Sunday, November 08, 2009
The U.S. House passed a sweeping health care reform bill Saturday, but without the help of Waco Rep. Chet Edwards, who bucked his party, citing concerns about the legislation’s cost.
“Given the huge federal deficits facing our nation, I believe there is too much new spending in this bill,” Edwards was quoted as saying in a prepared statement.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill would cost $1.1 trillion.
"Given the huge federal deficits facing our nation, I believe there is too much new spending in this bill."
The CBO also said the bill was fully paid for over the coming decade, but that calculation depends on a very iffy presumption: that Congress would not reverse itself in the future on several politically unpopular spending cuts included in the bill.
In Edwards’ statement, he faulted the legislation for lacking a mechanism to address unanticipated costs associated with the health care program.
“I am especially disappointed that the bill does not have a fiscal trigger in it to cut spending if actual costs of new programs turn out to be higher than projected,” Edwards said.
He also voiced concerns about whether the bill went far enough in reducing health care costs for businesses and working-class families, and a so-called public option that was part of the legislation.
Edwards represents one of the most conservative districts in the country held by a Democrat, and on several Obama administration priorities, his voting record has reflected the district’s rightward bent.
Edwards also voted in June against an energy bill limiting pollution linked to global warming through a cap-and-trade program. He said at the time that the bill jeopardized jobs and the economy, especially in energy-rich areas.
Six Republicans are squaring off in a primary in the hopes of unseating Edwards.
Waco small-business man Rob Curnock, one of those candidates, said that even though Edwards stated opposition to the Democratic bill, he is still too far left and too close to Democratic leadership in Congress.
“Since it’s a very unpopular bill in this district, Chet Edwards waited until they had the number they needed on the Democratic side and (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi cleared him to vote against it,” Curnock said. “I wouldn’t have had to wait until the very last day to make up my mind on a bill that could have this severe of a negative effect on our health care system.”
Candidate Chuck Wilson, a former CIA case officer from Waco, agreed that Edwards was right to vote no on the bill but said that he shouldn’t have waited “to see which way the political wind is blowing,” he said in an e-mail.
The National Republican Congressional Committee also put out a news release jabbing Edwards for voting for a procedural vote Saturday that allowed for debate and a final vote on the bill.
A spokesman for Organizing for America, a Democratic group that’s been encouraging Waco residents to urge Edwards to support health care reform, declined to comment on Edward’s position Saturday.
Edwards left the door open on how he might vote on a compromise bill between the House and Senate — particularly if such a bill is less costly than the House version.
“I believe most people in our district recognize that health care reform is needed to hold down costs and to make health care more affordable and dependable, but they want any reform bill to be fiscally responsible,” he said.
mshapiro@wacotrib.com
757-5707
Comments
By G Braune
Nov 14, 2009 9:12 PM | Link to this
Chet needs to be voted out. He was given permission by Pelosi to vote the way he did. That is not the representation Texas deserves.
By Robbie
Nov 9, 2009 10:46 PM | Link to this
Y'all do know that the health care vote actually comprised of five votes on Saturday? Vote 1 was a consideration vote that brought the bill to the floor for a vote. Chet voted yes for this. Vote 2 was the Stupak Amendment that would have restricted funds for abortions. Chet voted no on this. Vote 3 was the Boehner Amendment that would allow purchase across state lines and cap malpractice awards. Chet voted no on this. Vote 4 was a Republican amendment to reconsider that would have delayed the voting for 72 hours. Chet voted no on this. Vote 5 was the final vote on the bill. Chet voted no on this. His only "Republican" vote came on the final vote. The others fall in line with his party. Yes to consider legislation. No to restrict abortion funds. No to Boehner's Republican Amendment. No to postpone voting for 72 hours for further debate.
Just a little food for thought for those of you who think Chet would make a good "Conservative Republican."
By Kristin
Nov 9, 2009 10:39 PM | Link to this
Chet, If you switch to the Republican party you would most defiantly win the primary. We need you Chet as a Republican!!!
By Lori
Nov 9, 2009 9:13 PM | Link to this
I like that tone: Republican Chet Edwards
By Rob
Nov 9, 2009 6:53 PM | Link to this
I like to see Chet come over to Republican Party. I think that would be great for us and the district. I really hate to see one of these other Rep candidates get in with no experience.
By Rob
Nov 9, 2009 6:52 PM | Link to this
I like to see Chet come over to Republican Party. I think that would be great for us and the district. I really hate to see one of these other Rep candidates get in with no experience.
By Rob
Nov 9, 2009 6:47 PM | Link to this
I like to see Chet come over to Republican Party. I think that would be great for us and the district. I really hate to see one of these other Rep candidates get in with no experience.
By Chris
Nov 9, 2009 4:16 PM | Link to this
Look, this district has proven that we will vote for Chet. He need not worry about re-election. Just do the right thing man. In this case he voted for the country not his party. I wish he would have convinced his pals to do the same. Health Care reform can be accomplished with a much lower price tag.
By waco observer
Nov 9, 2009 2:12 PM | Link to this
I am a proud Republican; however, I could not be happier with Chet Edwards.
Chet Edwards has done many things to help the district. He was considered as a possible running mate for Obama (which I am glad did not happen, for the sake of Edward's career).
I have met and talked with Edwards a few times over the years and he "actually" listens to people. He has to wear some label like all politicians, but he acts like an independent.
Good man!
By Michelle
Nov 9, 2009 1:12 PM | Link to this
Dear Roy, not that it's any of your business but my children are on Medicaid, and the only 'insurance' I have to speak of is the Women's Health Program, also provided by Medicaid. Other than that I just hold out as long as I can and go to the ER if it gets too rough. They write my bill off as I have minimal income. Otherwise I am lucky enough to have a family physician who will see me at a discount ($70 office visit) if I can pay cash. I'm not selfish. I know people need to see a Dr, but at what cost? The cost of this bill is too high. I've got other options. I will be okay. Methinks you are the one who needs therapy. Why would you accuse me of lying and presume to know my situation? I've got my situation under control, thanks.
[1 2 3 4 5 6] next
Commenting is open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. M-F, except on Tuesday when it's open until 9 p.m.
Post a comment
*HTML not allowed in comments. Your e-mail address is required.