Statesmen or Elitists, Givers or Takers

“That is what legislation is all about.  It is the art of compromise.  There are a hundred senators here, and I don’t know if there is a senator who doesn’t have something in this bill that is important to them, and if they don’t have something in it important to them, then that doesn’t speak well of them.”  - Senator Harry Reid 

Those are Senator Reid’s words in defense of the special deal for Nebraska Medicaid reimbursement demanded by Senator Ben Nelson in return for his favorable vote on the health care bill.  Has it really come to this?  To be spoken well of, does a senator now have to be scrambling for special concessions and benefits for his or her state?  To get votes, does the leadership have to toss out bones to begging legislators?  If so, this is cause for shame and embarrassment and fully explains the inability of our government to control spending.  "Compromise" is not the right word to use for the way this health care bill has been put together.

I see four possible ways, none complimentary, to interpret Senator Nelson’s position that he would not vote for the health care bill without special concessions for Nebraska:

1. He thinks it is a good bill for America but is not voting for it unless Nebraska gets a special deal.
2. He doesn't have an opinion about the health care bill but if it contains some special deal for Nebraska he will vote for it.
3. He thinks the health care bill is a terrible thing for America but if it contains some special deal for Nebraska he will vote for it anyway.
4. He is lying about his position and will finally vote for the health care bill whatever but just wants to do all he can to get a special deal for Nebraska.  Does Senator Nelson play poker? 

Senator Clyburn from South Carolina thinks the complaints about Nelson’s special deal are “politically motivated” and argues, "Rather than sitting here and carping about what Nelson got for Nebraska, I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: 'Let's get together and see what we can get for South Carolina.'"   Great idea, Congressman.  That will really boost the economy and competitiveness of this great nation.

Let me be clear, to use a currently popular phrase, I am not concerned about a senator who would withhold his or her vote because of the presence or lack of a so-called public option or because the bill includes or doesn't include expansion of Medicare.  Those are elements of the legislation that would affect all of us equally.  I am extremely concerned about making one’s vote on a bill that is national in scope and will affect every single citizen contingent on special concessions for one’s own state.  That should be grounds for impeachment.  And the inclusion of such elements in a bill clearly makes it unconstitutional.

You may say that a senator or representative who does such things is not doing it for him or herself but rather for the citizens of his or her state.  Maybe, but I suspect it has more to do with ego and personal stature and getting campaign contributions and winning the next election and protecting his or her own lucrative and prestigious position as a senator or congressman.

As all this debate has been going on, I have been reading The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin on the Amazon Kindle my sons sent me for Christmas.  The contrast between the statesmanship of our founding fathers and the circus currently underway in Washington, DC, is striking.  Of course they were folks who signed their names under this sobering statement:  "...we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."  Could it be that today more go to Washington seeking fortunes than go pledging them?

I was in Tennessee for a couple of days this week and drove by the birthplace of Davy Crockett on the way back to South Carolina.  It made me think of a line from that Disney ballad from the 1960's.  "He went off to congress and served a spell, fixing up the government and laws as well."  Wouldn't it be nice to have more citizen congressmen and a system that gave them a voice in Washington since they would know first hand what the issues and problems are and would be returning to private life to live among their neighbors and with the decisions they make during their time of service?

One of the things I downloaded to the Kindle is the US Constitution.  Here is the preamble:

We the People  of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. – Do you think these words were carefully chosen?  I wonder if the founding fathers were wise enough to know that while it might be possible to “provide” defense,  it would not be possible to “provide” general Welfare and therefore chose the verb “promote” instead?