Yes, that's the Alabama Mike Rogers who voted to support health insurance for low-income children.
Shockingly, my Representative, Mike Rogers made me proud last night in voting to override President Bush’s veto of the Labor-HHS-Education spending bill. As Mary Orndorff points out, he had a few earmarks in there, but regardless of what motivated him, it is one of the few opportunities I have had to say thank you to Rep. Rogers.
See, our Mr. Rogers won't support SCHIP because it would let states make decisions that Federal Mike may not like.
Mr. Rogers is so very, very concerned about how the federal government is managed, he's trying to force the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to include two specific drugs in its formulary. A letter from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Consumers Union, the National Women's Health Network and other consumer groups opposed Rogers' legislation, stating that
"Congress should set broad policy objectives and standards for Medicare, but
congressional intervention regarding coverage policies for specific medical products would set a terrible precedent."
"It would encourage companies making medical products as well as medical specialty organizations to constantly ask members of Congress to override scientific evidence and spend taxpayer dollars needlessly on products whose sale would benefit those companies or specialties more than they benefit patients."
In fact, Mr. Rogers is SO concerned with Guv'mint sovereignty that he wasted no time in contacting the media to express his outrage over a decision by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the Bush administration's fuel efficiency standards.
Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton, sharply criticized the ruling.
"This reckless decision overturns an important increase in fuel efficiency and an essential improvement in vehicle safety," Rogers said. "It is further proof of why we need a real energy bill that embraces innovation and stops California politicians and
judges from designing American cars and trucks."
Boy, the nerve of those California politicians! (Not to mention the 11 other states, two cities and four environmental groups that initially sued the administration and joined the appeal.)
But wait -- what about Mr. Rogers' legislative buddy, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA)? She's a California politician. She and MR have co-sponsored all kinds of legislation that would extend the reach of the federal government: things like health information technology mandates, creating a new biomedical R&D division within HHS, and the above-mentioned drug formulary.
Oh, and they thought it would be great to push for a bill to make computer servers more energy-efficient. The bill passed, including "a sense of Congress that it is in the best interests of the United States for purchasers of computer servers to give high priority to energy efficiency."
So I guess this means it's OK for California politicians to design stuff like CMS drug formularies -- just as long as they agree with Michigan politicians like Mr. Rogers.