Google Ads


Site Stats

S-CHIP Crumb-Bum Roll Call, 2009 Senate Edition

by: DavidNYC

Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 11:32 PM EST


The Senate overwhelmingly passed the S-CHIP reauthorization and expansion today, 66-32. All of the nays were Republicans. Here's a roll call of the GOP crumb-bums up for re-election in 2010:

Bennett (R-UT)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Coburn (R-OK)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Isakson (R-GA)
McCain (R-AZ)
Shelby (R-AL)
Vitter (R-LA)

Never will you find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. Fortunately, though, quite a few of these troglodytes are vulnerable or are weighing retirement: Bunning, Burr, Grassley, Gregg & Vitter. I look forward to seeing them all get bashed over the head with their callous cruelty toward children. They deserve it.
DavidNYC :: S-CHIP Crumb-Bum Roll Call, 2009 Senate Edition
Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

S-CHIP Crumb-Bum Roll Call, 2009 Senate Edition | 43 comments
Hypocrisy
It's amazing how vile most of the left are towards people with different opinions than them. I can't wait until you get bashed over the head.
Is there an e-mail going around
in Republican circles ordering the troops to register on Democratic sites and start fights?


Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens
[ Parent ]
You're right.
Silly me.  What was I thinking?  Uninsured kids a bad thing?  HA!  I'm going to pull my kids health insurance immediately.  You and the 30 some Republican senators have me convinced.  
[ Parent ]
Not worth my time, but I love this conservative argument
It seems like a common Republican/crazynut misconception that Democrats take marching orders from Barney. "Different opinions" can apply to lots of people vilified throughout history. Leaving children without health care while giving CEOs many hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses seems worth the venom.  
[ Parent ]
Now That They're Out Of Power
Republicans have nothing better to do.
[ Parent ]
Sooner or later, you're might even find out
that one of these people is someone like Andy Harris, or Jim Bunning, or even Larry Craig.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01
[ Parent ]
I consider people like Rush Limbaugh and you
anti-American traitors who should be thrown in prison or executed.
[ Parent ]
That's a little strong.


Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
Maybe
but what Limbaugh said that he hopes Obama fails was traitorous.  It would be similar to someone who came out on September 12, 2001, and said that they hoped Bush failed and that Al-Queda would win.
[ Parent ]
I heard that Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot
Take that, Rush!  Fire from the mouth of a soon-to-be US Senator!

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01
[ Parent ]
I Think Rush Was Responding
In reaction to Bush's first term beginning in 2001 when those on the left wanted him to fail. Rush is basically saying why should those on the right give Obama the same leniency? Of course that's just childish behavior more worthy of a 6 year old. Bush failing, by the way,probably would have been a good thing, but we never knew back then. The bad thing for Rush is that unless he can come up with some solid evidence that that happened, nobody's gonna believes him.

As for Mr. Brandon, anyone noticed he's basically shut the fucked up ever since that one line? A real man would at least try to defend himself. So apparently Brandon's a coward too.

[ Parent ]
I never wanted Bush to fail
I just figured he would.  

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens
[ Parent ]
Tell That To Rush
Don't shoot the messenger. But of course, Rush would probably not listen to you anyway, just like he is to a lot of Americans.
[ Parent ]
LOL
Is this the excuse conservatives are using now?

Go fuck yourself, troll.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
Burr is toast
was he asleep last November?  If any Republican was likely to shift towards the center on politically easy votes, I thought it would be him.  Bill was going to pass anyways.  Liddy Dole got tossed out by 7%.  Burr doesn't have a chance next year.
Burr is not known for his brain power
and Burr is not going to win re-election in 2010.  A Democrat can and will prevail in NC.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04
[ Parent ]
Burr Is From North Carolina....
....he would be harboring more bad will for himself by supporting SCHIP and its cowardly tobacco tax than he would by supporting it.
[ Parent ]
Grassley was strongly in favor
of the version last Congress. But because he might face a primary challange, he's now going to exaggerate his objections to LPRs potentially getting benefits in this version  
"wretched hive of scum and villainy"
First the Watchmen video now Star Wars references . . .

What is this? Sci-fi night at SSP?

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26

I'm waiting for the Stargate references


Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
Martinez voted for it
That's a surprise.  Guess he doesn't care anymore since he's retiring in 2010.

Also interesting that Murkowski keeps voting with Dems on big bills considering she should be far more worried about a challenge in the primary than in the general.

As did both Tennessee republicans
Corker and Alexander.  Maybe pressure on them to vote in favor since TENN Care went bust.
[ Parent ]
As did Kay Bailey Hutchison
She's likely to face a stiff primary battle for the R governership against the incumbent Perry, but unlikely to face a top tier D in the general.  If anything, I thought she'd tack to the right in advance of the primary.
[ Parent ]
She might be running for the general


Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens
[ Parent ]
Doesn't Make Sense
Assuming she wins the R primary, she should be a shoo-in for the general.  Texas is still pretty red, Hutchison has a moderate reputation (more about tone than substance but there it is), she has very good favorables, and the best D candidates have already announced that they're running for her open Senate seat.  It would be like Gillibrand tacking to the right out of concern for the general election.
[ Parent ]
Gregg
I see that Obama's new potential buddy and Cab.member hasn't really changed his stripes after all.
Burr is toast
please run, Roy Cooper.

Also, Grassley needs to get a serious challenge. This issue alone and his likely opposition to the stimulus, healthcare reform and energy reform in a state that was deep blue for Obama can't go unchallenged no matter how "safe" he is.  

I agree!
Bruce Braley or one of the many Democrats who hold an executive position need to run!  
[ Parent ]
Good Reasons To Vote No
Once again, as I wrote concerning the House version of this post, I think there are good reasons to vote "no" on this version of S-CHIP. As much as I favor expanding health insurance for children, I oppose taxing smokers to pay for it (the legislation pays for the expansion by raising the federal cigarette tax). If it's something most of us favor, it's something most of us should be willing to support financially; that's  key part of advocating responsible government because in the end the government isn't "them," it's "us," and we should take responsibility for the things we say we want out of government. This S-CHIP bill doesn't do that.

It's too easy to favor government action that requires nothing of us, and it was legion during the Bush administration. It was too easy to go to war when most of us did not have to serve and none of us were asked to pay for it. It was too easy to support the Bush tax cuts when none of us had to give up any programs to make them fiscally responsible. It was too easy to tack on a prescription drug benefit to Medicare by adding to the debt. And it's too easy to support insuring kids as long as someone else picks up the tab.

(And that's not even considering the tension between raising the cigarette taxes to pay for the program and raising the tax to discourage smoking. If the tax is a form of "sin tax" designed to deter smoking, then a successful implementation will eventually dry up the revenue the program needs because fewer people will by cigarettes. If the revenue stream depends on people continuing to smoke, then we're taxing people for their addiction.)

Thing we say we favor are things we should be willing to do something about. The government isn't "them," it's "us." I don't want to just replace an irresponsible Republican philosophy with an irresponsible Democratic one. We need to have a serious discussion about what we are as a nation willing and unwilling to pay for. I think Democrats will win more of those arguments than they will lose, though they will not win all of them. But pretending that we can just expand programs at someone else's expense is simply not a sustainable form of government.

If this were the only way to expand S-CHIP, I suppose I might have voted for it, but I would have held my nose doing so. And so I would not necessarily label those who voted no as "crumb-bums." Obama talked about responsibility in his inaugural address. I think it's time we started to try practicing it.

