarks are usually added at a late phase to large bills that fund the federal government. If you are a Congressperson or a Senator, you then can’t oppose the earmark without voting against the whole bill. So there’s no easy way to stop it. Then there’s log-rolling, which means that members support bills with another member’s earmarks, in hope that the other member will support theirs. It gets out of control quickly. It’s also unfair, because it doesn’t direct funds to the most-deserving projects. Whether an earmark makes its way into a bill depends on the seniority and power of the member supporting it, not on the worthiness of the cause.”

According to Wyka, “Not only is the earmark process often unfair, but it often leads to corruption. Randy ‘Duke’ Cunningham of California pled guilty to taking bribes in exchange for earmarks and was sent to prison. That was an extreme case, but it is also common for earmarks to go to a member’s campaign contributors. For example, according the Seattle Times’ report titled ‘The Favor Factory,’ my opponent Rodney Frelinghuysen had $83 million in defense earmarks in 2007. From 2001 to 2007, he had received $327,100 in contributions from the earmark recipients. It doesn’t look good.”

Wyka explains, “We will eventually solve part of this problem by public funding for national political campaigns. Americans for Campaign Reform estimate that we could publicly fund all races for national office-that’s House of Representatives, Senate, and President-for just $6 per person. We would save far more than that per person in pork-barrel spending alone, because members of Congress would no longer have to reward their big fundraisers. In 2007, we had a successful pilot project for public funding of campaigns in three legislative districts in New Jersey. It worked. And it’s the future. In the meantime, we need to think about how to deal with earmark spending. We need to stop the ‘quid pro quo’ one way or another.”

Jeff Flake, a Republican of Arizona, gave the following speech before the House of Representatives on September 26, 2007: “Among the many downsides to earmarking, and one that we rarely talk about on the House floor, is the practice of ‘circular fund-raising.’ Campaign donations are given to members, members secure earmarks benefiting their contributors, and contributors in turn are able to give members more donations. This cycle is repeated over and over and over. Unfortunately, this is a bipartisan practice. The media has reported on many such arrangements for members on both sides of the aisle. Legal issues aside, circular fund-raising does not pass the smell test. Whether it’s fair or not, the crimes of a few of our former colleagues have cast suspicion over us all. Continued rampant fund-raising is simply not worth the trust it costs us with our constituents. I think that most of us had higher aspirations when we came here, than groveling for crumbs that fall from appropriators’ tables. I hope that we, as members of Congress, will finally decide that enough is enough.”  










Wyka on Healthcare

It could happen to you, even if you have health insurance. Illness and medical bills are the major cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States. Although we have 47 million uninsured people, most of the 2 million people per year affected by medical bankruptcy had health insurance when they first got sick. But they weren’t really protected, because of exclusions, high deductibles, and copays. Or they lost their insurance when they could no longer work. At the same time, businesses and local governments are struggling to pay the high premiums for their employees’ benefits.

When you buy private insurance, about 30% of your premium goes to overhead: dividends for the investors, the high salaries of their officers, and a bureaucracy that picks your doctor for you and tries to find ways to avoid paying for your care. In contrast, Medicare’s overhead is only 3%. How could a government program be so efficient? Well, Social Security’s overhead is only 1%. No private pension plan can compare to that!

In this video, Tom emphasizes the plight of so many Americans, many of them close friends and aquiantances, who struggle with the high cost of healthcare in our country. These are real people. They could be your friends, relatives, neighbors or their children. Many of us could be one severe illness away from the same situation.

It doesn’t have to be this way. No one in any other industrialized country has this problem. What you have to do is elect people to House of Representatives and the Senate and the White House who will solve this problem. It comes down to you. Please go to www.tomwyka.com to see how you can help.