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 ...
If they throw out Nelson’s ammendment I’m pretty sure Landreau’s will be out the door.
Which may well have been part of the backup plan right along. They can both shrug shoulders and claim they tried to do something for their state.
And this thing about the 51/60 votes...I saw a big thread right here on Breaking News just the other day claiming 60 votes would still be needed to pass this thing.
Does anybody have the REAL answer?
That is correct. Nelson got nothing but cover. And that is failing as well.
Nelson must vote for final passage as an AYE or he will enrage Nebraska further and look even more like a whore.
I don’t believe he is wavering, and I also believe that he greatly underestimated the degree of outrage and opposition that is out there — from coast to coast, including Nebraska.
Whenever he next lands in Lincoln or Omaha or wherever, I hope his “vacation” becomes a living Hell from the moment he arrives at the airport.
60 votes are required to open the floor to debate, and to close debate. Only 51 are required to pass.
Here is the real answer.
This week: Once the cloture votes are secure (they are), now Reid only needs 51 on final passage.
In 2010, however, whether there is a conference report or if they play ping-pong between the two chambers, the Senate will require another cloture vote — thus requiring 60 votes to shut off debate. Anyone who says anything to the contrary is wrong.
“Constitution? We don’ need no stinkin’ Constitution!”
So can the other 49 states export their Medicaid populations to Nebraska? If I was Arnold, I’d fund moving expenses for all the poor in Cali....
60 votes are required to open the floor to debate, and to close debate. Only 51 are required to pass.
==========
From MW18787
Here is the real answer.
This week: Once the cloture votes are secure (they are), now Reid only needs 51 on final passage.
In 2010, however, whether there is a conference report or if they play ping-pong between the two chambers, the Senate will require another cloture vote — thus requiring 60 votes to shut off debate. Anyone who says anything to the contrary is wrong.
=========
Okay. First, MW and EZ, thank you both for your quick responses. I've quoted you both above.
There's a difference in your answers. Now they could both be right but I've been going round and round with this point and can't seem to get any two people to give me the same answer.
Let me state now that I do understand that the truth is that only 51 votes is ever needed; that the 60 vote thing is a SENATE rule only, not anything in the constitution.
EZ says you only need 51 votes to pass but require 60 votes to re-open the debate. Well if you need 60 votes for cloture it makes sense that to reopen you would need 60 votes.
MW says that a 60 vote will be needed whether there's a conference report or not....specifically to "reopen" the debate.
Could be you are both saying the same thing...the part about "reopening" the debate? But why would you need to reopen the debate if there are no changes in the conference report?
And to clarify please EZ's assertion that only 51 are needed to pass it....would this a 51 "nuclear" option or a 51 "budget reconciliation" option?
Cause first time one party violates that senate gentlemen's agreement about filibusters and 60 vote rules there will be no need to ever adhere to it again. It's why it's considered a nuclear option and neither party wants to be the one to throw it overboard for the time when THEY gain power.
I understand that the 51 vote rule is considered okay for budget items that such simple things are not held up by filibusters and the like.
I hope there will be thousands at the airport to welcome their hero Senator Ben Nelson home.
Rather than “questioning” the deal, the ten states should mobilize their national guards. Just like when Nevada and California came to almost war with each other over water fights in the 30’s.
Couldn’t this be considered essentially a “bill of attainder”, since it is penalizing the taxpayers of certain states because their senators did not vote in favor of the bill?
This could be the spark, not the tinder.
Once Reid closes debate this week (dunno if next cloture vote was earlier today or tonight), he only needs 51 on final passage tomorrow morning. The 60 is to shut off debate, the 51 is to pass the bill.
In 2010, when there is a conference report or ping-pong process, the Senate will not require a cloture vote to start debate; they will need another cloture vote (60) to again shut off debate. If they secure the next 60, then they can proceed to final passage with 51.
It is hoped that the 60 this week is Reid’s high water mark; that he’ll never again be able to muster 60 when the House makes the bill more liberal. Ben Nelson may come running back to filibuster the bill when he experiences the intense Hell he is about to endure.
10? Why not 49 states. Or, in Obama’s math, 56 states.
bump
See my post #51. I didn’t forget her, I just haven’t heard enough about her. I do really like the fact that she is not a career politician!
I can agree with that! But still, I would like to see Medina to well!
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.