Posted on 12/23/2009 12:13:54 PM PST by reaganaut1
At least 10 states are now raising questions about the legality of the deal that Senator Ben Nelson, a Democrat, cut for his home state of Nebraska during the health care negotiations.
Under the agreement, which is on the verge of being approved Thursday by the Senate, Nebraska is permanently exempt from paying for its expansion of Medicaid, shoving that cost onto taxpayers in every other state.
Mr. Nelson was able to exercise such leverage because in exchange, he was providing the magical 60th vote that Democrats needed to advance their health care bill.
The deal has enraged other Senators, especially those from red states, whose Republican Senators didn’t bring home any pork at all because they were not part of the negotiations with Democratic leaders. Several other Democratic Senators did get concessions for their states, but no deal has hit the nerve struck by Mr. Nelson’s.
Attorneys general in at least 10 states held a conference call late Tuesday to consider how they might challenge the deal, which they call federally subsidized vote-buying.
Some say it is certainly unfair and may be unconstitutional.
Troy King, the attorney general in Alabama, told MSNBC on Wednesday that the Constitution was not written to allow “the subsidization of a backroom deal.”
The Constitution, he said, was written to protect citizens from arbitrary and capricious decisions by Congress, not “for Congress to force Alabama to subsidize vote-buying.”
...
Could the growing backlash threaten passage of the health care bill? Mr. Nelson has said that he would vote for the bill only if nothing in it were changed. That makes it seem unlikely that Democratic leaders would try to undo the bill before the Thursday vote because doing so could threaten final passage.
(Excerpt) Read more at prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com ...
bookmark
Even if the constitutionality of this provision in the bill it would only address Nelson’s bribe. The remainder of the bill would remain intact.
Mr Nelson has said a lot of things, none of which are to be believed.
All the Dem leadership has to do is remove this provision from the bill in conference committee. They only need 51 senators to pass it now.
At least it would be nice to see that Nelson sold out for squat.
I read a day or so ago about several states that were going to sue over this (bill and Nelson, I think).
Hopefully it would go straight to the USSC. Then, with it’s make-up now ... the decision is any body’s guess.
Mr. Nelson was able to exercise such leverage because in exchange, he was providing the magical 60th vote
++++++++++++++++++
To the RAT mind, that’s ALL that matters. Not history, not the US Constitution, not the will of the American people.
RATS are sickeningly CORRUPT period.
Yep, even Nelson can vote “no” now and try to salvage himself with enraged Nebraskans.
It’s past time we enforce the 10th Amendment and remind Congress just who created it.
The deal has enraged other Senators, especially those from red states, whose Republican Senators didn’t bring home any pork at all because they were not part of the negotiations with Democratic leaders.
+++++++++++++++
Uh, so what mattered was the pork? Leave it to the New York Slimes...
Nelson you dumbass whore; they are going to take your 30 pieces of silver away from you and put abortion funding back in at conference committee. Then it will be too late for you to stop the bill and you will have nothing.
I’m sure he knows it’ll be knocked down in the Supreme Court, but he’ll brag he got it put in for NE anyhow.
-PJ
Yep, even Nelson can vote “no” now and try to salvage himself with enraged Nebraskans.
+++++++++++++++
Too bad it won’t work. I think he’s GONE. Sellout - and with his talk about pro-life to boot...grrr...
Just curious... why do they only need 51 votes NOW? i thought the nuclear option was for “budget” reasons....
There’s some blue ones that should too. Fools.
Nelson is a Democrat. He will vote the way is party dictates - regardless of the payoff.
In the perverted minds of the liberal socialists, “some states are more equal than others.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.