With the latest version of Trumpcare floundering after several Republicans announced that they cannot support the legislation in its current form, Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) are set to release on Monday yet another draft of their Obamacare repeal plan that includes extra funding for the home states of senators who have expressed deep concerns about the bill -- a move Buzzfeed reporter Paul McLeod quickly characterized as "shockingly blatant bribery."
"There's really no way around it," McLeod added. "This is almost comically targeted to sweeten the deal for the senators voting no. What a way to go out."
According to the Washington Post, a summary of the draft that was circulating on Capitol Hill late Sunday indicated that "Alaska would get 3 percent more funding between 2020 and 2026 than under current law, and Maine would get 43 percent more funding during that time period."
As McLeod observed, the funding "sweeteners" are clearly aimed at assuaging two senators -- Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine -- who have long been opposed to measures that deeply cut Medicaid. Murkowski and Collins both voted against the GOP's previous attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but neither have officially indicated that they will oppose the latest bill.
So once again it's screw the public interest and support the special interests instead and here's a bag of cash to sooth your conscience.
Drainin' the swamp, Donny. Drainin' the swamp.
4 comments:
Thankfully, Collins came out today with a firm ""no." While the Graham-Cassidy bill looks doomed, I see that Texas moron Louis Gohmert now wants Arizona to recall McCain! Scuzzbuckets will be scuzzbuckets.
Cap
Gohmert is a certifiable POS.
Speaking of corruption, Mound, I don't know if you caught this article, but corruption's become quite close to legal south of the border:
A federal appeals panel on Tuesday overturned the 2015 corruption convictions of Dean G. Skelos, once the powerful majority leader of the New York State Senate, and his son, Adam B. Skelos, citing a decision last year of the United States Supreme Court that narrowed the legal definition of corruption.
Mr. Skelos, a Long Island Republican, and his son were convicted in December 2015 of bribery, extortion and conspiracy. Prosecutors alleged that the men abused the father’s office to pressure a Manhattan developer, a medical malpractice insurer and an environmental technology company to provide the son with hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting work, a no-show job and a direct payment of $20,000.
But ... a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that the judge’s instructions to the jury in the Skeloses’ trial were in error in light of the Supreme Court decision, which involved Bob McDonnell, the former Republican governor of Virginia, and was issued about six months after the Skeloses were convicted.
The panel found that the judge’s explanation to the jury of an official action was too broad, and that the jury may have convicted the Skeloses for conduct that was not unlawful under the McDonnell ruling. (Emphasis added)
Good to know a politician pressuring people to provide his son with hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting work, a no-show job and a direct payment of $20,000, may no longer be unlawful. Looks like the SCOTUS is trying to tie off some loose ends following its Citizens United ruling.
Cap
That's just depressing, Cap. The advent of the "transactional government." Rome went down that same path in the years before it fell.
Post a Comment