Editions: e-Edition | Lite | Mobile | Twitter | Facebook | RSS | Subscribe
Manage: My Account | Logout

RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

Rep. Welch decries GOP stalling tactics



Toolbox

By DANIEL BARLOW Vermont Press Bureau - Published: March 11, 2010

MONTPELIER – U.S. Rep. Peter Welch said Tuesday that if Senate Republicans want to continue blocking legislation in the U.S. Congress, they should be forced to actually filibuster.

Welch, a Vermont Democrat, made the unusual move of addressing the gridlock facing the other chamber, where Republican senators have blocked votes on key pieces of legislation passed by the House chamber where Welch serves.

This includes the House's health care, energy and financial reform bills. In all, there are 290 House bills passed in the current session that have not received up-or-down votes in the Senate.

"The Republicans are following a prescription for failure," Welch said during a telephone interview from his office in Washington, D.C., early Tuesday evening. "The bottom line is that the House has passed key pieces of legislation that still haven't been voted on by the Senate."

Welch, now in his second term in office, signed onto a letter with 32 other House Democrats to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, urging him to force Republicans to actually filibuster a bill, instead of simply threatening to filibuster.

The filibuster is a procedural move in Congress that allows for a delay in a vote by continuing debate on that bill. The parliamentary procedure dates back to the days of ancient Rome and was made famous in this country in the 1939 James Stewart film, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."

But in recent years in U.S. politics, simply the threat of the filibuster has derailed legislation. The only way to end a filibuster in the Senate is a vote by 60 members, a number that is slightly out of reach for that chamber's Democrats.

"We strongly urge you to end the practice of the 'silent filibuster' and quickly bring the House-passed measures that are ready for consideration to the Senate floor without fear of a filibuster," the letter reads. "As the Senate majority leader, you have the right to call for a vote on any of these critically important pieces of legislation – and we urge you to exercise these rights when appropriate."

Welch said in the interview Tuesday that if Senate Republicans actually did filibuster a bill – extending debate for hours, possibly even overnight – that "the American people would rise up in fury."

daniel.barlow@rutlandherald.com







READER COMMENTS


PS Fact is , the Democrats have had a huge majority in both houses for a year and can't get anything done, largely because they can't get themselves together to agree on anything. Welch is all sound and fury signifying nothing.
-- Posted by Katherine Silta on Sat, Mar 13, 2010, 9:14 pm EST

report this comment


If Welch would take a minute to step off Planet Idiot and look at the polls and actually speak with real, taxpaying citizens, he might realize that people are already furious that this Congress and this administration are acting as they see fit despite the wishes of the people.nThe idea that "they know best" is the height of hubris and arrogence. Just another pinhead in a chamber full of other pinheads.
-- Posted by Katherine Silta on Sat, Mar 13, 2010, 9:07 pm EST

report this comment


Welch you pitiful moron open your eyes the people are already rising up in fury about a health care plan that we or the next generation will ever be able to pay for.That is the only perscription for failure I see here.
-- Posted by mark cassidy on Sat, Mar 13, 2010, 8:08 pm EST

report this comment


GenoJuice your candor is welcome here to offset the KoolAid fountain all the people have in their veins..
-- Posted by We the people Vermont on Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 7:33 pm EST

report this comment


They had 60 votes until just a few weeks ago. the Senate could have passed ANYTHING THEY WISHED TO. Welch is in over his head again. He's copying the tactics of the Vermont Senator from Manhatten. Bad move Peter. You need to work on your delivery if you want to sound like Bernie. This isn't left or right; the party in power needs support from the minority party so if the idea is a failure they can say it was supported by both parties. The lib's problem is they had 60 votes. If they passed something they had no cover. They are now better off because they can blame the Republicans and call them obstructionists. I say have at it. The bills were not being held up because of Republicans. They were being held up because they were WRONG.

Simple.... if you have 60 votes you can do whatever you want. If you can't do it with the 60 vote majority you are a failure. Libs can point their little Harry Reid fingers all they want. They blew it. They'll twist that into campaign rhetoric but that dog has already hunted. Maybe they'll have Obama campaign for them. I sure hope so. Olympics, Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts.... He's more toxic than the Herald thinks Vermont Yankee is.

C'mon Herald.... tell our Vermont Senate to vote to close Obama in 2012. Be consistant with your toxic propoganda.

OK minions- you take your little lib shots now...
-- Posted by genojuice None on Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 6:45 pm EST

report this comment


sorry !

Dave and SOTG
-- Posted by Name Change on Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 5:09 pm EST

report this comment


Dan and SOTG

For once, a great debate. I enjoyed reading both of your posts. That is the way it is done. Congrats to both of you. I learned from both of your posts, something we all need to do on these threads.

Great Job
-- Posted by Name Change on Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 5:08 pm EST

report this comment


David, David, David - Do you think that SOTG, NOTTA and company have even read the constitution? All these progressives want to do is destroy the fabric that our country was built on. A fabric that has worn well over the years until these folks became determined to tear at the threads that hold our freedom and liberty together. They hide behind fake names, shoot personal insults at those that do not agree with them, and post links to liberal produced internet sites. It is not worth even arguing with them. Face it, Welch is complaining about the republicans asking hard questions about policy that our public does not support. He labels this obstructionism, while his work is called what?

What we need to focus on is getting people to the polls next November and cleaning house.
-- Posted by Allen Seiple on Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 5:01 pm EST

report this comment


"So yes, look for the mandate to be overturned. It will happen."

It's pretty simple, really: you're betting that SCOTUS, if it gets that far, will fall in line with Scalia's pseudo-literalist Constitutional interpretation: that if it ain't written there, guv'mint can't do it.

I'm betting that several decades of precedent and the view of the Constitution as a so-called "living document", one that is non-Madisonian and in which there ARE a "host of proofs ... not contemplated by its creators", will prevail.

We'll see, won't we?
-- Posted by Son Of That Guy on Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 4:58 pm EST

report this comment


SOTG. But you are wrong. I clearly pointed out in my earlier post why the government cannot force you to purchase a product or service.
The enumerated powers of the Constitution do not allow it. You make the argument that the welfare clause does allow such a power. This simply is not true.

Here's what James Madison, the father of our Constitution, said about the welfare clause:
"With respect to the two words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them.
To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

Thomas Jefferson said,
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
The detail or enumeration to which Madison and Jefferson refer is found mostly in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

You did correctly point out examples where the government has abused its powers such as Medicare. Take a closer look at where the flood gates really opened up to these abuses. FDR's court packing scheme during the New Deal. Only the current thuggery going on in Washington rivals the heavy handed tactics of FDR. This is without a doubt where the Constitution became irrelevant to many. It is from this point forward that the Supreme Court has not overturned any significant piece of legislation. However, that
is starting to change. Recent court rulings rightfully embraces the more Madisonian interpretation of the Constitution. Two years ago it was the upholding of the 2nd amendment striking down the DC gun ban. This past year it was the upholding first amendment rights.
Even the Commerce clause (a liberal favorite) has come under greater scrutiny. So yes, look for the mandate to be overturned. It will happen.
-- Posted by Dave Holleran on Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 4:42 pm EST

report this comment


Join in the new game that's sweeping the country. It's called "Bureaucracy" Everybody stands in a circle. The first person to do anything loses.
-- Posted by Larry Williams on Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 3:52 pm EST

report this comment


"You have yet to point out the article, section or amendment which dictates that the government can make you purchase something you do not wish to purchase."

And Dave, you have yet to point out the article, section or amendment which dictates that the government CANNOT make you purchase something you do not wish to purchase... which is the task facing those who would fight this bill in the courts.

Is it a legitimate question for the courts? It could be. Is it a serious 10th Amendment question? Not likely. Hell, the "government" can compel individuals to do all sorts of things not enumerated within the Constitution!

Under Article 1, Congress has the authority to tax and spend for the general welfare... which is why we can have programs like Medicare in the first place. The Congressional Research Service suggests this provision could be used to argue constitutionality of a federal health insurance mandate (see http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40725_20090724.pdf if you're serious about the issue and not just cherry-picking arguments for a local newspaper message board).

Here's the section that would probably interest you the most:

"Certain health insurance mandate proposals could rely on Congress's spending and taxing authority. For example, if Congress chose to require individuals to have health insurance by levying a tax, then using the revenue for funding health benefits, this could be viewed as an appropriate use of Congress's taxing and spending power. Or, if Congress were to require individuals to purchase health insurance, and then enforce this requirement by conditioning receipt of a tax benefit (e.g., a tax credit) on compliance, this also could be seen as a legitimate exercise of Congress's taxing authority. Similarly, if Congress were to enact a proposal under which individuals who did not purchase health insurance were subject to a tax penalty (e.g., a loss of a tax deduction), this also could be seen as valid under this clause of the Constitution.

In addition, Congress's Spending Clause authority could be invoked if a proposal to require individuals to purchase health insurance involves state participation. Congress has frequently promoted its policy goals by conditioning the receipt of federal funds on state compliance with certain requirements. Accordingly, if Congress were to condition payment of certain funds to states based on whether that state requires its residents to have health insurance, this could also be seen as acceptable under the Spending Clause. While the Court has recognized that Congress cannot force states to take certain courses of action because of state sovereignty protected under the Tenth Amendment, the conditioning of funds can be a legitimate inducement to get states to follow the will of Congress. Thus, if Congress were to grant federal funds to states that enacted laws which required individuals to purchase health insurance, this type of law would likely be considered a legitimate use of Congress's spending clause authority."
-- Posted by Son Of That Guy on Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 3:30 pm EST

report this comment


Life is complete, we have the return of "The Boz". Who's the Boz? He's the Boz...
-- Posted by We the people Vermont on Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 3:29 pm EST

report this comment


LN VT,

While I understand what your saying, i do not believe that adding people to a system will cut costs, its giving care so those folks that currently arent seeking care until its too late, to have regular visits...if they are getting checkups and everything the costs will likely be equal considering the ones that currently dont seek care at all!

I take exception to the current bill as not even looking at the actual cost of care but solely the method by which we pay these costs...

contrary to the common statement that it is this bill or nothing...there are MANY things we should do that are not in this bill that actually relate to the costs of care..
namely adding more doctors and intermediate staffers to handle routine matters...having the fed insure the doctors...having the fed give tuition grants for community services practices...
I think this bill will triple my health expenses...
sure I will pay some as premuim, some as tax...but overall I will pay way more...

again, look at ERISA, look at medicaid look at the VA system...is any of what your hoping will happen here happening in those programs?
if you look those programs actually have had the opposite effect as intended,
they limited benefits
draw out coverage determinations timelines
remove the insureds legal recourse against the carriers
and provides mountains of ways for insurers to dodge coverage...

now you want to do that to all healthcare...
you know canadians come here for quick care...
you know universal health in other countries makes for a long wait...

the current bill is indefensible.

I should have not insulted you about the right thing...
I apologize..

I just cant see how anyone could claim that as a right...
how are people being refused now if it is a right..
food is not a right...try not paying the market..
water is not a right...try not paying your water bill...
how in the heck is healthcare a right?

if you say it is...please tell me where you get this from... its not in any of the docs that protect every other right...
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 3:11 pm EST

report this comment


Citizenship should be placed above everything else, even learning. Is there in any college of the land a chair of citizenship where good citizenship and all that it implies is taught? There is not one -- that is, not one where sane citizenship is taught. There are some which teach insane citizenship, bastard citizenship, but that is all. Patriotism! Yes; but patriotism is usually the refuge of the scoundrel. He is the man who talks the loudest. Good citizenship would teach accuracy of thinking and accuracy of statement.

-- Mark Twain, 'Speech' 14 May 1908
-- Posted by Larry Williams on Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 3:05 pm EST

report this comment


SOTG. Article 1 section 8 defines the ENUMERATED powers of the government. None of which apply directly to individuals. The Supremacy clause clarifies that state law cannot trump federal law over these enumerated powers. The 10th amendment prohibits the federal government from over-reaching beyond its limited powers over the states as defined by Constitution.

You have yet to point out the article, section or amendment which dictates that the government can make you purchase something you do not wish to purchase.
-- Posted by Dave Holleran on Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 2:43 pm EST

report this comment


Eric (AKA Joe Wilson),

1.) I said, "Health service staffing levels and resources will naturally adjust base on demand. "

You said, "you get this means the COST WILL INCREASE?"

My response: in many cases, we now have reactionary treatments which are very costly. Eventually, the currently uninsured will transition from costly reactionary care to less expensive preventative care (i.e. annual physicals). When health issues are caught early, they are less likely to become chronic.

2.) You said, "If you think healthcare is going to somehow take the walmart startegy and reduce overhead...why aren't they doing that now!"

My response: More people will be paying premiums that are not now paying a dime. Granted, some will be subsidized, but they are paying nothing now. I do not understand your Walmart analogy. I said that the fixed costs (bricks and mortor) would be spread over more people. Specific treatments would be considered a variable cost. However, that person is now paying into the system.


3.) You said, "This is supposed to save us the extra costs of the uninsured that are ALREADY GETTING CARE...but you acknowlege this is not true when you ackowledge that supply must increase to meet the new demand..."

My response: I think my answer above covers this.

4.) I said, "a mad run for the hospital is not a scare tactic..."

You said "it is the intention of this bill, to get people care NOW..."

My response: Right now our emergancy rooms are full of people who should have received preventative care. That is why there is ussually a wait when there is a true emergancy. The overall intention of health care reform is to creat a healthier nation.

5.) I said, "healthcare is a right"

You said " is a bold faced lie and you know it."

My response: I said I believe health care is a right, not a privilege. Are you saying that I do not believe what I said?



Bottom-line, you are to caught up into your anti government rants to accept any meaningful changes. You would prefer to just keep cutting taxes and kicking the problem down the road. The current system will soon break us all, while the insurance companies are the only winners.
-- Posted by LN VT on Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 1:19 pm EST

report this comment


Oh, Dave. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

The 10th Amendment challenge to the Supremacy Clause has been fully decided in a number of cases. That particular argument has very little chance of making it to the Supreme Court. No doubt, the authors of the the Virginia bill are quite aware of this; no doubt, this is a PR and political move rather than a seriously legal maneuver.

You can attempt to label the federal government requiring citizens to purchase a service or product as "unconstitutional" by using the Commerce Clause or some similar form of reasoning, but that doesn't have a thing to do with the 10th Amendment. If a federal health insurance mandate is found to be valid, it would automatically preempt the 10th Amendment. The Virginia bill does nothing to challenge the validity of the proposed mandate.

If Congress passes a law that is not otherwise found to be unconstitutional, the Supremacy Clause trumps the 10th Amendment. States can't pick and choose which federal laws they wish to abide by. Of course, individual states can certainly ADD to federal laws... and they often do.

It is rare for the Supreme Court to find a federal law in violation of the 10th Amendment (your central argument, yes?). When it has done so, it found that Congress cannot directly force the states to enforce a federal law as opposed to merely providing incentives to comply. Because the proposed health care mandate applies to uninsured private citizens, how does this mandate compel the states to do anything?

Similar so-called "nullification" arguments came up with the stimulus bill. They didn't work then, either.

Huh. Seems I might know something about this "Constitution thingy" after all!
-- Posted by Son Of That Guy on Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 1:17 pm EST

report this comment


Really? Please elaborate. I'd love to read your thoughts on the specific laws this will break.



I was hoping I would not have to explain such as simple concept, but that would be asking too much.

The Constituion is an enumerated list of powers that limit the power of government over states and individuals. It is not a list of laws as you believe. There is no amendment that empowers the government to dictate that individuals have to purchase a product or service.

Since you are new to this Constitution thingy I suggest you read it. Take a few extra minutes with the 9th and 10 amendments until it sinks in.
-- Posted by Dave Holleran on Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 1:08 pm EST

report this comment


"If this health care bill passes, the mandate to buy health insurance absolutely will be challenged and ruled unconstitutional because it is blatenly illegal."

Really? Please elaborate. I'd love to read your thoughts on the specific laws this will break.
-- Posted by Son Of That Guy on Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 12:56 pm EST

report this comment


If this health care bill passes, the mandate to buy health insurance absolutely will be challenged and ruled unconstitutional because it is blatenly illegal. Now we have a situation where everyone does not have to buy insurance until they get sick. So how about you smarter than thou Democrats explain to us all what happens next.
-- Posted by Dave Holleran on Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 12:05 pm EST

report this comment


"Rebuttal Headline:

Populace Decries Welch's Support of:

1) Government Run Health Care
2) Card Check
3) Cap & Trade
4) Zillion dollar spending!"

ZING! Guess that means that Welch has NO chance of being re-elected by the "populace" this year!

Oh, wait. That's right. He's going to be easily re-elected. I'd forgotten. My bad.

Carry on...
-- Posted by Son Of That Guy on Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 10:35 am EST

report this comment


LN VT

"Health service staffing levels and resources will naturally adjust base on demand. "

you get this means the COST WILL INCREASE?

If you think healthcare is going to somehow take the walmart startegy and reduce overhead...why aren't they doing that now!


This is supposed to save us the extra costs of the uninsured that are ALREADY GETTING CARE...but you acknowlege this is not true when you ackowledge that supply must increase to meet the new demand...

a mad run for the hospital is not a scare tactic...it is the intention of this bill, to get people care NOW...

"healthcare is a right" is a bold faced lie and you know it.

Please look into ERISA and see if the federal takeover of long term disability helped the people or gave huge protections to the insurers and removed ALL the legal recourse against insurers with federal pre-emption...

I posted a few links the other day on ERISA...
look into it...and you will see they pitched the same bs as they are now, then look at the effect, LESS payouts longerwaits on coverage determinations and way more egregious behavior by insurers...

when you put insurers up against beaurocrats the bearo's get their hat handed to them...

I say something must be done, but this bill is MUCH WORSE than doing nothing...
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 9:28 am EST

report this comment


Democrats, republicans, they are pretty much all the same. The US Government has been hijacked by self serving politicians of all stripes. They are more interested in maintaining their own power and pushing an agenda for themselves and their friends.

It appears to me that conservatives are more focused on the constitution and what it says. They do not want to see the congress or the administration create rights that do not actually appear in the constitution. The constitution says nothing about guaranteeing that every citizen will be healthy, happy and wise. It guarantees the right to life, liberty and to the pursuit of happiness. That means that if you are willing to work you may achieve that goal. If you sit on you A$$ you should not have any expectation that your neighbors, who are working, will support you the way you want.

I for one am not going to help anyone who is not willing to help themselves.
-- Posted by northstar62 on Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 6:33 am EST

report this comment


We here in Vermont say we are independent. Have Peter Welch ever voted differently than Pelosi or the other dem leaders. not that I know of. He is a lap dog for the leadership to get on their good side.
Washington is out of control. When Ted Kennedy's seat was lost a couple of months ago, in liberal Massachusetts, it had to make other dems squirm. CALL THEIR OFFICES AND TELL THEM WHAT YOU THINK AND WHAT YOU WILL VOTE IN NOVEMBER !! THEY WORK FOR US !!
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 6:28 am EST

report this comment


What legislation can Peter Welch point to that has helped vermonters or anybody for that matter? We all know he supports:

1) Government Run Health Care
2) Card Check
3) Cap & Trade
4) Zillion dollar spending

He is Pelosi's pet, she doesn't even have to call him in to question him on his views..She has a shiny apple on her desk every morning from her favorite little trial lawyer.
-- Posted by We the people Vermont on Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 6:00 am EST

report this comment


Before any of you start bashing me, can any of you name one single thing that Peter Welch has accomplished since being in office? After all he is in his second term and there must be a reason why you all re elected him, educate me, what has he done?

Notta, care to take over here? How about you SOTG care to inform the rest of us? Comfy, I am sure you could inform us, you seem to always be there to add your two-cents, what has Welch accompished?

anyone?

.
-- Posted by Name Change on Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 5:12 am EST

report this comment


I must say these threads sure bring out some of Rutland's most uneducated and ignorant people to post.

"Bush's War"? WOW! when will you silly, uniformed, flag flying, peabrains do a little research? Bush had Congressional approval, something Bill Clinton never had for all of his engagements. Bush declared a "WAR ON TERROR" and to be a terrorist, you don't have to just attack Americans. Anyone who has done the slightest amount of research would soon realize that the Saddam and his two sons as well as a few of his buddies, were indeed terrorist, in every description.
Please educate yourselves, Clinton bomb Iraq and Afghanistan long before Bush did. I think once was the night before his testimony.

As far as Peter Welch, and the rest of you uneducated puppets, the Congress is suppose to DISCUSS, DEBATE and then come to an agreement that would take the motion down the middle. The Man from Kenya and Peter Welch, Leaky Leahy, The Witch Pelosi and so many others, want to floor their ideas, have no debate and have both sides come together and Vote for it as it is, no discussions, no debates and no down the middle, kinda an all or nothing. I agree with the Republicans, NO!

Maybe some of you love the socialistic CHANGE that the Man from Kenya and his croonies have brought on to this country, the majority of us do not. We also do not like the Govt always in our face and it seems just over a year ago, the very same people praising these CHANGES were bashing Bush for the Patriot Act, have you lost view of what has been going on with the current dictatorship and the Patriot act? Are you people really that TWO-FACE?

It seems most of you people really do not give a rat's A&& about the issues, just that YOUR party is behind them or not. You don't seem to care if it infringes on your personnel freedoms or your so called Bill of Rights, just as long as a Democrat is behind it. You are so blind to facts that you will defend your party to the death, right or wrong, they are YOUR party and you will defend them.

Such Puppets, such two-face, blobs that want to come on these threads and try and act like they know something and that they are informed. ROFLMAO

People, some of you are pathetic and do not deserve the RIGHT to VOTE, you are incapable of making decisions that benefit all of the people and not just your lazy selves,
How many of you actually have been following the continual escapades of your Honorable V.P.? Now there is a real winner for you. Vermont has done well keeping the likes of Leahy and Sanders in office, it speaks volumes of the ignorance of the voters. I will admit most of the blame goes to the young, college radicals who only live here for a semester or two and have the right to vote in our State Elections.


Keep up the intelligent debates. Take it away Notta, I am sure you are ready, go for it and show off exactly what I was posting about, you too Comfy and SOTG, bring it on and show the levels of education you all have. Show us more of your blind and ignorant loyalty and your sudden care free attitudes of "Who cares" about personal freedoms and choices, let's have the Govt run everything.

.
-- Posted by Name Change on Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 5:09 am EST

report this comment


So 2 wrongs make a right, Allen?

Because the Republican's were not smart enough to find a way to fix the problem. It's the Democrat's fault?

Don't say Republicans wouldn't stoop that low. Look at history. Conservatives will stoop extremely low. Even willing to kill 100's of 1000's, some say millions, of free thinking women. If they feel threatened. They are capable of the most Evil things imagineable. Even "The church" is.




Northstar,

There was a day when the Republicans loved their Republic. When they were in control. Because they were able to spread their conservative corruption easily.

When Republicans recently lost their control. They didn't like it. They screamed and whined for Democracy. Because they still felt like they had the Majority of people. When something is decided upon that they don't like. They cry for referendums.

Point is.....

Republicans will stoop very low. They will even take idea's from the enemy to get what they want. All they care about is their selfishness and greed.

USA is designed for Freedom and Equality over a diverse population. Our conservative corruption has ruined the idea of America. Hopefully, that corruption will be eradicated over time.

(I, too, am a conservative. But I love USA and the idea of Liberalism(Freedom and Equality). Do not confuse Liberalism with Liberals. I'm happy to have freedom. Why do some use our freedom to control others and take away their freedom? Isn't that messed up? All I ask is for people to live by current laws of the land. Yes, sometimes those laws are challenged and changed or new ones are added.)

Many of todays conservatives are not conservatives at all. They are fundamentalists. They are everything that is against the idea of USA. They just want to control everyone by their beliefs in religion, morals, etc...

How can we allow that when we allow a diverse population their own Freedom to their own religion? Or lack thereof?

We can't. All we can do is objectively look at each issue. And figure out if it is justified to be against it.

Homosexuality and Marriage for example.....

Let's look at one of Jesus' prime teachings. Free will.

Well, according to that. Nothing is wrong. Why is it a problem then? Why is it when Jesus asks us not to judge. The bible judges for us and then tells us how we should react. All within the same book?

CORRUPTION!!! I don't believe Jesus was a hypocrite. I believe conservative corruption is extremely present.

Again, I may be conservative and live my life conservatively. But I am not unaware of our corruption. I'm not deaf, dumb, or blind to the corruption our Majority has left in it's wake.

Truly ask yourself.

Do you want Freedom? Or do you want conservatism to control?

One = USA, and the other = Fundamentalism.
-- Posted by CF Reality on Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 2:11 am EST

report this comment


Pompous Welch conveniently forgets that when the shoe was on the other foot, the dems did the exact same thing. If it's wrong now, it was wrong then. If it was right then but wrong now, he is every bit the sniveling hypocrit he appears to be.
-- Posted by Allen Kuusela on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 10:28 pm EST

report this comment


I personally would not mind paying more taxes in order to pay down our deficit.

-- Posted by LN VT

You are ALWAYS free to refuse your tax refund, or to write a check to the government any time you wish.

The rest of us feel we pay too much in taxes, justifiably so, but if you feel they aren't getting enough of your money, pony up!
-- Posted by Allen Kuusela on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 10:22 pm EST

report this comment


Health care is not a right if someone else must pay for it. What other "rights" will the American taxpayer be forced to pay for. A college education for everyone? A house for everyone? How much more will be shoved down the throats of the American tax payer before we hear the the historical phrase "No taxation without representation". It's pretty obvious that the tax payers are not being represented either in Montpelier or in Washington DC.
-- Posted by northstar62 on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 9:16 pm EST

report this comment


healthcare is not the real issue here....it is who pays for it and who controls what care is provided. If one citizen is required to subscribe all including elected people in washington must use the plan NO SPECIAL WASHINGTON PLANS?.
This plan will require 150,000 new federal employees to get this program up and running....that's close to one fourth of the population of VERMONT>>and more than 60% of AMERICANS do not want this plan at all. Why is it being driven down our throats?
obama pelosi and their tribe
-- Posted by bruce meyer on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 8:13 pm EST

report this comment


The unfortunate issue is that republicans continue to gain support from many dem supporters because of the health care approach. It isn't great but better than nothing doesn't sit well with many voters. Most agree there needs to be change but not the way it is being currently approached. The gov dictates how much a provider will be paid for services for Medicaid and Medicare. Currenlty, about half of the MDs will accept Medicaid because it doesn't pay enough to deal with provider expenses. Essentially, the providers make up for this by write offs and payments from private insurers. This plan increases Medicaid so that those making around 15-17k per year might be eligible. This will have a bad effect on Medicaid servcices and even private insurance premiums. The rules required by insurance companies will in fact increase premiums that are already very high. This is before taking $500 billion from Medicare.
-- Posted by None None on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 6:57 pm EST

report this comment


Eric,

We are already subsidizing the uninsured and saying there will be a run on hospitals because of the increased number of insured is a scare tactic. The more people covering fixed overhead costs will decrease the cost for all. Health service staffing levels and resources will naturally adjust base on demand.

Also, I think your monthly car payment analogy assumes that I chose my current policy. I did not, the decision was made for my family by the HR headquarters in Florida.

Keep in mind that I believe basic health care is a right, not a privilege. Bottom-line, I trust my governoment far more than I trust United Health Care, Inc.
-- Posted by LN VT on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 5:46 pm EST

report this comment


LN VT,

I think you are missing something...
if you have to cover you...
you premuims plus taxes will equal what YOU are paying now for premuims...but wait...you also have ato pay a part of the subsidy for your neighbor...
if you can figure out how to do that and yet LOWER your premuim as it is now...I would love to hear it.

Understand that when you tell me next that we will get savings from the folks using the emergency room for care i will tell you abou tthe other horror stories libs ove to talk about the non-insured getting dumped from the hospital...

this would literally be the first time in history that supply stayed the same demand increased by 30 million and prices went down...

it sounds to me like you bought your car based upon the monthly payment and not on the sticker price...
want to buy my car, only 100 bucks a month!
(FYI, the trick is this is not a typical 5 year loan but FOREVER...see how monthly payment amounts dont mean anything?!?!?)
the first question you should ask is...how much is the car and why....
100 bucks a month doesnt tell you anything!
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 4:09 pm EST

report this comment


Bruce Meyer,

Your leader Sarah Palin praises the Canadian health care system. Whether you were for Bush's Iraq war or not, we should have paid for it, and that is called taxes. As far as paying for health care goes, call it a premium or call it taxes, in the end it only matters that it is paid for and not added on to the deficit. I do not know about you, but my insurance cost almost a $1000 per month, with a $4000 deductible, and a 20/80 co-pay. I do not care if you call it a tax or a premium as long as the cost are brought under control.
-- Posted by LN VT on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 2:51 pm EST

report this comment


LNTV>>... ok paydown deficets great move how? with more taxes?
how do you propose to pay for healthcare?
borrowed money from china?
why is it the senators and congressmen are not going to accept the federal healthcare plan for themselves and their family? rationing? inadequate availibity of care? long delays to receive care?

research how long canadians/the english and other nationalized program take to address those needing care..and check what percent never live long enough to get care..
-- Posted by bruce meyer on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 1:48 pm EST

report this comment


Hey Back Nine,

Our kids are more afraid of our debt than they are taxes. They understand that we must pay for our expenses, and not kick them down the road. Bush is the one to blame for turning a budget surplus into deficit spending during times of great prosperity. He brought us into a war and did not pay for it. His medicare expansion was just an insurance company give-a-way of our borrrowed money.

Yes, we need to scrutinize expenses, wars, and verify the relevance of some programs. I am personally in favor of the "poor farm" vs. welfare for life (every town had one). However, I am also in favor of paying today and not leaving it for our kids. We need to leave our kids having a functional health care system NOT controlled by Wall Street or insurance companies, so that our kids do not have to use credit cards to pay for health care.
-- Posted by LN VT on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 1:26 pm EST

report this comment


Fiscal Responsibility.

Taxed Enough Already. Do your best to marginalize the movement, slander and slur away...this grass roots movement is going to have a huge impact in November.
-- Posted by * Vermontis on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 1:22 pm EST

report this comment


Hey LN VT,

Please post your address so we can have UPS drop off the bazillion dollar tax bill for you. Unfortunately, your probably not going to be around long enough to pay the credit card bills these folks are racking up. How do your kids feel about their bleak future?
-- Posted by Back Nine on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 12:15 pm EST

report this comment


Unfortunately the republicans are not listening to either Limbaugh/palin or to the taxpayers of this country.

The tax payers want an end to this insane idea that you can keep on spending despite the fact that everything you are spending is with borrowed money on programs that are more than likely to lose more money. If they were actually listening to the tax payer they would stop adding pork/earmarks and outright vote buying to every bill they pass.

By the way did you learn to tea bag from your mom?
-- Posted by northstar62 on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 11:39 am EST

report this comment


If Mr. Welch is trying to scapegoat the Repubs, he is deluding himself and all of Vermont. Fortunately there are a few of us who understand that a Democrat majority in Congress is the problem, and it is getting worse all the time. Too many different factions, not enough core value, outlyers who cannot be corralled. Those who hold up this horrible legislation, which 75% of the American public are against, should be given medals of Valor for they will have earned them fighting against the mob, the machine, the thugocracy that is now controlled by the Democrats. The Repubs have nothing to do with this mess except to say, you have all tha majority you need, why can't you pass your own bill? Do you get it now Mr Welch? Look in the mirror.
-- Posted by Deborah May on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 10:38 am EST

report this comment


Welch is right, they should be forced to actually filibuster.

As far as health care goes, I hope an early buy into medicare is included in the final health care bill. I do not fear the goverment. I fear the ignorant *********** who get their talking points from Palin/Beck/Rush and threaten violance if they do not get their way. And their way (the ***********) is to do nothing and cut taxes. I personally would not mind paying more taxes in order to pay down our deficit.
-- Posted by LN VT on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 10:07 am EST

report this comment


Welch should resign and return to Vermont to sell aluminum siding. What's that Peter? Oh, you're right...no one will be able to afford aluminum siding, much less a home, thanks to the "success" of the federal government and its confiscatory tax code. Well, I think we've just identified another "crisis" worthy of government assistance...Peter Welch will be sponsoring the Aluminum Siding Affordability Act to provide attractive, high quality aluminum siding (produced in China) for all of our shacks.
-
-- Posted by Bill O. Rights on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 9:22 am EST

report this comment


What welch and many other democrats fail to realize is those voting against the healthcare bill are representing all those legal voters who honestly feel the obama plan is a plan of healthcare failure as well as financial suicide for our nation..There is great concern about providing any services to illegials in our country.Why should all hard working AMERICAN CITIZENS be saddled with outrageous laws that the legislators exempt themselves from accepting for them and their families?.Also the freeloaders make no contribution to paying for this..It's only the hardworkers who pay taxes on earned wages...not free riders!
-- Posted by bruce meyer on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 9:20 am EST

report this comment


I think that the GOP is actually saving the people from a failiing government. If this bill was so great why has it been necessary to buy so many votes. Wouldn't these politicians just vote for it because it was a great bill without getting a pay off.

Maybe if they scrapped all the pay for votes pork they could bring the costs down to where the GOP might accept it.

How about it Congressman?
-- Posted by northstar62 on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 9:00 am EST

report this comment


Rebuttal Headline:

Populace Decries Welch's Support of:

1) Government Run Health Care
2) Card Check
3) Cap & Trade
4) Zillion dollar spending!
-- Posted by Back Nine on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 8:41 am EST

report this comment


RIGHT COMFY!!!

God knows if Obama had a filibuster proof majority in the senate things would be...oh wait...the numbnuts had that and couldn't manage a vote....

I think ill send Obama a wedge of good Vermont Cheddar to go with his whine.....and a teabag.
-- Posted by * Vermontis on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 8:40 am EST

report this comment


The GOP is deliberatley causing failure in governent and they should be accountable.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 8:35 am EST

report this comment


Welch is right, if the GOP is willing to do anything to keep these bills from being passed, let's see how they like staying at work past their martini hour and bedtime. Then at least they'd have accomplished something.
-- Posted by concerned citizen on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 8:17 am EST

report this comment


Obama should just have the justice department charge them with inhibiting business..they're interfering with his buying of enough votes to pass that abortion of a bill.
-- Posted by * Vermontis on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 7:30 am EST

report this comment


The fact that they could only get 32 politicians to sign on to this letter is telling me that there are a lot of democrats that would prefer not to have to deal with this flawed legislation. I've heard that anywhere from 60 to 74% of voters polled are against the current health insurance legislation, yet the administration and the socialist left is intent on forcing it on the country anyway. True representatives of the people.

Welch should be removed from office.
-- Posted by northstar62 on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 6:55 am EST

report this comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout