SEN. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., exacted a special price for his vote on the Senate health-care bill. Opening up the Medicaid program to 15 million more Americans over the next decade will cost the states billions of dollars — but not Ben Nelson's state. For Nebraska, the cost, estimated at $100 million through 2016, will be paid by the federal government.
The Republicans called this the "Cornhusker Kickback." It is a cute way to label it corruption — which it is. It is the bending of a federal law in order to buy the vote of one legislator.
Federal law is supposed to be uniform. It's a concept that shines through several places in the Constitution, which calls for a "uniform rule of Naturalization" and "uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2010590771_edit28bennelson.html
Very interesting. I'm moving to Nebraska. But wait! It gets better.
COLUMBIA, S.C. – Republican attorneys general in 13 states say congressional leaders must remove Nebraska's political deal from the federal health care reform bill or face legal action, according to a letter provided to The Associated Press Wednesday.
"We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed," South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster and the 12 other attorneys general wrote in the letter to be sent Wednesday night to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
"As chief legal officers of our states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision," they wrote.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091231...WMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrAzEzc3RhdGVhZ3N0aA
So, why is it potentially unconstitutional? Going back to the Seattle Times article--
The Constitution says, "All Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
Uniform — that word, again.
The most sweeping power in the Constitution is the regulation of commerce. After granting that power, the Constitution makes it uniform by saying, "No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the ports of one state over those of another."
No preference. All states to be under the same rule.
The op-ed isn't gospel. The US Constitution is. So, it makes me wonder: is Reid willing to sacrifice the Constitution in order to force through the health care plan?
"You’ll find a number of states that are treated differently than other states," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid acknowledged over the weekend. "That's what legislating is all about. It's compromise."
Wow. A legal lesson for the ages.
If the "Cornhusker Kickback" is removed from the legislation, will Nelson change his vote? If he does, does anyone accuse him of corruption?
But it also got me curious. What else was tacked onto the health care bill? Well, take a look at this tally from
CBS.
The "Louisiana Purchase," of course, is the name given to the United States' acquisition of a large swath of what is now the middle of the country in the early 1800s. But within the context of the health bill, it's the name critics have given the inclusion of $100-$300 million in added federal aid for Medicaid recipients in Louisiana, the home state of Sen. Mary Landrieu. (
Notes Foxnews.com: "The actual Louisiana Purchase was considerably cheaper.")
On his twitter feed, McCain
described the "Florida Flim Flam" as "a deal to grandfather Medicare Advantage enrollees in Florida – apprx $5 Billion." That provision is tied to Florida Democrat Bill Nelson, who
denies that he negotiated a special deal for Democratic south Florida.
The New York Times
details how Minnesota Democrat Max Baucus, one of the main authors of the Senate bill, included in the legislation an expansion of Medicare to cover people exposed to asbestos from a Libby, Mont., mine. (Said Baucus in defending the provision: "The people of Libby were poisoned and have been dying for more than a decade.")
There's a few more special interests for specific states, and according to my trusty calculator just the few CBS listed increased the price of the bill by $5,455,000,000.
So what are your thoughts? Willing to toss the Constitution in order to provide universal and mandatory health insurance? (if it were universal health care, it'd be free) Is it okay for the states to be treated differently and on a preferential basis when it comes to the increased costs of Medicare over the next decade? How many special interest addendums are too many? One? Five? None unless they're for your state?
