Today, the Senate will hold a vote on a Republican substitute introduced by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO), which would allow any and all insurers and employers to deny their employees health benefits and services required by federal law based on their personal religious or moral objections. The measure has 37 co-sponsors — including the GOP leadership, women Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski (AK), Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX), Kelly Ayotte (NH), Democrat Ben Nelson (NE), and Republican Scott Brown (MA). Brown has supported expansive conscience protections for religious organizations throughout his legislative career, but voted for a tougher contraception mandate as a Massachusetts state representative in 2002 and approved of a law requiring all hospitals — including Catholic institutions — to provide emergency contraception to rape victims in 2005.

After defending Obama’s rule last year, Democrats are now on the offensive. Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Patty Murray (D-WA) have derided Blunt’s measure as “extreme” and “dangerous,” claiming that “It puts politics between women and their healthcare.” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) warned, “This would gut the protections that were established in the Affordable Care Act and open a Pandora’s box that allows employers to deny coverage for virtually anything they might object to” and yesterday, Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren told the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent that amendment would permit insurers or employers to discriminate against women:

“I am shocked that Senator Brown jumped in to support such an extreme measure,” Warren told me by phone just now. “This is an all new attack on health care. Any insurance company could leave anyone without health care, just when they need it most.” [...]

“This is an extreme attack on every one of us,” Warren said. “It opens the door to outright discrimination. It would let insurance companies and corporations cut off pregnant women, overweight guys, older Americans, or anyone — because some executive claims it’s part of his moral code. Maybe that wouldn’t happen, but I don’t want to take the chance.”

Indeed, under the measure, an insurer or an employer would be able to claim a moral or religious objection to covering HIV/AIDS screenings, Type 2 Diabetes treatments, cancer tests or anything else they deem inappropriate or the result of an “unhealthy” or “immoral” lifestyle. Similarly, a health plan could refuse to cover mental health care on the grounds that the plan believes that psychiatric problems should be treated with prayer.

Individuals too can opt out of coverage if it is contrary to their religious or moral beliefs, radically undermining “the basic principle of insurance, which involves pooling the risks for all possible medical needs of all enrollees.” As the National Women’s Law Center explains, Blunt’s language is vague enough that “insurers may be able to sell plans that do not cover services required by the new health care law to an entire market because one individual objects, so all consumers in a market lose their right to coverage of the full range of critical health services.” As a result, a man “purchasing an insurance plan offered to women and men could object to maternity coverage, so the plan would not have to cover it, even though such coverage is required as part of the essential health benefits.”

Significantly, two Republican women senators — Olympia Snowe (ME) and Susan Collins (ME) — have come out in support of Obama’s modified contraception rule and may oppose Blunt’s measure.

Read the full amendment here.

Fatima Najiy contributed to this post.

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO)

But Republicans and some conservative Catholic groups are not satisfied with the accommodation and hope to use their false claim of “religious persecution” to deny women access to preventive health services. Despite Obama’s decision to shield nonprofit religious institutions from offering birth control benefits, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) is pushing an amendment that would permit any employer or insurance plan to exclude any health service, no matter how essential, from coverage if they morally object to it:

(6) RESPECTING RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE WITH REGARD TO SPECIFIC ITEMS OR SERVICES —

“(A) FOR HEALTH PLANS. — A health plan shall not be considered to have failed to provide the essential health benefits package described in subsection (a) (or preventive health services described in section 2713 of the Public Health Services Act), to fail to be a qualified health plan, or to fail to fulfill any other requirement under this title on the basis that it declines to provide coverage of specific items or services because —

“(i) providing coverage (or, in the case of a sponsor of a group health plan, paying for coverage) of such specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan; or

“(ii) such coverage (in the case of individual coverage) is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage.

Under the measure, an insurer or an employer would be able to claim a moral or religious objection to covering HIV/AIDS screenings, Type 2 Diabetes treatments, cancer tests or anything else they deem inappropriate or the result of an “unhealthy” or “immoral” lifestyle. Similarly, a health plan could refuse to cover mental health care on the grounds that the plan believes that psychiatric problems should be treated with prayer.

Individuals too can opt out of coverage if it is contrary to their religious or moral beliefs, radically undermining “the basic principle of insurance, which involves pooling the risks for all possible medical needs of all enrollees.” As the National Women’s Law Center explains, Blunt’s language is vague enough that “insurers may be able to sell plans that do not cover services required by the new health care law to an entire market because one individual objects, so all consumers in a market lose their right to coverage of the full range of critical health services.” As a result, a man “purchasing an insurance plan offered to women and men could object to maternity coverage, so the plan would not have to cover it, even though such coverage is required as part of the essential health benefits.”

Read the full amendment here.

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) made the rounds of local media outlets today to push the GOP message, but ran into some trouble with the facts when he claimed that credit rating agencies like Standard & Poor agree with Republicans during a radio interview with KTRS in St. Louis:

BLUNT: If you read any of the rating agencies — Standard & Poor and the other agencies — they don’t say we’re in trouble because of the debt ceiling or that we might default, they say we’re in trouble and we could be downgraded as an economy to invest in, in our bonds and everything, because we’re spending way too much money relative to our abilities to produce goods and resources.

Listen here:

In fact, the exact opposite is true:

Standard & Poor’s would cut the U.S. credit rating to its lowest level and Moody’s Investors Service said it will probably reduce its ranking if the government fails to increase the debt limit, leading to a default.

S&P would lower its sovereign top-level AAA ranking to D, the last rung on its scale if the U.S. can’t pay its debt, John Chambers, chairman of the company’s sovereign rating committee, said today. Moody’s said it would probably assign a position in the Aa range, or within three steps of its highest level.

An executive for the third major rating agency, Fitch, told Rueters, “If we reach the second of August without a lifting of the debt ceiling, Fitch would assign a rating watch negative to the U.S. sovereign ratings.”

When facts get in the way of the narrative, Blunt just changes the facts. Meanwhile, several Republican lawmakers, including House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), have suggested that default would actually be good for the U.S., despite the credit rating agencies’ dire warnings.

Following ThinkProgress’ report, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) wrote to the FEC — a federal agency that has ironically “been rendered toothless by its Republican members” — asking it to launch an investigation and to insist that foreign companies prove whether their funds had been used in campaign activities. Today, outside of a fundraiser for Nevada’s GOP U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle at the National Republican Campaign Committee, ThinkProgress asked Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), a candidate for U.S. Senate in Missouri, if he would comment on the story. After hearing the question, Blunt quickly turned and began walking away briskly towards the Union Station building. He initially simply ignored the question, then took out his phone and pressed it against his face. Eventually, Blunt replied, “I have no idea what you’re talking about” and told ThinkProgress to “talk to the Chamber”:

TP: Congressman Blunt? We reported at ThinkProgress yesterday that the Chamber of Commerce is accepting money from foreign corporations and using that same bank account for buying attack ads. If you’re elected to the Senate will you investigate this? Excuse me, Roy Blunt? Sir, the Chamber of Commerce has admitted that it’s accepting foreign money from businesses like the Bahrain Petroleum Company and they’re using that same bank account to run attack ads. Will you investigate the use of foreign money in our election[s]?

TP: Congressman Blunt? Pardon me, Congressman Blunt? Congressman Blunt? [BLUNT takes out cellphone] We reported yesterday at ThinkProgress that the Chamber of Commerce is fundraising from foreign companies, in India and Bahrain and many other places, uh, they’re using that same bank account run attack ads. Are you going to investigate this? [...]

BLUNT: …And the event went fine. Good. Good. Really? Okay.

TP: Excuse me, Congressman Blunt? I have a membership application that the Chamber of Commerce is distributing in Bahrain asking for funds for the same bank account – the same campaign account – used to run campaign advertisements here in America. Do you have any comment on that?

BLUNT: I have no idea what you’re talking about. Talk to the Chamber, I have no idea.

Watch it:

In August, Blunt announced that he received the Chamber’s endorsement. Currently, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is running hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of ads trashing Blunt’s Democratic opponent, Robin Carnahan. The ads are run out of the same 501(c)(6) account used to fund raise from foreign sources.

Notably, Blunt has voted for many of the Chamber’s top priorities, including unfettered free trade deals, protecting tax loopholes for companies that ship jobs overseas, and against Wall Street regulatory reform.

