Continuously serving Kosciusko County since 1854
Editor, Times-Union:
When it comes to politicians vs. statesmen, it is apparent that Curt Nisly is a statesman while his opponent is a politician. If you check her Facebook page, she claims that she has different ideas in critical areas. However, when you read her statements, she makes some very misleading observations.
First, she says that she will be able to serve full time in the district. Our General Assembly is a citizen legislature by design. The General Assembly works less than 180 days in its election cycle. A legislator doesn’t need to work full time to serve the needs of their constituents.
She claims she is a team player and a strong negotiator. If the leadership wants to go against the wishes of the people you represent, will you side with the leadership or your constituents? Many politicians who claim to support the constituents before they are elected, tend to do the opposite when in office. If you do not believe me, remember Curt Nisly’s predecessor.
She claims she’s committed to getting anti-abortion bills heard and passed. Her problem is that all of the anti-abortion bills aren’t ending abortion, they are really bills regulating abortion. The only bill that is truly anti-abortion is Curt Nisly’s Protection at Conception legislation. My question to her is why is every pro-life organization on board against a bill that will accomplish their goals? If ending abortion is their ultimate true goal, supporting this bill should be obvious.
She claims to be ready to get (And I am quoting here) real work done and touts needs for ongoing jobs training, infrastructure improvements, eliminating the opioid crisis and fighting abortion. The last I have already covered, yet had she actually done some research during the session, she will see that Curt Nisly voted for HB 1002 which establishes a next level jobs employer training grant program, which will allow for the next generation of jobs to be taught now so that way Hoosiers can be ready and at the front of the line for those jobs. To eliminate the opioid crisis is an ongoing matter and is going to take time, yet Curt Nisly supported legislation that adds additional reporting requirements for treatment programs and limits the amount of an opioid prescription that a prescriber may issue for a first-time user and a child.
On the infrastructure issue, Curt Nisly supports working on and reinforcing our infrastructure, yet was adamantly opposed to the gas tax, which passed last year. It is a 56-percent increase in the gas tax. The problem is, and what isn’t mentioned, is that 100 percent of the gas tax never makes it to roads. The bulk of the gas tax money isn’t earmarked for roads until at least 2024. So why is Indiana claiming to make infrastructure a priority, yet delaying when funding actually arrives for it? What is a more pressing need than our infrastructure? More importantly, would Curt Nisly’s opponent have voted for it, when a plurality of the constituents were against the gas tax?
Curt Nisly is a statesman, his opponent is a politician. I’ll take the statesman every time.
Anne Bonewitz
Warsaw, via email
