Mike Castle: Gutless Hypocrite

Filed in National by on December 26, 2009

Mike Castle, circa 2004:

I supported the Medicare Prescription Drug bill because it was a historic opportunity, since the inception of the program in 1965, to add a pharmaceutical discount benefit to the program. While I realize the law is not perfect, it is certainly a step in the right direction, as the costs of prescription drug continuing to rise at alarming rates. This law is quite generous to low income beneficiaries and beneficiaries who have catastrophic prescription costs.

Mike Castle, circa 2009:

I voted no on HR 3200 because the first order of health care reform must be to lower costs for everyone– the cost of treatment, the cost of insurance and the cost of subsidies from the federal government. We shouldn’t seek to add new financial commitments to federal and state coffers without first determining which parts of the current system are working, and then making the tough choices to reform the parts that are not working. The sustainability of Medicare and Medicaid, two major government run health programs, are in jeopardy because their growth rate automatically increases based on population and inflation. This rate of increase over the past several decades has been so accelerated that their very existence is threatened if we continue do nothing.

Shorter Mike Castle: I voted against the deficit-neutral Democratic Health Care Plan because the Republican Medicare Plan that I supported was bankrupting the federal government.

Mike Castle voted for every deficit-busting scheme cooked up by the Bush Administration, including all the Bush Tax Cuts (a giveaway to billionaires that did virtually nothing to create jobs) and all the Bush Iraq War Requests (giving endless billions to contractors openly engaged in defrauding the Pentagon and placing our troops at risk). Then he suddenly remembers the deficit when Democrats try to pass bills creating jobs and expanding affordable health care. You can count on Castle to hedge his bets by complaining, but when you count the votes, Mike Castle will do whatever the GOP tells him to.

Tags: , ,

About the Author ()

X Stryker is also the proprietor of the currently-dormant poll analysis blog Election Inspection.

Comments (8)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. X-Striker Brings Up A Very Good Point « kavips | December 28, 2009
  1. anon says:

    For everyone who needs a refresher, here is how Repubs managed the passage of Medicare Part D.

    Medicare Part D passed because Dems voted to break not one but two filibusters.

    cloture on it was invoked by a vote of 70-29. However, a budget point of order raised by Tom Daschle, and voted on. As 60 votes were necessary to override it, the challenge was actually considered to have a credible chance of passing.

    For several minutes, the vote total was stuck at 58-39, until Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Trent Lott (R-MS), and Ron Wyden (D-OR) voted in quick succession in favour to pass the vote 61-39. The bill itself was finally passed 54-44 on November 25, 2003, and was signed into law by the President on December 8.

    No wonder Daschle was targeted so heavily.

    And in the House:

    The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives early on June 25, 2003 as H.R. 1, sponsored by Speaker Dennis Hastert. All that day and the next the bill was debated, and it was apparent that the bill would be very divisive. In the early morning of June 27, a floor vote was taken. After the initial electronic vote, the count stood at 214 yeas, 218 nays.

    Three Republican representatives then changed their votes. One opponent of the bill, Ernest J. Istook, Jr. (R-OK-5), changed his vote to “present” upon being told that C.W. Bill Young (R-FL-10), who was absent due to a death in the family, would have voted “aye” if he had been present. Next, Republicans Butch Otter (ID-1) and Jo Ann Emerson (MO-8) switched their vote to “aye” under pressure from the party leadership. The bill passed by one vote, 216-215.

  2. xstryker says:

    Don’t forget Trent Franks. He switched his vote along with Istook and Otter. In the article I just linked to, Bruce Bartlett (former Reagan adviser) slams Franks:

    Maybe Franks isn’t the worst hypocrite I’ve ever come across in Washington, but he’s got to be in the top 10 because he apparently thinks the unfunded drug benefit, which added $15.5 trillion (in present value terms) to our nation’s indebtedness, according to Medicare’s trustees, was worth sacrificing his integrity to enact into law. But legislation expanding health coverage to the uninsured–which is deficit-neutral–somehow or other adds an unacceptable debt burden to future generations.

  3. anon says:

    The industry clearly fears Daschle. I wonder how the current health care bill would have turned out had Daschle been managing it instead of Rahm. Remember Daschle was floated as Obama’s point person on HCR, but Obama gave up on him quickly after a modest burst of right wing faux outrage over Daschle’s taxes (but meanwhile Geithner enjoyed a bulletproof shield).

  4. just kiddin says:

    If the statements attributed to Tom Daschle are to be believed, please let me laugh out loud right now. Daschle and his wife are haug tied to big insurance, big pharma. His wife is paid hundreds of thousands for sitting on many boards. Daschle himself is corrupt on the issue, and most progressives were happy he didnt become Secretary under Obama. It would be like sticking the fox and the fox’s wife inside the henhouse to monitor the lobbyists going in and out.

  5. John Manifold says:

    Before dissing Daschle, this interview is in order:

    http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=is_congress_the_problem_with_health_care

    Daschle passionate about health care reform:

    http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=health_care_heavyweights

  6. I’m really sick of these born-again deficit hawks who only care about deficits when Democrats are in power. When they start sending for CBO scores for defense appropriations and support a war tax then I’ll believe they’re serious. Until then, I’ll just put them down as fiscal scolds.

  7. truthatlast says:

    Thanks to xstryker for this post on Mike Castle. This kind of clear, factual presentation of Castle’s record is exactly what is needed to take off the veneer of “moderate” that the NEWS JOURNAL has bestowed on him.