President Bush vetoed H.R. 3043, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education bill which included over $111 Billion for the National Institutes of Health to research and try to find a cure for autism among funding other therapy research. Right now, one in every 150 children born in America will be diagnosed with autism. Roy Blunt and George Bush apparently don’t care. I guess they think that autistic kids would be better off not getting the key therapies to help them develop a chance to have as normal a life as possible. After all, George is going to need someone to clean his pool filter after he goes back to the ranch. Might as well get someone who can’t speak because of their autism and then they can’t tell the press about the small size of their paycheck.
I’m sure by now the far right is getting their nasty messages ready about how I’m some far left liberal bashing President Bush and Rep. Blunt but if you look through my history you can see I’m anything but liberal. I’m just a conservative who realized in 2004 that President Bush does not care about the average American and that children in need are even further down President Bush’s list of people that matter to him. I can see clearly that the Republicans are going to lose the White House in 2008 not because people like Hillary Clinton but rather despise what they’ve seen happen from Bush’s White House and other Republican leadership like Rep. Blunt. The end result is that from 2008 until at least 2010 we’ll have unprecedented infringement on rights as the extremist left (like moveon.org) gets their payback for slights real or usually imagined upon them with a Democratic congress and rubber stamp Democratic President.
I remember the night of the 2006 elections talking to Rep. Blunt at the Republican watch party in Springfield at the Oasis Inn and Convention Center. I was able to corner Rep. Blunt and ask him about his commitment to federal funding for autism research and he looked me in the eye and said that he was in favor of increasing federal funding for autism research and that he would vote in favor of bills that increase autism research funding. I asked point blank, “so you won’t vote against autism funding?” Rep. Blunt said “no.”
Well, H.R. 3043 includes:
- A total of $37 million for autism activities at the Health Resources and Services Administration, a $17 million increase over Fiscal 2007 (as authorized in the Combating Autism Act)
- $16.5 million for autism surveillance, research and awareness, a $1.5 million increase over Fiscal 2007 (as authorized in the Combating Autism Act)
- An estimated $111.35 million for NIH-funded autism research.
- $1 million directed to the NIH (through bill language) for implementation of the InterAgency Autism Coordinating Committee, which is responsible for developing a strategic plan to direct future autism research funded by the National Institutes of Health.
This bill not only would provide needed increases for the costs of research into the fastest growing developmental disability in America but get a committee that will help coordinate the research to make the studies more effective taken as a whole. So basically, Rep. Blunt looked me in the eye and lied to me. Yeah, I know, he’s a politician. Truth isn’t exactly in large supply with anyone connected to a career in Washington, DC. I’m smart enough to know the spin we’re about to have take place…”there was too much pork,” “it was too expensive a bill” or what President Bush said in his veto letter: “It exceeds the reasonable and responsible levels for discretionary spending that I proposed to balance the budget by 2012.” Rep. Blunt apparently was in lock step with this view based on his no vote on the bill although I noticed nothing on his web site that mentions his voting no on this legislation.
President Bush apparently thinks the American public and conservative voters are idiots. “It exceeds the reasonable and responsible levels for discretionary spending that I proposed to balance the budget by 2012″? As of the time of my typing this letter the war in Iraq has cost America $468,425,668,151. Don’t come to me and tell me that you’re being fiscally responsible and trying to balance the budget by denying sick children therapy when you’re spending millions to try and secure your place in history. Don’t give me the war on terror routine anymore, Mr. President. Afghanistan was a front on the war in terror before 9/11 and a legitimate war ground. You made Iraq one. I’m not an advocate of cutting and running because we need to clean the mess we made but do not tell me that you are interested in keeping a balanced budget when your war has thrown us into massive debt and expanded the federal government. Here’s a headline, Mr. President: Republicans believe in smaller government while making sure the needy in our society have their needs met. Autistic children need therapy, Mr. President. It’s not an option unless you’re happy with a group of adults who can’t communicate and have to be taken care of by their families because they’re unable to work or even leave the house unsupervised because of their condition.
President Bush said: “Americans sent us to Washington to achieve results and be good stewards of their hard-earned tax dollars. Because the legislation violates that commitment, I must veto this bill.” You’re right on one thing, Mr. President. We did send you to Washington to achieve results and be good stewards of our hard-earned tax dollars. Now, Mr. President, here’s some information for you. Americans don’t think funding your war to get your name in the history books is more important than taking care of important research into therapy to help children overcome the fastest growing developmental disability in America. You want us to take you seriously that you want to be a good steward of our money? Cut the flow of money to your Iraq war profiting buddies and take care of some children for a change.
Rep. Blunt, you betrayed one of your constituents with your vote. Namely, my son. However, since he can’t vote until 2020 you’re likely fine in losing his vote. Unfortunately, his father, his future step-mother, his future step-grandfather and step-grandmother along with his future aunt, uncles, cousins and their friends all can vote right now. Don’t expect them to fill in the arrow next to your name unless you actually step up and show some leadership on this issue. President Bush no longer has coattails for you to ride upon and if you don’t wake up then you will lose your status as a mover and shaker that matters in DC. Show those of us living in southwest Missouri that our children matter more to you than being on the good side of President Bush.
Actually, it is illegal for the federal government to fund research in the medical fields. Read your Constitution. That is the realm of private investors, and would be better left to their interests. The government could tax us less, and we would use our money more efficiently.
There’s nothing anti-autism in vetoing a bill that included $111 million (among other millions for other things) towards autism research. He’s just not stealing from the general public to help.
Read this link, a speech given by Davy Crocket in the US House: http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
Please understand me. I was only commenting on politics, not on autism. I love kids, and get along quite well with the autistic ones I’ve known, and would like to see a cure or better treatment or prevention. So far it seems like the best thing I have heard is to interact with the kids, not via electronics or TV.
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
Jason,
With all due respect, President Bush did nothing to “harm” autistic kids. Nor did Congressman Roy Blunt.
I applaud them for vetoing the bill because of the over 2,000 additional hidden earmarks placed in it by Democrats during the Conference Committee - which the House of Representatives nor Senate were able to vote on.
Whats worse is that Democrats who are looking to score political points, and not pass legislation, tied this bill in with the veteran’s funding bill (normally there are seven seperate bills).
Why? To make Bush look bad for vetoing the bills which were laden with pork and tax increases.
So Jason, simply because Bush and Blunt were doing their jobs doesnt mean they are mean spirited jerks who are out to hurt our kids. Quite the contrary.
If you want a finger to point, point it in the direction of Nancy Pelosi who is refusing to work with Republicans to find compromises to get things passed.
In my opinion, if helping your son and others with autism (my nephew) means passing a bill with 2,000 earmarks (that will find their way into some other bill eventually): pass the bill.
Sorry, Jim.
Not at the cost of corruption.
Maybe instead of throwing blame on Republicans for holding the line on spending for a change and not bowing to political stunts pulled by Democrats to get people riled up, Pelosi should be held accountable.
Dang it, cant do that.
My point is, if Democrats in Washington wanted this bill, in addition to the veterans funding - they would have passed them without all the extra pork and tax increases.
They did it for the exact reason we are seeing here. Its a political stunt that is apparently working, unfortunately.
Paul, please don’t take this as an insult because I don’t mean this as an insult.
Do you really think all the pork in those bills only came from the Democrats?
In this particular case Jason, yes.
The additional 2,000 plus items added into the bill was put in during conference - after the House and Senate were allowed to vote on what was in the bill.
What is conference committee? It is where after the House of Representatives and Senate each pass their perspective bills the differences are worked out. In this particular case, Democrats dropped in over 2,000 different ear marks which were not voted by Congress on as the other earmarks (which Republicans and Democrats submitted) where.
Ill be up front here, Jason. It amazes me that you are ready to level such an accusation at Bush and Blunt - but am seemingly skeptical that Democrats would pull some sort of political stunt.
The SCHIP debate provides all the template one needs to understand what is going on right now.
Republicans wanted to renew SCHIP. Democrats decided to to expand it to the point they know Republicans would not vote for such a thing and it would recieve a veto. Democrats then cry foul and that Republicans are mean and nasty - never mind the actual substance of what is going on.
The same is true here, Jason.
Had Democrats kept the spending bills seperate and not larded it up with pork - there is a good chance it would have passed. Instead, though, they are hoping to make political points and get people like your self mad at Republicans for being “mean” when the truth is something completely different.
Thanks.
Paul, I’m not skeptical at all the Democrats would pull a stunt like you’re suggesting. I’m just doubting that out of 2,000 pork items in this bill that they’re all coming from Democrats. I’m not mad at “Republicans”, Paul. Just a few of them. Several Republicans voted in favor of the bill and at last count the house only needed 15 votes to override the veto.
I’m just not one to sit here and put all the blame on one party or the other. In this case, Blunt didn’t vote for it and Bush vetoed it. So I put the blame at their feet because Blunt told me he wouldn’t vote against autism research and Bush said he was doing it to be fiscally responsible when he has been anything but on other issues. You can’t deny the growth of government under this Republican adminstration. You know that big government isn’t a Republican value.
And I really hope you don’t think I’m so dumb that I don’t know what a conference committee is, Paul.
To be honest, Jason, I am not sure what to think.
Democrats where the ones to insert those 2,000 additional pieces of pork into the bill without so much as a vote from the House of Representatives and Senate.
If you understood what a conference committee was, then you would you know who controls them (Democrats because they are in charge and produce the committee report - not Republicans - in fact Republicans have zero input on the conference report under current rules) and it was they who inserted the bill.
I am sorry Jason, but you are being highly disingenuous to lay the blame at the feet of Roy Blunt and George Bush - especially in the light which the bill was presented.
What Bush, Blunt and other Republicans have done is what we asked them to do (and which they did not do in the past and it cost them control of Congress) - hold the line on spending.
If you want to someone to blame, blame those who wrote the bill in such a manner with fore knowlege that it would recieve a veto.
I guess they get a free pass though, right?
I think you have other issues which you are using this as a crutch to throw stones at people you simply do not like.
From Wikipedia:
In 2007, both houses of Congress passed a bipartisan measure to expand the SCHIP program, H.R. 976. The measure would have expanded coverage to over 4 million more participants by 2012, while phasing out most state expansions in the program that include any adults other than pregnant women. The bill called for a budget increase for five years totaling $35 billion, increasing total SCHIP spending to $60 billion for the five-year period. Despite claims that it also would have increased the eligibility from couples earning up to 200% of the federal poverty level to couples earning 300% of the federal poverty level, FactCheck.org has noted that this eligibility was already possible under the old program and was not required by the new bill. The expansion of the SCHIP program was to have been funded by increasing the federal excise tax from 39¢ to $1.00 per pack of cigarettes nationwide.
On October 3, 2007, President Bush vetoed the bill, stating that he believed it would “federalize health care”, expanding the scope of SCHIP much farther than its original intent. The veto was the fourth of his administration. After his veto, Bush said he was open to a compromise that would entail more than the $5 billion originally budgeted, but would not agree to any proposal drastically expanding the number of children eligible for coverage.
On October 18, 2007, the House of Representatives fell 13 votes short (273-156) of the two-thirds majority required to override the president’s veto, although 44 Republicans joined 229 Democrats in supporting the measure.
The SCHIP program, how was it to be funded? Remind me again.
Oh yes, increasing the cigarette tax from 39 cents a pack to $1.00 a pack.
Now, let me see, isn’t Rep. Blunt’s wife Abigal a lobbyist?
For tobacco companies? Hmmm, this is interesting.
Philip Morris has made more than $10.9 million in political contributions at the federal level since 1997, with $8.6 million, or 78 percent, of its contributions going to the Republican Party, making it one the party’s largest political contributors.”
A story in The Washington Post (June 12, 2003) exposes Philip Morris’ continuing efforts to use huge political contributions to buy bad public policy that protects the company’s bottom line rather than the public’s health.
In this case, the story details the efforts of U.S. House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) to insert a provision in a bill creating the Department of Homeland Security that would enhance Philip Morris’ profits by reducing the sale of counterfeit cigarettes.
According to the story, Federal Election Commission records show Philip Morris has contributed more than $150,000 to political committees associated with Rep. Blunt since 2001.
$150,000 in contributions since 2001 and the story was written in 2003.
Paul, I’m really trying hard to believe that you are not just a blind partisan for the Republican party. I know you’re extremely conservative in your views but you cannot simply pretend that all Republicans are right and the Democrats are always wrong.
