Politico (//%22http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0608/Coburn_Omnibus_planned_for_July.html%22)
quote:
Coburn Omnibus planned for July
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is planning a "Coburn Omnibus" for July that would wrap most if not all of the bills held by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) into one large measure to be voted on by the Senate, according to a Coburn aide and two Democratic leadership staffers.
Coburn is blocking roughly a hundred bills that are generally non-controversial or have broad support. By placing a hold, Coburn prevents the bills from passing quickly through the Senate under a unanimous consent request. With floor time at such a premium, Reid would have trouble bringing up each bill for an individual debate and vote.
But in a stroke of legislative creativity that may have no precedent, Reid could lump all of the bills into one package and bring up the Coburn Omnibus for a single vote. Coburn can still object, but the broad popularity of the bills means that there would likely be more than enough support for veto-proof passage.
Sorry to say Oklahoma has two of the biggest idiots ever in Washington: Coburn and Inhofe. I'm embarrassed to even tell people that Inhofe was once the mayor of my city.
Finally, my federal grant to research the eating habits of gay ostriches will be appropriated!
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
Sorry to say Oklahoma has two of the biggest idiots ever in Washington: Coburn and Inhofe. I'm embarrassed to even tell people that Inhofe was once the mayor of my city.
That's funny, friends never ask me who former mayors of Tulsa were. I need to get new friends. [;)]
Wow. He's holding "roughly a hundred" bills up? That's an amazing amount of obstruction for just one guy. Is this all because he believes these bills have pork in them?
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
Wow. He's holding "roughly a hundred" bills up? That's an amazing amount of obstruction for just one guy. Is this all because he believes these bills have pork in them?
It's BAAAAAAACON!
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
Wow. He's holding "roughly a hundred" bills up? That's an amazing amount of obstruction for just one guy. Is this all because he believes these bills have pork in them?
Yes, essentially. Though at times he mentions other "principles".
Like last year, in addition to saving you money, he was also protecting the mentally ill's (//%22http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100202171.html%22) right to purchase firearms. It's in the Constitution, or Bible, or something...look it up.
I like Coburns pork stance. I like the fact that he actually does his own thing. BUT, I too often don't like his thing.
But before I hang him out to dry on these bills, I'd like to see what they are. If it is all pork, more power to him (and pork usually has broad based support). But I really don't know.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I like Coburns pork stance. I like the fact that he actually does his own thing. BUT, I too often don't like his thing.
But before I hang him out to dry on these bills, I'd like to see what they are. If it is all pork, more power to him (and pork usually has broad based support). But I really don't know.
It's the "roughly a hundred" part that's ridiculous to me. Being a self-appointed one-man pork-stopper just reeks of self-aggrandizement. I'm hoping he has some criteria other than his own personal whim for holding these bills up, but that may be too much to ask.
Coburn is an ideologue and deserves to be called out on his stance (not his wide-stance, that's Craig.)
He's held a bill that would reduce veteran suicides (//%22http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0907/453260.html%22). Sure, you can say it's pork (he did), but with vet suicides reaching their highest levels since Vietnam, there's also a pretty good reason to act. A hold, just like it sounds, prevents action.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I like Coburns pork stance. I like the fact that he actually does his own thing. BUT, I too often don't like his thing.
But before I hang him out to dry on these bills, I'd like to see what they are. If it is all pork, more power to him (and pork usually has broad based support). But I really don't know.
It's the "roughly a hundred" part that's ridiculous to me. Being a self-appointed one-man pork-stopper just reeks of self-aggrandizement. I'm hoping he has some criteria other than his own personal whim for holding these bills up, but that may be too much to ask.
Self-aggrandizement? I guess that's in the eye of the beholder, I can see how people would interpret his actions that way and wouldn't call you as off-base for that assertion, though I don't agree. It think you have to be somewhat ego-centric to run for office in the first place. CL is right, Coburn is an idealogue and you might be able to go as far as to call him a political iconoclast. He's all about cutting the size of government and government waste. He's against BAU in D.C., personally, I think that's a good thing.
I do have a belief that many bills these days are packaged or marketed so that they can be used as campaign ammo down the road, or to please special interests instead of really worrying about the substance of bills and true good of the constituency. Senators and Congressmen are more worried about retaining their seats than doing what is right all the time. That affects their votes on issues. I give Coburn his props for being his own person and seeming to be the least guilty of becoming part of accepted DC culture. One of my bigger problems with Obama has been his reluctance to vote on controversial issues in the last three years in the Senate for fear of being painted into a corner in a Presidential bid.
Unfortunately, we've needed a whole Senate and Congress full of people who show fiscal responsibility and restraint for years and we have not. What Coburn is doing now is essentially sticking his finger in the dike long after the town flooded and it rubs people the wrong way. This country belongs to all citizens, not just the 536 elected officials in Washington (I don't count the Veep as "elected").
Americans have become overly dependent on government for the solution to every problem.
Think about how
farover-reaching and extensive government has become. It's not a liberal vs. conservative issue any more.
"Liberal" and "conservative" are nothing more than adjectives to pass blame around for how broken our federal government is. No one is showing responsibility with our money. I mentioned this in a thread yesterday on the city: I think so many people figure government is out of our hands, it's for someone else to worry about- they are de-sensitized. When people hear of a Federal budget in the trillions or a project in the billions, I think most people say to themselves: "Glad it's not my money."
Fact is, it is our money.
There is a movement, and it's happening with our Republican leaders and Democrat leaders, to make people even more dependent on government. Senators and members of the HOR trade out billions and billions a year in favors and projects just so they can stay in a $180,000 per year job with better benefits than most of us will ever see, including a cushy retirement.
Government meddling in private enterprise is partially to largely to blame for the sub-prime debacle and the present energy crisis. Even the best intentions of government seems to eventually become a slave to the unintended consequences.
I honestly do see a time down the road when there will be a 70% total tax burden (Fed, state, local) on citizens to keep a broken and polluted government propped up and all the infrastructure and all the corporate welfare.
Love him or hate him, I'm glad Coburn's actions are being noticed on a national scale. It's about time people wake up to the waste and BAU politics which are costing us billions every year. I don't see how anyone could allow party affiliation to cloud that perception.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
Coburn is an ideologue and deserves to be called out on his stance (not his wide-stance, that's Craig.)
He's held a bill that would reduce veteran suicides (//%22http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0907/453260.html%22). Sure, you can say it's pork (he did), but with vet suicides reaching their highest levels since Vietnam, there's also a pretty good reason to act. A hold, just like it sounds, prevents action.
I'm not going to argue that Vets do deserve certain benefits, but take a look at what he's saying here and tell me if
you want mandatory mental health screening when you go to your doctor.
That becomes a part of your permanent medical record and at least reading the story, it would make screening compulsory. If someone were simply going through a brief depressive period, as most people do, their permanent medical record will reflect "depression". That in itself can prevent a person from other rights like maintaining a pilot's license, owning a firearm, and could be basis to be declined for a job, private health benefits, or life insurance- or at least rated as a higher risk.
It's not as cut-and-dry as it seems on the surface. Vet bills like this are nothing but politics at it's worst.
"He opposes provisions
that would require mental health screening for all veterans receiving medical care. Coburn says it duplicates efforts by the Department of Veterans Affairs to identify mental illness and counsel veterans who might be suicidal.