Very Glad You're Taking This Position....
What is being sold in progressive circles as some sort of moral threshold with SCHIP passage is actually the most morally indefensible bill that could possibly be created, and will redistribute wealth dramatically UP the income ladder.  The funding mechanism makes this legislation so wrong at so many different levels that it's hard to even know where to begin criticizing it.  Not only is the tobacco tax monstrously regressive, predatory, and counterproductive, it's also budgetary malpractice....and in the end, idiotic politics.  By insisting upon a funding mechanism that will yield diminishing returns year after year after year, Democrats are handing Republicans a perfect talking point on why "government can't afford to be in the health care business".  

In my opinion, the road to universal health care will end up being set back by decades because Congress got behind this "easy victory" at the expense of financial sanity.  It's the height of cowardice and speaks very badly for the courage of our Congressional leaders.  This would have been an easy "no" vote for me.  Only Congress could come up with a way of making an expansion of children's health care ethically unacceptable.

[ Parent ]
The Tragic Part
The regressive nature of the tax is an aspect I had overlooked. Thank you for pointing it out.

The tragic part for me is that if our political leaders asked us if we were willing to pay a little more to expand the S-CHIP program, I think most people would still say yes; perhaps not in such an overwhelming majority, but still a substantial majority.

And I think the same goes for a lot of other things people say they care about. People say they want big money out of politics. Well, it's going to be our money or Exxon's money; no one's money is not an option. Will someone ask us if we're willing to pay for public campaign financing? (All the candidate spending for president and Congress by candidates and national party committees came to $7.36 per eligible voter per year.) We say we want energy independence. Are we willing to accept incentives, such as a higher gas tax, that will change our behavior so we can stop sending money to unfriendly nations, free our foreign policy, reduce the burden on our military, and preserve the environment? If we care about preserving Social Security, shouldn't someone ask those of us in our 30s and 40s if we'd be willing to wait a year or two before receiving benefits? Social Security isn't "the government's" program, it's our program. Government didn't give it to us, we decided some time ago to provide it for each other, and if we want to save it, it's going to take action on our part to do so.

On issue after issue, someone has to have the courage to say that if we aren't motivated enough to take action ourselves that needs to be taken, then maybe we don't care about the objectives as much as we say we do. And maybe the majority of the public won't feel the way I do and say no. Well, that's democracy, and that means I have to talk to more of my fellow citizens to get them to change their minds.

But we can't just elect new people to office and expect them to work miracles. We can't expect them to make politically hard decisions unless we're willing to make them ourselves. That's democracy too.

There are other ways to pay for programs, for instance by rearranging budget priorities to drop other expenditures. But again, these are choices. We've had eight years where no hard choices were made (perhaps we would have more hesitant to go into Iraq if we had been told that it probably wouldn't be over in 6 months, would take a lot more than 150,000 troops, and we would have to collectively pay a trillion dollar price tag). Real change has to start with us, not with those in DC. I hope that S-CHIP represents a holdover from the prior term, and that soon we can start having a national discussion about what we are willing to achieve together--because in the end, that's what government is: the will of the people not just to talk, but to act together to solve the problems that face us.

[ Parent ]
What I Don't Get....
....is why SCHIP isn't just included as part of the stimulus package.  The only conclusion I can come up with is that expanding children's health care is not the primary objective of this legislation......raising the tobacco tax is.  On top of everything else, it makes a liar out of Obama less than a month into his Presidency, having assured voters he'd only raise taxes on those in the top 5% income bracket and then immediately raising the most regressive tax that exists by 156%.

Essentially this SCHIP expansion forces households with an average income of $30,000 per year to subsidize the health care costs of households with an average income of more than $50,000 per year.  It's unconscionable.  And even for those sanctimonious enough to say "let the smoker's pay....I'm better than them", how they can defend the fact that the children in the households of smokers will now have an even lower quality of life because their nicotine-addicted mommy is shelling out $500 per year in additional cigarette taxes?

If SCHIP's funding mechanism got the public hearing it deserved, public opinion would shift from 2-1 in support to 2-1 against in a matter of a month.  That's what happened in Oregon when their miniaturized SCHIP expansion with the same delusional funding mechanism failed 60-40 on the ballot in 2007 after it was pointed out how batshit crazy it is to fund health care with cigarettes.  

There are so many layers to how Congress has dropped the ball with this bill that it defies belief.

[ Parent ]
Oregon
That's what happened in Oregon when their miniaturized SCHIP expansion with the same delusional funding mechanism failed 60-40 on the ballot in 2007 after it was pointed out how batshit crazy it is to fund health care with cigarettes.

After the vote, the NY Times had an editorial (Nov. 8, 2007) excoriating the tobacco companies for campaigning against the Oregon proposal. The Times didn't publish my response, but I'll include it here for any interested parties.

"I disagree with your Nov. 8 editorial criticizing tobacco companies for defeating an Oregon ballot initiative that would have expanded health care for children by raising cigarette taxes. How important can we consider this issue if we're for it only if someone else picks up the tab?

"Tobacco companies make a convenient scapegoat, but they're not preventing us from providing health care for poor kids on the state or federal level. What's preventing us is a willingness to back up our rhetoric with our own money. Programs we say we want should be programs we're willing to pay for, and that goes for wars and Social Security as well as health care for kids.

"If we're not willing to fund poor children's health care ourselves, then maybe we don't care about it as much as we say we do. I'd like to think that a majority of the public would support paying for this program, but if not then at least the result would be an honest appraisal of the public will on this issue."

[ Parent ]
But Just To Be Clear....
....I support the SCHIP expansion outside of the funding mechanism.  Had Congress come up with something else--ANYTHING else--I'd be onboard with the "crum-bum" caricature of its opponents.  I don't smoke but I'd gladly contribute my share to health care if only somebody had bothered to ask.  And I agree with you that at least on this cause, most others would have as well.  For Reid and Pelosi to insist that low-income smokers carry this cross by themselves is the definition of cowardice.....and irresponsible governing.
[ Parent ]
Economic incentives
"Are we willing to accept incentives, such as a higher gas tax, that will change our behavior so we can stop sending money to unfriendly nations, free our foreign policy, reduce the burden on our military, and preserve the environment?"

Interestingly, while I regard those "let's jack up energy prices" companies as jackasses, I thank them for doing that--because their actions have made American public more willing to save energy and switch to alternative sources.

As the price of gas rose above four dollars a gallon last year, I was wondering whether I should hate it or love it, to be honest.  Hating it would be the best short-term measure; loving it would be the best long-term measure.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

[ Parent ]
While That's a Reasonable Point To An Extent.....
....cheering on oppressively high energy prices is mainly a luxury for the Tom Friedmans of the world whose upper middle-class world is limited to the major metropolitan areas where they live and visit.  Those who live in small towns and rural areas, where jobs pay the least and commutes to work are the longest, are financially destroyed by high energy prices and have far fewer options for "changing their habits".

The upside to last summer's high energy prices was that they did induce those with means to alter their ways.  But to endorse it as a public policy goal without acknowledging its devastating effect on people without means is dangerously incomplete.

[ Parent ]
You're right, of course, about needing a holistic view.
I was merely stating that there was a silver lining to these shenanigans.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01
[ Parent ]
That's Absolutely Not True
cheering on oppressively high energy prices is mainly a luxury for the Tom Friedmans of the world whose upper middle-class world is limited to the major metropolitan areas where they live and visit.  Those who live in small towns and rural areas, where jobs pay the least and commutes to work are the longest, are financially destroyed by high energy prices and have far fewer options for "changing their habits".

There are plenty of ways for government to mitigate the effect of higher energy prices for those in poor or rural communities. Revenues from higher gas prices can be used to increase the earned income tax credit or provide some other rebate for low-income households while retaining the incentives for everyone to change their energy use habits. Government can help pay for weatherizing homes, or offer rebates for vehicles meeting certain efficiency standards.

Even if the price of gas goes up, say, 30% due to a gas tax hike, you don't pay a single penny to drive around just as you do now if your next car is 30% more efficient. And that applies no matter where you live or how much you drive. There's no "rural" or "long commute" excuse because the proportion gained by greater efficiency is the same as with short commutes. There may be a financial excuse for those who can't afford to buy a new car right now, but that's one the government can help people with--and one that still won't be effective if gas stays cheap. Plus, while I know pickup trucks and the like are necessities in some parts of the country, no one is proposing that people not buy them, only that they be more fuel efficient.

So there are ways to mitigate the effect of higher energy prices for those who would be hit hardest while still maintaining the incentives for everyone to do the things that are necessary to achieve the goals we supposedly support. And if we're not willing to take those steps, then we should question whether we really believe those goals are as important as we say they are.

[ Parent ]
Just To Be Clear...
I agree that it's not enough to just "cheer on" higher energy prices without looking at the effects on particular groups. But not even Tom Friedman does that. Most people who advocate higher energy prices try to find ways to mitigate the effects on those who would otherwise be hit the hardest. This is a practical stance as well as a policy one, since there won't be public support for such incentives unless it's made sufficiently palatable to enough people, in addition to taking into account issues of basic fairness.
[ Parent ]
Yes That's True....
...and there's talk of exactly the sort of thing you're saying with the various cap-and-trade proposals going around.  But at least as of now there is no means of mitigating high energy prices for low-income households, and until we have such a policy set in stone, I don't think it's reasonable to discuss any benefits of high energy prices.
[ Parent ]
Surely We Can Discuss The Benefits First
But at least as of now there is no means of mitigating high energy prices for low-income households, and until we have such a policy set in stone, I don't think it's reasonable to discuss any benefits of high energy prices.

I think that's backwards. We look at benefits to see whether a policy would be a good idea. Then we can see whether certain groups are disproportionately or unfairly affected and try to mitigate those results.

The political process involves a lot of give and take. People will have different ideas of who should get relief from certain policies that provide an overall good but hit some groups more than others. Cut-offs are subject to negotiations. I think if we don't discuss benefits until policy is "set in stone," we'll never have any policy at all because people will always disagree on policy.

And, as I wrote, there are plenty of ways to mitigate the effects of prices for low-income households. Surely we can discuss them, as well as discuss the benefits of higher energy prices. It's not as if discussion of benefits will crowed out discussion of how to make the least painful transition for the most vulnerable. (Plus if we don't end the era of cheap energy, low-income housing will continue to be badly weatherized, making it even harder to implement policies that will good for us overall because that group will be more stuck and vulnerable than ever.)

[ Parent ]
Thank You
I've always disliked this legislation for that reason.  While I certainly believe in smoking bans and ensuring the health of the general public, people who choose to smoke responsibly shouldnt be the ones paying for this, everyone should be.

Granted, I'd like to see some numbers on how much smokers drain out of our healthcare system and how much extra we make them pay with taxes.

[ Parent ]
That's The Thing....
Smokers cost the health care system LESS money than nonsmokers.  Substantially less.  Obese people cost LESS money than healthy-weight people as well.  This was validated by a study done by the Dutch government last year indicating double-digit percentage savings in lifetime health care savings for smokers and the obese due to their early attrition.  http://www.omaha.com/index.php...

While this is certainly a controversial point and doesn't mean that we should be promoting smoking or obesity, it does mean our tax policy should cease and desist from exploiting the nonexistent "additional health care costs" that smokers and the obese allegedly impose upon the nation's budget.  If we were serious about taxing products that impose higher public health care expenses, we'd be taxing bean sprouts and asparagus, not cigarettes and soda pop.

[ Parent ]
S-CHIP Crumb-Bum Roll Call, 2009 Senate Edition | 43 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox