On Hannity, O'Keefe repeats false suggestion that Landrieu took $300 million bribe
Appearing on Fox News' Hannity following his arrest for charges relating to an alleged plot involving Sen. Mary Landrieu's phones, James O'Keefe repeatedly falsely suggested that Landrieu had received a $300 million bribe in return for a vote on health care reform legislation. In fact, Landrieu did not receive $300 million; rather, the Senate version of the health care bill included a provision that could give $300 million to Louisiana Medicaid to deal with the fallout from Hurricane Katrina.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
O'Keefe repeatedly falsely suggested Landrieu took $300 million bribe
O'Keefe: Landrieu "received a few hundred million dollars in money in exchange for her vote on the health care bill." During his February 1 appearance on Hannity, O'Keefe stated that the reason he had entered Landrieu's office was that "there were reports that Senator Landrieu -- her constituents was, were not able to get through to her. She said her lines were jammed for a few weeks after she received a few hundred million dollars in money in exchange for her vote on the health care bill."
O'Keefe: "We deserve to find out if they're accepting $300 million in money." Later in the interview, O'Keefe said of his actions in Landrieu's office: "Generally speaking, it's the people's office. It's -- these are representatives of our country and we deserve to find out if they're accepting $300 million in money. We deserve to find out what's going on, why the people of Louisiana couldn't get through to her."
Previously, O'Keefe claimed Landrieu constituents "didn't want her taking millions of federal dollars." In a statement posted on BigGovernment.com, O'Keefe asserted: "I learned from a number of sources that many of Senator Landrieu's constituents were having trouble getting through to her office to tell her that they didn't want her taking millions of federal dollars in exchange for her vote on the healthcare bill."
Money actually for Louisiana Medicaid, not Landrieu
Landrieu: Hundreds of millions in Senate bill to deal with shortfall in Louisiana Medicaid caused by Katrina. As the Washington Independent's David Weigel noted in response to O'Keefe's statement on BigGovernment.com: "[T]he controversy is not over whether Landrieu is "taking millions of federal dollars," but why the Senate added $300 million in Medicaid subsidies that stood to benefit Louisiana. That's a legitimate issue -- O'Keefe, trying to clear the air, bends it into a bribery smear." Indeed, several media outlets noted that Landrieu had secured funding to increase federal contributions to Medicaid as part of the Senate version of the health care reform bill worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Landrieu described the provision in a press release announcing her support for the health reform legislation, stating that it was necessary to deal with the fact that Louisiana's "per capita income was abnormally inflated" due to "one-time recovery dollars" given to Louisiana as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita:
Finally, I was also proud to work with Leader Reid and Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus to address an inequity in the formula that determines the federal match of Medicaid dollars. As we all know, in 2005 Hurricanes Katrina and Rita ravaged the Gulf Coast and destroyed homes, neighborhoods, and even full communities throughout South Louisiana. In an effort to aid the recovery, Congress approved a much-needed aid package for Louisianans that infused grant dollars and direct assistance to speed our recovery.
Some necessary one-time recovery dollars, in addition to labor and wage costs going up because there was a constriction in the market, were calculated into our State's per capita income. The result has been that Louisiana's per capita income was abnormally inflated, and put us in a category with richer states like Connecticut, Massachusetts and Maryland.
The result is that our federal match for Medicaid dropped pretty dramatically. I worked with my colleagues to correct this formula. I never asked for special treatment for Louisiana, but only for understanding of the unintended consequences of our state's unique situation. We only wanted to be treated fairly and not to get penalized because we have been forced to rebuild following the worst natural disaster in the United States' history. Our federal Medicaid match rates should reflect the reality on the ground in Louisiana, not the cold calculations of inflexible federal formulas.
Louisiana Republican Sen. Vitter reportedly said there are "legitimate arguments in favor of the Louisiana hurricane-Medicaid fix." From a January 28 article in the Baton Rouge Advocate:
Sen. David Vitter, R-La., said Landrieu's actions and the controversy that followed it hurt the merits and prospects of state congressional members to securing future federal Medicaid dollars.
"I'm afraid that legitimate arguments in favor of the Louisiana hurricane-Medicaid fix will never be focused on now because of the deal-making over the Obama health-care bill," Vitter said.
AP: Jindal's administration has "publicly sought a fix to the temporary drop in federal Medicaid match money for Louisiana." From a January 20 Associated Press article:
Without Landrieu's language, Louisiana's federal assistance for Medicaid will be cut because the state's post-Hurricane Katrina economic surge temporarily drove up average income in the state because of government aid and high-paying reconstruction jobs. The federal share of Medicaid aid is higher for states with lower average incomes. State officials have argued the state shouldn't be penalized for an artificial, temporary per-capita income boost.
"Louisiana only asked to stay where we were; to have the same payment schedule that we've always had," Landrieu said.
Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal's administration and much of the state congressional delegation have publicly sought a fix to the temporary drop in federal Medicaid match money for Louisiana, though Jindal and most of the state's congressmen oppose the Democrat's health care bill.
Times-Picayune: Jindal health secretary says people should be "grateful that Landrieu used her leverage" to try to get health care fix. An November 20, 2009, article in the New Orleans Times-Picayune reported (via Nexis):
While the Republican National Committee immediately charged that Landrieu has made a "backroom deal with (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid for her support of the government takeover of our health care system,'' Alan Levine, Louisiana secretary of health and hospitals in the Jindal administration, said that even those who oppose the bill ought to be grateful that Landrieu used her leverage to try to fix the state's so-called "FMAP'' problem.
"Look,'' said Levine, who has been lobbying the administration and Congress on the FMAP issue for eight months, "it's good to have a senator in a position to be able to make demands like that.''
"While I don't support the bill, she is doing the best she can to help the state, and she should be applauded,'' he said.
Speaking of money, it looks to me like someone's trying to be cheap with O'Keefe's legal advice.
But no so stupid that he isn't scared witless right about now, because his attorney has no doubt informed him that accusing Landrieu of taking a bribe is probably not going to be an effective defense.
Where did all of this loyalty to a political party come from? Do any of you really believe that the political party you're so loyal to is likewise as loyal to you? I'm a conservative and have no problems calling McCain, Graham, Crist, and others what they are! Wrong is wrong and right is right! Why is that so hard?
It's not a right versus left thing in America...it's supposed to be a right versus wrong thing!
Wise up!
If so, you'd know that the money went to remedy skewed data.
Let's say your grandparents agree that every month, they'll ensure that you and your cousins all have $100 in a checking account the beginning of every month to splurge on.
Your parents know that you're going to have a $300 dentist co-payment coming up in a couple of months, and so they put enough money into your checking account to cover that upcoming expense.
Would it be fair for your grandparents to assume that they've been overpaying you, and therefore not supplant the money that's in your account when they replenish all the other cousin's money?
Well, they might - they might see the money in there, and not know. But if you told them why the extra funds were in there, wouldn't they then realize that they needed to ignore that $300 in there? Of course they would.
That's the same thing that Landrieu got the Feds to do - to recognize that some Katrina payments have skewed the numbers, and if an adjustment wasn't made, Louisiana would be unfairly victimized again by Katrina!
On its face, this poll suggests that a significant plurality of the GOP base are psychotic:
• “Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?” Yes 42%, No 36%, Not Sure 22%.
• “Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win?” Yes 24%, No 43%, Not Sure 33%.
• “Do you believe ACORN stole the 2008 election?” Yes 21%, No 24%, Not Sure 55%.
• “Do you believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates White people?” Yes 31%, No 36%, Not Sure 33%.
• “Do you believe your state should secede from the United States?” The answer here is Yes 23%, No 58%, Not Sure 19%. On this basis, Kos declares: “42 percent of Republicans aren’t really patriotic.” Among Republicans in the South, secessionism is stronger at Yes 33%, No 52% Not Sure 15%.
But only on its face. They’re not actually psychotic, because the reality they hold was carefully crafted for them not only by extremists on the wingnut blogs, but by the mainstream leaders of their party and by Fox News, a major cable outlet.
For me, Obama was most on-point when he said this at last week’s GOP retreat:
… We’ve got to close the gap a little bit between the rhetoric and the reality.
I’m not suggesting that we’re going to agree on everything, whether it’s on health care or energy or what have you, but if the way these issues are being presented by the Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives, what happens is you guys then don’t have a lot of room to negotiate with me.
I mean, the fact of the matter is is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You’ve given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you’ve been telling your constituents is, “This guy’s doing all kinds of crazy stuff that’s going to destroy America.”
They’ve painted themselves into a corner with their rhetoric to such a degree that they can’t even support their bad own ideas <http://dailyhurricane.com/2010/01/republicans-oppose-reducing-the-deficit.html> when those ideas are presented by the majority party.
Just Saying!
A voice of sanity. Thank you.
It also doesn't bother you in the least to know that no money has been given to her state because the bill has yet to pass? A bill that is looking less likely to pass?
It doesn't bother you that people like Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh have called senator Landrieu a prostitute, for securing a federal package for her state, which the govenor of that state would later come out and say that the "delegates" should not be criticized for securing this money, while leaving Senator Landrieu's characterization as a prostitute to stand?