According to the North County Times, Issa is now “refusing to debate his Democratic opponent” Howard Katz (D-CA), after personally agreeing to do so “when the two chatted at a July 3 parade” in Oceanside, CA. Katz contends that Issa said he’d “certainly” debate him “on a date that works with my schedule so I can come.” But now, Issa’s spokesman Kurt Bardella insists that “the topic of debate never came up” and, “because the economy is a free fall,” his job in “continuing the process of oversight” outweighs is responsibility to participate in a debate:

“I was asking him about a debate and he said, ‘Certainly, just make it on a date that works with my schedule so I can come,’” said Katz, a Temecula resident.

Bardella denied that Issa, R-Vista, ever agreed to debate whether he should continue to represent the district that includes much of North County and Southwest Riverside County.

“The topic of a debate never came up,” Bardella said Tuesday. “He (Issa) has never made any kind of promise or commitment to debate.”[...]

Bardella said Issa is concentrating on his role as the ranking Republican on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, a powerful panel he will lead if the GOP wins enough seats on Nov. 2 to wrest control of the House from the Democrats.

“This is a situation where the economy is in a free fall and the people are in a free fall,” Bardella said. “The congressman is focused on doing his job and continuing the process of conducting oversight.”

Katz insists that Bardella is telling a “fib” and even released a picture of the two talking at the parade “where he swears the promise was made.” Katz needed the debate because he is in a “‘David versus Goliath’ matchup” against “one of the wealthiest members of Congress.” Libertarian candidate Mike Paster (CA) shares Katz’s debate frustrations after “he was unsuccessful in repeated efforts to get someone from Issa’s office to respond to his call for a debate” last week.

While Issa may have specific reasons to be wary of public scrutiny, his debate denial reflects a growing number of House candidates “who are flat-out refusing” to debate challengers. Rep. Steve King (R-IA), who has never formally debated a Democratic challenger, told his opponent that he hadn’t “earned” the right to debate him. And while Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) is willing to debate his opponent, he is backing out of all but two of the debates he originally proposed.

But like nearly every other member of the Republican caucus, Blunt is trying to have it both ways. Despite Blunt’s assertion that the the stimulus is a complete failure, he has attended multiple groundbreaking ceremonies for stimulus-funded projects. Local Missouri papers have praised Blunt’s role in securing the projects, without noting his efforts to kill their funding. In other cases, he has sent out press releases claiming credit for stimulus-funded programs:

– In July 2009, Blunt attended a groundbreaking for the Neosho National Fish Hatchery in Neosho, Missouri. Earlier that year, the project gained two stimulus grants, one totaling $1.04 million and another for $100,000. Some local media outlets have reported the hypocrisy, while others have not.

– Blunt attended a groundbreaking ceremony for a new Ozone Disinfection System in the City of Springfield made possible by a $16 million combination low-interest loan and direct grant from the stimulus. As local blogger Jim Lee notes, Blunt’s ceremony unveiling the funding coincided with the one year anniversary of the stimulus. When approached about his opposition to the stimulus, Blunt simply smiled and said “no comment.”

– As FiredUpMissouri reported, Blunt’s office announced $942,000 for homeless assistance programs in Springfield and Joplin in February of 2010. The funds were provided through the stimulus, but Blunt made no mention of the funding source in his release.

As ThinkProgress has documented, Republican lawmakers and even GOP leadership have staked their political fortunes on lying to the public, claiming the stimulus failed to create jobs, while trying to take credit in their home districts for stimulus programs.

A look at that plan shows half of those savings — $1 trillion — would come from Blunt’s proposal to repeal the health care reform package…Repealing health care reform would eliminate $1 trillion in spending, but it would also eliminate the $1 trillion in tax and fee increases and Medicare reductions that are in the law as well. The net effect of health care repeal on the federal deficit is, roughly, zero.

Actually, contrary to Helling’s assertion, repealing the Affordable Care Act wouldn’t have zero effect on the deficit: it would actively increase it. According to the Congressional Budget Office, repealing the bill would increase the deficit by $455 billion over the next ten years. But the point remains that the only way Blunt’s push for repeal works as a deficit reduction measure is if he plans to keep all of the tax increases and Medicare savings, without actually giving anyone any additional health care. And as The Wonk Room explains, Blunt’s other deficit reduction plans are equally unimpressive.

Blunt included in the plan what he has claimed is $2 trillion in spending cuts, which would presumably be used to either reduce the deficit or to fund some of the massive tax cuts that he’s embraced. “In this plan, Roy identified over two trillion dollars in cuts right off the bat that can be taken out of government,” said former Missouri treasurer Sarah Steelman, who has endorsed Blunt’s campaign.

But in what he charitably calls an “accounting error,” the Kansas City Star’s Dave Helling notes that fully one half of Blunt’s spending cuts aren’t actually spending cuts at all:

A look at that plan shows half of those savings — $1 trillion — would come from Blunt’s proposal to repeal the health care reform package…Repealing health care reform would eliminate $1 trillion in spending, but it would also eliminate the $1 trillion in tax and fee increases and Medicare reductions that are in the law as well. The net effect of health care repeal on the federal deficit is, roughly, zero.

Actually, contrary to Helling’s assertion, repealing the Affordable Care Act wouldn’t have zero effect on the deficit: it would actively increase it. According to the Congressional Budget Office, repealing the bill would increase the deficit by $143 billion over the next ten years.

But the point remains that the only way Blunt’s push for repeal works as a deficit reduction measure is if he plans to keep all of the tax increases and Medicare savings, without actually giving anyone any additional health care.

Plenty of other spending cuts that Blunt suggests are equally ill-informed. He proposes repealing the remaining stimulus funds, including those dedicated to middle class tax cuts. He also says he’d cut an unidentified “wasteful welfare program,” which is presumably the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Emergency Fund that House Republicans like to cite all the time. But it’s actually a successful work program that is supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country, including 4,600 in Blunt’s own state.

Of course, Blunt is far from the only one who thinks that repealing the Affordable Care Act is a legitimate deficit reduction strategy. For instance, New Hampshire’s Republican Senate candidate, Kelly Ayotte, has made it the centerpiece of her deficit reduction plan.

This morning, a St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter asked Blunt about the ad. Blunt told the reporter he didn’t know about the ad, and it disappeared from the campaign’s website moments later. A spokesman subsequently told the reporter that ad was removed because it “didn’t reflect the right tone.” The ad has re-appeared, but now shows pictures of Carnahan with President Obama instead of graphic Ground Zero damage. (HT: Fired Up! Missouri)

Recently it was announced that new home purchases had fallen off more than 30%. Clearly people respond to tax incentives and the recently-expired home owners’ tax credit is no exception. Encouraging people who can afford it to purchase homes helps employ homebuilders, real estate workers, bank employees, and keeps liquidity in the market.

As The Wonk Room explained, the home buyer’s tax credit was enacted as part of the stimulus and then extended a couple of times, and by all accounts it was a complete and total boondoggle, costing taxpayers billions to subsidize activity that was going to happen anyway. Even the credit’s staunchest supporters have said that its “sunsetting is an incentive to drive people to the marketplace” and poo-pooed the notion of extending it forever, which clearly turns it into a permanent subsidy to the real estate industry. But since Blunt has received far more money from the finance/insurance/real estate sector than any other in his career, maybe that’s precisely the point, no matter what it costs.

But one aspect of the plan, in particular, caught my attention. Blunt spends a lot of time in the document fearmongering about the deficit, saying “we must put a stop to this reckless and embarrassing culture of running up the bill and passing it along to our children and grandchildren.” He even advocates rescinding the stimulus money that has yet to be spent, which amounts to a tax increase on the middle class, as $65 billion in remaining stimulus funds have already been dedicated to middle class tax cuts.

But Blunt’s concern about spending evaporates when it comes to having the federal government subsidize the real estate industry, as he calls for permanently extending the home buyers tax credit, which has mercifully expired:

Recently it was announced that new home purchases had fallen off more than 30%. Clearly people respond to tax incentives and the recently-expired home owners’ tax credit is no exception. Encouraging people who can afford it to purchase homes helps employ homebuilders, real estate workers, bank employees, and keeps liquidity in the market.

The home buyer’s tax credit was enacted as part of the stimulus and then extended a couple of times, and by all accounts it was a complete and total boondoggle, costing taxpayers billions to subsidize activity that was going to happen anyway. And Blunt wants to make it permanent, removing any pretense that it’s a measure to spur economic recovery.

According to the National Association of Realtors — the real estate industry’s own lobbying arm — only 350,000 of the first 2 million credits were claimed by buyers who would not have bought their home anyway, costing “$43,000 for every new homebuyer who would not have bought a house without the tax break” up to that point. Calculated Risk figures that, when all is said and done, the credit “will probably cost taxpayers over $100,000 for each additional home sold.”

Not only that, but millions of dollars in credits were spent inappropriately, including $9 million sent to prison inmates and another $14 million to buyers who weren’t qualified for the program. The credit was even sent to some children.

Even the credit’s staunchest supporters — like Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) — said that the credit’s “sunsetting is an incentive to drive people to the marketplace” and poo-pooed the notion of extending it forever, which pretty clearly turns it into a permanent subsidy to the real estate industry. But since Blunt has received far more money from the finance/insurance/real estate sector than any other in his career, maybe that’s precisely the point, no matter what it costs.

However, not all of Boehner’s colleagues are rushing to join his immediate call for repeal. ThinkProgress caught up with Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) — a former GOP whip and current Senate candidate — to ask him if he supported Boehner’s plan. After pausing for a few seconds, Blunt danced around the question. When pressed again, Blunt said that “it’s just a hypothetical question” and “really doesn’t matter right now”:

TP: Obviously you’ve been following the financial reform bill. I was curious, if it ends up passing – which it looks like it will – would you be in favor of repealing the bill?

BLUNT: Well, the bill does look like it’s going to pass. I think probably what the most likely thing to happen now is that people are going to have to watch and see if the difficulties for small banks – the restriction on credit – really occurs. And if it does, as I anticipate it will, we’ll have to take a second look at this bill and the country will demand it.

TP: But you wouldn’t immediately be in favor of repealing it?

BLUNT: It’s just a hypothetical question, it really doesn’t matter right now.

TP: Well, you’d voted against it before. Do you regret that vote now, or do you still think that we shouldn’t have this law – well, this bill that’s about to become a law?

Blunt: Why don’t you get back to me when the bill becomes a law?

Listen here:

As The Wonk Room’s Pat Garofalo points out, repealing the bill would mean: losing the ability to unwind failed banks without engaging in bailouts, halting the efforts to make the derivatives market more transparent, allowing risky trading to continue, and disbanding the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, among other things.

BLUNT: Access for kids who have pre-existing conditions, who would be against that? But access for adults, who have done nothing to take care of themselves, who actually will have as I’ve just described every incentive not to get insurance until the day that you know that you’re going to have medical expenses, that’s, that’s a very different kind of story.

Watch it:

In its report, KSPR notes that “Blunt says his plan offers protections for pre-existing conditions, but a check of his website shows his proposal would not stop insurance companies from denying coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.” This isn’t the first far-right health care position Blunt has taken. In July 2009, he suggested that the “government should have never” started Medicare and Medicaid.

Just days before Obama made his call for GOP health care ideas, Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) offered a radical proposal for reform in a conversation with the editorial board of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. According to a blog post by the editorial board, Bond called on Friday for giving means-tested vouchers to Medicare enrollees:

Even before he asked, Missouri’s senior U.S. senator was outlining his: Privatize Medicare and limit benefits for upper-income retirees. Meeting with Post-Dispatch editors and reporters on Friday, Mr. Bond called for radical changes to the federal health insurance program that covers 45 million elderly and disabled Americans.

Since its inception in 1965, Medicare has provided the same basic package of benefits to everyone, regardless of income. On Friday, Mr. Bond called for giving Medicare enrollees a voucher to buy health insurance on their own. “You’re going to have to means-test the benefits,” he said, adding that upper income retirees wouldn’t “get much of a voucher.”

Though Republicans like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and RNC Chairman Michael Steele have made protecting Medicare part of their argument against President Obama’s health care reform plans, Bond isn’t the alone in dreaming of dismantling the system. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) told ThinkProgress last weekend that Americans should be weaned off Medicare. In his recent alternative budget proposal and the one he released in April 2009, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) advocated giving vouchers to everyone 54 and younger instead of having them enter the traditional Medicare program. It is unclear whether Bond is referring to current enrollees or just future enrollees.

Bond also isn’t the only Missouri Republican with disdain for Medicare. In July 2009, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), who is hoping to succeed Bond after he retires, suggested to a conservative Missouri radio host that the “government should have never” started Medicare or Medicaid.

We encourage this blog to release the video of the entire interview instead of only the edited version which take his comments completely out of context.

