A good way to wrap up the week…and the Cornhusker Kickback. Just think – if it weren’t for Henry McMaster, and his band of bipartisan state attorneys general, none of this would’ve ever been possible.
Posts Tagged henry mcmaster
A Cornhusker Kickback Mashup
Jan 29
Maybe some of these Democrat state attorneys general will start to see the real issue here, and join their fellow state attorneys general, now both Democrat and Republican, in the effort to protect ALL of America’s taxpayers from the Cornhusker Kickback.
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.
UPDATE: Nebraska Compromise
Dec 28
3 quick tidbits for you:
From Georgia from before Christmas via the Atlanta Journal Constitution:
Georgia’s Republican leadership asked the state’s attorney general Wednesday to investigate the legality of last-minute deals made in Washington to ensure Senate passage of health care reform.
In letters to Thurbert Baker, U.S. Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson and Gov. Sonny Perdue asked Georgia’s top legal authority to determine whether the vote-buying deals were unconstitutional – and financially unfair to Georgia.
The Republicans, according to Perdue’s letter, request Baker to join seven other attorneys general “to explore the availability of any legal challenges that Georgia could pursue to oppose this unconscionable scenario.”
“Congress appears to be on the cusp of making a decision that will have ripple effects for decades to come,” Perdue wrote. “Now is the time to ensure that any decision that is made has been thoroughly vetted and deemed to meet the intent and spirit of our country’s Constitution.”
And a similar situation with Connecticut’s governor coming from the Hartford Courant’s Capitol Watch Blog (and again from before Christmas):
Rell wrote a letter to Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal regarding a provision inserted into the massive federal legislation that would fully fund Medicaid for the home state of Senator Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat. The provision has been widely reported as part of the many deals struck to reach a compromise on health care.
Across the country, attorneys general in at least seven states are voicing similar concerns about the Nebraska compromise and questioning its legality.
And lastly South Carolina A.G. Henry McMaster, the A.G. who has drawn America’s attention to the Nebraska Compromise told Fox News (there’s video you can watch):
“We think that represents corruption,” McMaster said during an interview on Fox News. “We’re concerned about it. It will cost 49 states money to have to pay Nebraska’s share. We think that is unconstitutional.”
Yeah, but is it legal?
Dec 22
Or even bigger, constitutional? So the Senate passes this bill, health care bill – you’ve heard of it, that imposes the same restrictions and burdens on every state in the union. Oh wait, no it doesn’t. In fact, the only way this bill got passed is because the Senate leadership engaged in the oldest game in Washington. And that’s got conservatives in the U.S. Senate, and taxpayers across the country fired up. The Charleston Post and Courier sums it up nicely:
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: Read the rest of this entry »