Well, she voted for cloture. Welcome to Washington, DC. The District of Corruption.
What a den of vipers. Sigh. She's not voting on the merits of the bill, or even the merits of debating the bill, but for $100 million grafted into the bill for her poltical benefit. Now, learned people know that this show about 60 votes is irrelevant, now that the beast itself will finally lurch onto the floor for a vote. They only really need 51, because they will package the ultimate reconciled bill as a budget reconciliation (i.e., the "nuclear option", which in fact the Democrats in the House already did!), since it only requires 51 votes to rape the country. Filibusters in the Senate are nuanced out of the rules governing this procedural trick. You bet they'll pull that if/when they realize they won't get the much bally-hooed 60. So if it goes for a vote, rest assured it will pass. - Publius. On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Publius Maximus <[email protected]> wrote: > http://bit.ly/EtEQr > > - - - > 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. > > Here’s the incredibly complicated language: > > SEC. 2006. SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT TO FMAP DETERMINATION FOR CERTAIN STATES > RECOVERING FROM A MAJOR DISASTER. > > Section 1905 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d), as amended > by sections 2001(a)(3) and > 2001(b)(2), is amended— (1) in subsection (b), in the first sentence, > by striking ‘‘subsection (y)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsections (y) and > (aa)’’; and (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection: > > ‘‘(aa)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (b), beginning January 1, 2011, > the Federal medical assistance percentage for a fiscal year for a > disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State shall be equal to the > following: > ‘(A) In the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) > for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical > assistance percentage determined for the fiscal year without regard to > this subsection and subsection (y), increased by 50 percent of the > number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance > percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard > to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal > medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the > preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of > section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding > fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), > and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5. > > ‘‘(B) In the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for > which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical > assistance percentage determined for the preceding fiscal year under > this subsection for the State, increased by 25 percent of the number > of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance > percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard > to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal > medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the > preceding fiscal year under this subsection. > > ‘‘(2) In this subsection, the term ‘disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment > State’ means a State that is one of > the 50 States or the District of Columbia, for which, at any time > during the preceding 7 fiscal years, the President has declared a > major disaster under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster > Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and determined as a result of such > disaster that every county or parish in the State warrant individual > and public assistance or public assistance from the Federal Government > under such Act and for which— ‘‘(A) in the case of the first fiscal > year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to > the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for > the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and > subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage > determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the > application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 > (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to > this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of > section 5001 of Public Law 111–5, by at least 3 percentage points; and > ‘‘(B) in the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for > which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical > assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year > without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the > Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the > preceding fiscal year under this subsection by at least 3 percentage > points. > > ‘‘(3) The Federal medical assistance percentage determined for a > disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State under paragraph (1) shall > apply for purposes of this title (other than with respect to > disproportionate share hospital payments described in section 1923 and > payments under this title that are based on the enhanced FMAP > described in 2105(b)) and shall not apply with respect to payments > under title IV (other than under part E of title IV) or payments under > title XXI.’’. > > - - - > > Didn't the President promise this kind of special-interest, > pork-barrel wheeling-and-dealing would end when he was inaugurated? > > How's that hope and change working out for YOU? > > - Publius > > "It ought never to be forgotten, that a firm union of this country, > under an efficient government, will probably be an increasing object > of jealousy to more than one nation of Europe; and that enterprises to > subvert it will sometimes originate in the intrigues of foreign > powers, and will seldom fail to be patronized and abetted by some of > them. Its preservation, therefore ought in no case that can be > avoided, to be committed to the guardianship of any but those whose > situation will uniformly beget an immediate interest in the faithful > and vigilant performance of the trust." [Federalist Papers #59] > _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