Furthermore, how would anything ever make it past congress when the purposes of both chambers are diametrically opposed to each other? You would essentially render meaningless the legislative branch of the federal government.
Guess it's fine when it's good ol' Republic pork barrel spending.
Day - You think I'm a fool....whatever. Lets do it your way then and let all members of the Legislative branch continue to march up to the pig trough and feed off of more tax dollars than we can possibly collect. BUT, lets at least give the President a line item veto.
2) Sen. Nelson asked that any special deal he previously worked for his state be withdrawn from the bill.
Is it the Fed's responsibility to bail out Louisiana because of that terrible tragedy? No. This is not the purpose of our government. We are a wealthy, generous country and we can provide for our own without the government stealing from you and redistributing it as they see fit.
Look what Grover Cleveland said in 1887 he vetoed an appropriation to help drought-stricken counties in Texas:
"I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in
benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds...
I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution."
You know what happened next? Private charitable contributions flooded in to help the farmers and amounted to ten times what the Legislature was asking.
That is how America is supposed to work. Not this nonsense Socialist state all you libs are trying to put us in.
Our federal government should do just as much or more disadvantaged states!
So it's not the responsibility of the government to respond to aiding it's citizens? What is the responsibility of the government if not to protect and aid the citizens of this country? Or is it that we're simply 50 states instead of 1 nation. And if so should we not eliminate "one nation under god" from the pledge since we are in reality merely 50 states?
Besides, O'Queef might be juvenile, and stupid, but he's surely informed enough to know that the Landrieu deal is just typical congressional business, no different than any of the "earmark" packages handed out every day for other legislative concessions.
I think I'd rather distribute my wealth among the public as I see fit, such as liberty would dictate. But I'm glad your all enjoying the government stealing what is yours.
You claim that it doesn't go into a black hole yet the national debt is over 12 trillion. I'd consider interest a black hole.
Ironically, it is the blue (or liberal) states that are the ones who pay more into the government than they get out of it in programs. I would not expect you to know that unknown. It is not something advertised on Fox News or hate radio.
Taxation robbery 4tl, reading comprehension 4tw.
Look up the history of the national debt. Notice how it always EXPLODES under Republic presidential administrations?
Rant done.
Failing to account for the skewed data would have been wrong. Accounting for skewed data is what any state should be allowed to do, any time it happens.
So she is like a pimp?
"There are three kinds of people in the U.S. The moochers, the looters and the producers. The looters (government) loot from the producers and give to the moochers in return for moocher votes."
Neal Boortz
Once it's explained, it's not a bribe at all. It's a reasonable adjustment due to one-off payments that skew the data.
You sure wouldn't know that if you only listened to the rightwing, who crop information to make Dems look bad whenever possible.
They are assessing the usage of the money as they see fit, in order to "disprove" conservative "misinformation".
"Without Landrieu's language, Louisiana's federal assistance for Medicaid will be cut because the state's post-Hurricane Katrina economic surge temporarily drove up average income in the state because of government aid and high-paying reconstruction jobs. The federal share of Medicaid aid is higher for states with lower average incomes. State officials have argued the state shouldn't be penalized for an artificial, temporary per-capita income boost."
Have you ever considered the possibility that this isn't a temporary boost? I did, so I went to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis because I didn't take this article at face value. I saw that the only reason the growth rate was up so much is because of how low it fell during Katrina. It fell 20.6% in 2006. Went up 10.5% in 2007, and up another 9.2% in 2008, bringing it back to where it was.
Now the picture is coming together. Probably not for you, but for me it is.
O'Keefe has...
We need to be done with this left vs right crap. The last administration run by the right screwed this country up....the current administration run by the left are just stepping on the accelerator toward oblivion.
Many Americans want their country back. Some have expressed that in the formation of a Tea Party movement. The only problem with them is that they need to watch their step or they are going to be co-op'ed by the Republican Party and lose all credibility and momentum....then it just reverts back to left-vs-right.
More importantly, if more Americans can do a buy-in with Medicare, it creates more cost control (because there’s a genuine “public option” competitor).
It also helps to solve the problems of pre-existing conditions, because Medicare does not deny coverage on this basis.
Allowing a Medicare buy-in to Americans under 65 would give people a genuine alternative to private insurance and thereby render the pre-existing question moot.
It would also lower Medicare costs by expanding the risk pool of patients (the great bulk of medical expenses are accounted for by a small number of people, mostly the elderly, requiring very expensive treatment).
And it would substantially enhance the global competitiveness of American corporations. After all, in what other country in the world is health care a marginal cost of production for business?” - Roosevelt Institute Marshall Auerback