220 – 215

The House voted to pass the Affordable Healthcare for America Act, HR 3269 sponsored by Congressman John Dingell by two votes last night.

Surprisingly one of those two votes was from a first term Republican congressman, Congressman Anh “Joseph” Cao (LA - 2).

Of his bipartisan vote, Cao said this in his news release:

“I have always said that I would put aside partisan wrangling to do the business of the people. My vote tonight was based on my priority of doing what is best for my constituents.”

Geez. In Louisiana they have a Republican congressman that votes on the issues that benefit his constituents. Go figure.

And while 39 Democrats voted against the bill, this wasn’t the voting bloc of fiscally conservative Democrats that we have in congress called Blue Dog Democrats, although a little over half of the Nay voters were from that caucus.

But of the 39 who voted “No” only 23 of their number were Blue Dogs, leaving 16 non-Blue Dogs who voted with the Republicans (well all but one of them anyway). This means that 30 Blue Dog Democrats voted with the majority.

But I wondered about those 16. If fiscal policy wasn’t the reason they voted against the bill, what was? So I checked. As it turns out there were as many reasons that they voted against the bill as there were congressmen who did so. Some said the bill didn’t go far enough, some were concerned that it wasn’t known for sure whether people would get a savings on their healthcare policies, one guy thought it would drive some of the not-for-profit hospitals in his district out of business. Dennis Kucinich wondered why we have infinite funds to fight wars and give to Wall Street, but not enough money or resolve to pass a Single Payer healthcare system. He finds the whole idea of for profit healthcare insurance as antithetical to the way to legislate true reform.

Dennis Kucinich is the only reason I would consider moving to Cleveland, Ohio. So I could have a congressman that I agree with and who stands on his principles.

Colombia Free Trade Agreement Killed By House Democrats

Remember the dustup between Hillary Clinton and her former chief strategist, Mark Penn? Remember how he and his company was hired to help the Colombian government get the free trade agreement through to a quick signing? A bill that Clinton opposed? Remember that?

Well maybe then it is a relief to us that the Democratic leadership in Congress saw to it that the bill will never see the light of day in this legislative session. Or ever.

From The Hill:

“The House adopted a rules change Thursday that freezes the Colombia free trade agreement by waiving a requirement that Congress act on it within 90 days. The rule passed mostly along party lines by a vote of 224-195 with one lawmaker voting present.”

Pretty darn slick if you ask me. Republicans, you might imagine, are livid.

“‘The Democrats want to make an unprecedented rule change to abrogate their responsibility under [Trade Promotional Authority],’ said Rep. David Dreier (Calif.), senior Republican on the Rules Committee. ‘They're sabotaging our relationship with our best and closest ally in South America.’”

Best and closest ally? Colombia? Is it because the Bush Regime has completely alienated all of the rest of South America? All except the one country whose government agencies are complicit in the drug trade which is institutionalized there? All except for the one South American country that actively suppresses trade unions?

That ally?

So while Democrats and Republicans trade barbs over who broke procedural rules first, the bill remains dead.

As the story mentioned, the vote pretty much went down party lines, but then I had to ask myself about that 224 number. I’m pretty sure there are more Democrats in the House than that, so I read further.

Yep, ten Democrats voted against the rule change, and six Republicans voted for it. The Republican congressmen who voted for it, voted for it, surprisingly enough, because non-union overseas competition has taken jobs away from their constituents.

Ten Democrats voted with the Republicans, and with Bush. One of them was my congressman, Congressman Nick Lampson.

Now I know that Lampson represents a conservative district, and has to get his “Votes with Nancy Pelosi” numbers below 77%, but now I have to ask whether that vote was worth the voter angst that is going to result. Truly.

There are plenty of bills, I think, that Congressman Lampson can bolt to the minority over, bills that fit his “Blue Dog” brand of Democratic politics. But this one rates right up there with his FISA vote, the one to surrender our constitutionally guaranteed rights against unlawful search and seizure.

