Posts Tagged ‘Nebraska’

In the News

 January 5, 2010

The Nebraska Compromise and the Constitution

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE)

In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), dated December 30, 2009, the Attorneys General of 13 States have objected to the so-called Nebraska Compromise that reportedly won the crucial support of Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) for the Senate health care takeover bill. The deal is said to involve an agreement that the Federal Government’s taxpayers will assume indefinitely the full share of the costs that Nebraska will incur as the result of the expansion of Medicaid that is one of the Act’s effects. The result is not only preferential treatment for Nebraska but it also hurts the rest of us because the other States will have to make up the difference.

Such preferential treatment is constitutionally suspect; it cannot be reconciled with several important principles incorporated in the Constitution. The Founders would not have dreamed of taking a burden that all of the States should share and allocating it to only some of them. Likewise, they would not have seen the spending of taxpayer money for the benefit of only one State to be in the general interest. Instead, the Founders understood the notion that Congress can spend funds to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare” to mean that the spending had to be for the general or national benefit, not for purely local or regional benefit. This understanding is reflected in veto messages from Presidents from Madison to Buchanan. In fact, the relatively free-spending ways of President John Quincy Adams contributed to his defeat by Andrew Jackson in the election of 1828.

The absence of an explicit prohibition on something like the Nebraska Compromise does not mean that it does not violate the letter or spirit of the Constitution. In particular, it runs afoul of the concept of the States’ equal standing that is incorporated in the Constitution at several points. Duties, imposts, and excises are to be “uniform throughout the United States,” (Art. I, § 1, cl.1), the bankruptcy laws that Congress enacts must be “uniform . . . throughout the United States,” (Art. I, § 8, cl.4), and the ports of one State cannot be given any “preference” with respect to regulation or taxation over those of other States (Art. I, § 9, cl. 6). In addition, there are limits to the conditions that Congress can put on States when they enter the Union because they do so on an “equal footing.” Then, once part of the Union, the States enjoy an “equal sovereignty” that can be taken away only in limited circumstances. Put simply, all of the States, not just 49 of them, are in this together.

(more…)

Tags: , , , ,

  • Bookmark and Share
Comments

In the News

 December 22, 2009

Michigan And Nebraska: The Senate Leadership Has Got A Deal For You!

It has been widely reported that various “sweeteners” are tucked away in the Manager’s Amendment to the Senate health care bill (H.R. 3950). Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) worked out provisions designed to secure the votes of Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Carl Levin (D-MI) by exempting the biggest insurers in their states from the new health insurance premium taxes embodied in the bill.

Sure enough, the Manager’s Amendment adds under Section 9010(c)(2) a new subsection (C) tailored to exempt Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and a new subsection (E) tailored to exempt Blue Cross Blue Shield of Nebraska from paying the new health insurance premium taxes.

Now, those Senators are reportedly pleased with themselves for doing such a fine job of looking out for the folks back home. The only problem is that they shielded just some of their constituents — which should surprise many of their other constituents.

(more…)

Tags: , , , , , ,

  • Bookmark and Share
Comments

Key Documents

 July 28, 2009

The Lewin Group’s National & State Analyses of the July 15 Draft of the American Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009

The Heritage Foundation commissioned The Lewin Group, a highly respected health care policy and management consulting firm, to examine the impact of the American Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200).

Among other provisions, the bill would create a new public plan, modeled on Medicare, to compete with private health plans in a newly established health insurance exchange. In addition to national results, Lewin produced local level impacts of the draft legislation for a select group of states, which include Maine, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Virginia. (more…)

Tags: , , , , , , ,

  • Bookmark and Share
Comments