Advertisement

Archive for Monday, October 5, 2009

Jenkins: Congress far from agreement on health-care reform

U.S. Rep. Lynn Jenkins, R-Kan., who represents Kansas’ 2nd District, center, visits with Sue Hack, left, and Scott Morgan before Jenkins spoke at the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce’s National Congressional Series breakfast Monday.

U.S. Rep. Lynn Jenkins, R-Kan., who represents Kansas’ 2nd District, center, visits with Sue Hack, left, and Scott Morgan before Jenkins spoke at the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce’s National Congressional Series breakfast Monday.

October 5, 2009

Advertisement

U.S. Rep. Lynn Jenkins, R-Kan., on Monday reiterated her opposition to a government-run public option for health insurance.

Speaking before a Lawrence Chamber of Commerce breakfast crowd Monday, she said legislators remain far from a resolution on how to best address health care reform, even though a plan with a public option included could pass in the House.

“What we’re seeing today is nothing like it’s going to look like,” said Jenkins, whose district includes western Lawrence. “It’s going to change on the hour, every hour.”

She also warned that an effort to move Guantanamo Bay detainees to Fort Leavenworth is not over, and within the last couple of weeks there had been a lot of “push-back” on the decision.

Jenkins said she intended to continue to work to ensure the detainees are not moved to the area, saying it would be detrimental to the mission of Fort Leavenworth’s Command and General Staff College.

Jenkins said Republicans’ stance on fiscal affairs had caused some to deem them the “Party of No,” which has rankled some.

“I have chosen to embrace it,” she said. “I’m a proud member of the Party of No,” adding that she happily opposes bad legislation. It’s important, she said, to offer alternative ideas.

In response to a question on her attitude toward funding earmarks, she said that while she opposed the system at large, it was still important to ensure that Kansas’ 2nd District did not get left out of federal funding opportunities.

She said the funding she worked to obtain for the district was all for things that had a federal purpose — items she said the government should be spending money on, including roads and bridges and funding for the major universities in her district.

Comments

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 2 months ago

The Politics of Spite

By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: October 4, 2009

"There was what President Obama likes to call a teachable moment last week, when the International Olympic Committee rejected Chicago’s bid to be host of the 2016 Summer Games.

“Cheers erupted” at the headquarters of the conservative Weekly Standard, according to a blog post by a member of the magazine’s staff, with the headline “Obama loses! Obama loses!” Rush Limbaugh declared himself “gleeful.” “World Rejects Obama,” gloated the Drudge Report. And so on.

So what did we learn from this moment? For one thing, we learned that the modern conservative movement, which dominates the modern Republican Party, has the emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year-old.

But more important, the episode illustrated an essential truth about the state of American politics: at this point, the guiding principle of one of our nation’s two great political parties is spite pure and simple. If Republicans think something might be good for the president, they’re against it — whether or not it’s good for America."

For the rest of the column--

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/opinion/05krugman.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

Cait McKnelly 5 years, 2 months ago

From the woman who doesn't even read the legislation she votes on.

walkingonwater 5 years, 2 months ago

I echo george...lynn is hot, but I do not like her politics.

blindrabbit 5 years, 2 months ago

george and walking: Apparently a local fencebuilder agrees with you about the "hot" comment. She is a political and intellectual dud however.

yankeelady 5 years, 2 months ago

What alternative ideas???? Where are the ideas?

rbwaa 5 years, 2 months ago

"In response to a question on her attitude toward funding earmarks, she said that while she opposed the system at large, it was still important to ensure that Kansas’ 2nd District did not get left out of federal funding opportunities.

She said the funding she worked to obtain for the district were all things that had a federal purpose, and were items she said the government should be spending money on, including roads and bridges and funding for the major universities in her district."

hypocritical much? if earmarks are bad and you oppose the system, why use them? why not just say no like a good republican?

blindrabbit 5 years, 2 months ago

rbwaa: you are getting "like a good republican" mixed-up with what the GOP has become. Lynn is a right-wing whacko, and she and her ilk are part of the reason your (GOP) is in decline.

tbaker 5 years, 2 months ago

rbwaa: Body Armor and Predator UAV's were ear-marks. The system is rife with abuse, but it does get things done in a hurry. Too bad they're not all good things. Just another reason why we need a balanced budget amendment and term limits. Congress will not reform itself. Blaming Rep. Jenkins for supporting the honest use of a system others abuse is disingenuous partisan tripe. It's like saying spoons made Rosie O'Donald fat. Wise up.

blindrabbit: The next time people have a ballot in front of them, watch what happens. You'll see who's in decline.

overthemoon 5 years, 2 months ago

How on earth do prisoners at the Federal Prison in Leavenworth have any impact at all on the Command Staff College? The federal prison is not on the Fort Leavenworth base. It is not a military prison. Does she think or believe that any accused terrorists would be housed in the military prison?

Seems Lynn is just parroting any thing she hears without one iota of understanding about the issues. She is a bad legislator. I don't care if she's cute and perky. So are Palin and Bachmann, and they're batsh*t crazy!

rbwaa 5 years, 2 months ago

my issue is that she claims to object to earmarks but then uses them which is also "disingenuous"

basketballa0 5 years, 2 months ago

overthemoon - The Fort Leavenworth military prison (on post) is exactly where Pres Obama is proposing to house the Gitmo detainees. Please get your facts straight. You should be embarrassed by that post.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 2 months ago

Considering republicans put the big push to "privatize" Social Security:

*During the 20th century, there were several periods lasting more than 10 years where the return on stocks was negative. After the Dow Jones stock index went down by over 75% between 1929 and 1933, the Dow did not return to its 1929 level until 1953. In claiming that the rate of return on a stock investment is guaranteed to be greater than the return on any other asset would be a lie.

*Until 1984, the trust fund was "pay-as-you-go," meaning current benefits were paid using current tax revenues. In 1984, Congress raised payroll taxes to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation. As a result, the Social Security trust fund, which holds government bonds as assets, has been growing. When the baby boomers retire, these bonds will be sold to help pay their retirement benefits.

*If the trust fund went to zero, Social Security would simply revert to pay-as-you-go. It would continue to pay benefits using (then-current) tax revenues, and in doing so, it would be able to cover about 70% of promised benefit levels. According to analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a 70% benefit level then would actually be higher than 2005 benefit levels in constant dollars (because of wage adjustments). In other words, retirees would be taking home more in real terms than today's retirees do. The system won't be bankrupt in any sense.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 2 months ago

*What impact would a Wall Street plan have on the national debt?

Unless taxes are raised, the government(taxpayers) would have to borrow up to $4 trillion over the next 20 years to make up the money that is drained out of the system by private accounts. Social Security privatization will raise the size of the government's deficit to nearly $700 billion per year for the next 20 years, almost tripling the size of the national debt.

*How will the rest of the U.S. economy be affected if the president's plan is enacted?

Put simply, moving to a system of private accounts would not only put retirement income at risk--it would likely put the entire economy at risk.

*The current Social Security system generates powerful, economy-stimulating multiplier effects. This was part of its original intent. In the early 1930s, the vast majority of the elderly were poor. While they were working, they could not afford to both save for retirement and put food on the table, and most had no employer pension. When Social Security began, elders spent every penny of that income. In turn, each dollar they spent was spent again by the people and businesses from whom they had bought things. In much the same way, every dollar that goes out in pensions today creates about 2.5 times as much total income. If the move to private accounts reduces elders' spending levels, as almost all analysts predict, that reduction in spending will have an even larger impact on slowing economic growth.

*The current Social Security system also reduces the income disparity between the rich and the poor. Private accounts would increase inequality--and increased inequality hinders economic growth. For example, a 1994 World Bank study of 25 countries demonstrated that as income inequality rises, productivity growth is reduced. Market economies can fall apart completely if the level of inequality becomes too extreme. The rapid increase in income inequality that occurred in the 1920s was one of the causes of the Great Depression.

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2005/0505orr.html

Richard Heckler 5 years, 2 months ago

Jenkins is of the party of legislators that sits back and cheers on THEIR leaders:

  1. The Reagan/ Bush Home Loan Scandal http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/war/bush_family_and_the_s.htm

  2. The Bush/Cheney Home Loan Scandal http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0709macewan.html

  3. What did Bush and Henry Paulson do with the bail out money? http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10/good_billions_after_bad_one_year

  4. Why did the RINO party Lie About Social Security? http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2005/0505orr.html

Richard Heckler 5 years, 2 months ago

This is something to never forget. It is the private medical insurance industry that cancels YOUR medical insurance AFTER taking YOUR MONEY for years.

Smart National Health Insurance for All will not only improve our quality of life but also our wallets. Yes we would have more expendable cash for birthdays,Christmas, vacations and investments.

Smart National Health Insurance for All cannot be cancelled

National Health Insurance does not remove competition from the actual health care industry. It will be alive and well. Profits will be based on customer service and clinic performance based on the clients experience. This is my perception of competition.

Some of our reps on all sides of the aisle say “Let's slow down a bit”. I say consumers have been waiting for more than 60 years for fiscal responsible medical insurance how much slower can it go?

Shouldn't taxpayers have the choice of National Health Insurance For All? Absolutely!

National Health Insurance would cover every person for all necessary medical care including: 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 long term care.