This is what happens when you talk to reporters and have press conferences. Things can be taken out of context when you open yourself up to media on a daily basis. We are not going to take the Robin Carnahan approach of dodging questions and hiding from the media.

Today, Firedoglake released the full, unedited footage of Stark’s conversation with Blunt. Watch them here:

What was missing from the original compilation was Blunt saying that he doesn’t have “any reason not to believe” that Obama was born in the United States (in the second video above). However, he then still says that it’s a “legitimate question” to ask why Obama “can’t produce a birth certificate.” Greg Sargent noted that when he followed-up and asked Chrismer “whether Blunt believes Obama is legitimately the president,” the spokesman “sidestepped” the question.

Roy Blunt Has No Solutions (wikimedia)

Representative Roy Blunt (R-MO) explained yesterday that he has no intention of writing up an alternative health care bill, the better to be able to pretend that the right-wing has some kind of cost free magical pixie dust solution to America’s health care problems:

Republicans who had promised last month to offer a healthcare reform alternative are now suggesting no such bill will be introduced.

Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said, “Our bill is never going to get to the floor, so why confuse the focus? We clearly have principles; we could have language, but why start diverting attention from this really bad piece of work they’ve got to whatever we’re offering right now?”

Greg Sargent notes that Blunt is the head of the GOP “Health Care Solutions Group”.

Offering no bill is fine in my view, but it emphasizes that the alternative conservative solution for the real world is perpetuation of the status quo. And that’s something Steven Pearlstein had a good column about yesterday:

Among the range of options for health-care reform, there’s one that is sure to raise your taxes, increase your out-of-pocket medical expenses, swell the federal deficit, leave more Americans without insurance and guarantee that wages will remain stagnant.

That’s the option of doing nothing, letting things continue to drift as they have for the past two decades as we continue to search in vain for the perfect plan that would let everyone have everything they want and preserve everything they already have while getting someone else to pay for it.

And these are the right questions to ask. Not how does a bill look compared to an abstract alternative, but how does a bill look in comparison to continuing with business as usual.

HOST MIKE FERGUSON: What is the proper role of government, and what are the potential impacts of the direction that we’re going right now?

BLUNT: Well, you could certainly argue that government should have never have gotten in the health care business, and that might have been the best argument of all, to figure out how people could have had more access to a competitive marketplace.

Government did get into the health care business in a big way in 1965 with Medicare, and later with Medicaid, and government already distorts the marketplace.

For the record, Medicare and Medicaid were passed at the exact same, both as part of the Social Security Act of 1965. And it’s crucial to understand that Medicare, in particular, didn’t just come about because of some random bleeding heart impulse. The reason there was political muscle to get Medicare passed even though it wasn’t possible to move to a true universal system is that private health insurers wanted nothing to do with the senior citizen client base. Insurance takes advantage of risk-pooling and risk-aversion to offer people security at a price that’s both profitable and attractive. When the whole pool is bad risks, as senior citizens are, there’s no real business opportunity.

The group’s members are friendly with the health care industry — together, they collected nearly $3 million in campaign contributions from health care political action committees in 2007-08. All but five of the 16 took more than $100,000 from health care PACs.

The panel will be chaired by Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) who once bragged about blocking the expansion of SCHIP.

– Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN): “We are not babies who suck their thumbs.”

– Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO): “I think you don’t want to give too much blame to that speech.”

– Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ): “It was embarrassing for leadership on both parties to lose the bill, so they went out and made a stupid claim.”

– Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): “That speech was not the reason I voted against the bill.” [MSNBC, 9/30/08]

Watch a compilation:

Peter Wehner, a former adviser to President Bush, wrote at the Corner this morning that the effort to “blame the outcome on the Pelosi speech was an embarrassment.”

I do think that John McCain was very helpful in what he did. I saw him this morning, we’ve been talking with his staff. Clearly, yesterday, his position in that discussion yesterday was one that stopped a deal from, uh, finalizing that no House Republican, in my view, would’ve been for. Which means it probably wouldn’t have passed the House.

Watch it:

Indeed, Democrats fault McCain for derailing a potential bipartisan agreement. Yesterday, Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT) and Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) said a deal was close, but the House GOP — backed by McCain — disrupted the negotiations by proposing a plan that would not receive Democratic support.