The art of compromise
Apart from the legitimate constitutional issues The Seattle Times raise about the payoffs to senators used to push through health legislation in the Senate [“ ‘Cornhusker Kickback’ bends federal law,” Opinion, editorial, Dec. 28], are the moral and practical issues.
If senators who vote to mandate additional spending by states receive federal funding to avoid the need for additional taxes in their states — but senators who vote against the spending do not — the result will be a lot more government spending.
Is that what we need at the moment?
This sort of thing has usually been done quietly, but this time Sen. Harry Reid praised the practice as the art of compromise, praised senators who vote for such reasons, and expressed scorn for senators who do not.
Bribery is now defended on principle.
If this is permitted and continues, nothing will be uniform but bribery and preference will be given to those who sell their votes.
— Richard E. Ralston, Newport Beach, Calif.
Bland, easily-digested politics
Eschewing sausage for milk toast, The Seattle Times declared its support for the idea of universal health care, while opposing the current health-care-reform bill as a product of the legislative sausage machine [“Now’s not the time for health-care reform,” Opinion, editorial, Dec. 23].
The editorial criticizing Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson’s success in obtaining benefits for his state in return for support of the health-care bill continues The Times’ campaign for bland, easily digested politics.
Does anybody remember Warren “I just want Washington to get its fair advantage” Magnuson? As chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, he sent billions of dollars our way, paying for everything from hydroelectric dams to first-class medical facilities.
Should we give this sausage back? Speaking for myself, I like sausage.
— Michael B. Gillett, Seattle
Pork and beans for Sen. Patty Murray
Sen. Patty Murray did an admirable job of describing the benefits of the Senate health-care bill [“Delay won’t cure nation’s troubled health-care system,” Opinion, guest commentary, Dec. 23], however, she failed to mention the pork served up to nine states to buy the votes necessary to ensure passage of the bill.
This pork ranged from Nebraska’s receipt of enough federal funds to completely pay for its Medicare expenses, to Montana’s receipt of Medicare funds for people of any age who have an asbestos-related illness.
Another point that Murray failed to mention is the notoriously bad estimates the government typically makes with respect to the cost of such plans. This plan supposedly yields a surplus over 10 years, but more likely it will cost more than expected and lawmakers will be back asking for more tax increases in the near future.
A good measure of any new health-care plan should be whether the House and Senate will give up their special health plan when the new plan is adopted. I wonder what Murray’s answer to that question will be?
— David Cutler, Medina