Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) on Friday asked that a deal he secured for his state on Medicaid funding be removed from the health care reform bill, a move that follows weeks of unrelenting political blowback.

Nelson contends that a $100 million deal he extracted for Nebraska in December to pay the state’s cost of a proposed Medicaid expansion was misunderstood. He said it was intended to act as a placeholder to ensure that all states received similar treatment once negotiations to reconcile the House and Senate bills commenced.

But after weeks of criticism from Nebraskans and fellow Democratic Senators and a backlash that extended nationwide for a deal that came to be known as the “Cornhusker Kickback,” Nelson on Friday sent a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) asking him to strip the provision from the reform bill.

In his letter, Nelson asks that the Nebraska-only measure be replaced with one that would exempt all states from paying the cost of a proposed Medicaid expansion. However, his letter appears to make clear that regardless of whether that request is granted, he wants the provision affecting Nebraska removed.

And why we’re at it, why not pose the same questions to Connecticut Democrat A.G. Richard Blumenthal.  He’s the guy who just announced today that he’ll be running for U.S. Senate in Connecticut to replace Chris Dodd.  No doubt candidate Blumenthal will invoke words like ethics, transparency, and reform throughout his campaign.  Those are words that A.G. Blumenthal has used through out his career as his state’s top cop.

If these two sitting state attorneys general want to be in the United States Senate – what do they think about the issue that is shining a bright light on the deal making that occurs in the United States Senate – the Cornhusker Kickback?

Saying it’s just politics isn’t going to get the job done.

A bipartisan effort is being made to all state A.G.s to completely address the Cornhusker Kickback.  Martha Coakley and Richard Blumenthal need to let the citizens of their states know where they stand on this matter.  From the Associated Press:

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) – Two top state prosecutors are asking attorneys general across the country to let Washington know if they oppose the health care reform bill they say includes a political deal for Nebraska.

South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster and Oklahoma top prosecutor Drew Edmondson asked their colleagues Wednesday to call on U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to remove the provision.

I do not believe that anybody has legitimate constitutional concerns about the legislation.

Gibbs went on to say that he had not even bothered to read the lengthy 2 page letter.

Wait, what?

How can Robert Gibbs speak to the concerns of these state A.G.s if he hasn’t even taken the time to read the letter – which incidentally isn’t some tightly guarded secret – you can read it yourself right here.  That’s right – the White House isn’t interested in a dialogue on this issue – they’ll just act like they’re not aware of any concerns and hope it gets rammed through.

Yes, the White House just doesn’t think this is a big deal.  Watch for yourself.

From Arizona’s KTAR radio for Democrat Attorney General Terry Goddard:

Terry Goddard, this is your moment. Arizonans need you to step-up.

As the formulating of healthcare “reform” legislation secretively continues in the U.S. Senate, Attorney’s General from multiple states have begun to announce that they are launching investigations into the legality, and constitutionality of the Senate healthcare bill. Arizona’s Attorney General Terry Goddard should be calling for his own investigation, because based on what little is known about this highly secretive legislation, it appears that the bill places Arizonans at a significant disadvantage, financially and otherwise, to residents of the state of Nebraska.

South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster, along with the Attorneys General in the states of Washington, Michigan, Texas, Colorado, Alabama and North Dakota – have joined forces to consider, among other things, if the Obamacare bill in the U.S. Senate violates the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The 10th Amendment stipulates that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states by the constitution of the United States, are reserved to the states or the people.

From the Las Vegas Review Journal questioning Democrat A.G. Catherine Cortez Masto:

To win Sen. Nelson’s vote, Sen. Reid agreed to have the federal government forever pay full freight for Nebraska’s Medicaid expansion, mandated by the bill. Every other state gets only three years of full federal coverage under the plan. After that, every state but Nebraska will be required take on huge, new, unfunded Medicaid burdens. Nevada’s alone will be at least $600 million per year.

A conference committee will begin meeting in the new year to work out a compromise between House and Senate versions of the bill. Mr. McMaster says if the bill goes through with the benefit for Nebraska, taxpayers in the other 49 states will have to cover their own unfunded mandates in addition to Nebraska’s share.

The 13 attorneys general signing the letter are all Republicans. But the danger of such a precedent, once set, is surely not limited to states adhering to one party. Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto should join the action on Nevadans’ behalf.

Some will hold that unlikely, since it might be seen as a challenge to Sen. Reid, the presumed godfather of Nevada Democrats.

The question is, does Ms. Masto represent the Nevadans who will have to pay “more than their share” under Sen. Reid’s Nebraska payoff scheme … or someone else?

Kansas state house and senate leaders are asking Democrat A.G. Stephen Six to take a closer look at the constitutionality of it all. From the Lawrence Journal World:

“With luck and a little persuasion, perhaps a majority in Congress will come to its senses and conclude that our nation’s health care can be reformed without disregarding the Constitution,” the four legislators wrote in a letter to Six. “But if they don’t, then it will be up to you and to us to protect the Constitution we are sworn to uphold and to preserve the liberties of the Kansans we represent.”