Although you did at least acknowledge the reckless spending by the Republicans contributed to their losing control in the 2006 elections so I give you credit for that.
I don’t give a free pass to the Dems for what they did but their actions are to be expected. The majority of earmarks are Democrats. However, there is also:
$882,025 for 25 projects to organizations in Pennsylvania for “abstinence education and related services,” inserted by Senate Labor/HHS Subcommittee Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-Pa.).
(Part of 180 projects inserted by Specter costing $23,396,350.)
$250,000 for the Alaska Sealife Center in Seward for a marine ecosystem education program, sponsored by Senate appropriator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska).
$150,000 for the Burpee Museum for educational programming and exhibits, sponsored by Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Ill.).
The pork is going both ways, Paul.
Jason,I am just as blinded by my search for accuracy in reporting what is going on in Washington as you are by your own ambitions regarding the matter.
Saying that Blunt and Bush are at fault (and are you know, mean political dudes who dont care about their constituency) is near lunacy. Period. Especially when it was Democrats who junked up the bill in conference. Period.
That is not being a blind partisan - that is reporting what happened regarding this bill.
I will repeat my self again - Had Nancy Pelosi and Democrats passed the bills seperately and without all the hidden pork THEY added in conference (kinda hard to do when Republicans are not allowed in conference committee due to the current rule set) it would have passed.
That doesnt fit your Republicans are mean, nasty template bit, does it?
I have a challenge for you. Pick up the phone and call Congressman Blunt’s office here at home and ask him point blank why.
You want a little more information on the budget and what is being done about it - go here - to a book recently written by Blunt and a number of other Republicans.
http://republicanwhip.house.gov/UploadedFiles/FINAL_Little_Gov‘t.pdf
Finally, Jim, concerning SCHIP - it was nothing but a whole sale bid to create universal (nationalized) health care and destroy the private industry.
You can try to hide behind talking points about Roy’s wife all you want but it doesnt change the fact that the bill, as written, would include everyone from adults to illegal aliens. The bill as passed in this Congress was designed not to help poor children, but to get more people hooked on government subsidies.
Simply put - it was an attempt at hillary care.
Paul, I just gave you specific examples from the bill of items inserted by Republicans and yet you post again to claim all the pork was added by Democrats. Do you want to try and claim what I posted was not part of that bill or do you want to say that those items were not pork?
And what exactly are my ambitions in this matter, Paul? Since you want to come into my blog and make insinuations about my motivations on this things let’s hear it especially considering that we’ve never had a conversation outside of these blogs.
First off you gave me examples for pork inserted by Republicans - you did not denote if it was before or during conference.
This is very important because (and this is why I am not sure you understand how Washington works) Democrats control the conference committe. Republicans are to my understanding, not allowed in conference.
So, while the item(s) you mentioned were inserted into the bill, odds are it was before conference and with the vote of the House and Senate.
That is a vastly different picture than what you paint. It is an important one to note, though since you refuse to acknowledge that anyone but Bush and Republicans in Congress are responsible for the outcome of this bill - and by proxy - are “harming” autistic kids (and in your words - lying to your face).
I take strong issue with that because it is not just wrong, it is dishonest at the very least, given what is going on.
When someone (my self) tries to come along and explain what is going on and the Democrat strategy behind the budget wars going on in Washington - and gets called a blind partisan - it only makes matters worse.
thanks.
Um, Paul, you are a MORON. It passed the congrees on a bipartisan vote, so who cares what pork was in it?
How about we examine all the pork in defense spending… That will shut your big fat mouth up fast.
Fact is, Bush vetoed it not because of line items, but because of the fact that Merck and Pfizer and Lilly might be held accountable.
Get your facts straight.
Jason, I so applaud what you have done here. Your courage is inspiring. Politically, we may have some differences, but I also have a son with autism, and I am angry as hell they can conduct a fruitless war but not take care of an epidemic that will cripple our country in about 15 years.
Write me!! I think we should start a bi-partisan coalition!
Blessings,
Amy
I have a nephew with autism. and I am sure there are many more out there who are as frustrated with our government as we are.
everyday autism on youtube.