In the “fine” tradition of Louisiana politics, Mary Landrieu justifies the theft of taxpayer dollars (i.e. the “Louisiana Purchase”). By the way, with her accepting that money, she committed political suicide.

Unsurprisingly, President Obama recently realized early legislative success in pursuit of his massive government-heavy healthcare program.

Sen. Harry Reid pushed the initial legislation to the Senate, giving our representatives very little time to review the bill in advance of the first vote opening further debate.

In attempting to clear this initial procedural hurdle, Reid and the Obama administration could not find the support of a single Republican senator and also were having difficulty in rounding up even the necessary 60 votes, all of which would have to be Democrats, to advance the legislation.

Now, most taxpayers would hope that, in pursuit of the 60 votes, the administration and Senate Democrats would use the merits of the legislation as the basis for their swaying of members of their own party. Sadly, that simply is not the case.

Rather, bribes in the form of earmarks ended up being the carrot that lured in the final votes on a critical piece of legislation that may impact the future of our nation’s healthcare. . . and our nation’s debt.

Take, for example, Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, one of the last Senate holdouts who joined other Democrats only hours before the controversial vote. What drew Landrieu to vote in support of the legislation? Was it her comfort with the cost, or perhaps her satisfaction that the concerns of her constituents had been satisfied?

Sadly, the answer lies with a seemingly minor provision added to the healthcare legislation, which takes two pages to write up a description of which states would qualify for an influx of 100 million additional dollars in federal Medicaid subsidies, using phrases such as “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”

Those two pages make it so that the only state that could qualify is Louisiana. Landrieu says the funds will total to $300 million ($100 million in disaster relief and $200 in Medicaid).

But if you thought the esteemed senator would feel the least bit ashamed of how her decision was made, think again. In her floor speech, after accusations that her vote was bought, Landrieu said: “I will correct something. It’s not $100 million, it’s $300 million, and I’m proud of it and will keep fighting for it.”

But the waste and hidden vote purchases are not confined to Landrieu and the Democrats’ 21st-century Louisiana Purchase. A Boston Globe story in July uncovered a provision in both the Senate and House versions of the bill that would designate large sums of money (up to $1.6 billion each year in the House version) to improve the nation’s “health infrastructure.” The proposal will cover community grants for things such as bike paths, jungle gyms, sidewalks, lighting, farmers markets, etc., as a preventive health measure.

Certainly preventive healthcare is a worthy topic for discussion, but is a “reform” of our healthcare system really the appropriate place to spend billions on children’s playgrounds?

Earmarks and “pork” are not new in Washington politics. However, earmarks and pork required to get Democrats to support a Democratic-authored healthcare reform bill should tell us all we need to know: Even internally, many Democrats recognize that Americans do not support their effort to further empower the federal government and drive up the national debt all in the name of faux “reform.”

The time has come for Americans of every political persuasion to stand up and demand that our representatives seriously debate the ramifications of this healthcare legislation instead of trying to find ways to be compensated for their votes. Perhaps the clearest way to send that message is to send Landrieu packing. After all, in the actual Louisiana Purchase, Thomas Jefferson managed to purchase half the county for 20 times less than it took for Landrieu to give it all away!

I think it is common knowledge that the vast majority of Republicans, save for a RINO or three, are completely against the health care reform bill. As of late, Harry Reid has been crafting a bill that he hopes gets passed; however, there is a twist to all of this: Reid, from all appearances, has inserted language into the bill that would incentivize certain areas of the country. Here’s the inside skinny, based on page 432 of the Reid bill:

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.’’.

Basically folks, this section is offering increased Medicaid susidies to areas (or in this case, an area) that are recovering from a major disaster. If memory serves me correctly, one state automatically comes to mind (and don’t think that Reid didn’t factor this in when putting this bill together): Louisiana.

Remember Hurricane Katrina, people? The above section of the Reid bill can be translated into, for all intents and purposes, as a bribe. Keep in mind as to who represents the state of Louisiana: one MaryLandrieu – one of the Democrats who are against the bill. I’m gonna call this for what it really is: a bribe.

Now Landrieu faces a dilemma. Does she sign off on this piece of bribery legislation, or does she listen to the citizens of her home state? Should she relent and vote for the bill, she remains on the good side of the Democratic Party. On the other hand, if she listens to the citizens of Louisiana, she risks beng ostracized by the party that she belongs to. In other words, party standing vs. re-election.

I have a novel idea for Ms. Landrieu. Maybe she should let her conscience guide her decision on this bill and let the chips fall where they may. That’s an occupational hazard in the world of politics, folks, and Landrieu is fully realizing that. And to think that her political future will ride on a single vote. And as for Reid, he should be ashamed of himself for even inserting such language into a bill.

Photo: Life