Archive for Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Kansas senators’ vote against defense bill actually a vote against health-care reform measure

Brownback, Roberts part of Republican strategy to prolong health care debate

Sen. Sam Brownback speaks at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn.

Sen. Sam Brownback speaks at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn.

December 30, 2009


— At 1 a.m. Dec. 18, Kansas’ two U.S. senators, Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts, both Republicans, voted against a motion to stop debate on a bill funding the Department of Defense for the fiscal year.

The motion for cloture required 60 votes and was approved 63-33. If Brownback and Roberts had their way, the bill to fund the military would have been in trouble and the focus of a filibuster.

A day later, Brownback, who is running for governor of Kansas, and Roberts voted for the Defense appropriations bill, which passed 88-10.

Brownback issued news releases about how the Defense bill was good for Kansas.

“The United States has the best military in the world, and Kansas leads the way in innovative defense technologies and top-notch military bases,” said Brownback. “I was proud to work with my colleagues to ensure that funding was included for crucial defense projects in Kansas.”

So how to explain these votes?

They were part of a Republican strategy to delay a vote on the Defense bill in hopes of prolonging debate over the Democratic health care reform, which they oppose. The 33 votes against the motion to end debate on the Defense bill came from Republicans; the 63 “yes” votes included three Republicans.

The New York Times reported that when Brownback was asked if he would vote for the defense bill, Brownback replied, “No. I don’t want health care.”

In addition, Brownback spokesman Brian Hart said that Brownback also had trouble with what he said were non-defense spending items in the bill. Hart said once Brownback voiced his objections, and those items weren’t removed, he voted for the final bill “for the troops.”

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, however called attempts to stall the Defense bill “political gamesmanship at its worst.”


calvin 8 years, 5 months ago

Did this story get filed late or what? This was news two weeks ago.

weeslicket 8 years, 5 months ago

:: Brownback replied, “No. I don’t want health care. ::

now there's a gollywhomper for you.

leedavid 8 years, 5 months ago

No bias at all. LOL! The event happened Dec 18th, it failed to delay the vote and this article comes out Dec 30th. We can expect more of these tactics to get the American people to back the democrats in this really bad effort to get health care reforms. I for one would think they would work on the bill to make it more popular.

Flap Doodle 8 years, 5 months ago

What are they saying in Dear Leader’s home town about the Senate’s health care non-reform bill? “Trading votes for special favors is wrong and one reason the public rightly holds Congress in such contempt. The public should be outraged that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., caved into such demands to secure passage of this unpopular, messy and costly bill. Reid and Democrats will pay for it in the next election. What Illinois voters will do in the next election, though, is not so clear. A few pundits expect that we'll be rational and elect a Republican like Mark Kirk. More than likely, though, we'll figure out a way to chump ourselves and the country again by electing the same old batch of losers.”,0,2226088.column

Jimo 8 years, 5 months ago

Abandoning our troops in the field in the a time of war. But I'm sure our boys will understand the political ambitions of these characters.

leedavid 8 years, 5 months ago

Anyone else remember the democrats holding up defense spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan year after year during the Bush administration?

Good, now do you remember any democrats complaining about it?

In this case it did not work.

Bob_Keeshan 8 years, 5 months ago

Meanwhile, all this delay has had no effect on Sen. Roberts' personal health insurance.

Um, maybe the reason he uses a DC hospital over the holidays is because his HMO makes him. Yeah, that must be it. Surely it isn't because he doesn't live in Kansas and hasn't for over 30 years.

dontcallmedan 8 years, 5 months ago

Senator Brownback needs health insurance. You never know what he might contract while staying at his C-Street boys club.

texburgh 8 years, 5 months ago

"The New York Times reported that when Brownback was asked if he would vote for the defense bill, Brownback replied, 'No. I don’t want health care.'”

Hey, Sam! Call Lynn Jenkins - she has a constituent that could use your health care.

leedavid 8 years, 5 months ago

Of course he does not want health care. Congress has the best health insurance available. The health care bill the democrats have put together does not come close to what members of congress presently have. That should be a very big red flag....might just be me.

David Albertson 8 years, 5 months ago

Quote: "I don’t want health care." Translation: "My vote has already been bought by the health insurance lobby."

Richard Heckler 8 years, 5 months ago

Brownback is receiving taxpayer funded health insurance... what a phoney!

