[Chongo]

$100 million has been earmarked to go to Louisiana in an effort to buy Sen Mary Landrieu's vote on the Senate "health care" bill. What else is buried in the bill (and how much will it cost) to "encourage" wayward senators to vote for it?
The $100 Million Health Care Vote? - The Note

ABC News' Jonathan Karl reports:

What does it take to get a wavering senator to vote for health care reform?

Here’s a case study.

On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”

The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.”

I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.

In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world: Louisiana. (This may also help explain why the bill is long.)

Senator Harry Reid, who drafted the bill, cannot pass it without the support of Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu.

How much does it cost? According to the Congressional Budget Office: $100 million.

[ghporter]

Mississippi also suffered immensely at the same time only the southernmost parts of Louisiana were a "major disaster area." I'll bet it has to have some pretty easy to identify wording to make it only apply to LA and not MS.

From a realistic standpoint though, both LA and MS have been working at a significant disadvantage since Katrina, and that's only been exacerbated by the recession. They really do deserve extra attention because there were no major executive bork ups, no investment stupidity and no wanton corruption that gave them this trouble-it was all hurricanes.

[Chuckit]

Googling around, it looks like Florida was declared a major disaster area in 2004, which is less than seven years ago.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

$100 million has been earmarked to go to Louisiana in an effort to buy Sen Mary Landrieu's vote on the Senate "health care" bill. What else is buried in the bill (and how much will it cost) to "encourage" wayward senators to vote for it?
The $100 Million Health Care Vote? - The Note

Hmm, another example of Congressional pork-barrel subsidies designed to gain votes from Congressional colleagues. Whodathunkit!?!


And you are surprised by this Chongo? Members of Congress have been doing this for a long time*. At least there is some, just some, legitimacy to this spending as the people of Louisiana suffered greatly as a result of Hurricane Katrina. Although to couch it in such specific "technical" language so the requirement applies only to Louisiana is surprising. Congress could have explicitly specified it was for Louisiana in response to Hurricane Katrina and still made sure their "bribe" achieved its desired effect.

*See the $200 million allocated for the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska for an example where Republicans spent money on "one of their own".


Of course, I am going to call you a hypocrite again. Because here you are complaining when Democrats use earmarks/pork/bribes to get some of their caucus members to vote in a desired way yet I don't recall you complaining when Republicans used earmarks/pork/bribes to get some of their caucus members to vote in a desired way. However, if you have complained when Republicans have used earmarks/pork/bribes to get some of their caucus members to vote in a desired way please point me to the posts where you have done so and I will willingly and publicly apologize for calling you a hypocrite on this matter.

PS: As for me, I think this vote-buying by the Democrats stinks. But I also think it stinks when it is done by the Republicans. I think earmarks and pork-barrel spending are horrific abuses of the Congressional "power of the purse".

[BadKosh]

The magnitude of this crap is what is alarming. All for a big waste of bucks and lots of new harsh regulations.

We have 350 million folks in this country. The healthcare bill the senate is offering still doesn't cover everyone. They say it will cover 94 percent. So what is 6 percent of 350 million? 21 million. That's about half of the 37 million the dems have said are without health care. Is all this crap and waste worth only helping 1/2 of the supposed folks without health care? Why not directly pay for them to have health care, and then only change the rules the insurance companies have to obey by adding "you can't be denied a policy" ??? This would do the same thing without all the waste, regulations, new taxes and such the idiot Dems have proposed in spite of a majority not wanting their health care system tampered with by these inept jackass politicians!

[Dork.]

OK, I'll play the Devil's Advocate here. Not because I like pork-barrel projects. But let's face it, most people's definition of pork is "money that is targeted at someone else's district". When voters evaluate the performance of their Representative or Senator, they are likely to look at the amount of Federal aid that is brought in to help establish new businesses or keep old ones in town, to establish the local University as a research magnet, even to rebuild after natural disasters. In short, these folks are being evaluated on how well they "bring home the bacon" (pun intended).

I'm sure that if the bill passes and Landrieu votes for it, her opponent may run campaign commercials criticizing her vote. But I doubt her opponent will run any ads decrying the $100 million as pork, since it's the citizens of Louisiana who are benefitting from this. Why would they complain?

Go ahead and wail and gnash teeth over pork if you like, just remember that horse-trading and back-scratching is part of politics, no matter what they say during the campaign. Members of Congress will quickly pledge to eliminate wasteful spending in the form of pork and earmarks that do not benefit the folks who vote for them. Just don't be surprised when they find some way to justify it when it will bring money to their district....

[BadKosh]

So I guess it will be up to conservatives to repeal the healthPORK bill, and create some other savings by eliminating some useless gov't agencies like HHS, Education, Energy, and perhaps pair down Commerce. SS, since it's bankrupt needs to have it's rolls closed too.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

the healthPORK bill

Such CUTTING language! Do you come up with this stuff yourself or do you have a team of crack writers helping you out??

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So I guess it will be up to conservatives to repeal the healthPORK bill, and create some other savings by eliminating some useless gov't agencies like HHS, Education, Energy, and perhaps pair down Commerce. SS, since it's bankrupt needs to have it's rolls closed too.

Good luck with that. Conservatives have already tried making government so small you could drown it in the bathtub, and it didn't work out too well....

[Chongo]

Sen. Landrieu has made a correction. It's not $100 million, it's $300 million.
Dana Milbank - Sweeteners for the South

Sweeteners for the South

By Dana Milbank
Sunday, November 22, 2009

Staffers on Capitol Hill were calling it the Louisiana Purchase.

On the eve of Saturday's showdown in the Senate over health-care reform, Democratic leaders still hadn't secured the support of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), one of the 60 votes needed to keep the legislation alive. The wavering lawmaker was offered a sweetener: at least $100 million in extra federal money for her home state.

And so it came to pass that Landrieu walked onto the Senate floor midafternoon Saturday to announce her aye vote -- and to trumpet the financial "fix" she had arranged for Louisiana. "I am not going to be defensive," she declared. "And it's not a $100 million fix. It's a $300 million fix."

[turtle777]

WTF ?

Didn't Obama promise to put an end to pork ?

Yeah, he's laughing real hard at all those naive voters that believed his Hope / Change crap.

-t

[ghporter]

I personally believe that, with the number of states that have been declared "major disaster areas" in the last 7 years, $100M is peanuts. It may be enough to get starter loans for business set up, but it's not going to be a lot of money for a lot of people. Making a big thing out of this relatively small (in governmental terms) amount of money, even if it all went to Louisiana, is not terribly useful. How many businesses in southern LA were severely impacted by storms in the last 7 years? How many homeowners lost everything there? $100M is $10k for 10,000 people-Not enough to be useful for bribery, or really to get much done at all. If it is pork (which is questionable), then it's low grade pork that will only be good for talking about, not keeping someone elected.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I personally believe that, with the number of states that have been declared "major disaster areas" in the last 7 years, $100M is peanuts.

That's not the point.

What's shady is the obvious way of combining the financial help with getting a vote for a controversial bill that would otherwise NOT receive a vote from that person.

-t

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

That's not the point.

What's shady is the obvious way of combining the financial help with getting a vote for a controversial bill that would otherwise NOT receive a vote from that person.

-t

It's only shady if it's not worthwhile. Have you seen how far the Mississippi Gulf Coast still has to go to get back to pre-Katrina? Parts of Florida are still having a rough time from storms as well, and of course south Louisiana is full of people who had everything taken away by storms. Providing additional Medicaid support for these people ain't pork, unless the money doesn't really go to them. If it's all going to businesses (which could and probably do have links to the congresscritters) and not Medicaid recipients, that's a different thing.

It is a very longstanding tradition to help get tough bills through with amendments and extra chapters that address stuff not on the topic of the bill's title. It's part of that whole political compromise thing. And while I would really like to see a basic rule established in both houses to keep off-topic chapters and amendments out of bills, that doesn't mean that my wish is either feasible or useful.

I haven't been able to find the actual text of the bill so I could see exactly what the definition of who would get money is, nor what the money would go for. If someone could post that, or at least a link to the bill, that could help things out a whole lot. If the wording is not on the up and up, then it'll be time for me to contact my own representatives and let them know how I feel about this sort of back room stuff. But if it's kosher, then I'll let my representatives know that this particular part of the bill deserves attention-and maybe even its own bill if the controversy over the Reid bill kills it.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

It's only shady if it's not worthwhile.

So the ends justify the means. I'm afraid this is the current administration's main guiding principle.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Providing additional Medicaid support for these people ain't pork, unless the money doesn't really go to them. If it's all going to businesses (which could and probably do have links to the congresscritters) and not Medicaid recipients, that's a different thing.

Of course they should get Medicare, the same as everyone else.

