On Thursday, October 8th, Peter Roskam voted against passage of a $680 billion defense authorization bill that provides funding to our military for fiscal year 2010.  In doing so, Roskam voted against, among many other provisions:

  • A 3.4 percent pay raise for members of the armed services
  • A $6.7 billion allocation for mine-resistant armored vehicles (MRAPs) designed to protect soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  • Procurement of body armor for those same soldiers
  • Aid for soldiers with catastrophic combat-related conditions to obtain personal care assistance during the period before retirement or disability becomes effective
  • A skill incentive bonus for members of the reserves
  • Bonuses for military linguists serving long-term in Afghanistan
  • Ensuring that servicemen on duty overseas have the opportunity to have their absentee votes counted
  • Funding research on tissue repair and transplantation for combat injuries

Why would Peter Roskam vote to defund the military? Because the bill also helps gay people.

Specifically, the bill extends the federal hate crimes legislation, passed in 1968 in the wake of the assasination of Rev. Martin Luther King, making violent crimes committed against people on the basis of sexual orientation federal offenses.

The legislation is important because it allows the federal government to intervene and prosecute such crimes in jurisdictions where local and state authorities prove unwilling to do so. While there is much work left to do, the bill is a big step toward ensuring that LBGT people are ensured equal status under the constitution and can enjoy the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.

Roskam and other House Republicans voted against the bill because of opposition by Christian hate groups such as the Family Research Council that claim that their free speech rights will be violated by preventing them from demonizing gay people from pulpits lest one of their misguided followers commit a violent crime. The bill, however, contains no prohibitions on speech, though hopefully it will encourage more responsible speech on the part of some pastors. Their argument is a fallacy. Protection against crimes committed against persons on the basis of religion in the original 1968 legislation has in no way impaired the free speech rights of those who are critical of religion. But it has, appropriately, enabled federal involvement in investigation of crimes against Christians such as church burnings.

Roskam_mailer_2009109_1_sm

I received this expensive-looking over sized mailer from Peter Roskam a couple of days ago. Says it contains “important facts and information”. “Dated information”, it tells me, “read today”. This must be it. This must be Peter Roskam’s plan to make sure that all Americans receive adequate quality healthcare. Maybe he’s finally doing the job we pay him for. Maybe he’s studied the situation and decided a public option makes sense after all. Lets see.

Roskam_mailer_2009109_2_sm

Nope. No plan here.  Just a picture of Peter with an ugly tie. Says he wants “real bipartisan reforms”. Doesn’t want a public option – that would put bureaucrats in charge of my family’s healthcare.  Hmm. That sounds a lot like the same old crap we’ve been hearing from the Republicans who’ve been trying to block healthcare reform in Congress. “Bipartisan” means do whatever we want and what our campaign donors from the healthcare industry want or else. Says the status quo is unacceptable. Things must change by remaining exactly the same, withour healthcare in the hands of giant corporations. Not a government plan like in those commie countries – like England and Switzerland.

There’s another picture of Peter smiling next to a nurse taking a small child’s blood pressure while mom looks on. Everybody is smiling. Blood pressure taking is fun.  (We hear from usually reliable sources at the hospital that Peter devoured this child for lunch moments after the picture was taken – solving the healthcare crisis one child at a time).

There’s a note under the photo that brags about Peter’s $1.1 million in earmarks for local healthcare facilities since 2007. Yes, that’ll solve the problem. Well maybe Peter’s plan is on page 3. Let’s take a look.

Roskam_mailer_2009109_3_sm

Well this looks familiar. We’ve seen this before. Over and over. Pretty nebulous. Doesn’t say anything concrete about what he’s going to do this year to ensure that those people without health insurance can get coverage and those who have it can get covered for pre-existing conditions or deal with increasingly unaffordable co-payments and deductibles and how they can keep insurance when they lose or leave their job. Maybe that’s on the next page. Lets see.

Roskam_mailer_2009109_4_sm

No its not here.  Just some stuff telling me that this was paid for with my money. And instructions on how to get hold of Peter if I need help.

I guess that must be the plan. If you don’t have insurance, if your coverage is being denied because of a pre-existing condition, if your deductibles are too high, if you want to move to a new job but can’t afford to lose your insurance – just call Peter Roskam’s office and he will help you. (630) 893-9670. I guess its not really the plan I hoped for.

So, I have to say, this pretty much looks like a campaign piece. There’s really no information here. This is Peter Roskam using his constituents hard-earned money to lobby them in order to defeat the Democratic healthcare reform plan that would otherwise benefit them. That’s pretty twisted. But then so is Roskam.