Our entire Kansas legislation is receiving taxpayer funded health insurance but sees no reason why the taxpayers funding their health insurance should have their own health insurance funded with THEIR tax dollars. SO the question becomes who do those tax dollars belong to?

The entire Kansas legislation rails against big government yet stays on the tax dollar funded payroll with excellent benefits for years and years and years and years. Roberts has been on the big government payroll for 40 years.

Richard Heckler 8 years, 5 months ago

24/7 Pro Business Pro Consumer Health Care Coverage! YES!

Let ME pay for National Health Insurance with MY tax dollars for MY National Health insurance.

Here's the deal. National Health Insurance is not a free ride and never will be perhaps with few exceptions.

You see my tax dollars will pay for my portion therefore no one else would be paying for MY National Health Insurance coverage. A 3.3% payroll tax is doable.

However if you listen to Brownback and the republican party NOT and Max Baucus you would be led to believe that my tax dollars are not my tax dollars. How can that be?

The fact that National Health Insurance fees would come from the rather substantial multi trillion tax dollar cookie jars simply means that no monthly or weekly deductions would come out of my pay check per se..

Since federal, state, and local governments collect trillions in taxes of all kinds—income, sales, property, corporate etc etc this is how medical bills would be paid as it is now.

You see as we speak the government tax dollars support medical insurance payments to the tune of at least $1.2 trillion which is quite a gravy train I'd say. Next year this will increase by changing nothing and not passing the National Health Insurance Act.

In essence MY tax dollar amount to pay MY portion of National Health Insurance would be about $2700 annually for the entire family.

What coverage would this buy the family:

long term care such that cancer demands prescription drugs hospital surgical outpatient services primary and preventive care emergency services dental mental health home health physical therapy rehabilitation (including for substance abuse) vision care hearing services including hearing aids chiropractic durable medical equipment * palliative care

A good deal that would free up more expendable cash to be spent elsewhere thus creating new jobs. Things like birthdays,christmas,home improvements,taking better care of my lover OR investments that could make me money would benefit.

Social Security and Medicare are two very smart insurance plans. It's time to respect these plans.

Richard Heckler 8 years, 5 months ago

How to remember Brownback and his party?

The republican party are masters at putting millions upon millions upon millions of people out of work. All they do with a remarkable degree of consistency is wreck the economy,initiate huge movements of shipping jobs abroad aka the Reagan-Bush Global Economy and try to wreck social security and medicare.

Is there a definite pattern? Absolutely!

  1. The Reagan/ Bush Home Loan Scandal

  2. The Bush/Cheney Home Loan Scandal

  3. What did Bush and Henry Paulson do with the bail out money?

  4. Why did GW Bush Lie About Social Security?( This would cost taxpayers $4 trillion and wreck the economy)

  5. Still A Bad Idea – Bush Tax Cuts

  6. The "tea parties" BTW are part of the wreckanomics program funded by the Koch Brothers... well known oil billionaires. These thinkers back a tax payers bill of rights which is another scheme to reward the upper 1% which is designed to wreck local and state governments.

All of the above displays reckless economic behavior that which drains the cookie jars. Now the only way to get them revenues back is to take them back.

What Reagan,Bush and Bush republicans plan for 2010. Start the typical repub character assassination campaign which in essence is a massive cover-up scheme for the financial disasters that illustrate how the repub NOT financial giants of our time have screwed up USA economics for the past 30 years.

New jobs and industry have never been on their repub minds. New jobs and industry is the ONLY way the USA can regain enough economic strength to be recognized as an economic superpower once again.

Think about it. In the past 30 years the repub party has been in involved two major home loan scandals that effectively took the USA economy down the tubes. One is too damn many but twice represents repub economic policy. Wreckanomics is a failed economic policy. In fact wreckanomics is beginning to smell like well planned crimes.

tomatogrower 8 years, 5 months ago

I'm sure when he gets sick he would never, ever use his health care plan, paid for by our tax dollars. I'm sure he just prays until God makes him better.

repaste 8 years, 5 months ago

This health care bill = about 80 billion/year. Est nation cost 2012 3 trillion. I know lady with no money, many health issues - gov pays for her housing, food, and $100,000 + per year in health care. We have public option right now but there is no logic to its implementation - 0 is spent on prevention. We are going to pay million + on her care, and still have no say in any of it. This health care argument is bogus - only purpose is to obscure real goal of protecting profits paid by all - including "the Govt. Option" 29% of Americans have Govt. paid health care now ?- anyone confirm this?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.