For anything beyond that, there should be some extra funding, OUTSIDE of the health care bill discussion.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

It is a very longstanding tradition to help get tough bills through with amendments and extra chapters that address stuff not on the topic of the bill's title. It's part of that whole political compromise thing. And while I would really like to see a basic rule established in both houses to keep off-topic chapters and amendments out of bills, that doesn't mean that my wish is either feasible or useful.

See, that's the problem with politics. Their shady ways of doing thins have brought this country to the brink of disaster, and now they are going full force ahead down the cliff, doing same old same old.

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

healthPORK bill

I believe this entire health care debate thing will be won by whoever creates the most and cleverest adjectives to describe it from their perspective. Kudos, B@dK0sh. Although, I would gone for a swine flu riff.

[Chongo]

Health care reform has nothing top do with health care reform. It is solely about securing power for another generation or longer. I can see the ads now: "Candidate X and the Republicans want to take your health care away!" We hear this every cycle with Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. The ironic thing is that both the House and Senate bill reduce Medicare/Medicaid benefits as part of the funding mechanism.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

So the ends justify the means. I'm afraid this is the current administration's main guiding principle.

That's not what I said at all. Shady means (to me anyway) making someone rich so they'll vote for you or your bill. Putting in a relatively trivial sum to help people whose Medicaid benefits may be in jeopardy (and making the guy you're trying to get to vote for your bill look good to his constituents) is anything but shady.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Of course they should get Medicare, the same as everyone else.

For anything beyond that, there should be some extra funding, OUTSIDE of the health care bill discussion.

MedicAID benefits are funded through the states and administered by the states. These benefits can be cut, withheld, limited, or otherwise goofed with depending on how bad off the state budget is. This IS a health care issue, and while it's not central to an overall rework of health funding in the US, it is at least related. That's a far cry from some other add-ons that might fund milk farm research in a highway bill or the like.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

See, that's the problem with politics. Their shady ways of doing thins have brought this country to the brink of disaster, and now they are going full force ahead down the cliff, doing same old same old.

-t

Why is it only shady if elected officials do it? It's the same thing that keeps business moving in any even slightly capitalist setup. "You do something for me, I'll do something for you." As long as it's up front and public, how is it shady?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Why is it only shady if elected officials do it? It's the same thing that keeps business moving in any even slightly capitalist setup. "You do something for me, I'll do something for you." As long as it's up front and public, how is it shady?

I gotta disagree. This is *NOT* a business transaction. This is about a vote.

There should be differences between those two transactions.

-t

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

That's not what I said at all. Shady means (to me anyway) making someone rich so they'll vote for you or your bill. Putting in a relatively trivial sum to help people whose Medicaid benefits may be in jeopardy (and making the guy you're trying to get to vote for your bill look good to his constituents) is anything but shady.
MedicAID benefits are funded through the states and administered by the states. These benefits can be cut, withheld, limited, or otherwise goofed with depending on how bad off the state budget is. This IS a health care issue, and while it's not central to an overall rework of health funding in the US, it is at least related. That's a far cry from some other add-ons that might fund milk farm research in a highway bill or the like.
Why is it only shady if elected officials do it? It's the same thing that keeps business moving in any even slightly capitalist setup. "You do something for me, I'll do something for you." As long as it's up front and public, how is it shady?

Are you REALLY asking why it is shady to buy a vote with tax money?

It's not like senators and congressmen are not personally benefitting from this type of thing. It attracts campaign money (as well as bribes) which keeps these people in power. Not to mention, if someone retires or fails his election bid, where does all that campaign money go?

[ghporter]

"Buying" a vote is something that happens behind closed doors. Concessions that actually fit with the spirit of the basic bill are not buying votes. While this bill, like many, is so large that it's hard to call this process "transparent," it is still public information, there for all to see. If it came out later that someone offered specific legislators' family members juicy contracts if said legislators would vote in a certain way, that would be buying votes. This particular bit of this particular bill is neither "vote buying" nor particularly shady. It may not be "noble and altruistic," but it's not shady.

If you don't like the process, explain it to your elected representatives, along with why you don't like it. Suggest they alter the rules in their respective houses so that there is no such concession in any bill in the future. It's worth a shot. But I doubt it will get you anywhere, because as I said, this is the whole "quid pro quo" process that gets any legislation through. Again, not terribly noble, but it's up front and effective. And for the record, I'm not defending the practice, just pointing out that there's nothing illicit about it.