Sayonara To The Senate

Although everyone will be focusing on the presidential election come 2012, the battle for the majority in the Senate will be at least as interesting.

In 2011, a surprising number of Senators announced they would not run for re-election.  The last was Senator Ben Nelson — the Nebraska Senator who was criticized, here and elsewhere, for shabby politicking in connection with the passage of the “health care reform” legislation.  In all, seven Democratic Senators will be retiring, along with two Republicans.  The retirement decisions make the current Democratic majority in the Senate particularly perilous, because Democrats are defending 23 seats this election cycle, compared to only 10 Republican seats that are up for challenge.

The Washington Post‘s political blog, The Fix, rates the most interesting 2012 Senate races, and one of its top 10 is incumbent Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown’s battle to win reelection against the apparent Republican challenger, State Treasurer Josh Mandel.  Ohio is always a bellwether, and the race between Brown and Mandel may tell us a lot about which way the country is leaning.

One thing is certain:  there will be a number of newcomers in the Senate in 2013.  This will be a good thing, because the current Senate has been an embarrassing, inert body that has virtually no accomplishments to its name.

It Takes Crust

Gramma Webner hailed from Uhrichsville, Ohio.  When someone said or did something that was really brazen, she would say:  “That takes crust.”  That was my reaction when I read this statement from Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson about yesterday’s election of Scott Brown to the Senate.  The first paragraph of the statement takes the cake:

“Clearly, the vote showed that people are frustrated with Washington…and I am too.  That frustration will likely register across the board for all incumbents. The overriding message from yesterday is that people are upset because Washington is dysfunctional and not working together for them.”

Of course, many Americans — and probably many of the people who voted for Brown — are frustrated with Washington precisely because of people like Nelson, his crass Cornhusker Kickback, and his willingness to sell his vote in exchange for special perks for his home state of Nebraska.  His crude politicking showed that he didn’t want to “work together” — he wanted to get special deals for his constituents at the expense of other Americans.  The notion that Nelson even understands, much less shares, the frustration felt by so many Americans is laughable, and his effort to align himself with the people who voted for Brown shows a real contempt for the intelligence of Americans.  We can only hope that the people of Nebraska, at the first opportunity, relieve Senator Nelson of the job that he claims to find so frustrating and send him back to the Cornhusker State where, perhaps, he can find out once again how real people live, work, and think.

The Nebraska “Compromise” (Fin)

Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson — who agreed to vote in favor of cloture of Senate debate in exchange for a number of special provisions in the “health care reform” bill, including one that required the federal government to forever pay Nebraska’s share of increased costs attributable to proposed expansion of Medicaid — has retreated in the face of a firestorm of criticism.  Nelson has sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid saying that the deal has been misunderstood and misrepresented, that Nelson never intended Nebraska to get special treatment, and that the provision should just be eliminated from the bill to avoid any further misunderstandings.  Reid, who struck the devil’s bargain with Nelson in the first place in order to secure Nelson’s vote, probably chuckled when he got the letter.

Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson

This development brings to a close the sorry spectacle of what I have called the Nebraska “Compromise” and what others have called the “Cornhusker Kickback.”  By contending in his letter that it has all been a misunderstanding, Nelson shows himself as duplicitous as well as being an unprincipled hack who was willing to peddle his vote for some special deals for his home state.  He ends up with the worst of all worlds — his crass political machinations were exposed, he was harshly criticized in Nebraska and elsewhere for his crude opportunism, and ultimately he was forced to beat a sniveling retreat and give up on the special deal that made him the target of irate comments in the first place.  Presumably he will now meekly vote for a bad bill, because to do otherwise would demonstrate that his prior vote was, in fact, contingent upon the existence of the provision requiring special treatment for Nebraska.

The only good thing about the sordid story of the Nebraska “Compromise” is that it revealed for all to see the culture of corruption found in Washington, D.C. and showed that a public outcry can force a change.  It is useful to send politicians the message that American taxpayers are paying attention to their shenanigans.  Let’s hope that Nebraska voters remember the embarrassment their Senator brought to their state and vote Nelson out of office if he decides to seek reelection in 2012.

The Nebraska “Compromise” (Cont.)

The Nebraska “Compromise” (Cont.)

The Nebraska “Compromise” (Cont.)

The Nebraska “Compromise”

The Nebraska “Compromise” (Cont.)

There are a host of reasons to question the devil’s bargain that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid struck to get the vote of Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson for health care “reform.”  In exchange for Nelson’s vote, Reid agreed to a provision forever exempting Nebraska from the increased Medicaid costs that will have to be borne by other states.  Many people now are considering the constitutionality of that provision.  In this piece, Colorado’s Attorney General raises questions about whether the provision would tax the states unequally and without rational basis, in violation of constitutional restraints on Congress’ taxing power.

Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson

I think the uproar about the Nebraska “Compromise” will continue to grow until Congress is forced to delete that provision from any eventual health care “reform” package.  Every day, there seems to be fresh outrage about Nelson’s crass politicking and Reid’s willingness to go to any lengths to get 60 votes for his back-room bill.

At bottom, Nelson’s deal undercuts the arguments of those who contend that the health care “reform” package is a positive.  If the bill is so great and so defensible on its merits, why must Reid nevertheless so blatantly buy Nelson’s vote?

The Nebraska “Compromise” (Cont.)

The Nebraska “Compromise” (Cont.)

The Nebraska “Compromise”

The Nebraska “Compromise” (Cont.)

Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, who peddled his vote for the “health care reform” bill in exchange for provisions that, among other things, require states like Ohio to subsidize Nebraska from increased Medicaid costs in perpetuity, is feeling the heat from constituents and former supporters.  The best sign of the furor is that Nelson — who isn’t up for reelection until 2012 — nevertheless felt compelled to buy a 30-second TV ad defending his vote and then pay to run the ad during Nebraska’s bowl game.  The New York Times has a story on the reaction that includes a link to his TV ad, which I predict isn’t going to do anything to modify criticism of his actions.  I don’t think Nebraskans are going to think that what Nelson has done reflects a “common-sense approach,” as his ad contends; instead, I think they will conclude that his conduct reflects modern politics at its most vulgar and distasteful.

The Nebraska “Compromise” (Cont.)

The Nebraska “Compromise”

The Nebraska Compromise (Cont.)

A lot of people apparently are as appalled by the unseemly vote-buying in the Senate as I am.  Here’s another take on the shenanigans surrounding the vote of Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson on the “health care reform” legislation.

For me, the reaction of certain Senators to the outrage many of us feel is just adding insult to injury.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and some others, are saying that “compromise” is what legislating is all about — as if we are hopelessly naive in expecting our Senators to actually vote on the merits of issues, and occasionally on their consciences, rather than on the basis of the crass political or monetary advantages they can extract from those on one side of an issue or the other.  I despise that kind of insider attitude, which I think is a significant part of the problem with our money-addled, hyperpoliticized, and often fundamentally corrupt elected bodies.  If Harry Reid honestly thinks that cutting a deal which makes Nebraska immune, in perpetuity, from part of the shared costs of Medicaid is simply part of how business should be done in Washington, D.C., that attitude just confirms that he is no longer fit to hold his office.

The Nebraska “Compromise”

According to news reports, Senate Majority Harry Reid apparently has secured the 60th vote necessary to pass a “health care reform” measure — whatever that measure may be.  It is difficult to know exactly what the bill ultimately will include because, as the full Senate has debated one bill, Reid evidently has been cobbling together the real bill in the form of a “manager’s amendment.”   As I understand the procedure, once Reid is certain that he has the necessary 60 votes he will offer his amendment to substitute for the bill then being debated, seek a cloture vote to end all debate, and then have a vote on the just-introduced amendment.

The 60th vote evidently is Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson.  The price for his vote, among other items, is a provision stating that the federal government will pick up Nebraska’s share of the cost of expanding Medicaid, which is one of the other provisions of the sprawling bill.  In short, thanks to Nelson’s coy game of hard-to-get, Nebraska taxpayers will get a free ride and taxpayers in Ohio, and Tennessee, and New Mexico, and other states will pick up Nebraska’s share of the tab.

I don’t care which side of the “health care reform” debate you are on:  this kind of crass political bargaining should disgust everyone.  The polling results show that a majority of Americans are opposed to the hash-house “health care reform” legislation — and now we learn that the price for having this unwanted bill crammed down our throats is that we also get saddled with subsidizing Nebraska (and, according to the article linked above, a few other states as well).  As of November, the unemployment rate in Ohio was 10.6 percent; in Nebraska it was 4.5 percent.  Why in the world, then, are Ohio taxpayers paying a portion of Nebraska’s share of costs?

This latest development just shows that there is no barter too crude, no back-room deal too base, and no “compromise” too appalling for Majority Leader Reid to entertain in his headlong rush to gain passage of his “manager’s amendment” by Christmas.   The end result of the legislative payoffs to individual Senators and their states is a rank, costly disaster that is slowly emerging from Congress like waste product emerges from the butt-end of the digestive tract.