And I know that the question will always be asked of me “what are you going to do, Half, vote for Pete Olson?” And you know that it’s impossible to vote a straight Democratic ticket and vote for Olson.

But I have to ask now, with votes like this, does it really make a difference who represents the 22nd district?

Nick Lampson’s Blue Doggish Votes on HR 2829

Now don’t get me wrong, Nick Lampson is probably the best Democrat we can get elected in his crazy, crazy Texas congressional district. I just want to point out that progressive Democrats were not represented very well on Nick’s votes in the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2008 (HR 2829).

This is one set of votes that Shelley Sekula (no hyphen) Gibbs will not be using her next mailer. Nick’s Blue Dog streak is definitely showing.

The bill essentially funds many branches and agencies of the government through September 2008. 37 amendments were filed, 6 passed, and 31 either failed by vote, by point of order, or were withdrawn. The vote for final passage went 240 Aye to 179 Nay.

Nick voted Nay.

But that was just on final passage. Here’s a record of his votes on the amendments

Amendments 1-3 were withdrawn.

Amendment 4: to reduce funding for the General Activites under the General Services Administration by $8 million and increase funding for the Office of Inspector General under the General Services Administration by $6 million.

Nick voted Aye. Amendment passed by a vote of 281-144

Amendment 5: “to reduce funds for Selective Service System by $10,000,000 and increase funds for the Small Business Administration by $10,000,000.”

Nick voted No. Amendment failed by a vote of 95-320.

Yep, we are going to be needing that money for the draft. You know it's coming.

Amendment 13: (you didn’t think I was going to list them ALL did you?): to prohibit the use of funds to be used for the Prevention Works or Whitman-Walker Clinic needle exchange programs.

Nick voted Aye. Amendment failed by a vote of 208-216.

Amendment 16: to prohibit funds for the Grace Johnstown Area Regional Industries Incubator and Workforce Development program. (submitted by Jeff Flake R-AZ, this specifically targeted projects promoted by Congressman John Murtha).

Nick voted Nay. Amendment failed by a vote of 87-335.

Amendment 19: prohibit the use of funds to be used for the Mitchell County Development Foundation, Inc. for the Home of the Perfect Christmas Tree Project (Another Jeff Flake amendment).

Nick voted Nay. Amendment passed by a vote of 249-174.

Amendment 26: to prohibit use of funds for the Abraham Lincoln National Airport Commission.

Nick voted Nay. Amendment failed by a vote of 107-318.

Amendment 27: to prohibit use of funds in the bill for the Office of the Vice President (This was Rahm Emanuel’s amendment to cut off funding for Dick Cheney).

Nick voted Nay. Amendment failed by a vote of 209-217.

Nick, we could have saved $4.8 million.

Amendment 30: to limit the use of funds to implement section 5112 of title 31 United States Code (this section deals with designing coins and notes for the US Mint).

Nick voted Nay. Amendment passed by a vote of 295-127.

Amendment 35: to require that each amount appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act is hereby reduced by 0.5 percent.

Nick voted Aye. Amendment failed by a vote of 205-220.

Amendment 36: to prohibit funds to be used to implement or enforce the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act of 1992.

Nick voted Aye. Amendment failed by a vote of 224-200.

Amendment 37: to prohibit funds to be used by the Internal Revenue Service to implement a Spanish-language version of the "Where's my Refund?" service.

Nick voted Aye. Amendment failed by a vote of 165-257.

On a motion to recommit the bill to the Appropriations committee, Nick voted Aye. The motion failed by 199-222

On passage, Nick voted Nay. The bill passed by a vote of 240-179.

Now I realize that Nick is a fiscal conservative and that his voting record is being closely watched. On Thursday he did not give the Republicans much ammunition to use against him, and I guess that’s good. I just wish some of those programs that Nick voted not to support were programs that he did support. And really, Dick Cheney doesn’t need the $4.8 million. Now that he is no longer a part of any of the 3 branches of our government, Halliburton can write the check.

It’s chump change to them.