U.S. Representative Ed Whitfield of Kentucky’s 1st District has three glaring flaws that should concern his constituents about his decision-making and should inform the choice they make on Election Day 2008:
- Whitfield puts his loyalty to Big Oil over the need to reduce gas prices while at once addressing the climate change crisis.
- Whitfield simply does not appear to care about the affordability of health care for the nation’s most vulnerable citizens—children.
- Whitfield seems to value profits and shareholder wealth for the pharmaceutical industry over affordable medicine for Medicare recipients.
U.S. Representative Ed Whitfield of Kentucky’s 1st District has three glaring flaws that should concern his constituents about his decision-making and should inform the choice they make on Election Day 2008:
- Whitfield puts his loyalty to Big Oil over the need to reduce gas prices while at once addressing the climate change crisis.
- Whitfield simply does not appear to care about the affordability of health care for the nation’s most vulnerable citizens—children.
- Whitfield seems to value profits and shareholder wealth for the pharmaceutical industry over affordable medicine for Medicare recipients.
What prompts me to make these accusations against Whitfield? His voting record. In politics the rules of the game basically require a candidate to outspend their opponent in order to win. A rational actor like Ed Whitfield is going to put the interests of his donors over the interests of his constituents because he is more concerned with staying in power than bringing real change to Washington or the lives of the American people he is supposed to represent.
In regard to the first charge, (HR 6) the Energy Act of 2007 raised fuel efficiency standards for personal vehicles and reduced tax deductions for oil industry income. The measure passed by 235-181. But one of those 181 "no" votes belonged to Ed Whitfield. This is the kind of measure which is intended to address the growing climate crisis and which could reduce, in a significant way, the price that Whitfield’s constituents pay at the pump. Furthermore it would reduce government subsidies to an industry making record profits. Yet Whitfield voted against this measure. However this vote should come as no surprise, since 1989 Whitfield has received $187,497 from the oil and gas industry and $579,785 from industry PACs and individual donors (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00003467).
In regard to the second charge, (HR 976) would have reauthorized the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). SCHIP is a program intended to help needy children get the healthcare they desperately need and while it is a joint program between federal and state governments, it provides state governments with a great deal of flexibility in how they administer the program. HR 976 the reauthorization bill would have expanded coverage to about 4 million more children. This bill ultimately failed to pass, thanks in part to the efforts of Ed Whitfield who voted against the bill. Opponents of the program typically cite the negative impact the bill would have on the private insurance industry because families with eligible children who successfully get on the SCHIP program tend to drop their private insurance policies at high rates. Since 1989, Ed Whitfield has received $200,542 from the insurance industry (Ibid.). I invite the reader to draw his own conclusions.
In regard to the final charge, (HR 4) the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act requires the Health and Human Services department of the federal government to negotiate lower drug prices for enrollees in a prescription drug plan and eligible for Medicare part D. The measure is intended to lower medication costs for recipients. The measure passed in early 2007 with substantial support, but it did not have the support of Ed Whitfield. The measure is likely to lower pharmaceutical industry profits. Since 1989, Whitfield has received $227,459 from the pharmaceuticals/health products industry. Once again I invite the reader to draw her own conclusions.
For information on key pieces of recent legislation and Congressional incumbent’s recent voting records, consult Project Vote Smart's Voter’s Self-Defense Manual 2008 Edition.