Senator Ben Nelson’s Brilliant Move!
You probably have already heard that the Health Care Bill was passed by the US Senate. You might have heard that the Democrats needed 60 votes in order to break the Republican filibuster. Well, the 60th vote was Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska.
Now most of the Senate Democrats were plain stupid about this and received nothing for their vote; but not Ben Nelson! Ben held out for some real money for his state. The taxpayers of the other 49 states will pay for all of future Medicaid expansion in Nebraska, since the State will be permanently exempt from these payments. This will cost us Non-Nebraskans about $100M over the next 10 years.
So; what bacon has your Congressman brought home for you or is that person just a chump who wants you to pay someone else’s state taxes?? There are rumors floating around that Nelson might be getting some personal favors too, along with some other favors for Nebraska.
In order to really understand how sweetheart deals like this work just watch Harry Lime in the “The Third Man” explain it for you in the video below. Pay special attention at 5:22.
Actually, you don’t have to worry about this bill because when Obama was campaigning he said that he would never sign a bill with earmarks in it and we know that Obama is a man of his word.
Related posts:
6 Responses to “Senator Ben Nelson’s Brilliant Move!”
Comments
Read below or add a comment...
I hope Al Franken is taking notes….
The problem with Nelson’s deal is that it’s unconstitutional. You can’t exempt one group of people this way. This will surely be challenged. The State of South Carolina is already making plans if it remains in the final bill.
This bill might be the worst written piece of legislation in our history. Between the huge accounting errors, unconstitutional exemptions, and forced buy-in with no opt out clauses..this piece of trash might be caught up in legal challenges for a long time.
There is even a clause written into it that says parts of the bill cannot be changed by congress without a 67% majority vote. In some countries this would be considered tyranny by the majority. That is what this country USED TO BE built on. Wasn’t it tiny Honduras that just threw out the attempted take over of it’s democracy.
Think about it…Honduras…the last bastion of democracy in the world.
savage
Dear Mr. Savage,
Please give the sources for your assertions that the Health Care Bill has a clause that changes the voting procedures of Congress.
If this is true then, it seems to me that this Bill is unconstitutional and that any member of Congress who voted for this particular Clause also voted for a move toward fascism.
I’m no constitutional expert, but wouldn’t a move like this be grounds for recall?
I wish that a constitutional lawyer would clarify this for me.
http://conservativepolicynews.wordpress.com/2009/12/21/jim-demint-finds-out-the-medical-advisory-board-in-health-care-bill-cannot-be-repealed/
Check this out. If you go to the link to the bill, start reading around page 1020.
We are one step closer to serfdom.
savage
It would be nice if both Al and Amy were paying attention to what they voted for and who they represent.
Mn – being a progressive welfare state (I mean this in a good way) – has been assisting the disadvantaged with medicare for a long time. Now we will continue to support the disadvantaged in MN as well as most other states who now will be forced for increase medicare.
Al or Amy could have held out for the Ben Nelson deal where all states will be paying Nebs. medicare supplement FOREVER!!
Savage
Regarding:http://conservativepolicynews.wordpress.com/2009/12/21/jim-demint-finds-out-the-medical-advisory-board-in-health-care-bill-cannot-be-repealed/
I had no idea that congress could arbitrarily change the voting requirements for changing a law. I certainly am no constitutional expert, but I don’t think that a Senate Bill (from either party) could contain the following and get away with it.
“LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THIS SUBSECTION.—It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.”