They cited what is being called either the “Cornhusker Kickback” or the “Nebraska Compromise,” and a requirement that every person have health insurance coverage.

Governors in Connecticut and Georgia have asked their attorney general to actively look into the constitutionality of Cornhusker Kickback.  Tennessee’s Lt. Governor wants his state attorney general to look into the health care deal also.

The document goes on to say: “Senator Nelson said it would be ‘fixed’ by extending the Cornhusker Kickback (100% federal payment) on Medicaid to every state.”

Senate Democratic leaders have made no reference to a plan to expand the Nebraska deal to the remaining 49 states — a move that would be prohibitively expensive to the federal government and raise serious questions about whether health reform would lower the expected federal deficit, as President Barack Obama claims it would.

At the same time, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said after the Nebraska deal came to light that he envisions other states lining up to seek a similar deal down the road. Under the Nebraska provision, all added expenses from expanding Medicaid to cover the uninsured in Nebraska starting in 2017 would be borne by the federal government forever, not split with the state as they are now.

According to the memo, McMaster responded to Nelson by saying that the goal of the GOP attorneys general was to remove the Nebraska Medicaid provision from the bill and that “he saw no way that he—nor any of the state attorneys general—will support extension of the Cornhusker Kickback to every state nor be a part of a deal like that.”

Senator Nelson can’t be feeling good about his situation right now.  It’s already clear that voters aren’t feeling good about what he’s done.  A recent Rasmussen survey has Senator Nelson getting just 30% of the vote in a hypothetical ‘12 U.S. Senate match up against Republican governor Dave Heineman.   Heck, only 17% of Nebraskans even approve of the deal he cut with Harry Reid on this one.  And 64% of Nebraskans oppose the health care legislation.

Nah, not feeling good at all…unless you’re a Republican with eyes on that U.S. Senate seat there in Nebraska.

From Colorado’s AG John Suthers via the Denver Post:

The top lawyers say exempting Nebraska alone from millions of dollars in higher Medicaid costs in exchange for Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson’s support of the bill would violate Constitutional provisions requiring equal treatment among states.

“We think this is an absolutely unprecedented example of favoring one state over other states,” said Colorado Attorney General John Suthers. “Constitutional experts are looking at it. It wouldn’t be ripe for litigation unless signed by the President. But if it is, a bunch of states will challenge it.”

From Texas AG Greg Abbott:

In light of this unprecedented and highly questionable backroom deal, Texas will join South Carolina and other states in an effort to thoroughly review the constitutionality and legality of the Nebraska Compromise. Because it disadvantages Texas taxpayers, the Texas Attorney General’s Office will explore all available avenues to challenge and overturn this legally problematic provision. Our democratic system of government depends upon transparency and openness–this backroom deal goes too far and must be challenged because Texas deserves better.”

From Michigan AG Mike Cox via the Detroit News:

“I am astounded by the sweetheart deal handed to Nebraska, which will be paid for with money taken directly from the pockets of Michigan taxpayers,” Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox said in a statement Tuesday night. “People are outraged, and they have every right to be.”

From Washington AG Rob McKenna:

“The arrangement that requires Washington state taxpayers, and those around the country, to permanently pay Nebraska’s additional Medicaid costs carries a price tag of untold millions,” McKenna said. “It raises key constitutional questions about whether residents of certain states should receive special privileges, based on the deal-making skills of their senators.

From North Dakota AG Wayne Stenehjem from the AP:

Along with Texas, officials in Washington, Alabama, Colorado and Michigan confirmed they were working with McMaster.

North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem said he wasn’t sure what could be done while the federal legislation remained under debate. Officials in the other states did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

From South Carolina AG Henry McMaster:

The language of the Nelson provision appears to give the State of Nebraska a permanent exemption from paying the Medicaid expenses all other states in the nation will be required to pay.

In other words, if this amendment stands, taxpayers from South Carolina and other states will be paying the bills for the increase in Nebraska’s Medicaid population. The Nelson provision is unusual in that there is not cut off date or phase out. Many provisions in federal law have a sunset date — say 2, 5, 10, or even 20 years– but this provision will continue in perpetuity.

From Tennessee Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey via the AP:

Ramsey said Tuesday that the concessions won by Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson in return for his vote are unconstitutional. Among other things, Nelson won an agreement that the federal government will pay to expand Medicaid services in his state.

“There are lots of issues with the health- care bill in general, but the way it was finally put together almost makes you sick to your stomach,” said Ramsey, of Blountville. “We want to find some way we can opt out of this legislation.”

Giving Nebraska a pass on the growing Medicaid costs for political reasons is a departure from basing states’ reimbursement rates on “objective criteria,” Ramsey said.

Lawmakers have long played this variation on the “You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” theme: “You change your bill the way I want, I’ll vote for it.” When practiced with prudent restraint, that tradition of legislative trading has helped advance worthy agendas via reasonable compromises.

But Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., went far beyond any sense of reason — or shame — with the brazen bargain he struck to advance the Senate health care reform bill. As South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham fairly pointed out Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” the “back-room deals that amount to bribes” to pass the Senate reform bill represent “the worst of Washington.”

The back-room deal the Democratic leadership reached with Sen. Nelson late Friday night obtained his vote in the wee hours Monday morning (and a bare-minimum 60-40 party-line margin) to avert a filibuster threat against that bill.

Senator Graham’s question – and this will be the rallying cry for anyone who thinks this is a raw deal – is whether or not this bill can even past a simple constitutional muster. He doesn’t think so, and he’s asked South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster to use his fine legal mind to study whether or not this bill is constitutionally appropriate.

It’s really troubling that Nebraska got a $45 million break on this bill.  If a break on the tab of this bill is good enough for Nebraska it should be good enough for the rest of the country, right?  Or maybe the good people of Nebraska are better than the rest of us – yeah that’s a good application of equality right there.  Never mind the other hundreds of millions spent to get others Senators votes.  Rough deal for voters, sweet deal for the politicians.  Voters get stuck with less money in their pocket and a bigger government, and politicians get political victories (pork for the home district) to talk about in an election year.

UPDATE:

The South Carolina A.G. issued the following statement today on this matter:

McMaster To Organize Group Of State Attorneys General To Review Senate Health Care Bill

Statement by Attorney General Henry McMaster

Columbia, S.C. December 22, 2009 - “This morning, I received a letter from South Carolina’s two United States Senators, Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint, asking me, as Attorney General, to investigate the legality of the special funding arrangements negotiated with Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson to secure his vote for the Senate Democrat’s health care reform bill which moved forward toward eventual passage in the Senate by a vote of 60-40.

We have made a copy of that letter available to you here:

http://www.scag.gov/newsroom/ pdf/2009/grahamdemintmedicaid.pdf

The language of the Nelson provision appears to give the State of Nebraska a permanent exemption from paying the Medicaid expenses all other states in the nation will be required to pay.

In other words, if this amendment stands, taxpayers from South Carolina and other states will be paying the bills for the increase in Nebraska’s Medicaid population. The Nelson provision is unusual in that there is not cut off date or phase out. Many provisions in federal law have a sunset date — say 2, 5, 10, or even 20 years– but this provision will continue in perpetuity.

Quite obviously, this issue raises very serious concerns about equity, tax fairness as well as the constitutionality of having federal tax levies and mandates that treat one state differently from all the others. If the Nelson provision is not unprecedented, I feel comfortable in saying it is an exceptionally rare occurrence. States generally are treated in a similar manner. In this case, Nebraska will be treated in a widely divergent manner than any other state.

Beginning today, I have instructed my attorneys to begin looking into the constitutionality of this provision and exploring the options that may be available to South Carolina and other states to defend taxpayers should this provision ultimately become law.

I am pleased to announce that Attorney General Rob McKenna of Washington State has agreed to join our efforts. Later this afternoon, I will be holding a teleconference with additional attorneys general to ask them to join our nationwide group to exchange ideas and explore our legal options.

In my judgment, Democrats and Republicans alike from every state in the union should be outraged by this deal. Medicaid is a joint federal-state program but in this instance one state — Nebraska — will be able to shift its future funding obligations back onto the federal government. Neither South Carolina, Georgia, California, nor any other state will have that luxury. Whatever the legal status may be (and we may soon find out), these negotiations — on their face — amount to a form of vote buying. Paid for by taxpayers.

And whether in the court of law or the court of public opinion, we must bring an end to this culture of corruption.”

# # #

Contact: Mark Plowden

Communications Director

803-734-3670

mplowden@ag.state.sc.us

Team Obama got a strong backhand from Democratic legend Mudcat Sanders and they deserve every bit of it.

This is a strong tongue lashing from a guy who has been toiling in the fields of Rural Democrat politics since before most of the “administration experts” have been out of high school,  as a political hack I can relate to organizers on the D side fairly easily, the process is all the same no matter what side you are on and Mudcat is 100% right here.

This story further demonstrates the unfounded arrogance of the White House and the staff there who are attempting to run away from a guy they are appearing in commercials for, Creigh R. Deeds.  Yes, to be fair Creigh ran a very poor campaign but it was not exactly his fault.  The irony here is that if Obama was not governing so far to the left in DC, Deeds would have won the race handily.  The fault for Creigh Deeds upcoming loss in the VA governors race will rest squarely on the shoulders of Barack H. Obama and the administration and they cannot admit that even to themselves.

Oh, there’s much more to read on this one.