Thursday, October 18, 2007
SCHIP Veto Sustained
The House of Representatives just voted on overriding President Bush's veto of the SCHIP reauthorization bill. It failed to received a two-thirds majority.
The vote was 273 to 156 in support of overriding the veto. It would have taken 286 to override the veto.
They haven't announced it yet, but I can only assume from the numbers that Tim Walberg did not change his mind, and voted to support the president and oppose the children and about 80 percent of the country.
I'll have more updates later in the day.
UPDATE: The roll call vote can be seen here. Congressman Walberg did vote against overriding the veto, as expected.
I don't know what to say. I mean, I knew he wouldn't vote to override, but I still can't believe it.
Mark Schauer issued a brief statement:
"I'm disappointed that today a stubborn minority voted to provide political cover for President Bush instead of voting to provide health care coverage to thousands of children. The people of south central Michigan, the children of Michigan, deserve better."
I looked at the roll call listing at washingtonpost.com and could not find Walberg's name - but I'm old and a little dyslectic...
Cold someone else check?
A classic Walberg Watch flash from the past that shows he cares more about our ocean swimming friends that sick children in his own state:
Roll Call 735 (HR 3093) he voted against against eliminating funding($200,000) of the Lobster Institute at the University of Maine
Roll Call 736 (HR 3093) he voted against against eliminating funding($250,000) of the East Coast Shellfish Research Center
Anon at 3:11...
See if this link is more readable for you. Walberg is indeed listed.
Walberg is a theocratic fascist, but he was right to vote as he did. Why do you people want George W. Bush and Co. in charge of healthcare? Let individuals take care of themselves. Government's only power is to destroy.
Do you want anarchy? That's what you get when everyone is for him/herself. That's not what our Founding Fathers wanted for this country.
Anonymous - So you think the Founding Fathers wanted a federal children's health-insurance program? Wow. That's quite a leap. They didn't.Post a Comment
I don't want "anarchy," I want freedom. I want the government to protect me from the initiation of force against my body or property, and that's it. Aside from that, allow individuals to be involved in voluntary exchanges. All trade is by definition mutually beneficial because if only one party benefited, the other would not enter into the trade. Government should regulate only against force and fraud. In the absence of force and fraud, there can be no exploitation.
"Every man for himself" is only a bad thing when the things that man may do "for himself" include initiating force or defrauding another person. If he cannot do that, then whatever actions he takes "for himself," inevitably benefit others, even if that's not his intention.
I used to be a radical far-left liberal, but I realized that government programs are always backed by guns. I am a man of peace. Give peace a chance.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008