Does the Nebraska Compromise secured by Sen. Nelson make Senate health care reform bill unconstitutional?

Sen. Graham (R-SC) and Sen. DeMint (R-SC) have requested State Attorney General Henry McMaster to look into "concerns about the constitutionality of this Nebraska compromise as it results in special treatment for only one state in the nation at the expense of the other 49" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34551523/ns/politics-health_care_reform/). The Nebraska Compromise is in reference to the deal that Sen. Nelson (D-Neb.) was given to exempt citizens in Nebraska from the cost of the $45M, annually, expansion of Medicaid program in exchange for his vote on the Senate health care debate. Other states working with Attorney General McMaster include Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, Texas and Washington. Just a few seconds ago on MSNBC McMaster announced two more states have joined the effort as well.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott defended his decision to join the discussion by saying, "The Nebraska Compromise, which permanently exempts Nebraska form paying Medicaid costs that Texas and all other 49 states must pay, may violate the United States Constitution, as well as other provisions of federal law. 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" (http://www.fortbendnow.com/2009/12/23/42918). While "backroom" deals are nothing new to the political but the difference between traditional "backroom" deals and the Nebraska Compromise is that traditionally the deals result in a onetime influx of money for a pet project. That is the core of the argument being made with the Nebraska Compromise is that it unfairly benefits one segment of the population. Other states were involved in getting special funding as well for Medicaid expenses which include Louisiana, Massachusetts and Vermont.

Obliviously this will play out but does the deal that Sen. Nelson secured violate the Constitution? Is it fair to the rest of America to pay for all Medicaid costs of Nebraska going forward?

TARP III: State Bailouts!!!!!

The other day Californians went to the polls to cast their vote of five measures. 4 of the measures were to divert or raise taxes while the one that passed restricted to Congressional pay raises to years without budget shortfalls. Now Gov. Schwarzenegger is faced with a government shutdown in the great state of California. Rumors on Capitol Hill are the National Government may bailout California. WHAT!!!

I do not pay federal taxes to help another state because their Governor and Legislature feel the need to over spend and spread socialistic programs. As Rep. Bachus of Alabama said, “Congress does not need to put the American taxpayer on the hook for more losses.” Rep. Bob Filner of Chula Vista, CA, feels a loan guarantee, “sounds like a good idea. We’re providing loan guarantees to everybody else.”

Treasury Secretary Geithner “made no commitment one way or the other” reported the LA Times to Rep. Culberson’s question,”Mr. Secretary, will you categorically rule out bailing out California or any other states with our tax dollars?” Too many states are over spending and realizing that increasing taxes are not the answer to budget woes. Now it will be interesting since California has 53 members of Congress; including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

States like Louisiana, South Carolina, Texas, and Alaska told President Obama to keep the stimulus money but have made a few exemptions since their original statements. With all the other socialistic ideals being touted by the Obama Administration, the concept of states throwing away their Constitutional rights for guarantee loans is right up President Obama’s alley. Every company that has been given TARP funds or other assistance has seen Chavez style takeovers.

If States start receiving TARP funds or similar assistance, we as American citizens might as well repeal the US Constitution and prepare ourselves for General Mao and the “Little Red Books”. Any Congressman (woman) that votes for a change in legislation will be casting a vote in direct violation of the US Constitution. The role of the Federal Government is not to provide funding to States that spend out of control and put themselves in fiscal quagmires.

Let California and Michigan be lessons to rest of the states in the Union. High taxes, unbalanced budgets, massive social programs, and over spending leads to unemployment, loss job creating business, civil unrest, and Federal Government takeover. At all levels of Government fiscal restraint is required. We can no longer look to increase taxes, no matter what form they take, to solve our budget owes. It is time for Government to be smaller, work smarter, and strike a balance.

LA Times article: “Federal officials unsure about California bailout” May 21, 2009. Peter Nicholas and Richard Simon.