Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

XMFSinchiruna (27.55)

Holding them Accountable

Recs

29

March 22, 2010 – Comments (18)

Nancy Pelosi loves the procedure used to effectively pass the Senate version of the Health Care Bill yesterday.

The Washington Post cited her as having this to say last week:

"It’s more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know," the speaker said in a roundtable discussion with bloggers Monday. "But I like it," she said, "because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill."

Although the procedure in question is common, it is rarely used in a measure of this scale or significance. I have not found confirmation of this, but I believe it may even be wholly unprecedented for a landmark piece of legislation.

Well, Nancy, while you smile smugly in your belief that your colleagues won't be held accountable for dropping this 2,500+-page monstrosity on our laps, I for one will do my part to ensure that voters don't ignore the voting record on this issue.

Here you go, Fools... check to see how your Congresspeople voted on this Bill, and please be sure to vote your conscience in November accordingly. This law is a big deal... if you don't likehow your rep voted on it, please take the reigns of democracy in your hands and vote them out of office. Below is the roll of aye votes for members of the House:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll165.xml

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Luján
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

18 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On March 22, 2010 at 4:53 PM, outoffocus (23.30) wrote:

I would love to "vote the bums out" but what do I have to replace them with? More bums? Thats my fear.

Report this comment
#2) On March 22, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Jbay76 (< 20) wrote:

Awesome, thanks.  Now, this might be a dumb question, but if this is the House of Representatives, what about the senate?  Do you have any info on those individuals?

Report this comment
#3) On March 22, 2010 at 5:15 PM, brickcityman (< 20) wrote:

2 points:

 

1.  Do you think anyone of those people voting were "tricked into it"... As in they thought they were voting for some procedural step but instead allowed the thing to pass?  ... my guess is no

 

2.  If a simple majority vote is not fair then what is?  Does everything require a supermajority? and if so how do you justify the definition of your chosen supermajority.

 

Yeah, yeah, I know... The tyrrany of the majority and all that... Where do you draw the line and say a minority can no longer lay claim needing to have its interests respected by the majority? 

 

The only thing we seem to be unamimous in is our unhappiness with the current state of politics.  As such throwing your weight behind EITHER of the established parties (or sideshows there-of... I'm looking at you tea-baggers) does nothing but permit the same shenanigans to continue.

 

So what to do? 


Not sure i have a good option yet.  Playing three card monty (dem, rep, ind) and picking a different card each time doesn't seem to do much good. 

 

So my radical approach to instead try to dis-arm all comers...  I will emphatically remain un-aligned.  I will listen to why you want me to be for or against something and then try to make a counter argument just for arguments sake.  The point being to re-inforce civil discourse and reasoned debated in all venues...  To me that is the only hope we have, since all other options seem to just be about channeling blind faith to one end or another.

Report this comment
#4) On March 22, 2010 at 5:15 PM, whereaminow (27.16) wrote:

She could have used a procedure like this to end our involvement in Iraq, since many Democrats were elected on the promise of peace.  That would have been much more "healthy" for the nation.

Instead, Americans get another power grab at the point of a gun.  Just like the Iraqis got.  They'll get mandatory healthcare too one day. Isn't freedom wonderful?

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#5) On March 22, 2010 at 5:29 PM, rofgile (99.32) wrote:

What a load.

We get the first reforms of Medicare (as in cost cuts to start pulling this program in - something Republicans have wanted for a longggg time)

We get protections against dropping of coverage

We get protections from being blocked by pre-existing conditions

We get 30 million more people with health insurance.

We get protections from bankruptcy due to health insurance costs (which has affected people I know).

---

 This is f*k-ing wonderful, and the first advance in US health care in 30 years.  You guys act like it'll kill grannies, be a mixture of Stalin/Mao and Hitler?? all in one.. etc etc.  

 I listened to CSPAN last night to all the representatives speak on this issue.  From the supporters I heard messages of hope, reality, a willingness to fix problems, and an understanding of the limitations.  From those opposed (including all my less than honorable representives of my state), I heard only fear and fear-mongering.  

 We're moving into a better period of politics than that of the 2000-2008.  Issues are no longer being voted and decided based on fear.

 This is a plus for everyone.  Watch over this next year as we see positive press for all the consumer protections of this bill - and it'll be black and white who brought these changes through.

 -Rof

Report this comment
#6) On March 22, 2010 at 5:46 PM, whereaminow (27.16) wrote:

the first advance in US health care in 30 years 

The last advance, The Health Maintenance Act of 1973, was the crappy bill that gave us this system that had to be reformed.  Looks like they're 0 for 2.

I suspect that another 30-40 years from now, ignorant Americans will watch as the new Savior engineers another power grab to fix the broken health care system caused by the "free market."

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#7) On March 22, 2010 at 6:11 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

rofgile,

I also heard the same 4 benefits repeated constantly in the debate on cspan and I agree, they are benefits. You left out coverage until 26 on a parents policy and improving Elderly drug benefits.

The problem is you may not have heard the other related comments.

- rationing of health care

- lack of doctors who accept Medicaid patients

- CBO's comments related to the spin on cost savings

- states who have already projected bankruptcy (MA in 4 years) if they are forced to carry the burden of Medicaid

- 500+ billion in program cuts to MediCare which was funded under Social Security (note that Medicaid is only for low income)

- the raiding of the MediCare and Social Security Trust Funds 

- question related to whether VA dependents benefits are covered

- 80 proposed amendments were completely ignored that could have make the bill stronger

- House rules against passing a Bill that contains "bribes" like the ones in the Senate Bill, yet they passed it anyway.

The list goes on for quite a while and also include enacting an unfunded mandate.

