fbpx ');*/ /*jQuery("#postgridID").addClass("second"); jQuery("#content-wrapper #page-wrapper .tt-content .vc_row .tt-slider-content #postgridID").before(''); */ });

Type to search

GOP Representatives Now Realize Effects Of The Sequester They Voted For

Memo Pad

GOP Representatives Now Realize Effects Of The Sequester They Voted For



Representative Renee Ellmers (R-NC) introduced a bill on Tuesday that returns sequester-cut funding to physicians to provide chemotherapy drugs to patients. The Cancer Patient Protection Act of 2013, H.R. 1416, restores sequester cuts made to Medicare Part B in order to provide cancer treatment and reimburse physicians for the costs of cuts already made.

Ellmers, who voted in favor of the Budget Control Act of 2011, called these cuts to cancer treatment “unintended consequences.” However, the cutback in funding wasn’t accidental, as Ellmers suggests—the Budget Control Act explicitly orders a sweeping two-percent cut to Medicare.

Despite her efforts to reverse its inevitable effects, Ellmers still defends the sequester. “I do believe it will start a very important process that will help our economy to start to grow,” she said. “The debt that we have at the federal level is our biggest threat for our country.”

Representative Blake Farenthold (R-TX) joins Rep. Ellmers in opposing elements of sequestration despite having voted for it. Farenthold, among others, was disturbed to hear of the closing of 149 air traffic control towers—especially those in Texas. The congressman sent a letter to FAA Deputy Administrator Michael Huerta, stating, “I am deeply troubled for your public statements and proposed actions regarding the effect of the sequester on smaller, local airports. These airports have long played a vital role in economies across the country.”

Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) was among the 269 representatives who voted in favor of the Budget Control Act, yet he too did not hesitate to criticize its effects. In Frelinghuysen’s district, children in Washington Township may be unable to enroll in Head Start programs due to lack of funding. Frelinghuysen said, “I view potential budget cuts to such an important program as another reason why sequestration is a bad idea.”

To date, sequestration has had significant effects on many Americans, and is expected to cause upward of $85 billion in cuts to communities across the country. The elderly have lost vital programs like Meals on Wheels; veterans may face difficulty accessing mental health, substance abuse, and job counseling services; and funding can be cut for medical research of illnesses like Alzheimer’s Disease.

The effects of sequestration are tangible; millions across the country have faced cuts across a range of industries. Rather than criticizing the effects of the sequester and introducing legislation to obtain certain exemptions from these imminent cuts, perhaps members of Congress like Ellmers, Farenthold and Frelinghuysen should have weighed the consequences before even voting for the measure.

H/T: Think Progress

AP Photo/Mbr/The Citizens’ Voice


  1. Lynda Groom April 11, 2013

    Be careful what you vote for as one day you will have to explain your action. Looks likes that day is becoming more clear for some.

  2. Benjamin Clark April 11, 2013

    The only thing the writer left out of this fascinating article is that the vast majority of Republican representatives may now know the effects of sequestration…but they still don’t give a shit.

    1. impact0900 April 17, 2013

      What they do care about is that they are now being directly connected to the murders that their policies are committing, in order to protect their rich owners from paying any taxes on the money they stole from the public over the last twelve years. Other than that, You’re right, they don’t give a rats posterior.

  3. idamag April 12, 2013

    There is a reason that this congress has an 11% approval rating. Replace them with intelligent people whether they be Republican or Democrat. We have too many who come from the bib overalls, tobacco spitting areas.

    1. ar45 April 12, 2013

      Many are intelligent but have become purchasable commodity. They are cowards. They need support of the rich & powerful. They do not have feelings for the people or vision for the nation.

      1. Adam Wu April 12, 2013

        If they are truly cowards then the way to deal with them is easy. Make them more afraid of average people than they are afraid of rich ones. Simple.

        1. ar45 April 13, 2013

          I wish common people become more active in the political process. They are burdened with daily task which hardly leaves them any time to ponder over what is happening around them. But you are right, These arrogant Senators & congressmen should be unseated.

    2. impact0900 April 17, 2013

      You make a mistake in thinking they aren’t intelligent. They and their owners have stolen trillions of dollars from you over the last 12 years and they got away with it all. They may be nothing but a bunch of criminals in business suits, but stupid they are not.

  4. ar45 April 12, 2013

    Their arrogance has blinded them. In their eagerness to destroy Obama’s presidency they are destroying millions of families and the country. What are they going to get after destroying SS, Medicare & Medicaid? With declining # of good paying jobs, people working harder then before, high unemployment, cutting teachers, cutting loans for higher education, the future seems to be uncertain. Hope voters bring them to their senses in 2014 election.

  5. rustacus21 April 12, 2013

    Hmmm… interesting but absolutely NO surprise here. Ignorance is no virtue afterall, as the world reality panorama unfolds unequivocally in every direction – even for conservatives!!! & it is ONLY conservatives that seem surprised by this. I believe it was we Liberal/Progressives that warned of THIS, as well as every other single solitary disaster, catastrophe and cataclysm which likewise unfolded since 2001. Will the American citizenry now listen? Whether they hear & respond in time is really the question…

  6. Chris Lee April 13, 2013

    The democrats had the power to choose which programs got cut, but they refused because they wanted the big splash effect. We could have just cut the stupid stuff (like the studies on fat lesbians) so now we have just exactly what the left wants us to have.

    1. Andy Lord May 1, 2013

      That’s a preposterous interpretation of events. The assumption of the sequestration bill was that not even Republicans would be stupid enough to allow it to go into effect, a major error in judgment by Obama. The bill demands across the board cuts to all programs in each Agency. Republicans hate the idea of government and their ideology is that government can do nothing right. Except of course when government does something to help THEM.

  7. Fed Up April 18, 2013

    Members of the House who voted for this stupid law should all be fired during the 2014 election cycle. These people are paid to know what is in the legislation they are voting on. Pure and simple – incompetence of the highest order.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.