| Kerry: "In 1997, We Fixed Medicare" "We Balanced the Budget" Really? Check the Voting Record, John. |
||
| Posted by zencycler On 10/10/2004 7:28:27 AM CDT · 11 replies · 286+ views vote-smart.org Here's what Kerry said in the 2nd debate: KERRY: Actually, Mr. President, in 1997 we fixed Medicare, and I was one of the people involved in it. We not only fixed Medicare and took it way out into the future, we did something that you don't know how to do: We balanced the budget. And we paid down the debt of our nation for two years in a row, and we created 23 million new jobs at the same time. No, maybe I'm missing something, but I think he's referring to the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, which included provisions for... |
||
Ammunition Bump.
Email it to your FRiends and enemys.
Bump
People better figure this out. Hanoi john will destroy us!
Kerry Disagreed With Lieberman On The 1991 Persian Gulf War.
President Bush (1) had a coalition he didn't support in 1991.
Now, after 9/11, Kerry doesn't support our war against terrorism, because we don't have a coalition he approves of.
What is Kerry's plan for a better smarter global solution. Germany and France have said they would not send troops to Iraq, Iran said they do not support Kerry's nuke non-profiferation plan.
Please... I need help with data. My in-laws plan to vote for Kerry because they don't like paying for prescription medicine. They can afford it, but they don't WANT to pay for it. They're quite old, extremely selfish, so it's all about them and their medication; the future of the country isn't an issue with them. Their friends are of the same mind.
Can anyone provide information -- voting record, statements, etc. -- that would make it clear that Kerry's record on this and similar medical issues is worse than Bush's? I know it's there, just need to find it again.
Thank you!
"Kerry Voted At Least Three Times Against Banning Partial-Birth Abortions."
...Reminds me a little of Scrooge's comment: "thin the population." Of course, maybe that's the goal.
Their is at least one mistake in your post about Kerry's voting record. You write that there are 7 times when Kerry voted for major reductions to DoD. One of the cases you cite is merely about whether or not to delay base closings:
14. S.AMDT.1622 to S.1438 To strike title XXIX, relating to defense base closure and realignment.
Sponsor: Sen Bunning, Jim [KY] (introduced 9/24/2001) Cosponsors (17)
Latest Major Action: 9/25/2001 Motion to table amendment SA 1622 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 53 - 47. Record Vote Number: 286.
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS -- (Senate - September 24, 2001)
AMENDMENT NO. 1622
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] for himself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Craig, Mr. Burns, Mr. Hutchinson, Ms. Collins, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Conrad, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Stevens, and Mrs. Clinton, proposes an amendment numbered 1622.
(Purpose: To strike title XXIX, relating to defense base closure and realignment)
Strike title XXIX, relating to defense base closure and realignment.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the full committee for giving me
[Page: S9700] GPO's PDF
an opportunity to offer this amendment on behalf of 20 cosponsors. This amendment is a straightforward amendment.
The underlying bill authorizes a base closure realignment in the year 2003. This amendment simply strikes that language, that provision.
There are a number of good reasons why we should not move ahead with another BRAC at this time. Most important, there has always been the uncertainty as to whether or not previous rounds of BRAC have actually saved the military and the taxpayers any money. This has always been my main concern with proposals for future BRACs.
I will go further into this aspect in a moment, but right now I, and many others, have a bigger concern with future BRAC rounds, and it unfortunately stems from the awful terrorist attacks on September 11. Now more than ever, we should hold off further downsizing of our military infrastructure as we analyze how to fight the first war of the 21st century.
Last week, President Bush laid it all out for us. We are gearing up for war. It will be a different kind of war and different from any battles this Nation has ever fought. Its future is unknown. The course of the conflict is uncharted. The strengths we will use and need are unforeseen.
The President has warned us that victory is not going to come quickly and it is not going to come without pain. There will be casualties, and our will and resources will be tested, probably for many years to come.
The fight will require force. It may require more and a different kind of training at our military posts and bases. This war may change from the United States battling only terrorist organizations to the United States battling armies of nations harboring terrorists.
Because of this uncertainty, it is unwise to begin hacking away at our military infrastructure. I am not here to chant gloom and doom. I know in the end we are going to triumph over evil, but at this point in time, we have to ask a fundamental question: Is now the time to cut bases and to reduce our military infrastructure? The answer is a clear and resounding no.
President Bush said recently the course of this conflict is unknown. If this course is unknown, then it must be unwise to move ahead with another BRAC round until we have a clearer picture of where we are going and how we are going to get there. Now is not the time to further authorize the reduction of our military infrastructure.
More than ever, we must focus on security and how to maximize our resources. We should not leap before we are even able to look. We are venturing into the unknown and attempting to survey the landscape of 21st century warfare. We should not go blindly or with one hand tied behind our back in the name of so-called efficiency and cost savings.
During markup of this bill, the Readiness Subcommittee heard from our professional staff on the BRAC issue. They were unable to pinpoint any definitive cost savings from the prior BRAC rounds. In fact, they could not provide any firm details because DOD could not provide them definitive numbers from previous BRAC rounds.
We have heard talk about so-called savings numbers from DOD here and there, but when the rubber hits the road, DOD is unable to provide these savings with cold, hard numbers.
I and many others have asked the Department of Defense many
times to provide detailed data showing savings from previous BRAC rounds. If it is there, we should definitely take a look at it, but until we see real numbers, supporting another BRAC is only a shot in the dark.
CRS, CBO, and GAO have all been asked to find real savings, and they also have had a tough time finding consistent and detailed savings numbers. They quote DOD projections and predictions as their source, but they admit that DOD has been unable to document any detailed underlying savings.
We all support efficiency in not only our military but throughout the Federal Government. But after the attacks of September 11, the landscape for me and others has changed from one of efficiency to one of security. In these turbulent times, we need serious numbers before we can even contemplate another BRAC, let alone approve it.
In conclusion, it seems to me at this point that it would be foolish and dangerous to go ahead with another BRAC. When you boil it down, it is pretty simple: We are entering a new type of conflict in which we are not sure what resources are going to be needed. So how can we take a chance on eliminating resources that may be vital to our struggle against terrorism? In fact, last week, the House of Representatives withdrew a BRAC amendment to their fiscal year DOD authorization bill. It is clear that support in the House for another BRAC round evaporated after the attacks of September 11.
If the Senate bill includes another BRAC round, this could make for a contentious issue in conference, and now is not the time for prolonged contentious debate.
I ask my colleagues' support for this amendment. In light of the September 11 terrorist attacks, we need to act prudently and carefully. Authorizing another BRAC round is neither. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I want to read from Secretary Rumsfeld's letter of September 21. I want to read a portion of it because it says in the third paragraph: ``While our further future needs as to base closure are uncertain and are strategically dependent,'' he says we must simply go ahead and do it. I firmly and strongly disagree with Secretary Rumsfeld. If base closures are uncertain and strategically dependent, then now is not the time when we are planning for a full, all-out war against terrorism.
I yield the floor.
--
9/25/2001:
Motion to table amendment SA 1622 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 53 - 47. Record Vote Number: 286.
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 1st Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Bunning Amendment No. 1622 )
Vote Number: 286
Vote Date: September 25, 2001, 09:59 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2
Vote Result: Motion to Table Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 1622 to S. 1438 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 )
Statement of Purpose: To strike title XXIX, relating to defense base closure and realignment.
Vote Counts: YEAs 53
NAYs 47
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Yea Allard (R-CO), Yea Allen (R-VA), Yea Baucus (D-MT), Nay Bayh (D-IN), Yea Bennett (R-UT), Nay Biden (D-DE), Yea Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Bond (R-MO), Nay Boxer (D-CA), Nay Breaux (D-LA), Nay Brownback (R-KS), Nay Bunning (R-KY), Nay Burns (R-MT), Nay Byrd (D-WV), Yea Campbell (R-CO), Nay Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Carnahan (D-MO), Nay Carper (D-DE), Yea Chafee (R-RI), Yea Cleland (D-GA), Nay Clinton (D-NY), Nay Cochran (R-MS), Nay Collins (R-ME), Nay Conrad (D-ND), Nay Corzine (D-NJ), Yea Craig (R-ID), Nay Crapo (R-ID), Nay Daschle (D-SD), Yea Dayton (D-MN), Yea DeWine (R-OH), Yea Dodd (D-CT), Yea Domenici (R-NM), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay Durbin (D-IL), Nay Edwards (D-NC), Nay Ensign (R-NV), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea Feingold (D-WI), Yea Feinstein (D-CA), Nay Fitzgerald (R-IL), Nay Frist (R-TN), Yea Graham (D-FL), Yea Gramm (R-TX), Yea Grassley (R-IA), Yea Gregg (R-NH), Nay Hagel (R-NE), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Nay Helms (R-NC), Nay Hollings (D-SC), Yea Hutchinson (R-AR), Nay Hutchison (R-TX), Nay Inhofe (R-OK), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay Jeffords (I-VT), Yea Johnson (D-SD), Yea Kennedy (D-MA), Yea Kerry (D-MA), Yea Kohl (D-WI), Yea Kyl (R-AZ), Yea Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Leahy (D-VT), Yea Levin (D-MI), Yea Lieberman (D-CT), Yea Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Lott (R-MS), Nay Lugar (R-IN), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay Miller (D-GA), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Nay Murray (D-WA), Nay Nelson (D-FL), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Nay Nickles (R-OK), Yea Reed (D-RI), Yea Reid (D-NV), Yea Roberts (R-KS), Nay Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea Santorum (R-PA), Yea Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Nay Sessions (R-AL), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Nay Smith (R-NH), Nay Smith (R-OR), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Nay Specter (R-PA), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Nay Thomas (R-WY), Nay Thompson (R-TN), Yea Thurmond (R-SC), Yea Torricelli (D-NJ), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Yea Warner (R-VA), Yea Wellstone (D-MN), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea