About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

"Louisiana Purchase" was a necessary Medicaid fix, but media say it's "corrupt"

March 05, 2010 12:53 pm ET — 43 Comments

Media outlets are listing Sen. Mary Landrieu's (D-LA) efforts to insert funding for Louisiana in the Senate health care bill -- dubbed the "Louisiana Purchase" by conservatives -- as an example of Democrats' "corrupt" practices. But the funds are urgently needed to fix the state's Medicaid problems, which are a result of Hurricane Katrina; moreover, many of the state's Republican lawmakers say the fix is necessary, despite criticizing Landrieu for securing it in the bill.

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.

EMBED

AP, IBD, Fox News list "Louisiana Purchase" as an example of corruption

AP: Democrats' "rash of ethical lapses" includes "Louisiana Purchase." The Associated Press, in an article titled, "Democrats mired in swamp they vowed to drain," reported on a "rash of ethics lapses" from Democrats and listed Landrieu's deal as one of them:

A rash of ethics lapses has given Democrats an election-year headache: how to convince skeptical voters that they're any cleaner than Republicans they accused of fostering a "culture of corruption" in 2006.

[...]

Then there's the perception of payoffs to states represented by senators who hesitated on supporting the Senate's health care bill, part of the overhaul that Obama had named his top legislative priority.

Dubbed the "Cornhusker kickback" and the "Louisiana purchase," the deals with Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana drew derision for the perception of sneakiness they created.

IBD: Landrieu deal is example of "corruption." In a March 4 editorial titled, "The Corruptocrats," Investor's Business Daily wrote, "There's a 900-pound elephant in the room in Washington named Corruption. The media don't seem to have noticed it's there -- because the pachyderm is actually a donkey." As an example of a Democratic "scandal," the editorial listed the " 'Louisiana Purchase' of $300 million in exclusive Medicaid funds for Louisiana to buy the support of a swing voter, Sen. Mary Landrieu, for health reform."

Cavuto hosts Bachmann to link "Louisiana Purchase" to Matheson smear. On Fox News' Your World, Neil Cavuto hosted Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) to discuss her demand for an investigation over baseless claims that the White House was "selling" judgeships in exchange for a health care vote. During the segment, Bachmann said, "An independent investigation is timely and makes sense, because every aspect of the health care bill has been negotiated behind closed doors, whether it's the substance of the bill or whether it's been a certain amount of what you might call vote buying, whether it's the 'Cornhusker Kickback,' 'Louisiana Purchase,' the union loophole."

Matthews: Louisiana Purchase has been "exposed as corrupt." On the March 1 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews said Democrats are "going to get rid" of the Louisiana deal because it's been "exposed as corrupt."

CNN contributor Bennett tied "Louisiana Purchase" to corruption. After noting instances of Republican corruption in the past, CNN contributor William Bennett said during the March 3 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, "Now you're looking at Rangel, and you're looking at Paterson. You're looking at a government that people distrust. You're looking at this Tea Party thing going on. And with the 'Cornhusker Kickback,' 'Louisiana Purchase,' and other indices, and then you pass this thing, over the express wishes of the American people, I think it is a political disaster."

But the deal was reportedly a necessary fix to a Katrina-caused Medicaid problem

Times-Picayune: Temporary post-Katrina spending "spiked" per capita income "long enough" to skew Medicaid funding formula, causing state Medicaid funding shortfall. The Times-Picayune reported on January 22 that "Landrieu secured a provision, which she priced at $300 million, to fix the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage for Louisiana. That was called 'the Louisiana Purchase,' though Landrieu insisted the measure was right on the merits, germane to the bill, and did not buy her vote." The article explained that the "FMAP refers to the percentage of a state's payments under Medicaid that are covered by the federal government. Louisiana usually gets a higher match because of how poor the state is, but because of all the recovery and rebuilding money that poured in after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, state per capita income spiked long enough to throw the formula out of kilter and threaten to blow a hole [in] the state budget. Landrieu's fix was, according to state officials, only the beginning of a solution for a huge Medicaid shortfall the state is facing." The article stated that Landrieu said "attaching the Medicaid provision to a health-care bill made sense, and there is no obvious and feasible legislative alternative."

Jindal: "If not corrected in Washington, D.C.," FMAP problem will cost $500 million a year. Louisiana Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal's fiscal year 2010-2011 budget proposal says that the "Louisiana state government faces significant, multi-year budget challenges, compounded by a faulty federal FMAP formula that, if not corrected in Washington, D.C., will cost the state approximately $500 million a year in Medicaid funding, impacting services for the poorest in our state, and often those who need care the most." The proposal also says that "[w]hile there is discussion in Washington about extending the enhanced federal Medicaid match rate for six months for all states, without a permanent fix to Louisiana's faulty FMAP calculation, combined with the loss of federal stimulus funding, Louisiana will still face a projected $1.7 billion shortfall for FY 12."

Lousiana state Health secretary had requested federal exemption to Medicaid financing formula because state's three-year per capita average "does not accurately reflect the financial status" of Louisiana. According to an April 10, 2009, Times-Picayune article, "State Health Secretary Alan Levine has asked the federal government to exempt Louisiana from a Medicaid financing formula that Gov. Bobby Jindal's administration says will force the state to make draconian cuts in health care services for the poor." The article reported: "At issue is how much Medicaid money the federal government allocates to Louisiana for each dollar the state spends from its own purse, with the ratio influenced by the three-year average of each state's per-capita income. In short, wealthier states have to spend more of their own money." According to the article, "Levine maintains that the three-year average, designed to account for temporary anomalies in a state's economy, does not accurately reflect the financial status in a state where everything from post-hurricane spending, higher labor costs, private insurance payouts and federal grants to individuals temporarily swelled personal incomes." Therefore, according to Levine, by January 2011, "Louisiana would have to begin absorbing the equivalent of a $700 million annual loss. He said state revenue projections make it impossible to assume that the state can make up the difference to maintain services at the current level for more than 1 million people." The article added:

The political irony to Levine's request is that it hinges on federal sympathy for the argument that Louisiana is being hurt by the billions of dollars the U.S. government has directed to the state since the 2005 hurricanes.

In his letter to Johnson, Levine called the changes in Louisiana's Medicaid match rates "an unintended consequence of the bold financial initiatives undertaken since 2005." Levine did say that the "billions ... infused into Louisiana's economy following the damage caused by the failure of the federal levee system" are "dollars for which we are grateful."

LA Republicans, including Jindal, support the fix but criticized Landrieu after she obtained it

Jindal staff urged Louisiana delegation to "solve" FMAP crisis. The Hill reported on February 4 that Landrieu said "she attached it to the healthcare bill" at Jindal's "request" and provided a September 2009 email from Julia Kenny, chief of staff for the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, in which "Kenny urges the delegation to 'make our case' for an effort similar to one undertaken by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to secure Medicaid funds for Nevada." According to The Hill, the email also said:

"We will be working on a joint statement with Gov. Jindal and [HHS] Secretary [Kathleen] Sebelius to say they are working on the FMAP issue and asking Congress to solve it," Kenny wrote. "That's huge, if the commitment does lead to follow-through. Once there is agreement, then we will draft a statement for the delegation's consideration applauding the secretary and administration for recognizing the problem and working with Congress to solve it. Thank you."

The article also noted that Jindal issued a statement in response, saying in part, "I'm against the health care bill and always have been. You would have to live in a cave not to know that. I opposed it even with the FMAP language in it. I am glad the health care bill is dead."

The Associated Press itself reported that Jindal pushed for obtaining funds. The AP reported on February 5 that Jindal "was among those joining Landrieu in pushing for more money," but that "since then he's avoided most opportunities to defend her." From the AP article (accessed via Nexis):

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana stood to lose federal reimbursements for Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for the poor, because the state's post-hurricane economic surge temporarily boosted per-capita income that's used to measure Medicaid payments. Louisiana's Republican governor, Bobby Jindal, was among those joining Landrieu in pushing for more money but since then he's avoided most opportunities to defend her.

At a news conference in Baton Rouge, La., Jindal defended the need for the changes to the Medicaid formula, but said he opposed the Senate health care bill, even with the money included.

Asked whether Landrieu was wrong to put the money in the Senate bill, Jindal didn't respond directly and instead said, "I'm not a member of Congress. I'm not going to tell them what bills to draft and what bills to amend."

Times-Picayune noted that Jindal had "pushed" Landrieu to get funding, but did not defend her amid criticism. The Times-Picayune reported on February 4 that the "Jindal administration had pressed the congressional delegation last year to try to remedy the problem and, as the hour grew late, state Secretary of Health and Hospitals Alan Levine looked to Landrieu as the member of the delegation with the most clout to get it done." The article also reported that Jindal did not "defend [Landrieu's] decision to include the 'FMAP fix' in the Senate health overhaul bill," and "said he would have opposed the Senate bill with or without the measure." The article said Jindal had only issued "a single statement to CNN on Nov. 20 in which he said, 'the (health care) bill is awful, but it's unfair to criticize Sen. Landrieu or the rest of our delegation for fighting to correct this.' "

Other LA Republicans also say the funds are necessary, despite criticizing Landrieu for securing them. The Times-Picayune also quoted several Louisiana Republicans, including Sen. David Vitter, Rep. John Fleming, Rep. Charles Boustany, and Rep. Steve Scalise, in a January 22 article as saying fixing FMAP is "legitimate and necessary," but criticized Landrieu for securing it in the health care bill. The article also quoted Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-LA) as saying Landrieu "did what she was asked to do and then the governor didn't step up, Vitter criticized her, she was chastised by talk radio shows because she did what her governor asked her to do, it doesn't put a penny in her pocket."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by bludog1 (March 05, 2010 1:13 pm ET)
      3 10
      Sen. L was against healthcare reform in early to mid January 2010. She was given a $300 million deal for her state in the Majority Leader Reid's manager's amendment. Then, she decided she was the bill, after all. Yeah. Right. No deal here! No Sir! Not at all!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (March 05, 2010 2:30 pm ET)
        4 2
        Liar. There's no evidence that she would have voted against this bill had the fix not been included.

        None at all.

        Yet again with the conspiracy theories, Weasel.

        The correction that was put into this bill was a necessary fix, and wasn't corruption, as the rightwing has been describing it.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bludog1 (March 05, 2010 5:06 pm ET)
          2 6
          She wasn't a yes before. The money was set aside. She became a yes. You connect the dots.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (March 05, 2010 5:22 pm ET)
            4 1
            No, see, this is another example of YOUR side believing a conspiracy theory without any evidence.

            There's no evidence that she would have voted against this bill had the fix not been included.

            None at all.

            Yet again with the conspiracy theories, Weasel.

            The correction that was put into this bill was a necessary fix, and wasn't corruption, as the rightwing has been describing it.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by bludog1 (March 06, 2010 9:30 am ET)
              1 4
              Nice try! Doesn't pass the sniff test, but nice try. If it had been a rep doing that you would be yelling!!
              Report Abuse
              • Author by DellDolly (March 07, 2010 2:00 pm ET)
                2  
                No, that's YOUR side's pattern - hypocrisy, that you say one thing if it's your side doing it and the opposite thing if it's the opposition saying it!

                There's no evidence, none whatsoever, that she would have voted no.

                The fix for Medicaid funding was and remains necessary. It's unfair for Louisiana to be under the same rules as other states when you consider the extra federal dollars they got because of Katrina that skewed the subsequent calculations. Any state facing such an unfair disadvantage should get relief. It doesn't matter if it comes in this bill, which relates to healthcare and Medicaid, or if it were fixed under some other bill.

                You are, once again, demonstrating how the rightwing will buy into a conspiracy theory without any evidence to support that conspiracy theory.

                Your side likely WOULD behave this way, so you assume anyone would, despite the fact that there's no evidence of it here.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by NoNothing (March 08, 2010 3:43 am ET)
                    1
                  Congratulations HelloDolly, you made a whole post without calling someone a weasel or a troll, or did you just make a mistake? I don't think that the those on the Right have to try real hard to create conspiracy theories, Obama is doing that all by himself. All the dodgy backroom deals to get this bill through have created a lingering smell that taints any sort of deal now done, regardless of how many people in white coats with silly grins he has standing behind him when he speaks. I thought for a minute they were there to take him away.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by salg01 (March 08, 2010 8:09 am ET)
                  1 1
                  she said she was against it, she said she was gonna vote no. then suddenly she gets a bunch of money and she votes yes. My god are you really that blind???
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by MR Jensee (March 08, 2010 11:04 am ET)
            1
          Mary Landrieu's deal will cost Louisana 3.3 billion in additional medicaid money that the state doesn't have. This "deal" she took came with strings that the state would have to accept coming up with the additional funding at the expense of Louisiana taxpayers. Screw your sarcasm over lying about evidence. Landrieu wanted to look good on the surface, taking money she said the state needed. Well we didn't need to be saddled with an additional 3.3 billion dollars worth of debt to suport more indigents. What we need in this state is jobs to put all these medicaide recipients to work. We had that till the government started working to kill the oil industry.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by CatsRBigLuv (March 05, 2010 1:21 pm ET)
      4  
      Thr Right isn't really mad about what they call the "Louisiana Purchase". The case with Creepella..., er, I mean, Bobby Jindal clearly shows this.

      I think this article on Politico can explain why the Republicans are attempting to appear indignanat about this issue, as well as several others:

      http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33866.html

      In case any of you havent heard about Memo described in the link, spread the word... it explains the pattern of behavior the right has been engagin in since Obama was elected. However, the precedence for this is part and parcel to the right's support for military-industrial high-rollers.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by OTP (March 05, 2010 1:48 pm ET)
      2 10
      Funny, according to mmfa, "Necessary". what about the other 49 states, Is Medicare FAILING their too? When do they get their bailout, or "purchase"??? spin, spin spin and soon you'll have yarn....
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Panic Man (March 05, 2010 2:28 pm ET)
        2 1
        Suck down that kool-aid, son.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (March 05, 2010 2:32 pm ET)
        2 2
        Yeah, continue to prove that you've got nothing. Did you even READ the MMFA article? Clearly not.

        Please don't feed this troll.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by OTP (March 06, 2010 6:37 pm ET)
            4
          Clearly not... blame katrina, why not just blame the problem, that would be the cowardly ex-mayor and the cowardly ex-governor....

          Every state has it's issues... PAY-OFF. Not only that but a RACIST pay-off....

          BTW - When was the last time YOU were in Louisiana?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by OTP (March 06, 2010 6:37 pm ET)
            5
          Clearly not... blame katrina, why not just blame the problem, that would be the cowardly ex-mayor and the cowardly ex-governor....

          Every state has it's issues... PAY-OFF. Not only that but a RACIST pay-off....

          BTW - When was the last time YOU were in Louisiana?
          Report Abuse
      • Author by angels4light (March 06, 2010 1:43 pm ET)
        3  
        It is not that MedicAid is failing, it is simply that the federal part has been skewed massively downward because of recovery activity as a result of hurricane Katrina.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by OTP (March 06, 2010 6:38 pm ET)
            5
          Now just how does that make sense??? Of course it's a racist thing....
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Ruby (March 06, 2010 11:56 pm ET)
            3  
            The spending in Louisiana in the recovery efforts post-Katrina temporarily spiked our per capita income enough to skew the medicaid funding formula. Exactly how the post explains. It makes complete sense.

            A lot of people here in Louisiana were very upset after some media personalities called Mary Landrieu a prostitute for securing these funds. There were many, many letters to the editor printed in the local paper denouncing Bobby Jindal and David Vitter for failing to stick up for Mary Landrieu. Everyone knows the medicaid thing is a big problem, and everyone knew that Jindal had asked Landrieu to secure these funds. Bobby Jindal did eventually condemn the sexist and degrading language used to attack Landrieu, and I respect him for doing it.

            We here in the south pride ourselves on our politeness, our hospitality, and our chivalry. Many Louisianians, Republicans and Democrats alike, were disappointed when Jindal and Vitter did not immediately stand up for Landrieu.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by MR Jensee (March 08, 2010 11:11 am ET)
                2
              Mary Landrieu has sold us Louisianains down the river. The ONLY politician standing up for the state right now in the Senate is David Vitter. At least he has a conscience. As for Bobby Jindal, I could go on and on about this absentee Governor and what a disapointment he has been. I voted for him but never again.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by wesley (March 05, 2010 2:35 pm ET)
      2 5
      -- Louisiana Purchase" was a necessary Medicaid fix -- mmfa

      No, it is the consequence of letting the federal govt. get involved...medicaid, medicare, and social security all facing bankruptcy.

      Here's what I get from the story about the "Louisiana Purchase":

      -- $300 million, to fix the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage for Louisiana...state per capita income spiked long enough to throw the formula out of kilter...only the beginning of a solution for a huge Medicaid shortfall the state is facing...a faulty federal FMAP formula...changes in Louisiana's Medicaid match rates "an unintended consequence --

      The feds are constantly having to throw money at problems caused by their own stupidity in enacted legislation...making the assumption by the CBO and the democrats absurd that their health care reform will actually save money...LOL

      And here's the biggest joke of all:

      -- The political irony to Levine's request is that it hinges on federal sympathy for the argument that Louisiana is being hurt by the billions of dollars the U.S. government has directed to the state since the 2005 hurricanes. --

      When your only solution is too spend huge sums of money that we don't have and create more inefficient and bloated govt.bureaucracy...it's time to get the hell out of the way of the American people...it's way past time.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by thaneb (March 05, 2010 3:28 pm ET)
        2 1
        Please envision the state of the nation had not Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid not been implemented when they were. As to their impending “bankruptcy,” did you agreed with Al Gore, ca 2000? The alternative at that time was privatization via the stock market.
        In what respect are unintended consequences “stupidity”?
        What is the logical relation of Louisiana’s problem with health care reform other than with a large assumption?
        Please document where the CBO has made an “assumption”.
        The $Billions to Lou were for rebuilding following a catastrophe. That $ skewed the Medicaid calculation. Given those facts in what respect does Secretary Levine’s request rest on some sort of unwarranted “sympathy?” It rests on those facts.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by wesley (March 05, 2010 3:41 pm ET)
          2 5
          A better place...about what?...still is a better solution...failing to account for them...huh?...every time they issue a report...they'll always find facts to support spending more money to fix their faulty plans.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by raddave43 (March 05, 2010 3:53 pm ET)
        5 1
        I find it totally fascinating that so-called conservatives are now complaining about how much money our Government is spending, but were mostly quiet in the 8 years of the Bush administration. When that administration rose our national debt by almost $7 trillion and funded two wars that cost over a trillion dollars, most of which through emergency spending bills.

        The CBO took all of its figures from the bill and concluded that it would save money. The only reason you question this is because the results were not what you had hoped for.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by wesley (March 05, 2010 4:09 pm ET)
          1 4
          Nope...it's because I take the CBO at their word:

          -- CBO's baseline projections must estimate the future paths of federal spending and revenues under current law and policies. The baseline is therefore not intended to be a prediction of future budgetary outcomes...So for that reason and others, actual budgetary outcomes are almost certain to differ from CBO's baseline projections -- CBO

          The CBO is functional in taking two different scenarios and judging the relative differences...not predicting future outcomes of a single piece of legislation like health care reform.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by raddave43 (March 05, 2010 4:14 pm ET)
            3  
            Funny their first item on the link you provided is a PROJECTION of the debt.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by wesley (March 05, 2010 4:21 pm ET)
              2 4
              Of course they make projections...but by their own admission "actual budgetary outcomes are almost certain to differ from CBO's baseline projections".
              Report Abuse
              • Author by raddave43 (March 05, 2010 4:22 pm ET)
                3 1
                Well there is no way they could be 100% accurate, but that does not make them wildly inaccuate either.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by wesley (March 05, 2010 4:29 pm ET)
                  1 4
                  Weellll...there you go again.

                  I didn't say they had to be 100% accurate...or...that they are wildly inaccurate.

                  I did say they are not a predictor of future budgetary outcomes...rendering moot the assumption that the democrat's health care plan will save money and lower costs by relying on the CBO report.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by DellDolly (March 05, 2010 5:27 pm ET)
                    4 1
                    Again you're lying about this.

                    They have never claimed to be a predictor with 100% accuracy. However, we HAVE to have tools that give us SOME idea of what will happen to the economy in the future. That's how we know that there could be a crisis with Social Security and almost certainly will be one with the Medicare trust fund!

                    The fact that they aren't exact doesn't render their predictions moot in the least. You've tried to push the bogus talking point before, and it hasn't magically become true with the passage of time.

                    Their prediction is the best idea we have of what will happen if we do nothing. Their prediction is that if we do the Obama bill, we will actually cut into the deficit.

                    Facts. You gotta love 'em unless you're on the right side of the aisle!
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by oscar the grouch (March 06, 2010 9:16 pm ET)
                        4
                      So, let me try to get something straight. CBO is "dead spot on" regarding the fact that health care reform will result in a net reduction in National deficit/debt over the next decade. But on the other hand, the projected 10 Trillion (with a T) increase in deficit over the next ten years is a "wild shot in the dark". Wow!!!
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by DellDolly (March 07, 2010 2:10 pm ET)
                        2  
                        What a dishonest post.

                        No one but YOU said that the projections WRT the 10 year deficit were a "wild shot in the dark". Yet you put those comments in quotes as though someone else DID say that.

                        No one has said that the CBO is "dead spot on", either. In fact, it's almost certain that they won't be spot on - they'll be a little high, or a little low - reality tells us that it'd be an unreal coincidence if they actually were spot on! However, we have to have some kind of predictions in order to run gov't. Philadelphia predicts how much they'll spend each year on snow removal - sometimes they're off, but they have some historical data from which to make those predictions so they can craft a budget! It's done all the time, and to simply reject the CBO projections, as Wesley wants us to do, because they TELL us that they aren't promising a specific final, actual revenue expenditure is immature and illogical.

                        Dishonest liar.
                        Report Abuse
        • Author by boulderhippy (March 05, 2010 4:40 pm ET)
          2 3
          The CBO only takes into consideration the actual figures on spending. It does not take the unfunded mandates into consideration. The states will be responsible for the unfunded mandates. That is the reason for the bribes to Neb. and LA.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by MR Jensee (March 08, 2010 11:18 am ET)
          1 2
          We weren't quiet. But just like what's going on now, the politicians in Washington are listening to everyone but the people they represent. A lot of conservatives were nauseous and against GW and the suicidial Republicans for the wreckless spending that went on. But what is happening now is far from any "fix" from the wholely owned government of the Democrats and Obama. I'm pretty sure this so called recovery he has planned for us is going to be more painful that it ever needed to be had he let GM, Chrysler, AIG and all those wreckless banks fail. It would have be a heck of a blow but we would have learned better from it and come out better in the long run. Now we are just going to be financially and morally bankrupt for a long long time. Mark my words. The worst is yet to come.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by OTP (March 06, 2010 6:39 pm ET)
          3
        Exactly right, yet another government FAILURE - FAIL.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by MagCynic (March 06, 2010 11:49 am ET)
      1 3
      I'm sure to get thumbs down for being such a heartless bastard, but this "Louisiana Purchase" is clearly an unconstitutional provision. It may be a good thing for Louisiana. It may even be necessary. It simply isn't Constitutional though. Why do I say this? What power of Congress would this fall under? If you say "to provide for the ... general welfare" you would be wrong. For something to be for the General Welfare of the country it must apply to the entire country as a whole. The Founders were very clear in this regard. What other Congressional power could it fall under then?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by angels4light (March 06, 2010 1:45 pm ET)
        2 2
        Mag, it is all about restoring what should not have been withdrawn - nothing more, nothing less, and certainly not a bribe.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by egb (March 07, 2010 4:28 am ET)
      1 3
      If it were done in the private sector it would be corrupt and illegal. If it were done between a private company and a government it would be corrupt and illegal. Why when two governments do it (Fed and state) is it suddenly legal? We all know what's going on here; Landrieu sold her vote for $300,000,000. She should be thrown out of the Senate.

      This is in-your-face corruption, Obama style.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Johaely (March 07, 2010 1:22 pm ET)
        3  
        Wait Senator Mary Landrieu did something for her state, the one where she was elected to represent, and that makes her deserving of being called a prostitue and kicked out?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by grmce (March 08, 2010 6:03 am ET)
      1  
      The accusations of corruption say more about the stone throwers than about Sen. Landrieu.

      Honi soit qui mal y pense (look it up).
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.