Cash For Cloture

Found this interesting piece-

On health-care bill, Democratic senators are in states of denial

By Dana Milbank
Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Formally, it is known as H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But this week, it has acquired an unhelpful nickname: "Cash for Cloture."

As Senate Democrats finally complete their health-care legislation, those combing through the bill have uncovered many backroom deals that were made to buy, er, secure the 60 votes needed to "invoke cloture" -- the legislative term for cutting off debate and holding a final vote.

It will take years to see how well the measure reduces costs and expands insurance coverage. But already, the bill has been a bonanza for wordsmiths.

First there was the "Louisiana Purchase," $100 million in extra Medicaid money for the Bayou State, requested by Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.).

Then came the "Cornhusker Kickback," another $100 million in extra Medicaid money, this time for Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.).

This was followed by word that Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) had written into the legislation $100 million meant for a medical center in his state. This one was quickly dubbed the "U Con."

-----------

For Democratic leaders, this created an appearance problem. Fortunately, they had removed from the bill the tax on cosmetic procedures (the "Botax") and replaced it with a tax on tanning (which would primarily impact House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio).

-----------

Gator Aid: Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) inserted a grandfather clause that would allow Floridians to preserve their pricey Medicare Advantage program.

Handout Montana: Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) secured Medicare coverage for anybody exposed to asbestos -- as long as they worked in a mine in Libby, Mont.

Iowa Pork and Omaha Prime Cuts: Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) won more Medicare money for low-volume hospitals of the sort commonly found in Iowa, while Nebraska's Nelson won a "carve out" provision that would reduce fees for Mutual of Omaha and other Nebraska insurers.

Meanwhile, Sens. Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad, both North Dakota Democrats, would enjoy a provision bringing higher Medicare payments to hospitals and doctors in "frontier counties" of states such as -- let's see here -- North Dakota!

Hawaii, with two Democratic senators, would get richer payments to hospitals that treat many uninsured people. Michigan, home of two other Democrats, would earn higher Medicare payments and some reduced fees for Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Vermont's Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) held out for larger Medicaid payments for his state (neighboring Massachusetts would get some, too).

------------

That's what legislation is all about: It's the art of compromise," Reid said when asked about the fairness of it all. "So this legislation is no different than the defense bill we just spent $600 billion on." That would be the bill with more than 1,700 pet-project earmarks. "It's no different than other pieces of legislation," Reid continued.

And that's just the problem.

Click to expand...

The payoffs mount

By Boston Herald Editorial Staff
Tuesday, December 22, 2009

If anyone other than Senate majority leader Harry Reid had cut the kind of deals he did to pass the health care bill, he’d soon be on his way to prison.

But when the Democratic leader has to buy votes - with our tax dollars - well, it’s all part of the game. That “the game” had to be played out in the middle of the night as the rest of Washington was snow-bound tells us everything we need to know about the political desperation to get something passed and the fear that sooner or later American voters will catch on to the scam.

To cobble together the 60 votes needed to ram this bill through, Reid had to cut deals that will cost us all. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) was the critical 60th vote and it sure paid off for his home state. We’ll pay for 100 percent of Nebraska’s Medicaid expansion - forever.

Medicare reimbursement rates will be cut everywhere, except they will increase in states where at least 50 percent of the counties are “frontier counties” (defined as having a population density of less than six people per square mile). Montana (home of Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus), North and South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming fit that description.

-----------

Votes For Sale in the Senate

By Michael Gerson

WASHINGTON -- Sometimes there is a fine ethical line between legislative maneuvering and bribery. At other times, that line is crossed by a speeding, honking tractor-trailer, with outlines of shapely women on mud flaps bouncing as it rumbles past.

Such was the case in the final hours of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's successful attempt to get cloture on health care reform. Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, the last Democratic holdout, was offered and accepted a permanent exemption from his state's share of Medicaid expansion, amounting to $100 million over 10 years.

Afterward, Reid was unapologetic. "You'll find," he said, "a number of states that are treated differently than other states. That's what legislating is all about."

But legislating, presumably, is also about giving public reasons for the expenditure of public funds. Are Cornhuskers particularly sickly and fragile? Is there a malaria outbreak in Grand Island? Ebola detected in Lincoln?

Reid didn't even attempt to offer a reason why Medicaid in Nebraska should be treated differently from, say, Medicaid across the Missouri River in Iowa. The majority leader bought a vote with someone else's money. Does this conclusion sound harsh? Listen to Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who accused the Senate leadership and the administration of "backroom deals that amount to bribes," and "seedy Chicago politics" that "personifies the worst of Washington."

This special deal for Nebraska raises an immediate question: Why doesn't every Democratic senator demand the same treatment for their state? Eventually, they will. After the Nelson deal was announced, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa enthused, "When you look at it, I thought well, God, good, it is going to be the impetus for all the states to stay at 100 percent (coverage by the federal government). So he might have done all of us a favor." In a single concession, Reid undermined the theory of Medicaid -- designed as a shared burden between states and the federal government -- and added to future federal deficits.

Unless this little sweetener is stripped from the final bill by a House-Senate conference committee in January, leaving Nelson with a choice. He could enrage his party by blocking health reform for the sake of $100 million -- making the narrowness of his interests clear to everyone. Or he could give in -- looking not only venal but foolish.

How did Nelson gain such leverage in the legislative process in the first place? Because many assumed that his objections to abortion coverage in the health bill were serious -- not a cover, but a conviction. Nelson, a rare pro-life Democrat, insisted in an interview he would not be a "cheap date." Republican leadership staffers in the Senate thought he might insist on language in the health care bill preventing public funds from going to insurance plans that cover abortion on demand, as Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak had done in the House.

Instead, Nelson caved. The "compromise" he accepted allows states to prohibit the coverage of elective abortions in their own insurance exchanges. Which means that Nebraska taxpayers may not be forced to subsidize insurance plans that cover abortions in Nebraska. But they will certainly be required to subsidize such plans in California, New York and many other states.

In the end, Nelson not only surrendered his own beliefs, he betrayed the principle of the Hyde Amendment, which since 1976 has prevented the coverage of elective abortion in federally funded insurance. Nelson not only violated his own pro-life convictions, he may force millions of Americans to violate theirs as well.

------------

The Price of 'History'

Wall Street Journal

Harry Reid delivers a bundle of special-interest favors.



Blanche Lincoln and Evan Bayh must feel like saps. The Arkansas and Indiana Democrats spent months caterwauling about this or that provision in the Senate health-care bill, then at 1 a.m. Monday they voted to speed its passage without getting so much as a lousy T-shirt.

In Harry Reid's Senate, this qualifies as dereliction of duty, as the Majority Leader said himself on Monday in defense of his frantic deal-making to get 60 votes. "I don't know if there is a Senator that doesn't have something in this bill that was important to them," Mr. Reid said at a press conference that offered an unintentional commentary on modern democracy. "And if they don't have something in it important to them, then it doesn't speak well of them."

James Madison, phone home.

Truth be told, even Tom DeLay must be jealous of Mr. Reid's handiwork. We summarize some of his most notorious political payoffs nearby, including the legendary $300 million "Louisiana Purchase" for Mary Landrieu, and $100 million for Chris Dodd's favorite Connecticut hospital.

But special attention should go to Senator Ben Nelson, who played hard-to-get the longest and in return for being the 60th vote won an exemption for Nebraska from paying any of the additional costs for the bill's Medicaid expansion, which is worth $100 million. He also won millions of dollars of exemptions from the $6.7 billion in health insurance fees for Nebraska-based companies like Mutual of Omaha.

This is the same Senator who declared a few weeks ago that "my vote is not for sale." Well, he never said: at any price.

At first, Mr. Nelson defended his Medicaid buy-off as a service to his constituents, two-thirds of whom tell pollsters they oppose the overall bill. But the lucre was denounced by Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman and Republican Senator Mike Johanns.

"Nebraskans don't want a special deal," said Mr. Johanns. "The special deal for Nevada was wrong, the carve-outs for Louisiana, Vermont, and Massachusetts are wrong, and the same applies to the backroom deal for Nebraska. All of the special deals should be removed. If the bill cannot pass without carve-outs, what further evidence is needed that it is bad policy?"

But Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin replied that Mr. Nelson's Cornhusker kickback was merely an example all 50 states will soon follow. "Every Governor in the country is going to say, why doesn't our state" get that Medicaid deal, Mr. Harkin said, and the Nelson connivance is "going to be the impetus for" the federal government to pay 100% of the extra Medicaid costs for all the states.

And, sure enough, Mr. Nelson admitted yesterday amid a defensive near-meltdown on the Senate floor that "Three Senators came up to me just now on the [Senate] floor and said, 'Now we understand what you did. We'll be seeking this funding too.'" Mr. Nelson now says "it's not a special deal for Nebraska. It is in fact an opportunity to get rid of an unfunded federal mandate."

--------------

I don't find these articles very interesting. First of all, they treat something that has existed in every session of congress and every large bill I've ever heard of, as if it is a unique phenomenon. Second of all, they focus on that, rather than whether or not the legislation will succeed, or whether or not it is very wise.

Usually, useful scrutiny of anything involves some kind of cost-benefit analysis. These articles are just collections of jokey words by goofballs banking on the fact that many of us don't know anything about the nature of pork barrel spending, or for that matter, what even happens in Congress.

So are you saying your ok with the way this is going down?

Strucky said:

So are you saying your ok with the way this is going down?

Click to expand...

???

I never have been.

I'd like read to articles about the bill, that are about the bill. Pretending that pork barrel spending is new to this congress or unique to this bill is not "interesting."

niftydrifty said:

???

I never have been.

I'd like read to articles about the bill, that are about the bill. Pretending that pork barrel spending is new to this congress or unique to this bill is not "interesting."

Click to expand...

Show me where I ever claimed this was something new.I railed against it when Republicans did it,now I'm doing the same for Democrats.

Strucky said:

Show me where I ever claimed this was something new.I railed against it when Republicans did it,now I'm doing the same for Democrats.

Click to expand...

Now this is just bizarre. You ask me if I am saying something I never said, then you ask me to show you where you claim something I never said you did.

niftydrifty said:

Now this is just bizarre. You ask me if I am saying something I never said, then you ask me to show you where you claim something I never said you did.

Click to expand...

Nope,based it off of this-

niftydrifty said:

These articles are just collections of jokey words by goofballs banking on the fact that many of us don't know anything about the nature of pork barrel spending, or for that matter, what even happens in Congress.

Click to expand...

Strucky said:

Nope,based it off of this-

Click to expand...

Well, this is going nowhere fast. When I write about what was written an article, FYI, I'm not talking about something that you didn't say.

I only asked because it seemed to me you were defending the process.Since you were not,I apologize for asking.

Here is a good site for pork barrel spending-

Citizens Against Government Waste Homepage