He also says the bill
violates the civil liberties of vets by "tracking" those who receive mental health services."
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
Finally, my federal grant to research the eating habits of gay ostriches will be appropriated!
Let's say your community derived it's income from gay ostriches. And your community formed a consensus that research on gay ostriches was important to your community. Should Washington listen to your input on what you believe your community needs, or should Washington dictate to you what your community needs?
Earmarks are a mechanism for funding community based needs.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I like Coburns pork stance. I like the fact that he actually does his own thing. BUT, I too often don't like his thing.
But before I hang him out to dry on these bills, I'd like to see what they are. If it is all pork, more power to him (and pork usually has broad based support). But I really don't know.
It's the "roughly a hundred" part that's ridiculous to me. Being a self-appointed one-man pork-stopper just reeks of self-aggrandizement. I'm hoping he has some criteria other than his own personal whim for holding these bills up, but that may be too much to ask.
Self-aggrandizement? I guess that's in the eye of the beholder, I can see how people would interpret his actions that way and wouldn't call you as off-base for that assertion, though I don't agree. It think you have to be somewhat ego-centric to run for office in the first place. CL is right, Coburn is an idealogue and you might be able to go as far as to call him a political iconoclast. He's all about cutting the size of government and government waste. He's against BAU in D.C., personally, I think that's a good thing.
Given that Coburn supported a war that's cost $1 trillion and has been enormously wasteful, I find his anti-spending stance unbelievably hollow.
Rant against that $50,000 earmark while ignoring that money black hole in Iraq ... [xx(]
Crap like that is the reason the Republicans are in big trouble with the voters. And it's not the only reason.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
It's not as cut-and-dry as it seems on the surface.
Oh, but it is. In the bill, there were safeguards and protections on who sees the information and how it is used. It was doctor-patient information. Period. Are you telling me he doesn't understand this concept?
Moreover, things like PTSD are treatable medical conditions. One might presume that a guy who
wants people to call him Doctor would want to heal people. In his position, he could not only help thousands of vets get the treatment they need, but he could also do much to help get rid of the stigma associated with mental health issues, thus helping millions more.
His financial reasoning is goofy, too. Does anybody feel like arguing that research doesn't pay off in the long run? In the short term, prevention, early screening, and intervention is a net savings for our economy and our government.
And yet, he derails breast cancer bills (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080301_1_A1_hThel00274%22) not just once, but twice!
And now he's got a hold on an AIDs prevention (//%22http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/100786.php%22) bill. A bill that incidentally (//%22http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/10987.html%22) would be one of the few accomplishments that Bush could point to and say, unequivocally, "I hepped humanity...and the whole humanitarian race. Heh, heh, heh." I, for one, wouldn't begrudge him this one.
Coburn is and idealogue, but he most certainly is not an iconoclast. He's not destroying flawed institutions, he's destroying people.
And yes, I'm telling you how I REALLY feel about it.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
It's not as cut-and-dry as it seems on the surface.
Oh, but it is. In the bill, there were safeguards and protections on who sees the information and how it is used. It was doctor-patient information. Period. Are you telling me he doesn't understand this concept?
Moreover, things like PTSD are treatable medical conditions. One might presume that a guy who wants people to call him Doctor would want to heal people. In his position, he could not only help thousands of vets get the treatment they need, but he could also do much to help get rid of the stigma associated with mental health issues, thus helping millions more.
His financial reasoning is goofy, too. Does anybody feel like arguing that research doesn't pay off in the long run? In the short term, prevention, early screening, and intervention is a net savings for our economy and our government.
And yet, he derails breast cancer bills (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080301_1_A1_hThel00274%22) not just once, but twice!
And now he's got a hold on an AIDs prevention (//%22http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/100786.php%22) bill. A bill that incidentally (//%22http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/10987.html%22) would be one of the few accomplishments that Bush could point to and say, unequivocally, "I hepped humanity...and the whole humanitarian race. Heh, heh, heh." I, for one, wouldn't begrudge him this one.
Coburn is and idealogue, but he most certainly is not an iconoclast. He's not destroying flawed institutions, he's destroying people.
And yes, I'm telling you how I REALLY feel about it.
I'm glad you are telling how you really feel about it.
My private physician had a psychologist set up practice in her medical group. When I went for my annual physical last Dec. I was handed a clip board with a questionaire with about 10 or 20 questions with 1 to 5 scale scoring asking about how I felt emotionally, how I felt about relationships in my life, did I ever feel sad, how often, etc. I asked what it was. It was to determine if I suffered from depression and if I needed to be treated for it.
This was un-solicited by me and I refused to fill it out. It was around the holidays, I had some personal things going on and I was quitting nicotine. No point in being labeled depressive against my will for the rest of my life over temporary situations.
I have common sense enough as to what to do if I felt long-term depression or a mental health issue. I don't feel it's proper for the government to mandate mental health screening which is what the story made the bill sound like. If that's not the case, I apologize for my misunderstanding.
HIPPA pretty well provides the same patient/doctor confidentiality as you mentioned for everyone, but you waive those rights to the FAA if you are a pilot, you waive them when you apply to purchase a firearm- even long guns for hunting, you waive them when you update your health care coverage or apply for most life insurance. Many other instances I'm not thinking of at the moment where you waive those rights and being diagnosed as having depression can follow you for life.
People who are suffering from PTSD know where to go from help and Coburn claimed there was duplication of services offered in that way. I can't say I disagree. I don't know the intracacies of medicine nor the business of it like Coburn, so I will defer to his judgement on it before I will speculate as to whether or not something is good or not for government involvement in healthcare.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I like Coburns pork stance. I like the fact that he actually does his own thing. BUT, I too often don't like his thing.
But before I hang him out to dry on these bills, I'd like to see what they are. If it is all pork, more power to him (and pork usually has broad based support). But I really don't know.
It's the "roughly a hundred" part that's ridiculous to me. Being a self-appointed one-man pork-stopper just reeks of self-aggrandizement. I'm hoping he has some criteria other than his own personal whim for holding these bills up, but that may be too much to ask.
Self-aggrandizement? I guess that's in the eye of the beholder, I can see how people would interpret his actions that way and wouldn't call you as off-base for that assertion, though I don't agree. It think you have to be somewhat ego-centric to run for office in the first place. CL is right, Coburn is an idealogue and you might be able to go as far as to call him a political iconoclast. He's all about cutting the size of government and government waste. He's against BAU in D.C., personally, I think that's a good thing.
Given that Coburn supported a war that's cost $1 trillion and has been enormously wasteful, I find his anti-spending stance unbelievably hollow.
Rant against that $50,000 earmark while ignoring that money black hole in Iraq ... [xx(]
Crap like that is the reason the Republicans are in big trouble with the voters. And it's not the only reason.
Coburn wasn't in office when original authorization for the war happened. A plurality of Congress of both parties much larger than Coburn has kept this war going and funded.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
It's not as cut-and-dry as it seems on the surface.
Oh, but it is. In the bill, there were safeguards and protections on who sees the information and how it is used. It was doctor-patient information. Period. Are you telling me he doesn't understand this concept?
Moreover, things like PTSD are treatable medical conditions. One might presume that a guy who wants people to call him Doctor would want to heal people. In his position, he could not only help thousands of vets get the treatment they need, but he could also do much to help get rid of the stigma associated with mental health issues, thus helping millions more.
His financial reasoning is goofy, too. Does anybody feel like arguing that research doesn't pay off in the long run? In the short term, prevention, early screening, and intervention is a net savings for our economy and our government.
And yet, he derails breast cancer bills (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080301_1_A1_hThel00274%22) not just once, but twice!
And now he's got a hold on an AIDs prevention (//%22http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/100786.php%22) bill. A bill that incidentally (//%22http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/10987.html%22) would be one of the few accomplishments that Bush could point to and say, unequivocally, "I hepped humanity...and the whole humanitarian race. Heh, heh, heh." I, for one, wouldn't begrudge him this one.
Coburn is and idealogue, but he most certainly is not an iconoclast. He's not destroying flawed institutions, he's destroying people.
And yes, I'm telling you how I REALLY feel about it.
I'm glad you are telling how you really feel about it.
My private physician had a psychologist set up practice in her medical group. When I went for my annual physical last Dec. I was handed a clip board with a questionaire with about 10 or 20 questions with 1 to 5 scale scoring asking about how I felt emotionally, how I felt about relationships in my life, did I ever feel sad, how often, etc. I asked what it was. It was to determine if I suffered from depression and if I needed to be treated for it.
This was un-solicited by me and I refused to fill it out. It was around the holidays, I had some personal things going on and I was quitting nicotine. No point in being labeled depressive against my will for the rest of my life over temporary situations.
I have common sense enough as to what to do if I felt long-term depression or a mental health issue. I don't feel it's proper for the government to mandate mental health screening which is what the story made the bill sound like. If that's not the case, I apologize for my misunderstanding.
HIPPA pretty well provides the same patient/doctor confidentiality as you mentioned for everyone, but you waive those rights to the FAA if you are a pilot, you waive them when you apply to purchase a firearm- even long guns for hunting, you waive them when you update your health care coverage or apply for most life insurance. Many other instances I'm not thinking of at the moment where you waive those rights and being diagnosed as having depression can follow you for life.
People who are suffering from PTSD know where to go from help and Coburn claimed there was duplication of services offered in that way. I can't say I disagree. I don't know the intracacies of medicine nor the business of it like Coburn, so I will defer to his judgement on it before I will speculate as to whether or not something is good or not for government involvement in healthcare.
I'm glad you're okay, other than that movement conservatism stuff, you've always seemed healthy to me.
But if someone were mentally ill, is it right to rely on them to exhibit "common sense"? Why does the
New England Journal of Medicine say
this (//%22http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/1/13%22)?
quote:
Combat Duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mental Health Problems, and Barriers to Care
Conclusions This study provides an initial look at the mental health of members of the Army and the Marine Corps who were involved in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our findings indicate that among the study groups there was a significant risk of mental health problems and that the subjects reported important barriers to receiving mental health services, particularly the perception of stigma among those most in need of such care.
Pardon me for saying so, but HIPPA is simply not as important as this. Besides, there are Privacy Rules that allow people with "common sense" to request and restrict access to this information.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
A plurality of Congress of both parties much larger than Coburn has kept this war going and funded.
He could put a hold on it if he felt like it.[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I like Coburns pork stance. I like the fact that he actually does his own thing. BUT, I too often don't like his thing.
But before I hang him out to dry on these bills, I'd like to see what they are. If it is all pork, more power to him (and pork usually has broad based support). But I really don't know.
It's the "roughly a hundred" part that's ridiculous to me. Being a self-appointed one-man pork-stopper just reeks of self-aggrandizement. I'm hoping he has some criteria other than his own personal whim for holding these bills up, but that may be too much to ask.
Self-aggrandizement? I guess that's in the eye of the beholder, I can see how people would interpret his actions that way and wouldn't call you as off-base for that assertion, though I don't agree. It think you have to be somewhat ego-centric to run for office in the first place. CL is right, Coburn is an idealogue and you might be able to go as far as to call him a political iconoclast. He's all about cutting the size of government and government waste. He's against BAU in D.C., personally, I think that's a good thing.
Given that Coburn supported a war that's cost $1 trillion and has been enormously wasteful, I find his anti-spending stance unbelievably hollow.
Rant against that $50,000 earmark while ignoring that money black hole in Iraq ... [xx(]
Crap like that is the reason the Republicans are in big trouble with the voters. And it's not the only reason.
Coburn wasn't in office when original authorization for the war happened. A plurality of Congress of both parties much larger than Coburn has kept this war going and funded.
That doesn't change the fact that Mr. Less Government Spending hasn't lifted a finger to stop one of the biggest financial boondoggles in history.
Coburn: All talk, no substantive action.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
A plurality of Congress of both parties much larger than Coburn has kept this war going and funded.
He could put a hold on it if he felt like it.[}:)]
Okay, got me on that one.[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
I'm glad you're okay, other than that movement conservatism stuff, you've always seemed healthy to me.
But if someone were mentally ill, is it right to rely on them to exhibit "common sense"? Why does the New England Journal of Medicine say
this (//%22http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/1/13%22)?
quote:
Combat Duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mental Health Problems, and Barriers to Care
Conclusions This study provides an initial look at the mental health of members of the Army and the Marine Corps who were involved in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our findings indicate that among the study groups there was a significant risk of mental health problems and that the subjects reported important barriers to receiving mental health services, particularly the perception of stigma among those most in need of such care.
Pardon me for saying so, but HIPPA is simply not as important as this. Besides, there are Privacy Rules that allow people with "common sense" to request and restrict access to this information.
That still would not prevent a vet who doesn't want the screening from being screened.
Depression is a stigma most people don't wish to be stuck with, yet it is, I believe, the most common disease amongst humans and leading contributing disease to other ailments. Treatment is important, most people know where and how to get treatment.
Just so you know I'm not talking entirely out of my donkey, I do have some perspective on the issue, though I don't pretend to be an expert. My spouse is in healthcare, she wrote a paper on depression. Her brother is a vet with a serious mental illness and has been taken good care of by the VA program, so I don't see a problem there. It's hard to point to vets living under bridges and saying the system has failed them if the vet refuses the help extended or won't comply with treatment.
Here's the problem I've got CL: It's the ever-increasing "nanny state" of our government. It's relying more and more on the government to fix every single problem. Like my choice of wording or not, it's compulsory healthcare, according to the story you linked to. That is saying that vets are either too stupid or incapable of finding their own mental healthcare. It's another group of people we have to protect from themselves. It doesn't make counselors any more available, it simply broadens an invasive screening process.
What about rising suicide rates in teens or African Americans? Why not make it compulsory to them as well. We can't discriminate. Where do we stop with the reach of government regulations.
I'd be happy to read over the entire legislation at some point to see if the summary has it wrong or not. The government should not be allowed to dictate to a vet that he must undergo screening everytime he or she is seen.
Some civil rights people would tell you this is an invasion of privacy and limiting of personal liberty. I really would not care to be screened for a mental disorder when I have the flu. That's probably the Libertarian streak in me coming out because I really do find the government over-reaching here.
