NY senators don't do potholes (updated)

So the health-care legislation moving through Congress will cost New York well over $1 billion per year, according to Gov. Paterson. I guess NY Sens. Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillbrand aren't as savvy as colleagues Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson, who demanded and got hundreds of millions for their states in exchange for their votes. In fact Schumer, who apparently wants to be Senate majority leader, was in the thick of negotiating Nelson's giveaway. Hey, there's no fiscal problem here, right?

Meanwhile, the alleged Roman Catholic moderate upstate congressman Scott Murphy, who says he voted against the bill because it doesn't cut costs enough, also voted against the Stupak amendment, which would limit its expenditures on abortion. (The amendment passed the House with the support of 64 Democrats, none of them from New York.) On that issue he, Schumer and Gillibrand are in agreement -- and so is Paterson, who has not proposed cutting New York's funding of Medicaid abortion or embryonic stem cell research: No matter what the cost, the pro-choice lobby must be satisfied.

Update: From the heading of a taxpayer-funded mailer which Murphy sent to constituents last week: "This bill  doesn't do enough to control costs, which is why I voted against it."

Comments

[Hank Simpson]

The "pro-choice lobby" is, in fact, a majority of Americans, isn't it?

[Bob Conner]

I don't think so. Polls have been moving in a pro-life direction nationally, although a lot depends on how you ask the question. New York has a pro-choice majority, but I doubt that applies to Murphy's district.

[Brian]

Interesting you don't refer to pro-war of aggression or pro-death penalty politicians as "supposed Roman Catholics" even though they too stray from Vatican diktats.

Oh wait, I forgot most anti-abortion folks are only selectively "pro-life."

[Matthew]

Uh, according to Congressman Murphy's own press statement's, he voted against the House verison of the Health Care bill not because it doesn't cut costs enough as you stipulate. He did so because he was "frustrated by the last minute addition of over $50 billion in taxes on the two largest private employers in the 20th District – medical device manufacturers and paper mills."

This is something I discussed last month:

http://farenellphotography.blogspot.com/2009/11/congressman-coward-votes-no-on-hr-3962.html

[Bob Conner]

He's said more than one thing. But the update on this post quoted accurately from the heading of a recent Murphy mailer: "This bill doesn't do enough to control costs, which is why I voted against it."