The AP reports several state attorneys general are looking into potential legal challenges to the health care bill (assuming it passes).
The top prosecutors in seven states are probing the constitutionality of a political deal that cut a funding break for Nebraska in order to pass a federal health care reform bill, South Carolina’s attorney general said Tuesday.Attorney General Henry McMaster said he and his counterparts in Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, Texas and Washington state – all Republicans – are jointly taking a look at the deal they’ve dubbed the “Nebraska compromise.”
“The Nebraska compromise, which permanently exempts Nebraska from 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,” Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said.
I am quite sympathetic to the idea that special treatment of one state, or broader differential treatment of different states, for tax or regulatory purposes is problematic. Such measures are significantly more so than traditional pork-barrel appropriations. Federal laws should be laws of general application. Yet I am unsure of the basis upon which such things could be challenged as unconstitutional, and the AP story linked above is sketchy on the details of what the various state AGs are planning.
Eric Rasmusen says:
Whatever the constitutionality, I suppose it should be the same as that of a bill I would like somebody to propose next year, which is that if Nebraska re-elects Senator Nelson, its Medicaid discount be repealed and replaced by a 50% Medicaid surcharge to help out the other 49 states.
December 23, 2009, 9:36 amgattsuru says:
To borrow from Dave Hardy, it seems like a violation of the equal protection clause (or equal protection component of the fifth amendment), by providing an exception in a general funding law for a specific group for little or no rational reason. That’s not too different from how most federal spending works, but it’s a particularly disgusting violation of the underlying concept.
December 23, 2009, 9:42 amgeokstr says:
Tax or regulation is not the purpose of this Nebraska amendment, it is the result – of the deal necessary to buy the last remaining Democratic vote. Is this much different than buying Landreaux’s vote with language that appears to aid all states suffering disasters but worded so tightly it only applies to Louisiana? Or buying Sanders’ vote with legalese so dense it limits the building of a new $100 million dollar hospital to his state while ostensibly helping all states?
Puke.
And this is what we know of so far. Anyone want to bet that when, after passage and signing, they actual let us read the bill, that there are an absolute ton of deals just like this in it?
This is the new politics of Obama? Perhaps the Republicans did this sort of thing too, but they should be condemned for it as well.
Of course, we’ll now here the usual…”bu…but…but…Bush/Cheney….”
December 23, 2009, 10:00 amShelbyC says:
necessary and proper… proper, proper. Hmmm. What could they possibly bave meant by proper? Hey, now we know.
December 23, 2009, 10:07 amArthurKirkland says:
Unless Texas is not among the red states that continually scam blue states with respect to federal redistribution of wealth, one might expect Mr. Abbott to refrain drawing attention to differential treatment of states.
And I’m not just talking about the targeted agricultural subsidies, unneeded aircraft or ships, uniquely tailored tax breaks or other single-state benefits regularly traded for senators’ votes.
December 23, 2009, 10:17 amstreeeetwise says:
I found this provision troubling but even more troubling is the Florida deal, as outlined by the Wall Street Journal (of course i have not read the bill so this is second hand.) Under that deal, Florida seniors are grandfathered in to Medicare Advantage but other seniors are not. While one could make a case that different states might deserve different treatment, how could anyone say that a senior who lives in Florida gets better services on an individual basis then one who lives in Arizona. Did the Wall Street journal get this wrong? Can this type of special deal ever be constitutional. Any comments
December 23, 2009, 10:24 ambyomtov says:
This is another one of those arguments that people trot out when they don’t like the final result. When they do, it’s all “Politics ain’t beanbag,” and “…sausage-making,” and “…been going on since Day One,” etc.
You don’t like special treatment for Nebraska? Neither do I. With 0.6% of the country’s population it gets 2% of the seats in the Senate. Of course that’s defended as noble because of the glories of federalism, but when they actually take advantage of it the result becomes problematic.
December 23, 2009, 10:41 amd-berg says:
Does not matter.
We know this stuff is all over the place. America was founded in a unique way and by highly unusual people who actually cared about the country. Founding Fathers managed to create a reasonable political system. There was some corruption and favoritism built in, but their intentions were remarkably good.
With time, politicians figured ways to use the system to their advantage. For example, pork in federal budget almost did not exist in its present form until 1970s. Quality of governance naturally deteriorates with time. All democracies experienced this, beginning with ancient Greek city-states. This means that whatever we do, in due time the regime will fall. So calm down and enjoy the ride while it lasts. There is nothing you can do to prevent the carousel from breaking.
December 23, 2009, 10:48 amMichael Wagner says:
Does anything have a theory about the grounds for a constitutional challenge?
It seems – to a non-lawyer – that Congress routinely allocates appropriations to specific states. Is there any Constitutional requirement that Congressional appropriations be evenly distributed among the states?
It strikes me that Nelson is a competent politician who knew that he was working from a position of power – it was a good time to be a moderate Democrat.
By making it clear that no provisions of the bill would be persuasive, the Republican Senators dealt themselves out of the game.
Some of them may have done so for philosophical reasons, some out of political chicanery – hoping a defeat would disgrace Obama. Whatever the motivation, the early refusal to engage had political consequences.
My guess is that Republican strategists badly under-estimated Reid’s ability to craft a bill capable of reaching cloture, and smelled a Democratic bloodbath in the defeat of the bill. I have no doubt that some Democrats sensed the same looming danger.
All that aside, I don’t understand the Constitutional issue.
December 23, 2009, 10:51 amGordo says:
The fact that the AGs involved are all Republicans tells me that this has little to do with health care and unequal taxation and a lot to do with destroying the political career of one Barack HUSSEIN Obama, which seems to be the primary mission of today’s Republican party.
December 23, 2009, 11:12 amUgh says:
A bunch of posturing and waste of taxpayer resources in an attempt to up their profiles for a future run for governor?
December 23, 2009, 11:20 amLaura Victoria says:
To me, what it most resembles, is a sort of inverse bill of attainder.
December 23, 2009, 11:23 amJoseph Slater says:
What Byomtov said.
December 23, 2009, 11:23 amSteve says:
Next argument: it violates equal protection for the federal government to finance a planetarium in Chicago unless it builds one in the other 49 states as well.
December 23, 2009, 11:24 amMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Arthur Kirkland,
[ . . . ]the red states that continually scam blue states with respect to federal redistribution of wealth [ . . . ]
You may possibly have noticed that, if you rank the states by per capita income, most of the “blue states” are in the top half of the list, and most of the “red states” are in the bottom half.
I am not sure on what principle you want Federal money to be distributed. But if you have a general problem with the government taking money from the relatively wealthy and sending it to the relatively poor, you ought perhaps to say so. (Is the graduated income tax a “scam” too?)
December 23, 2009, 11:31 amgasman says:
Quid pro quo vote buying at its most transparent.
December 23, 2009, 11:38 amIf it passes, then it is with the approval of at least half the senate, a body which represents the States interest not be fleeced.
Mark Field says:
Cause and effect.
December 23, 2009, 11:53 amChris Travers says:
I don’t know about the others but Washington State tends to vote slightly Democrat, an the AG is directly elected. If it was as you say, then it would be political suicide for the AG to look at challenging this.
More likely there are two things at work:
1) The mandate to purchase insurance from private companies is DEEPLY unpopular even among democratic voters.
2) Washington has tended to see medicaid as a major financial burden under at least two successive Democratic administrations.
3) He sees himself as standing up for Washington voters of both parties and for the interests of the state.
Being a Republican might provide some advantage in terms of his ability to avoid problems from his own party, but I don’t think it is simply a partisan issue since he is directly elected by a voter base that tends towards voting democrat.
December 23, 2009, 12:02 pmChris Travers says:
I don’t know if anyone else has the sense that any argument would build upon the recent voting rights act decision and might influence future cases regarding the voting rights act. Thoughts?
December 23, 2009, 12:07 pmLarryA says:
Scanning through the Constitution:
So what kind of funding are we talking about? If this is “Duties, Imposts and Excises” they must be uniform across states. If it’s a “direct tax” or “capitation or other direct tax” it has to be apportioned by population, with the exception of “taxes on income.” Since the compromise shields the state of Nebraska from paying Medicaid costs and reduces fees and taxes for Nebraska insurance companies, I don’t see how that would be a “tax on income.”
Giving one state funding to cover costs other states are mandated to pay might squeak past as funding, not a collection. OTOH, can the other states characterize their mandated costs as an impost the government is requiring? The fact that private insurance companies in the state will be excused from paying taxes and fees seems even more problematic.
But IANAL, so have at.
December 23, 2009, 12:11 pmLarryA says:
Then there’s this:
[sigh]
December 23, 2009, 12:17 pmMalvolio says:
A man can dream, can’t he?
While I’m dreaming, I would say “unless it builds one in every other city as well”.
December 23, 2009, 12:19 pmShelbyC says:
Yup. Kinda kills the idea that govt spending creates wealth, eh?
December 23, 2009, 12:26 pmgeokstr says:
Mark, care to expand on this for me? Is it because you believe:
1) red states are all full of toothless halfwit racists too stupid to succeed?
2) all, and only, liberals are intelligent? (a claim I’ve seen made here numerous times)
3) conservatism is a failure economically, while liberalism is a success?
4) other??
5) all the above?
Perhaps you’ve seen the surveys that show that the American public self-identifies as conservatives 2:1 over liberals (and has every year the survey has been taken), and that conservatives outnumber liberals in every state, even the bluest of the blue:
Conservatives Now Outnumber Liberals in All 50 States, Says Gallup Poll
To me, all this blue state/red state BS says is that your side has managed to buy off with entitlements, coerce (via unions, etc), brainwash (via the public school system) or hoodwink (via the MSM) a larger number of the independents, that’s all. That may be changing however, finally, as this administration and congress will be its own worst enemy by its radical overreaching. But, be of good cheer. With ACORN about to be reinstalled as an integral part of next year’s election and census, it’s probably too late to stop the entrenchment of totalitarianism here.
December 23, 2009, 12:34 pmRPT says:
ACORN-mania returns. Surely the R AG’s can go after them as well. Re the ideological identifications, the survey data consistently shows that respondents support the substance of “liberal” programs (i.e. the substance of the “public option”) when it is accurately described to them. If the questions contain only push poll type buzzwords (i.e. the rapidly morphing “death panels”) they react negatively. In any event, this appears to be another part of the overall Republican “just say no” strategy. Call us when one D AG joins.
Finally, on a theological note, consider the somewhat bizarre Oklahoma based juxtaposition of Oral Roberts’ memorial service in Tulsa Monday night to Sen. Coburn’s imprecatory prayer that Sen Byrd “die quickly” so as to prevent the achievement of the 60 vote margin. This is not at all a critique of OR who preached that all should be healed, but rather of Sen. Coburn, whose apparent theology is quite the opposite.
December 23, 2009, 12:56 pmJaimeInTexas (Jam) says:
It seems that the special treatment that Nebraska “negotiated” for violates Article 5 prohibition against depriving States of their equal suffrage, without their consent.
Funding an individual project, like the planetarium, although I consider it an unconstitutional expenditure, it deals with an individual project.
The Nebraska buyout is a consession to a State as compared to other States. Me thinks that the several States legislatures would have to unanimously approve that deal.
December 23, 2009, 1:17 pmTwirip says:
You’d never catch the Democrats trying to destroy the political career of a Republican President, no sirree!
That little idiocy aside, Republicans (along with the American public) oppose this “health care” bill because it makes our health care worse and bankrupts the country in the process.
If the Republicans really want to destroy Obama all they have to do is stand aside and let the Democrats have their way.
December 23, 2009, 1:20 pmMark Field says:
Number 3 is the winner.
I should add that I don’t mean this in any modern sense. The basic divide is between those states which had slavery on a large scale and those which did not. And that divide extends to those later states which adopted one or the other of those cultures.
The former developed a highly dysfunctional culture based on violating the principles of economics that everyone today would accept. They were political oligarchies and not remotely free markets.
The latter developed as the cutting edge of modern societies, emphasizing small scale democracy, scientific progress, and government intervention to support the general good (e.g., education and roads) rather than the interests of the oligarchs.*
After 400 years of this kind of experiment, there are bound to be consequences. However, it’s basically been true that the northern states were always more successful than the southern. Concentrating wealth, especially landed wealth, is a failed idea. Ignoring public goods is a failed idea. Treating half your labor market like animals is a failed idea.
The last 50 years or so have seen real progress in changing the dynamics, but, sadly, southerners are paying the price for their ancestors’ failures.
*That’s not to say that the New England and other states never used government to advance the interests of the powerful. It’s just that they did so far less than the Southern states did.
December 23, 2009, 1:25 pmChris Travers says:
I disagree. I think that is not a matter of causation. The basic divide is between rural and urban areas. Heck, most counties of New York State vote mostly Republican. New York is primarily Democrat because so many people live in New York City.
Here in Washington State, there is a small (geography-wise) Democrat-voting area (the greater Everett/Seattle/Tacoma/Olympia areas) with over half the people in it and the rest of the state leans Republican.
Cities = Democrat
Farms = GOP
Which, interestingly is why the GOP will never tackle spending issues like farm subsidies.
December 23, 2009, 1:43 pmbobc says:
My bet is that when we look back on it, this health care reform will be a wash.
December 23, 2009, 1:44 pmAnym_Avey says:
[ . . . ]the red states that continually scam blue states with respect to federal redistribution of wealth [ . . . ]
A rather vaccuous method of argument no matter how it is sliced. Obama won his first term by ~53%, Bush won his second by ~51%, and both of those elections had motivated voter turnout. That tells a thinking person more about how the country itself is divided than colored maps which show only the distribution of electoral votes, and which are therefore grotesquely distorted relative to actual population distribution and preference.
If you’re not sure what or why, go to Wikipedia, search “United States Presidential Election”, pick your year, and then scroll down to the Interpretive Diagrams section.
If you want to address a specific grievance of government-ordained wealth transfer, then state what it is and find a suitable forum for discussing it.
December 23, 2009, 1:47 pmPaul McKaskle says:
The Wall Street Journal suggested that the “remedy” will be, after the reform is enacted, to extend the “Nebraska” rule to the other 49 states–but the additional cost (said to be about $30 billion) would not have been scored as a cost of the current reform bill (nor will the highly probable rescission of the cut in M.D. medicare fees contained in the current bill–some $200 billion–be considered part of the cost of the bill). Thus, the current bill remains deficit neutral.
I think the exemption of Florida from elimination of Medicare Advantage programs (but only for those already 65) but not for Medicare Advantage recipients in any other state (or even those who become Medicare recipients in Florida in the future) is a worse example of interstate injustice.
December 23, 2009, 2:04 pmKazinski says:
Actually red states do make out like bandits, but there is nothing wrong with that. The red states have a lower cost of living so incomes can be lower and still have the same lifestyle, and the Federal tax rates are indexed so a family in Montana will pay half or less the Federal income tax than a family with equivilent purchasing power in New Jersey.
Take a look at the top and bottom 10 of the state by state happiness index:
and
The top ten are 1 blue, 8 red, 1 purple. Bottom 10 – 8 blue, 1 red, 1 purple.
December 23, 2009, 2:05 pmSteve says:
It seems that the special treatment that Nebraska “negotiated” for violates Article 5 prohibition against depriving States of their equal suffrage, without their consent.
You know what suffrage means, right?
December 23, 2009, 2:24 pmChris Travers says:
ArthurKirkland:
The Democrats say they are in favor of wealth redistribution. Why is it wrong for the Republicans to accept their generosity?
December 23, 2009, 2:25 pmShelbyC says:
It means that Nebraska gotta suffrage just as much under the Medicare tax as everybody else.
December 23, 2009, 2:31 pmstreeeetwise says:
I did not see a specific answer to my question about Florida–just a lot of hostile back and forth on the political process. I am still interested if anyone can answer.
I understand the response to the Nebraska compromise is that states are often treated differently. So, not all states are entitled to the same road funding and so forth. That can arguably be justified (although I don’t agree with it) because states have no right to be treated equally politically. It also can be that states are just situated differently (no hurricanes in Illinois) and so those differences are enough to support different treatement.
But, how could it be the case that Florida seniors as individuals are treated differently then other seniors. A 67 year old senior in Arizona who makes the same money, has the same health, and pays the same taxes is excluded from a government benefit because his or her senator is a Republican. Is that different then say, passing an income tax for Arizona but not other states. Isn’t this an entire different question and not as easily answered as horse trading between and among states.
Let’s take an extreme example. Could a bill sponsor say that if unless you commit to vote for the bill, residents of your state will not be eligible for Medicare at all. How can that ever be justified. And how is that different then what happened to Florida residents with a special benefit.
If it can be justified under constitution, can someone explain how. Maybe this is settled, just seems odd to me.
December 23, 2009, 2:35 pmConstantin says:
December 23, 2009, 2:44 pmA.S. says:
“To borrow from Dave Hardy, it seems like a violation of the equal protection clause (or equal protection component of the fifth amendment), by providing an exception in a general funding law for a specific group for little or no rational reason.”
This seems to me to be the most likely theory. I can come up with a rational reason for building a planetarium in Chicago more more easily than a rational reason why Nebraska ought to be the only state permanently exempted from Medicaid increases.
December 23, 2009, 3:05 pmSarcastro says:
Constantin totally gets the liberal mindset! Libs love them some serfdom!
Somehow, this makes frivolous lawsuits and a stated policy of obstructionism to hurt Obama okay!
December 23, 2009, 3:08 pmSoap MacTavish says:
“Somehow, this makes frivolous lawsuits and a stated policy of obstructionism to hurt Obama okay!”
So-called “obstructionism” is made okay because of the adversarial nature of the parties and the system. But you’re smart enough to know that.
P.S. As we are officers of the court, nothing justifies frivolous lawsuits…except winning them.
December 23, 2009, 3:37 pmSarcastro says:
[Obstructionism to prevent policies you don't like is fine. Knee-jerk obstructionism to harm the President's reputation so you win in 4 years is not.
Winning a frivolous lawsuits sounds like a mixed blessing. On the one hand it's a helluva accomplishment. On the other, you can't tell people about it's frivolousness or you might have ethics issues.]
December 23, 2009, 3:52 pmMark Field says:
I see that as an effect, not a cause. Good economic policy concentrates people in urban areas for a variety of reasons. Bad policy does the opposite. Again, the difference between North and South is obvious — one area stayed rural (in fact, pretty much forced rural living on a high percentage of its population), while the other developed a high urban culture and economy.
December 23, 2009, 3:56 pmMack says:
I anticipated such an action. I believe this so-called “Nebraska compromise” violates the General Welfare clause.
As explained by Alexander Hamilton:
December 23, 2009, 4:28 pmnevadausa** says:
What a bunch of babies on this website. Wow.
Lot of comments have the same level of intellectual honesty as those you’d find on Daily Kos during the height of the Bush/Cheeny era.
The Senate Bill is the product of horse-trading among Dems because all 40 GOP Senators decided to cry crock tears and go home.
If the people of Nebraska think Ben Nelson committed some sort of constitutionally abhorrent act, then they can elect someone else.
In fact, maybe Mitch McConnell will file some sort of complaint with the Senate asking for Nelson’s expulsion, along with the other 59 Democrats for acts unbecoming of a U.S. Senator (not tongue-in-cheek).
All this could have been avoided if the Senate Dems just let the insurance lobby write the bill. I suspect all 40 GOP Senators would have signed off.
December 23, 2009, 4:52 pmHal (GT) says:
Good for them. I hope they don’t get bought off or sandbagged by DC. Someone needs to look into all these funny behind close door dealings. I’m certainly getting weary of this take from others and give a portion of it to some other group. King George III would be proud.
Of course there is a bit of a social engineering aspect to it. Now Nebraska’s population is going to explode with people seeking free medical and lower tax rates then the rest of the 49.
I suppose it’s interesting to note too that Nelson apparently does have a number in mind when it comes to the value of human life.
December 23, 2009, 4:52 pmMack says:
As explained by Alexander Hamilton:
Thus, exempting only Nebraska from paying Medicaid costs is not “extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union.”
In United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936) the court, quoting Justice Story, says: “[I]f the tax be not proposed for the common defence or general welfare, but for other objects wholly extraneous, it would be wholly indefensible upon constitutional principles. And he makes it clear that the powers of taxation and appropriation extend only to matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare.” Id. at 67.
December 23, 2009, 4:54 pmTatil says:
I am curious about where you got the list and how the surveyors came up with the “happiness” metric. Offer Californians and New Yorkers jobs in
December 23, 2009, 5:08 pmMississippi and see how many of them will take it. There is a good reason these two states have very large populations.
Jessica Tufts says:
Even if the Nebraska bribe is found to be constitutional, that won’t change the fact that it stinks like a rotting skunk carcass marinated in sewage.
December 23, 2009, 5:12 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Will States Challenge the “Nebraska Compromise”? -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jonathan Singer and andrew, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: Will States Challenge the “Nebraska Compromise”?: The AP reports several state attorneys general are looking in.. http://bit.ly/6RME0y [...]
December 23, 2009, 5:53 pmDesiderius says:
Mark Field,
“The last 50 years or so have seen real progress in changing the dynamics, but, sadly, southerners are paying the price for their ancestors’ failures.”
In my, admittedly limited, experience, they’ve seen more than mere progress: the dynamics themselves, as you accurately paint them, are well on their way to flipping, with the Blue States eating their ancestors’ seed corn while the Red struggle to hang on to their new-found liberal prosperity.
December 23, 2009, 6:11 pmGordo says:
Since every other developed nation in the world has embraced your serfdom because they find it morally and civilizationally repugnant to let significant segments of their populations be subject to death or needless suffering due to the lack of medical care, perhaps you should rethink your dogmatism.
December 23, 2009, 6:36 pmMark Field says:
CA certainly is well along that road. I don’t know other states well enough to comment.
Of course, my view is that CA has gone down that road because it has followed the Pied Piper of modern conservative fiscal policy (no traditional conservative would dignify “borrow and spend” as responsible governance).
December 23, 2009, 7:49 pmLarryA says:
How about if it builds a planetarium in one state and requires the other 49 to fund identical ones?
December 23, 2009, 10:52 pmArthurKirkland says:
I do not object to (reasonably) disproportionate federal benefit, but I wish the handout recipients would stop belittling the government hand that feeds them, quit yapping about “personal accountability” as if they practiced it, and at least attempt to emulate the states that subsidize them.
Regarding the happiness rankings, it seems sensible that moochers would enjoy a situation more than moochees. On the other hand, until I see the people with a choice — those with resources, education, skills — ditching the populous and advanced lower-ranked states for the rural and backward higher-ranked states, I am skeptical concerning the methodology.
December 24, 2009, 12:06 amConstantin says:
I’ll stay free and pass. Denmark’s airport’s open, though.
December 24, 2009, 12:07 amDesiderius says:
“I don’t know other states well enough to comment.”
I live on the Mason-Dixon line. I see Northern Kentucky booming on the traditional liberal plan, and Cincinnati stagnating under the typical Urban League neo-feudal* madness (which has now metastasized into the utterly horrifying “conservative” unionism of the FoP draining the treasury dry). Not unlike your prison guard unions.
* – treating half (or more!) of the population as angels, or, worse, children is little improvement over treating us like beasts. Better the liberal idea of treating all with the dignity of our maker, with the concomitant capacity and responsibility for governing our own lives.
“Of course, my view is that CA has gone down that road because it has followed the Pied Piper of modern conservative fiscal policy (no traditional conservative would dignify “borrow and spend” as responsible governance).”
Nor would any liberal. Yet here we are. When those who should be most ardent for good government instead decide to sit at the other side of the bargaining table, how could it be otherwise?
December 24, 2009, 11:14 amBruce Hayden says:
Let’s try eliminating Defense and Interior expenditures first from your figures. Most military bases are in Red states for one thing. Why? 1) a result of the Civil War, and 2) that is where the land is 3) except for specialty units (10th Mtn Div), much of the N and esp. NE is too cold and snowy for training during the winter. For example, Nevada has training bases larger than some Blue states.
I also question the whole theory that people in one state shouldn’t complain about what people in other states are getting from the federal government, because they are getting more than their fair share.
No they aren’t. Almost nobody really is. It is highly humorous the theory that money going to a state benefits the people of that state. Most of the time, it does not. Rather, it benefits a very small number of people there. That Bridge to Nowhere? Would it have benefited most Alaskans? Or John Murtha’s airport? How many people from PA benefit from that airport? Almost none.
Admittedly, this is one of the few situations where the tax payers in general of a single state would benefit from legislation, at a cost to the rest of the 49 states. Humorously, that is why it is problematic. Rather, I would think that all pork would be more so, but that isn’t the way things work, unfortunately.
December 24, 2009, 11:32 amShelbyC says:
Well, the so-called moochee states have less population and therefore less political power, and tend to vote for lower taxes/spending. So this money you’re accusing them of “mooching” is money spent on things the purported beneficiaries don’t even want. If you don’t want them mooching, stop voting for the guys that are doing all the spending.
December 24, 2009, 12:04 pmJaimeInTexas (Jam) says:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suffrage
Main Entry: suf·frage
Pronunciation: \ˈsə-frij, sometimes -fə-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: in sense 1, from Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin suffragium, from Latin, vote, political support, from suffragari to support with one’s vote; in other senses, from Latin suffragium
Date: 14th century
1 : a short intercessory prayer usually in a series
2 : a vote given in deciding a controverted question or electing a person for an office or trust
3 : the right of voting : franchise; also : the exercise of such right
Do yu think that what Nebraska “negotiatied” reflects an equal vote weight compared to all other Senators?
December 24, 2009, 2:38 pmathEIst says:
It’s good that Mark said
December 25, 2009, 10:34 pm*That’s not to say that the New England and other states never used government to advance the interests of the powerful. It’s just that they did so far less than the Southern states did.
Because that’s just what the War between the States(aka the Civil War)was. Who won the WBTS? Northern Industrialists! Just look at the INSANE tariffs from 1860 through the Smoot-Hawley which impoverished the South and made possible the first Gilded Age.
markm says:
Rather than expecting Nebraska voters to put the national good over their own interests, why don’t the voters in the other states kick out the other 58 rascals?
It would be equivalent only if the planetarium was open only for Illinois residents and the other 49 states were required to build their own.
December 26, 2009, 9:31 amChris Travers says:
Living in a rural area, there is another element too. We have a lot of federally owned land around where we live. It puts a burden on us because our county has to provide emergency services (funded mostly through property taxes) and the federal government won’t pay property taxes. They pay instead some laughable figure in lieu of property taxes. Many of us are hence paying to provide firefighting for national forests essentially out of our own pockets.
I would bet that the same is true in many other rural parts of the country. (While I live in a “Blue State,” the part of the state I live in is very, very red.)
December 26, 2009, 7:50 pmlinks for 2010-01-03 « Overton’s Arrow says:
[...] The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Will States Challenge the “Nebraska Compromise”? (tags: states constitution healthcare reform Nebraska) [...]
January 3, 2010, 7:36 pmThree Objections to Obama/Reid/Pelosi | www.statehousecall.org says:
[...] various deals–including the Louisiana Purchase but especially the Nebraska Compromise, for example–violate the general welfare [...]
January 4, 2010, 9:32 amjacqueline simon says:
The Constitution says that the federal government will “provide for the general welfare.” It does not say, Provide for the general welfare, except for Nebraska, which gets special welfare.
January 7, 2010, 9:19 amgaetano says:
The last time I heard,was that nebraska is part of the u.s.a., well how could this bill be called a national health care reform if nebraska is exempt?You freaking crooks and ben nelson will get YOURS, BET ON IT!
January 11, 2010, 6:59 aminterior style says:
This is a really cool blog! I wish I had found it sooner. Keep up the good work.
February 13, 2010, 5:36 am