I continue to stand by my comments about Paula Pennypacker’s political positions that I heard at a Senate debate, which she commented upon in her letter last week.

Regarding E-Verify, she states that she supports the proposed U.S. Senate Bill on comprehension immigration which requires all businesses to use E-Verify, but she “…also believes that it is unfair to punish businesses with E-Verify when we don’t have a way to bring workers into the country so they can run their businesses.”

So -- if illegal immigrants are no longer illegal, the E-Verify is ok. This does not make sense, since the purpose is to catch illegals. If everyone is legal, why have E-Verify?

Her point that businesses should have a safe harbor from prosecution if the E-Verify system fails already exists in Arizona – she needs to catch up on the facts.

Pennypacker said she “…clearly stated that I would not support nor vote to raise taxes.” That is not true! She talked about reforming the state tax code in order to make up the deficit, which means getting rid of tax deductions but keep the same rate thereby raising taxes.

Regarding the Democratic Party supporting small government, she responded that “…Democrats won’t use government to regulate women’s bodies or limit their access to health care.”

Got news for you Paula, “big” government has already done that!

Obamacare now requires me to have and pay for female-related health care even though I do not qualify for it. Is this your only example of small government?

As far as Democrats supporting smaller government, explain the following examples: Obamacare (1/6 of the economy), federal control of education (Common Core), NSA collection of phone and email data, and EPA regulations on carbon dioxide (what we exhale).

I rest my case.