Barrow did the right thing
Editor,
Regarding your column "John Barrow's vote too far":
John Barrow's vote against the Pelosi Health Care bill should come as no surprise to anyone. I believe your interview with Congressman Barrow, a few months ago, indicated just that. Given the fact that Barrow is part of the "Blue Dog" contingency, his fiscal conservativeness was going to override any desires he might have had about healthcare reform.
Regardless of the "need" for reform, this bill, with its 1,900 pages and $2 trillion price tag should have made more members of Congress reluctant to cast a yes vote, if only for not having enough time to ready the thing. Mr. Barrow has said that if the numbers aren't right, he wouldn't support it. When the politically neutral Congressional Budget Office's numbers indicated this bill was going to cost more than the sponsors were letting on, Mr. Barrow's vote was already cast as a 'NO.'
As for Mr. Barrow's political longevity, that remains to be seen and depends on who challenges him. A challenger for the Democratic primary will have to come up with a lot more than finger pointing over which bills he did or didn't support. His fiscal responsibility can be explained in the grand scheme of things.
And there's no indication that Republicans won't vote for him either if the challenger isn't perceived as strong enough to beat Barrow. It's the same way RINOs have survived election cycles. Frustrating, isn't it?
J. Stevens
Barrow should serve district's needs
Editor,
Call ‘em as they lay, Jim. Be critical and sharp. I think your strongest points were the simple ones—who are we as a district and what do we need?
E.G. Daves Rossell
