Pay to Play, the Chicago Way - taxpayer dollars pay off congressman for "Yes" vote on health care legislation
According to an article written by Major Garrett and Jim Angle of Fox News ("not, of course, a real news organization" according to the Obama Administration), a congressman from California sold his "yes" vote on the health care bill for $128 million of federal funding for the University of California medical school in Merced. Per the article, and I quote:
"California Rep. Jim Costa was wavering but told a local newspaper last week that his vote could be contingent on getting some federal money for a new medical school in his district along with help for local hospitals.
"When a constituent named Bob Smittcamp e-mailed him to complain about his vote for the House bill, the congressman explained he'd been offered the dollars he was looking for -- $128 million in federal money."
However, the article then quoted the congressman as saying:
"...that he did not like many of the elements there were in the legislation. However, he was able to procure $128m for the University of California medical school in Merced."
This sounds like a bribe to me. An editorial in yesterday's Wall Street Journal noted that "Mrs. Pelosi had to cajole and bribe her way to the magic 218, and the list of her promises must be stacked to the ceiling."
And what is worse, the congressman says he does not even like the bill. Another who hypocritically voted for it was Jim Cooper of Tennessee, according to the same editorial, which observed "It's nonetheless worth noting the surrender of that most vocal scourge of deficits, Tennessee's Jim Cooper, who voted aye on grounds that the bill can be improved in the Senate...Mr. Cooper has with a single vote made his entire career irrelevant."
The taxpayers should be provided with a complete list of which congresspersons received what quid for their quo. They are using taxpayer-provided funds to pay off congress members for a favorable vote on legislation that, according to the November 7-8 Rasmussen poll, 52% of taxpayers oppose. There oughta be a law against that.
"California Rep. Jim Costa was wavering but told a local newspaper last week that his vote could be contingent on getting some federal money for a new medical school in his district along with help for local hospitals.
"When a constituent named Bob Smittcamp e-mailed him to complain about his vote for the House bill, the congressman explained he'd been offered the dollars he was looking for -- $128 million in federal money."
However, the article then quoted the congressman as saying:
"...that he did not like many of the elements there were in the legislation. However, he was able to procure $128m for the University of California medical school in Merced."
This sounds like a bribe to me. An editorial in yesterday's Wall Street Journal noted that "Mrs. Pelosi had to cajole and bribe her way to the magic 218, and the list of her promises must be stacked to the ceiling."
And what is worse, the congressman says he does not even like the bill. Another who hypocritically voted for it was Jim Cooper of Tennessee, according to the same editorial, which observed "It's nonetheless worth noting the surrender of that most vocal scourge of deficits, Tennessee's Jim Cooper, who voted aye on grounds that the bill can be improved in the Senate...Mr. Cooper has with a single vote made his entire career irrelevant."
The taxpayers should be provided with a complete list of which congresspersons received what quid for their quo. They are using taxpayer-provided funds to pay off congress members for a favorable vote on legislation that, according to the November 7-8 Rasmussen poll, 52% of taxpayers oppose. There oughta be a law against that.
posted by alison @ 10:04 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home