I'm all for vets finding the healthcare they need and I want them to feel their contribution to liberty is appreciated. However, it makes me sick to see the games politicians are playing in Washington using them as pawns to show one party cares and the other doesn't. Interesting to note that the GOP is more supportive of the war, yet the Dems try to appear the vet's best friend by creating sham legislation to bolster that image.
This legislation was a waste of time and resources. It's invasive and I fail to see where it was done with the best interests of the vets.
I'll take a look at the AIDS and breast cx bills when I have a chance. Not saying Coburn is God, but so many people jump to conclusions with headlines and sound bites, or simply commentator spin before they really read and consider an issue.
Sorry for the long rant, not directed at you, just frustrated with the many tentacles of government. One guy seems to have common sense on limiting government and people are calling him a moron.
Ok, I went through the legislation that mr Coburn is blocking and I can't help but agree with him! I think it's worth reviewing. Thank Chicken Little for bringing it up!
Coburn has very cleverly used small pieces of legislation to eliminate or disable earmarks.
True, the bills have broad support but the earmarks attached do not, that's why he's been successful in receiving approval for these small pieces of legislation. No senator wants to vote no on most of Mr. Coburn's bills. Funny thing is that Mr. Reed even voted to support many of them because he does not want to go on the record being against them.
For instance, lets review how he's doing this:
H.R.1585 An amendment to prohibit the use of earmarks for awarding no-bid contracts and non-competitive grants. Rendered many Reed bills useless. It was the most recent straw that broke the camel's back
H.R.1124 To exempt millionaires from receiving educational scholarship funds intended for needy families.
H.R.3074 To prohibit the use of funds for the construction of a baseball facility in Billings, Montana, and to reduce the amounts made available for the Economic Development Initiative and the Community Development Fund.
H.R.3074 To ensure that no funds made available under this Act shall be used to carry out any activity relating to the design or construction of the America's Wetland Center in Lake Charles, Louisiana, until the date on which the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the State of Louisiana, certifies to Congress that all residents of the State of Louisiana who were displaced as a result of Hurricane Katrina or Rita in 2005 are no longer living in temporary housing.
H.R.3074 To remove an unnecessary earmark for the International Peace Garden in Dunseith, North Dakota. Would have sucked millions from the Department of Transportation appropriations bill
H.R.3074 To prohibit the use of funds made available under this Act for bicycle paths so that the funds can be used to improve bridge and road safety.
H.R.3074 To prohibit funds appropriated under title I from being used for earmarks until all structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges have been repaired, with limited exceptions.
H.R.2638 To prohibit funding for no-bid earmarks.
S.1642 To certify that taxpayers' dollars and students' tuition support educational rather than lobbying activities.
H.R.1591 To remove a $2 million earmark for the University of Vermont. Not even a reason for this earmark, except Patrick Leahy wanted to slip it in. pancakes! It was slipped in the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 GOOD WORK TOM!
S.1 To prohibit members from requesting earmarks that may financially benefit that Member or immediate family member of that Member, and for other purposes.
I could keep going for a few more pages, but I got a good keyboard lashing last time I did that.
You are correct, Tom Coburn is responsible for tabling hundreds of fine pieces of legislation that contain absolutely ridiculous and in my opinion CRIMINAL provisions.
As a Combat Vet, I am very glad he wants to veto bills like the veterans bill ... I assure, you...the help is there. I sit through briefings after briefings and we all get to sit down with plenty of doctors who ask us all kinds of questions about "how I feel". If I was having a problem (and wanted help) I could have received it very easily.
These bills do nothing but help the insurance companies. Do some research and find out who is really behind the bill. I am curious to see who is lobbying it.
quote:
Originally posted by mrhaskellok
As a Combat Vet, I am very glad he wants to veto bills like the veterans bill ... I assure, you...the help is there. I sit through briefings after briefings and we all get to sit down with plenty of doctors who ask us all kinds of questions about "how I feel". If I was having a problem (and wanted help) I could have received it very easily.
These bills do nothing but help the insurance companies. Do some research and find out who is really behind the bill. I am curious to see who is lobbying it.
Now you aren't suggesting there's a wolf in sheep's clothing pushing that legislation, are you? [;)]
Thank you for your sacrifice for our liberties, sir. I, for one, sincerely appreciate it.
I must ask, do you or your bretheren, feel like a pawn when bills like this are being proposed?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by mrhaskellok
As a Combat Vet, I am very glad he wants to veto bills like the veterans bill ... I assure, you...the help is there. I sit through briefings after briefings and we all get to sit down with plenty of doctors who ask us all kinds of questions about "how I feel". If I was having a problem (and wanted help) I could have received it very easily.
These bills do nothing but help the insurance companies. Do some research and find out who is really behind the bill. I am curious to see who is lobbying it.
Now you aren't suggesting there's a wolf in sheep's clothing pushing that legislation, are you? [;)]
Thank you for your sacrifice for our liberties, sir. I, for one, sincerely appreciate it.
I must ask, do you or your bretheren, feel like a pawn when bills like this are being proposed?
These days it is dumbed down to the point where most people have no idea what is in the bills. The name of the bill sometimes has nothing to do with that the bill is actually doing, or what random BS they have attached to it that has nothing to do with the main purpose.
So you can have a bill called the "Benefits for Veterans Act", which also happens to include a $5 billion handout to Monsanto, and a hefty pay raise for congress, YET - if someone votes against it, you will have people like Obama saying "He voted AGAINST benefits for veterans!".
Some say giving the executive branch a line item veto would be too much power, but the legislature seriously needs to stop passing complicated bills with way too many random items thrown in. It should be One bill, one issue. At the VERY least there should be a Read the Bills Act passed, they often times vote bills into law quicker than it is humanly possible to even read them. Say a bill 1000 pages long can be voted on in HOURS.
Was anyone else aware that the National Cancer Institute has a budget request this year for $5.865 billion?
http://plan2008.cancer.gov/budgetrequest.shtml
At issue doesn't appear to have anything to do with Tom Coburn having anything against women's breasts (who would?). Seems Dr. Coburn has a problem with duplicate funding and creating more bureaucracy in this bill by funding through NIH.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-579&tab=summary
Full citation:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-579
According to their web site, NCI doles out about 5000 research grants a year at $400K a pop to about 600 different institutions.
IOW, NCI was created to help facilitate all cancer research. It appears that protocol would be for NCI to administer these funds through their own annual budget and application process for these funds.
This begs the question. Who, or what private entities stood to gain from $40mm per year on environmental research?
This goes right to the heart of government creating more government, and more waste of your money from what I'm reading.
It's a great sound bite or headline though to say that Coburn supports wars and doesn't support women's health.
What Coburn's doing is fundamentally undemocratic. There's no reason he should be able to force his idea of pork on the rest of the country. Quite aside from whether or not earmarks ARE pork, I don't want Coburn having the ability to say what goes and what doesn't, especially when a majority of Congress is ready to pass a given bill.
Really, he doesn't get to say what's right and what's wrong. He gets one vote, just like the next guy, and that's it.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
What Coburn's doing is fundamentally undemocratic. There's no reason he should be able to force his idea of pork on the rest of the country. Quite aside from whether or not earmarks ARE pork, I don't want Coburn having the ability to say what goes and what doesn't, especially when a majority of Congress is ready to pass a given bill.
Really, he doesn't get to say what's right and what's wrong. He gets one vote, just like the next guy, and that's it.
Correct, yet you forget every Senator has a right to put a "hold" on a bill. This is an old practice in the Senate. Perhaps no one else has used it so much as Dr. Coburn, but it's been done forever.
The difference is, it's only been in the last couple of years they have started idntifying who the "holdee" is. I don't know if politics is why they have changed this or not. I suspect since Coburn also pisses off a lot of GOP's it's politics and was targeted at him to hopefully ensure he'd be a one term Senator. I think that was his idea in the first place.
It's been enlightening to look deeper into what Coburn has been doing. Just because 2/3 of the Senate is for a bill does not mean all the other Senators are fully aware of what is in a bill, nor that they comprehend the entire piece of legislation.
I'm glad there is someone reviewing bills for redundancy in funding, mechanism, and bureaucracy. It doesn't appear anyone else was looking so close. He's also keeping an eye out on personal liberties.
The vet and bc bills are but two examples of bills marketed to attract a bloc of voters, look at how the name is marketed. Without seeing the true wasteful nature of a bill or the harms in it, it's real easy for a Senator's challenger to create TV ads saying:
Senator blowhard voted against:
Veterans
Breast cancer research
The arts
Smart immigration policy
Banning baby eating
Etc. ad nauseum
If you don't mind a bunch of arrogant clowns playing games with your money then the status quo should be just fine. Coburn is doing what he promised he would- he's shaking up an old, exclusive, and stodgy institution. If it's slowing down legislation and making Senators think, that's a good thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
If you don't mind a bunch of arrogant clowns playing games with your money then the status quo should be just fine. Coburn is doing what he promised he would- he's shaking up an old, exclusive, and stodgy institution. If it's slowing down legislation and making Senators think, that's a good thing.
But Coburn ignores the massive amounts of money being wasted on the Iraq war.
For Coburn to pick nits but ignore the biggest money-waster of all is what I call selective outrage.
On that, he's no better than Bush.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
What Coburn's doing is fundamentally undemocratic. There's no reason he should be able to force his idea of pork on the rest of the country. Quite aside from whether or not earmarks ARE pork, I don't want Coburn having the ability to say what goes and what doesn't, especially when a majority of Congress is ready to pass a given bill.
Really, he doesn't get to say what's right and what's wrong. He gets one vote, just like the next guy, and that's it.
Correct, yet you forget every Senator has a right to put a "hold" on a bill. This is an old practice in the Senate. Perhaps no one else has used it so much as Dr. Coburn, but it's been done forever.
The difference is, it's only been in the last couple of years they have started idntifying who the "holdee" is. I don't know if politics is why they have changed this or not. I suspect since Coburn also pisses off a lot of GOP's it's politics and was targeted at him to hopefully ensure he'd be a one term Senator. I think that was his idea in the first place.
It's been enlightening to look deeper into what Coburn has been doing. Just because 2/3 of the Senate is for a bill does not mean all the other Senators are fully aware of what is in a bill, nor that they comprehend the entire piece of legislation.
I'm glad there is someone reviewing bills for redundancy in funding, mechanism, and bureaucracy. It doesn't appear anyone else was looking so close. He's also keeping an eye out on personal liberties.
The vet and bc bills are but two examples of bills marketed to attract a bloc of voters, look at how the name is marketed. Without seeing the true wasteful nature of a bill or the harms in it, it's real easy for a Senator's challenger to create TV ads saying:
Senator blowhard voted against:
Veterans
Breast cancer research
The arts
Smart immigration policy
Banning baby eating
Etc. ad nauseum
If you don't mind a bunch of arrogant clowns playing games with your money then the status quo should be just fine. Coburn is doing what he promised he would- he's shaking up an old, exclusive, and stodgy institution. If it's slowing down legislation and making Senators think, that's a good thing.
Well that's the thing. I don't agree that the Senate is a bunch of arrogant clowns playing games with my money. I think by and large that they are trying to get legitimate -- and perhaps even necessary -- work done. Coburn is abusing the mechanisms of parliamentary debate to influence the process way more than he should be allowed to. I'm not sure how to stop him -- as you said, holds are legit parts of the process -- but I'm glad that Reid's giving it a shot.
This, by the way, is why what he's doing is so ideological. All of this is predicated on the belief that our government is so deeply corrupt that it needs conservative mavericks like him to step in and whip it into shape. That probably works for the libertarian wing of the Republican party, but from other parts of the spectrum (especially those parts that think the legislative process still has value) Coburn comes off as a straight up vigilante.
EDIT: And as Rwarn says, he's picking his own pet targets rather than homing in on the elephant in the room, Iraq.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
What Coburn's doing is fundamentally undemocratic. There's no reason he should be able to force his idea of pork on the rest of the country. Quite aside from whether or not earmarks ARE pork, I don't want Coburn having the ability to say what goes and what doesn't, especially when a majority of Congress is ready to pass a given bill.
Really, he doesn't get to say what's right and what's wrong. He gets one vote, just like the next guy, and that's it.
Correct, yet you forget every Senator has a right to put a "hold" on a bill. This is an old practice in the Senate. Perhaps no one else has used it so much as Dr. Coburn, but it's been done forever.
The difference is, it's only been in the last couple of years they have started idntifying who the "holdee" is. I don't know if politics is why they have changed this or not. I suspect since Coburn also pisses off a lot of GOP's it's politics and was targeted at him to hopefully ensure he'd be a one term Senator. I think that was his idea in the first place.
It's been enlightening to look deeper into what Coburn has been doing. Just because 2/3 of the Senate is for a bill does not mean all the other Senators are fully aware of what is in a bill, nor that they comprehend the entire piece of legislation.
I'm glad there is someone reviewing bills for redundancy in funding, mechanism, and bureaucracy. It doesn't appear anyone else was looking so close. He's also keeping an eye out on personal liberties.
The vet and bc bills are but two examples of bills marketed to attract a bloc of voters, look at how the name is marketed. Without seeing the true wasteful nature of a bill or the harms in it, it's real easy for a Senator's challenger to create TV ads saying:
Senator blowhard voted against:
Veterans
Breast cancer research
The arts
Smart immigration policy
Banning baby eating
Etc. ad nauseum
If you don't mind a bunch of arrogant clowns playing games with your money then the status quo should be just fine. Coburn is doing what he promised he would- he's shaking up an old, exclusive, and stodgy institution. If it's slowing down legislation and making Senators think, that's a good thing.
Well that's the thing. I don't agree that the Senate is a bunch of arrogant clowns playing games with my money. I think by and large that they are trying to get legitimate -- and perhaps even necessary -- work done. Coburn is abusing the mechanisms of parliamentary debate to influence the process way more than he should be allowed to. I'm not sure how to stop him -- as you said, holds are legit parts of the process -- but I'm glad that Reid's giving it a shot.
This, by the way, is why what he's doing is so ideological. All of this is predicated on the belief that our government is so deeply corrupt that it needs conservative mavericks like him to step in and whip it into shape. That probably works for the libertarian wing of the Republican party, but from other parts of the spectrum (especially those parts that think the legislative process still has value) Coburn comes off as a straight up vigilante.
EDIT: And as Rwarn says, he's picking his own pet targets rather than homing in on the elephant in the room, Iraq.
True! He's a rodent, but he's such a big rodent that he's frightening all of the roaches out of the woodwork. I had to go read what he's blocking, and he really is not blocking anything, he's just making the other senators vote directly on their pet projects, and they are unwilling to do that!
He's not just picking on the Dems, he's hitting the Repubes too. He's forcing members on both sides to fess up to their garbage. They still have all of the power to pass these bills, just without the hidden, and unrelated rotten fruit. The fact that they are unwilling to pass a Veteran's bill without diverting millions of dollars to their lobbyists' pockets is the big story here.
I wish more Democrats would take a stand. He's putting himself under fire and will probably give away his seat because of it, but he will leave a legacy that may be very hard to forget. It's hard for us regular rubes to understand what's in these bills until someone shines the light and the roaches scatter.
If they feel so strong about these bills why won't they vote for them without the fat? Or is it just the fat that they care about? Is the bill just a vehicle to shovel crap?
quote:
Originally posted by FranklinTower
True! He's a rodent, but he's such a big rodent that he's frightening all of the roaches out of the woodwork. I had to go read what he's blocking, and he really is not blocking anything, he's just making the other senators vote directly on their pet projects, and they are unwilling to do that!
He's not just picking on the Dems, he's hitting the Repubes too. He's forcing members on both sides to fess up to their garbage. They still have all of the power to pass these bills, just without the hidden, and unrelated rotten fruit. The fact that they are unwilling to pass a Veteran's bill without diverting millions of dollars to their lobbyists' pockets is the big story here.
I wish more Democrats would take a stand. He's putting himself under fire and will probably give away his seat because of it, but he will leave a legacy that may be very hard to forget. It's hard for us regular rubes to understand what's in these bills until someone shines the light and the roaches scatter.
If they feel so strong about these bills why won't they vote for them without the fat? Or is it just the fat that they care about? Is the bill just a vehicle to shovel crap?
Oh, please. There are no earmarks on the AIDs prevention bill, nor the breast cancer bill, nor the veteran's PTSD bill. 'Preciate the concern (or concern trolling), but that ain't the problem.
Coburn simply doesn't care. He uses weak excuses and procedures to hold up important decisions. Lives hang in the balance and he doesn't care:
- With the AIDs prevention bill, Coburn put a hold on it because he doesn't like the proportion spent on prevention.
Tell me why someone would want to hold funding on this:
quote:
PEPFAR has saved the lives of more than 1.4 million men, women and children by providing them with antiretroviral treatment at more than 1,900 treatment sites worldwide.
• Nearly 6.7 million people affected by HIV, including more than 2.7 million orphans and vulnerable children have received care through PEPFAR programs.
• An estimated 152,000 infants have been saved from HIV infections.
• PEPFAR has trained hundreds of thousands of people to provide counseling and testing services, care for orphans and vulnerable children and for people living with HIV.
• PEPFAR has supported outreach activities to more than 61.5 million people to help prevent sexual transmission of HIV.
Source: Catholic Relief Services
The breast cancer bill? According to his staff, "We are already spending enough money on breast cancer." Really? 500,000 women a year die from breast cancer.
The veteran's screening bill? He speculates that your doctor can keep you from getting a handgun...nope, only the judicial system can do that. the VA estimates 5,000 vets a year commit suicide.
These have nothing to do with pork. They have
everything to do with a freaking
doctor who is blocking health care votes because he doesn't think that Africans, women, or vets, are worth the investment.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by FranklinTower
True! He's a rodent, but he's such a big rodent that he's frightening all of the roaches out of the woodwork. I had to go read what he's blocking, and he really is not blocking anything, he's just making the other senators vote directly on their pet projects, and they are unwilling to do that!
He's not just picking on the Dems, he's hitting the Repubes too. He's forcing members on both sides to fess up to their garbage. They still have all of the power to pass these bills, just without the hidden, and unrelated rotten fruit. The fact that they are unwilling to pass a Veteran's bill without diverting millions of dollars to their lobbyists' pockets is the big story here.
I wish more Democrats would take a stand. He's putting himself under fire and will probably give away his seat because of it, but he will leave a legacy that may be very hard to forget. It's hard for us regular rubes to understand what's in these bills until someone shines the light and the roaches scatter.
If they feel so strong about these bills why won't they vote for them without the fat? Or is it just the fat that they care about? Is the bill just a vehicle to shovel crap?
Oh, please. There are no earmarks on the AIDs prevention bill, nor the breast cancer bill, nor the veteran's PTSD bill. 'Preciate the concern (or concern trolling), but that ain't the problem.
Coburn simply doesn't care. He uses weak excuses and procedures to hold up important decisions. Lives hang in the balance and he doesn't care:
- With the AIDs prevention bill, Coburn put a hold on it because he doesn't like the proportion spent on prevention. Tell me why someone would want to hold funding on this:
quote:
PEPFAR has saved the lives of more than 1.4 million men, women and children by providing them with antiretroviral treatment at more than 1,900 treatment sites worldwide.
• Nearly 6.7 million people affected by HIV, including more than 2.7 million orphans and vulnerable children have received care through PEPFAR programs.
• An estimated 152,000 infants have been saved from HIV infections.
• PEPFAR has trained hundreds of thousands of people to provide counseling and testing services, care for orphans and vulnerable children and for people living with HIV.
• PEPFAR has supported outreach activities to more than 61.5 million people to help prevent sexual transmission of HIV.
Source: Catholic Relief Services
The breast cancer bill? According to his staff, "We are already spending enough money on breast cancer." Really? 500,000 women a year die from breast cancer.
The veteran's screening bill? He speculates that your doctor can keep you from getting a handgun...nope, only the judicial system can do that. the VA estimates 5,000 vets a year commit suicide.
These have nothing to do with pork. They have everything to do with a freaking doctor who is blocking health care votes because he doesn't think that Africans, women, or vets, are worth the investment.
Apparently you are allowing a personal bias against Coburn color your figures. According to American Cancer Society data, less than 41,000 women die from breast cancer each year, new diagnoses, depending on the source is around 200K. That would mean a survival rate of about 80%, yes?
All cancer- estimated new cases reported 2007: 1,444,920 deaths same period: 559,650. Male deaths: 289,550. Female deaths: 270,100. Number of deaths as a percent of new cases reported: 39% 19,000 more men die than women of cancer every year.
Breast cancer total of men and women- estimated new cases reported 2007: 180,510, deaths same period: 40,910. Number of deaths as a percent of new cases reported: 23%
Esophogeal cancer- estimated new cases reported 2007: 15,560, deaths same period: 13,940, disproportionately strikes the male population. Number of deaths as a percent of new cases reported: 90%
Pancreatic cancer- estimated new cases reported 2007: 37,170, deaths same period: 33,370, new cases and deaths fairly equal amongst men and women. Number of deaths as a percent of new cases reported: 90%
Prostate cancer- new cases: 218,890, deaths: 27,050. Affects exclusively men. Number of deaths as a percent of new cases reported: 12%
Breast cancer accounts for 12% of all new cancer diagnoses, prostate accounts for 15%
Why not a prostate cancer bill? Hmmm???? Mortality rates are lower for prostate, but think of all the health care costs involved with treatment. Maybe because that's not a swing vote group politicians are interested in wooing like homosexuals (AIDS) or women voters (BCX) who might tend to be a single issue voter, especially if an opponent can paint an incumbant as anti-gay or anti women's health.
Okay, on to the AIDS bill:
"We wanted to get this up and out, as the quicker we get this moving the more lives we're going to be saving," Biden said. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said that
the $50 billion funding allocation surpasses the need and capacity of PEPFAR focus countries. "We're just pushing the gas pedal when it's already floored," he said. U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator Mark Dybul, who administers PEPFAR, said the committee showed "fantastic bipartisan support."
"S.2731
Title: A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2009 through 2013 to provide assistance to foreign countries to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria,
and for other purposes."
Not just an AIDS bill, but sure would make someone sound anti-gay if they voted against it. Tell me this bill isn't about visibility politics, Obama and McCain BOTH signed on as co-sponsors June 18, 2008.
Why did Coburn and six other Senators act to block this bill? Don't count on Chicken Little for the truth, just hyperbole and minimal facts. It's amazing what you can find when you seek facts and don't rely on op-ed for your news, like The Politico. Instead of saying Coburn wanted less spent on prevention (it's difficult to legislate human behavior, folks) It could be said that he wanted more spent on treatment.
http://www.natap.org/2008/newsUpdates/062408_02.htm
What is NATAP, you ask? National AIDS Treatment Advocacy Project.
"Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and six other Republican senators blocked the legislation in opposition to its cost and "mission creep" into health and development efforts. In addition,
they sought language that would guarantee that 55% of PEPFAR funding goes toward treatment, including antiretroviral drugs (Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report, 6/25). __
According to Reid, Democratic leaders reached an "agreement in principle" with Coburn and the six other senators. Under the agreement, "more than half" of PEPFAR funding would go to treatment, according to the AP/Google.com. The agreement requires that antiretrovirals used in PEPFAR programs be approved by FDA or another approved regulator agency. In addition, the agreement prevents PEPFAR funding for wealthier developing nations, such as China and Russia.__Reid said that with the agreement, the Senate "should be able" to pass the legislation "quickly and easily."
I don't think asking that more than 50% of the $50 bln in this bill go toward treatment of active cases was too much to ask.
CL, you got any more biased misinterpretations of Coburn's actions you'd like for me to tackle? Not everything Coburn has held has been due to pork. Some of it has to do with limiting government's invasion into your life and the reality that government isn't the perfect solution for every problem. Liberals have squealed over provisions of the Patriot Act being invasive and limiting liberty, yet they ignore so many other bills which trample all over our liberties.
I see you also chose to ignore the one vet in our group who did chime in who said depression-screening should not be mandatory for veterans. The national rate for suicide is about 11 per 100,000. Why not require this screening for every American since this is posed as some sort of solution just for vets? Because it sounds better so say someone voted "for vets" than it does to say someone voted "against vets".
Great research!
My stance on any discussion about Coburn is simple... I want NO MORE BILLS. I wouldn't care if we never passed another bill again. The problem in our nation isn't a lack of money or law... it is the misplaced emphasis of our money and law. Spend it locally and everyone would be happy. Why? Because you have more accountability and efficiency. We truly don't need any more federal law... the states were giving the ability to write law based on the needs of it's people.
So, whether or not you "like" the laws Coburn is blocking or not, just keep in mind that there really aren't very many we "need". I wish there were 100 of them in there blocking every last one of them for a while.
Just my 2 cents.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
If you don't mind a bunch of arrogant clowns playing games with your money then the status quo should be just fine. Coburn is doing what he promised he would- he's shaking up an old, exclusive, and stodgy institution. If it's slowing down legislation and making Senators think, that's a good thing.
But Coburn ignores the massive amounts of money being wasted on the Iraq war.
For Coburn to pick nits but ignore the biggest money-waster of all is what I call selective outrage.
On that, he's no better than Bush.
Here is some insight:
"He said the risk of withdrawal is greater than the risk of remaining, and he praised the military personnel."
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080221_1_a1_spanc13621
He says it might have been a mistake going into Iraq. No ****, Tom!
FWIW, Coburn voted "nay", along with 14 other Senators, including Kennedy, Clinton, and Obama on this peach of a 2007 spending bill which included funds for the Iraq war:
Number: H.R. 2206 (U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 )
Measure Title: Making emergency supplemental appropriations and additional supplemental appropriations for agricultural and other emergency assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.
Uh oh, Obama voted against Katrina survivors, vets, and agriculture if you just follow this tiny summary above. Tsk, tsk.I bet he eats babies along with his Islamo-fascist buddies and racist mentors. [}:)]
Bill summary:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR02206:@@@D&summ2=m&
Helps to check facts and really look at actions instead of relying Faux News commentators or moonbat liberal websites.
Coburn is not an enthusiastic supporter of this war. He, like so many others, was for it before he was against it. [B)]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Apparently you are allowing a personal bias against Coburn color your figures.
Wrong. (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_cancer%22) "In 2005, breast cancer caused 502,000 deaths worldwide (7% of cancer deaths; almost 1% of all deaths)"
quote:
Why not a prostate cancer bill? Hmmm???? Mortality rates are lower for prostate,
Quit answering your own questions. Prostate IS easier, and further along.
quote:
"We wanted to get this up and out, as the quicker we get this moving the more lives we're going to be saving," Biden said. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said that the $50 billion funding allocation surpasses the need and capacity of PEPFAR focus countries. "We're just pushing the gas pedal when it's already floored," he said. U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator Mark Dybul, who administers PEPFAR, said the committee showed "fantastic bipartisan support."
The fact that you highlight the second sentence rather than the first speaks volumes about you. Perhaps the "lives we're going to be saving" is the motivator that gives this bill "fantastic bipartisan support".
quote:
Don't count on Chicken Little for the truth, just hyperbole and minimal facts.
Bullsh*t. The facts are the facts. Coburn is an ineffective legislator because he has no ability to weigh benefits against costs. The lives of these people are of no value to him; maybe that's learned behavior or maybe it's Asperger's. Regardless, it takes a certain kind of soullessness to sacrifice lives for nickels.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Apparently you are allowing a personal bias against Coburn color your figures.
Wrong. (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_cancer%22) "In 2005, breast cancer caused 502,000 deaths worldwide (7% of cancer deaths; almost 1% of all deaths)"
quote:
Why not a prostate cancer bill? Hmmm???? Mortality rates are lower for prostate,
Quit answering your own questions. Prostate IS easier, and further along.
quote:
"We wanted to get this up and out, as the quicker we get this moving the more lives we're going to be saving," Biden said. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said that the $50 billion funding allocation surpasses the need and capacity of PEPFAR focus countries. "We're just pushing the gas pedal when it's already floored," he said. U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator Mark Dybul, who administers PEPFAR, said the committee showed "fantastic bipartisan support."
The fact that you highlight the second sentence rather than the first speaks volumes about you. Perhaps the "lives we're going to be saving" is the motivator that gives this bill "fantastic bipartisan support".
quote:
Don't count on Chicken Little for the truth, just hyperbole and minimal facts.
Bullsh*t. The facts are the facts. Coburn is an ineffective legislator because he has no ability to weigh benefits against costs. The lives of these people are of no value to him; maybe that's learned behavior or maybe it's Asperger's. Regardless, it takes a certain kind of soullessness to sacrifice lives for nickels.
Oh, WORLD-WIDE stats, well thank you for the clarification, Mr. Little. How about citing government stats or scholarly sites instead of "The Politico" or Wiki? Using one of your sources, Wiki: almost one in three men die of prostate cancer in the UK. Based on that, we don't put enough money into prostate cancer research in the U.S., right?
Yes, I did highlight the second sentence. What is hard to comprehend about "we are authorizing more money than needed" is confusing to you? What makes fiscal sense about that? What makes more sense, funding treatment for HIV-positive people or buying more condoms and printing more pamphlets to try and alter risky sex practice? Pathos and hyperbole seem to appeal more to you than fact.
People like you don't want the U.S. to be the global police force (I'm not that nuts about the idea either), why are you expecting us to be the world's doctor? How about shared cancer research funded in, by, and with other developed nations? The EU has a great network of researchers, as does Asia.
NCI shepherds $5.8 bln per year in cancer research funding. Please explain the point in diverting an additional $40mm a year through another gov't agency. Why not through NCI? Something smells mighty political about that.
Why don't you just come clean and give us an accurate statement:
"In my opinion, Tom Coburn is an ineffective legislator".
You keep mistaking your opinion for fact and use questionable op-eds and resources to make your opinion sound like fact.
How effective a legislator has Obama been?
http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490
Didn't take part in any vote on the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy act of 2007.
Didn't vote on Increasing Taxes on Profits, Rescinding Certain Tax Deductions, and Increasing Tax Incentives for Alternative Energy Programs for Oil Companies.
Whole lot of NV's. That's not what he's presently being paid for, yet millions seem prepared to vote for someone who doesn't have the courage to cast a vote on potentially divisive issues. That's
my opinion anyhow. It's hard to be effective or an agent of change if you don't take action.
quote:
Originally posted by mrhaskellok
Great research!
My stance on any discussion about Coburn is simple... I want NO MORE BILLS. I wouldn't care if we never passed another bill again. The problem in our nation isn't a lack of money or law... it is the misplaced emphasis of our money and law. Spend it locally and everyone would be happy. Why? Because you have more accountability and efficiency. We truly don't need any more federal law... the states were giving the ability to write law based on the needs of it's people.
So, whether or not you "like" the laws Coburn is blocking or not, just keep in mind that there really aren't very many we "need". I wish there were 100 of them in there blocking every last one of them for a while.
Just my 2 cents.
+++1
The only time the American People lose is when Congress is in session!
One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation. – Thomas B. Reed (1886)Talk is cheap – except when Congress does it. – Cullen HightowerBeing elected to Congress is regarded as being sent on a looting raid for one's friends. – George F. Will, NewsweekAnd my personal Oklahoma favorite:
This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as we do when the baby gets hold of a hammer. – Will Rogers
Doing a slow (Co)burn: 'Last week, we learned that Senate Majority Leader Reid would be collecting various bills "held" by Tom Coburn and combining them into one package - forcing Senate Republicans to either vote with the needs of their constituents on good legislation...or sacrifice themselves out of loyalty to one colleague's obstructionism. And since many of the bills were bipartisan, quite a few Republican Senators will find themselves in the awkward position of either voting for the legislation they introduced, or selling out their constituencies to play politics and vote with Coburn.'
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/24/112537/967
"If you want to oppose this package, you're opposing a lot of things, including things that most Americans believe overwhelmingly should be part of our law — to protect against child pornography, to deal with the drug problem in our country, to try to find runaway children, to prosecute those who are guilty of civil rights crimes," Durbin said.
...
"If you want to cast your vote against it, I'm sure there will be many people at home with a lot of questions," he said.
Duh, tom Tom....
While the devil opposes entitlements, there's got to be a better way to eliminate them. Perhaps, new leadership in the executive branch will help. But pour Tom Co BURN will find his place in the Senate just a notch below our other Reapiglican Senaturd.....
Devil's always in the details, eh? These bills are the biggest pile of election year horse **** anyone could possibly cobble together. Durbin highlights "child porn" for which there is already multitudes of laws on the books which are enforced with vigor.
Vote against "Reconstruction and Stabilization Civilian Management Act" or "Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act" and suddenly your opponent can call you "pro-kiddie porn".
How is it you still have not figured any of this out. Beyond your liberal leanings, I really don't think you are that dense you can't see through Reid's little charade.
For those of you who didn't wish to read FOTD's link:
"Senator Thad Cochran - introduced - Stroke Treatment and Ongoing Prevention Act (S. 999/HR 477)
Sen. Christopher S. Bond - introduced - Vision Care for Kids Act (HR 507/S. 1117)
Sen. Sam Brownback- introduced- Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act (S. 1810/HR 3112)
Sen Domenici, Pete V - introduced - Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act (S. 2304/HR 3992)
Sen Vitter, David - introduced - Enhancing the Effective Prosecution of Child Pornography (S. 2869/HR 4136)
Sen Lugar, Richard G. - introduced - Reconstruction and Stabilization Civilian Management Act (HR 1084/S. 613)
Sen Coleman, Norm - introduced - Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act (HR 1678/S. 840)
Sen Stevens, Ted - introduced - Ocean Exploration, Mapping & Research (HR 1834/HR 2400/S. 39)
Sen Snowe, Olympia J. - introduced - Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act (S. 950/HR 2342)
Sen Voinovich, George V. - introduced - Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2008 (S. 496)"
Conan. Who is Steven Fields as Conan666? And where's that Obama big eared avitar gone to?[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by mrhaskellok
Great research!
My stance on any discussion about Coburn is simple... I want NO MORE BILLS. I wouldn't care if we never passed another bill again. The problem in our nation isn't a lack of money or law... it is the misplaced emphasis of our money and law. Spend it locally and everyone would be happy. Why? Because you have more accountability and efficiency. We truly don't need any more federal law... the states were giving the ability to write law based on the needs of it's people.
So, whether or not you "like" the laws Coburn is blocking or not, just keep in mind that there really aren't very many we "need". I wish there were 100 of them in there blocking every last one of them for a while.
Just my 2 cents.
I think Coburn provides an important service by scrutinizing bills for waste; someone has to do this. But, like this quote, you can go overboard when you pretend that everything is as simple as "less is better". The fact is that sometimes it makes sense for us to pool our money on a national level to get the most for our money. Another example - if most legislators believe that federal money is well-spent on subsidizing local or regional commuter train service in Tulsa due to environmental considerations, that would be something I would support. However, I would support Coburn if he insisted that there be some sort of standard used to allocate resources to cities based on the greatest need. I know that's not how the process works now, but it is good that people like Coburn are pushing for some change (even if he is pushing only on some issues).
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Conan. Who is Steven Fields as Conan666? And where's that Obama big eared avitar gone to?[}:)]
I guess he's my evil alter-ego, dunno. I feel like such a trend-setter. [}:)]
There's also two other "71" posters as well now, godboko71 and michaelwayne71 or something like that. "Far as I know, Lieutenant Dan, we are not related."
I like to change out the avatar every few months, I get bored easily. I'm trying to find one of McCain with horns growing out of his forehead. Might even have to put a Dead avatar up at some point.