What's the Difference Between Fifth Congressional Candidates?
In the race for the Republican nomination in Congressional District 5, many voters often ask, aren't these three candidates the same on the issues? The answer is absolutely not. Today, Jeff Crank outlined for voters why he should be their choice on August 12.
"There are major differences in this race," said Crank. "I am the only candidate who has been honest with the voters about what my priorities will be in Washington and how I will accomplish them."
Alan Philp, Crank campaign manager, today noted the complete lack of substance and specificity by Jeff's opponents on the issues. "Congressional representatives are up for re-election every two years because the people get to hold them accountable. Neither of Jeff's opponents have outlined specific proposals for cutting government, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, or immigration reform."
A quick review of the three candidates' websites is telling. In the case of Jeff's opponents, no issues are addressed with any specificity. In fact, as of today, Doug Lamborn's news page says, "coming soon "
"Voters want to know the differences between these candidates, and Jeff Crank is the only one courageous enough to outline his platform," said Philp.
Jeff Crank has outlined his plans to:
Cut federal spending 20 percent in 10 years.
Introduce as his first bill legislation to form a base-closure-like committee to review government spending and propose specific plans for reductions in programs and spending.
Place an expiration date on every government program (sunset clause) so no program lasts forever.
Address the energy crisis and reduce fuel costs.
Ban pork-barrel spending projects known as earmarks.
Use specific conservative principles to guide his every vote.
Eliminate several specific government programs and departments, including the Departments of Education, Commerce and Energy and the IRS.
Oppose taxpayer-funded junk mailings (the so-called "franking" privilege) and put in place a plan for better communication to voters without emptying their wallets.
Implement a plan for government transparency to allow voters more accessibility to where their money goes and why, as well as the ability for more accountability by elected officials.
"I've explained to the voters what I'm going to do and how I'm going to do it. In two years, they will be able to hold me accountable. I call upon my opponents to do the same in the three weeks prior to the election," said Crank.