A family of four making the median income of $56,200 would pay about $2,700 a year for all health care costs.

National Health Insurance ends deductibles and co-payments. National Health Insurance would save hundreds of billions annually by eliminating the high overhead and profits of the private health insurance industry and HMOs.

National Health Insurance for All http://www.healthcare-now.org/

Doctors for Single Payer http://www.pnhp.org/

Unions for HR 676 http://unionsforsinglepayerhr676.org/union_endorsers

Organizations and Government Bodies Endorsing HR 676 http://www.pnhp.org/action/organizations_and_government_bodies_endorsing_hr_676.php

Health Care In the USA http://www.dollarsandsense.org/healthcare.html

Consumer Reports On Health Care http://blogs.consumerreports.org/health/health_reform/

Again National Health Insurance does not remove competition from the actual health care industry. It will be alive and well. Profits will be based on customer service and clinic performance based on the clients experience. This is my perception of competition

Again It is the private medical insurance industry that cancels YOUR medical insurance AFTER taking YOUR MONEY for years.

Steve Jacob 5 years, 2 months ago

Merrill, you have to know when you make that long of post, everyone skips over. Short and sweet!

GardenMomma 5 years, 2 months ago

Ditto srj. I just skipped over all four of those long posts of Merrill's.

KEITHMILES05 5 years, 2 months ago

How this lady was elected in office is beyond me. It says something about the voters. My goodness.

yankeelady 5 years, 2 months ago

I agree with Merrill most of the time, but I don't read it all either.

tbaker 5 years, 2 months ago

Keithmiles05 - Jenkins got elected because the independents didn't like Boyda. The urban parts of the district tend to vote democratic; the rural parts republican. Give or take a couple percent, that's just about a lock every election. Sprinkled throughout however are a growing number of independents that have a slight bias towards conservatism. The stunt she pulled walking out on the general's Iraq testimony really back-fired on her. People for and against the war didn't like that.

Merrill - I have have to scroll, I keep scrolling. Yes, I'm guilty of the same thing from time to time.

Grundoon Luna 5 years, 2 months ago

I'm sick of the public option being maligned like it will suck all of our resources dry when it is not reasonable to think the rest of the civilized world can offer this but the U.S. can't do it successfully - BS!!. I'm sick of the nitwits that believe death panels are anything other than Insurance Companies' Claims Review Departments with their pretend grassroot schtick sponsored by Faux News - BS!!. I'm sick of my insurance company nickle and diming me to death. I'm sick of being told I live in Kansas and there nothing I can do because democratic ideas don't win here (hmm, but we elect democrats for govs fairly freqeuntly . . . .hmm . . . .) - BS!!. I'm sick and tired of all this BS and going to take to the streets, or at least a park somewhere. I've got some good sign ideas and would welcome other ideas as well. If anyone wants to join me send me an e-mail.

The e-mail is for organizational purposes only. Do not respond if all you want to do is debate or ciriticize. If you respond with criticism I will consider that harrassment and report you to the LJW.

drake 5 years, 2 months ago

For those who say the Republicans have no alternative:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.2520:

And the outline of the bill:

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/GOPHealthPlan_061709.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody

We have alternatives. The left isn't interested in alternatives.

annemccracken 5 years, 2 months ago

Please take the time to call her office and let her know your thoughts. 785-234-lynn

bangaranggerg 5 years, 2 months ago

I'd like to see a Palin/ Jenkins ticket in 2012. And I would like for that ticket to be to the moon, one way.

Jimo 5 years, 2 months ago

"Jenkins got elected because the independents didn't like Boyda."

I'd say this is quite true. Boyda was always a weak candidate who could only get elected with paired against a wholly corrupt opponent. Democrats in Kansas still haven't managed to focus on building up a decent "farm team" despite considerable evidence that Kansans will elect Democrats to office if given decent candidates.

Ernest Barteldes 5 years, 2 months ago

So clearly not only Health Care needs an overhaul. So does the GOP. Those in its ranks just parrot the party line and are unable to state their own opinion. They have become the Big Brother party...

Jimo 5 years, 2 months ago

"'I have chosen to embrace it,” she said. “I’m a proud member of the Party of No,” adding that she happily opposes bad legislation. It’s important, she said, to offer alternative ideas."

"NO" It is important to offer alternative legislation, which the Republicans have been starkly deficient in the current Congress.

Lynn continues to personify the intellectual desert that is today's GOP, exhausted of new ideas, only able to repeat failed and rejected mantras unaligned with actual Republican governing practices, and increasingly resorting to temper tantrums rather than facing reality, repenting of their past sins, and moving forward with new blood.

There's a strong hunger in America for a Party of limited government. In theory, it would be a popular vote-getter when standing alongside another Party devoted to idea that no problem cannot be solved without government bureaucracy at its core. Unfortunately, satisfying the public would require the GOP to divorce itself from key base groups such as militaristic neo-cons and hypocritical theocrats.

gccs14r 5 years, 2 months ago

Jenkins needs to stay out of the 3rd District and quit meddling in 3rd District decisions. If she wants to pander to westsiders, she should meet them over on their side of town or drag them to Topeka, not meet with them in the good part of Lawrence.

Joe Hyde 5 years, 2 months ago

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but when a person gets elected to the U.S. Congress or Senate, isn't lifetime health insurance coverage (paid by tax dollars) one of their job benefits? Even in cases where the person serves just one term in office as a U.S. Representative or Senator, isn't lifetime coverage assured?

If this is true, then it seems to me that any Representative or Senator, of any party, who votes against the public option is voting YES for themselves, but voting NO for their own countrymen. And that ain't right.

And if this benefit of lifetime, publicly-funded health insurance coverage for congressional Representatives and Senators is indeed their reality, but not anyone else's, then we should strip them of this benefit and force them into private company coverage, like what the rest of us pay for.

But again, I could be wrong; they all might be enrolled in some kind of private company coverage. If they are, then they're not being hypocrites. However, if the public tax dollar is indeed picking up every cent of their health coverage, then any who vote NO on the public option are hypocrites to the max.

Newell_Post 5 years, 2 months ago

I think she looks like the Flying Nun. Which is kind of appropriate. We should start calling her the Flying None.

BigDog 5 years, 2 months ago

ErnestBarteldes (Ernest Barteldes) says…

So clearly not only Health Care needs an overhaul. So does the GOP. Those in its ranks just parrot the party line and are unable to state their own opinion. They have become the Big Brother party…


I think those in the party who doesn't question their king .... I mean President is the party of parrots. In many of your minds President Obama can do no wrong. There were those who did the same on Bush. An idea or policy should be allowed to be debated on its merit not based upon the party or person proposing it. We now have both parties who have stopped ideas from even being proposed and debated. Truly not what is best for our country.

And I don't want to hear that Republicans did it too .... that's the problem ... it has been going on by both parties for too damn long .... it is like the two kids who both state "he started it" ... just like a parent in that case it is time for it to end .... on both sides. Just like management and the unions ran Harley Davidson into the ground over years of fighting each other. Finally when they came together for the betterment of the company Harley Davidson flourished.

Open your eyes both parties have major issues and as long as it is just about parties those in Washington will run things down our throats without any respect for the opinion of the people. It has happened with many major bill over the last few years.

overthemoon 5 years, 2 months ago

newel

Absolutely priceless. Flying None!!!

KS 5 years, 2 months ago

Thank God for folks like Jenkins. If it was left up to the rest of you that are posting on company computers and on company time, healthcare would really be screwed up. I hope you all will like waiting in line. I see where Halloween came early at the White House yesterday. He had to give out lab coats to all those phony doctors. Go back to work and do the job you are being paid to do.

Sunny Parker 5 years, 2 months ago

I happen to agree with EVERYTHING Lynn stands for....but then again I am a strong conservative....not a weak democrap that thinks the government (my tax dollars) should be providing them with housing, food stamps, medical insurance, etc...etc... etc....

Take care of yourselves and stop believing the hard working class owes you something!

Lulu 5 years, 2 months ago

Ms. Jenkins stirs something deep within me. If men shaved their legs and armpit hairs then so should womyn. To say health reform is an impossibility is to say the sun won't rise in the west. Just wait and see poeple and hear what I say that everybody deserves free health care paid by the corporate pigs the conservatards love to protect in their ways and means in the congress and our leader Obama will see to it that this happens because he is a person full of ideals and ideas and so it goes. Remember my words, give power to the people people!

KS 5 years, 2 months ago

Lulu - Go back to spelling class. You flunked!

GardenMomma 5 years, 2 months ago

Jenkins says, "“I’m a proud member of the Party of No."


Mamma always said, "Stupid is as stupid does."

tbaker 5 years, 2 months ago

Republicans and Democrats don't really want to reform health care. There are a ton of things that have been around for a very long time they could have already done to reduce costs and increase access - that don't cost a thing. They won't make these simple changes because those changes (free to us) would cost some of their largest campaign donors big bucks. (trail lawyers and health insurance companies)

So they decided to fight about whether or not we should have another big entitlement program we can't afford, which "costs" them nothing (politicians and big donors) and leaves us the tax payer to pick up the tab - again. We're saps if we honestly believe they (either party) are honestly behaving in our best interest. They won't do a single thing that threatens their chances of being perpetually re-elected, no matter how much it would help the common folks.

Vote against ALL incumbents.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.