Owens Breaks 4 Campaign Promises in first hour in Congress

[Zoom-boing]

I hope this comes back to bite all those who voted for it in the ass.

GOUVERNEUR, NY - Congressman-elect Bill Owens was sworn in at noon today.

Owens indicated in a press release released shortly afterwards that he was now in favor of the the "Affordable Healthcare for America Act" bill in direct contrast to his earlier position during the election campaign.

According to Politico.com, Mr. Owens assured voters that he felt the public option had no place in the health care reform bill. Contrary to that position, Mr. Owens now indicates that he intends to vote in favor of the bill even though it now contains a public option.

UPDATED: A spokesman for Congressman Owens indicated correctly that Mr. Owens had recanted his solid position against public option later in the campaign, clarifying that he did not wish public option to be a 'litmus test' for the Health Reform bill and that on Oct. 30th, several days prior to the election, in a debate had stated that he generally supported the public option as it was now written (at that time.)

Mr. Owens also indicated during his campaign that he was firmly opposed to cutting Medicare benefits, taxing health care benefits, and increased taxes on the middle class in any way as you can see clearly in the screenshot below, taken directly from Mr. Owens' campaign website.

[go to link to access the screenshot]

Click for larger image Click to enlarge image

The House Health reform bill contains sections that cut Medicare benefits, tax existing health care benefits, and increases taxes on the middle class, yet Mr. Owens stated today that he will now vote in favor of those things contrary to what he had promised the voters of NY's 23rd Congressional District that he would vote against.

Mr. Owens indicated in his press release today that "This legislation will reform the insurance industry and provide increased access to affordable healthcare without taxing healthcare benefits, cutting Medicare benefits or raising taxes on the middle class, and that is exactly the direction we need to go."

When The Gouverneur Times attempted to contact Mr. Owens to clarify this information, we received no direct response to our phone or email inquiries. Both FactCheck.org and the Congressional Budget Office agree that HR 3962 contains potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in planned cuts to Medicare, yet Mr. Owens indicates that he supports this legislation and says that it does not cut Medicare benefits. Either Mr. Owens has been snowed or the public is about to be.

HR 3962 also includes a range of various taxes on middle-class families as well as language to repeal tax relief already in place. Has Congressman Owens blindly followed Ms. Pelosi's rhetoric in believing that the end to a tax cut is not the same thing as an increase in taxes or is he hedging his bet with very carefully chosen words?

HR 3962 now also contains language that allows illegal immigrants to be covered under the legislation. When The Gouverneur Times attempted to contact Mr. Owens for clarification of this language, we received no response other than the press release heretofore mentioned. Specifically, we asked if illegal immigrants would be forced to purchase healthcare insurance as citizens will be and whether or not they would be forced to do so at standard rates or if they would qualify for the public option subsidy.

The Associated Press said this morning that: "House leaders said that, in keeping with the Hispanic Caucus' demands, there was not likely to be any prohibition added to the House bill against illegal immigrants shopping in the exchange."

The Gouverneur Times - Your Online News Source

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Sadly he's just typical of most in Congress at this point. WTG New York!

 

[The T]

Bait and switch. Typical Statism this is.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I do have to admit this is the fastest i've seen a cowardly & corrupt politician pull this kind of sad stuff. This guy must have set some kind of speed record on this one.

 

[Modbert]

Some here can't read:

UPDATED: A spokesman for Congressman Owens indicated correctly that Mr. Owens had recanted his solid position against public option later in the campaign, clarifying that he did not wish public option to be a 'litmus test' for the Health Reform bill and that on Oct. 30th, several days prior to the election, in a debate had stated that he generally supported the public option as it was now written (at that time.)

 

[Si modo]

.... Either Mr. Owens has been snowed or the public is about to be. ....

I'll go with (C), both.

 

[WillowTree]

Hispanic caucus huh? We need a Caucasian Caucus.

 

[hjmick]

Hispanic caucus huh? We need a Caucasian Caucus.

That would be racist.

 

[The T]

.... Either Mr. Owens has been snowed or the public is about to be. ....

I'll go with (C), both.

Ditto.

 

[The T]

Hispanic caucus huh? We need a Caucasian Caucus.

That would be racist.

In the eyes of the Statists assembled? Sure...but it doesn't negate it.

 

[The T]

Some here can't read:

UPDATED: A spokesman for Congressman Owens indicated correctly that Mr. Owens had recanted his solid position against public option later in the campaign, clarifying that he did not wish public option to be a 'litmus test' for the Health Reform bill and that on Oct. 30th, several days prior to the election, in a debate had stated that he generally supported the public option as it was now written (at that time.)

What's your point? He did the bait and switch, and there's nothing you can do to change it.

 

[Modbert]

What's your point? He did the bait and switch, and there's nothing you can do to change it.

There was no bait and switch. He made his position clear and the majority still voted for the Democrat over the "Conservative."

 

[Polk]

Some here can't read:

UPDATED: A spokesman for Congressman Owens indicated correctly that Mr. Owens had recanted his solid position against public option later in the campaign, clarifying that he did not wish public option to be a 'litmus test' for the Health Reform bill and that on Oct. 30th, several days prior to the election, in a debate had stated that he generally supported the public option as it was now written (at that time.)

Also, he said he was opposed the cuts in Medicare benefits. The bill doesn't cut benefits, it cuts subsidies to insurance companies.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If this guy WERE supporting Medicare cuts, why aren't conservatives praising him?

 

[Modbert]

If this guy WERE supporting Medicare cuts, why aren't conservatives praising him?

Good question.

 

[Polk]

If this guy WERE supporting Medicare cuts, why aren't conservatives praising him?

No, they'd oppose them because a Democrat proposed them, while offering an alternative bill that abolishes the program all together.

 

[Si modo]

Some here can't read:

UPDATED: A spokesman for Congressman Owens indicated correctly that Mr. Owens had recanted his solid position against public option later in the campaign, clarifying that he did not wish public option to be a 'litmus test' for the Health Reform bill and that on Oct. 30th, several days prior to the election, in a debate had stated that he generally supported the public option as it was now written (at that time.)

Also, he said he was opposed the cuts in Medicare benefits. The bill doesn't cut benefits, it cuts subsidies to insurance companies.

Yes it does. The bill cuts subsidies by more than half to a bit more than a fifth of those in Medicare receiving Medicare Advantage, providing more benefits than Medicare alone. Now, their benefits will be reduced - that's over a fifth on Medicare. Benefits cut - clearly.

Boehner Misrepresents FactCheck.org’s Findings | FactCheck.org Look at that, supporting information. Try it sometime, Polk. It doesn't bite.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Remember wacky Michael Steele's wacky senior bill of rights pledge thing he was waving around a couple months ago? I predicted at the tmie that would die a quiet death, because no Republicans of any consequence would ever sign onto it...

...which is exactly what happened.

 

[Polk]

Some here can't read:

Also, he said he was opposed the cuts in Medicare benefits. The bill doesn't cut benefits, it cuts subsidies to insurance companies.

Yes it does. The bill cuts subsidies by more than half to a bit more than a fifth of those in Medicare receiving Medicare Advantage, providing more benefits than Medicare alone. Now, their benefits will be reduced - that's over a fifth on Medicare. Benefits cut - clearly.

Boehner Misrepresents FactCheck.org’s Findings | FactCheck.org Look at that, supporting information. Try it sometime, Polk. It doesn't bite.

I always provide supporting information, then you claim it doesn't exist. That you're too lazy to read supporting information isn't my problem. Also, that's not a benefits cut. Taking federal funds and combining them with money paid by seniors to provide a policy with more benefits than Medicare is no different than federal funds paying for Medicare and then seniors taking the same amount and buying Medicare supplement policies.

 

[Ame®icano]

I already wrote about this HERE, so I won't repeat myself.

Congrats NY23, enjoy it now.