 

Bottom line, the Bill isn't half of what it should be.  

Report this comment
#8) On March 22, 2010 at 6:13 PM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

Ron Paul for President. TEXAS

Democrats - Cuellar, Y; Doggett, Y; Edwards, N; Gonzalez, Y; Green, Al, Y; Green, Gene, Y; Hinojosa, Y; Jackson Lee, Y; Johnson, E. B., Y; Ortiz, Y; Reyes, Y; Rodriguez, Y.

Republicans - Barton, N; Brady, N; Burgess, N; Carter, N; Conaway, N; Culberson, N; Gohmert, N; Granger, N; Hall, N; Hensarling, N; Johnson, Sam, N; Marchant, N; McCaul, N; Neugebauer, N; Olson, N; Paul, N; Poe, N; Sessions, N; Smith, N; Thornberry, N.

Report this comment
#9) On March 22, 2010 at 6:27 PM, XMFSinchiruna (27.55) wrote:

jdlech posted a great discussion of the measure here:

http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/ViewPost.aspx?bpid=357115&t=01001823218870849363

This video of Ron Paul discussing the aftermath is not to be missed, kindly posted by kdakota here:

http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/ViewPost.aspx?bpid=357535&t=01004207525612627963

Report this comment
#10) On March 22, 2010 at 6:28 PM, UltraContrarian (32.10) wrote:

"Nancy Pelosi loves the procedure used to effectively pass the Senate version of the Health Care Bill yesterday."

Sinch - Pelosi did not use the single vote procedure - "deem and pass".  There were four Sunday night votes on health care reform - procedure, Senate bill, Republican-sponsored "recommit" (trying to pick off the Stupak bloc) and amending the bill.

Hopefully this is not the start of a trend in your reporting.  Although I often disagree with your conclusions, you get most of your facts right.

Report this comment
#11) On March 22, 2010 at 6:29 PM, XMFSinchiruna (27.55) wrote:

Boy, I'll tell you whose name I was a little surprised to see above:

Kucinich?!?

I thought he respected the Constitution.

Report this comment
#12) On March 22, 2010 at 6:50 PM, XMFSinchiruna (27.55) wrote:

UltraContrarian

Sure enough. Not having the stomach to watch the circus of thieves in action, I failed to note that 'deem and pass' was not ultimately employed. Thanks for the correction.

NONETHELESS, her statement suggesting that personal accountability for passage of this bill could represent a politically liability for the membership remains. To make sure such accountability is not escaped, I will continue to promulgate the roll call over this and subsequent years.

Report this comment
#13) On March 22, 2010 at 7:05 PM, UltraContrarian (32.10) wrote:

"her statement suggesting that personal accountability for passage of this bill could represent a politically liability for the membership remains."

Of course.  Obama and numerous Dems in leadership have acknowledged this.  I expect them to lose significant seats in 2010.  There could even be Blue Dog defections giving Republicans control of the house.

Report this comment
#14) On March 22, 2010 at 7:52 PM, whereaminow (27.16) wrote:

UltraContrarian and TMFSinchiruna ,

Here's a thought.    What if... and I'm just spitballing here.... the Republicans and the Dems already worked this out in advance.  You give us our health care victory, we let you attack us and get some votes out of it, and in the meantime when no American is looking, we take all of their money and laugh all the way to the bank.

The Republicans are frauds.  They will never repeal this bill.  They'll just layer some more crap on top of it after they win in November.  Behind the scenes, I guarantee Romney/Rove/Boehner and the rest of them will be pocketing a big chunk of change for this bill.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#15) On March 22, 2010 at 8:11 PM, XMFSinchiruna (27.55) wrote:

To be clear, I favor neither party. They are equally and collectively a band of misguided and (too often) disingenuous chameleons that are ultimately pawns of a power structure that cares not of party ... but of power and influence alone. I speak essentially of the corporations that recently came into treatment as persons by our Supreme Court with respect to free speech and a resulting "right" to fund political action.

Does anyone here feel that the lobbying industries were somehow in need of further empowerment and/or official sanction to peddle influence over public policy? Was our legislature so excessively bereft of ethical ineptitude that it required a fresh injection of masterminded malfeasance to raise the needle? When you get corporate interests as entrenched into political process as it presently is, sustainable governance can not result. Wise governance in the interest of the people, similarly, is by definition unobtainable within such a format. We need to clean house and send in 535 unaffiliated citizens with a mandate for wisdom, austerity, honesty, and accountability to the carefully gauged will of their respective constituencies.

Incidently, the only encumbent I consider worthy of re-election is Congressman Ron Paul. I believe that he has never caved to corporate interests nor in favor of government largesse. Unlike virtually every one of his colleagues, he treats the United States Constitution as the guiding law of the land. I don't agree with him about everything, but I consider him leaps and bounds above the caliber of the legislative Everyman. Once again, please view his recent tv appearance if you haven't seen it already.

Today was a victory for nobody except the corporate interests thus served.

Report this comment
#16) On March 22, 2010 at 8:38 PM, ChrisGraley (29.90) wrote:

Great minds think alike.

I posted the same type of list  in my last blog post for those that voted for reconciliation.

As for Kucinich, Obama probably made him a deal once he got him aboard Air Force One. He showed him the aliens at area 51. The only cost to the government  was to pay a few guys to run around in green rubber suits.

Report this comment
#17) On March 22, 2010 at 9:54 PM, 100ozRound (29.46) wrote:

Chris - damn that's funny!

Report this comment
#18) On March 22, 2010 at 10:22 PM, mrindependent (60.08) wrote:

Graley is on fire! And thanks for this excellent post TMFSinchuruna.  I am "following" it so I have the names when I need them.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement