EBN: Keeping it…fun


We really have to thank E. Benjamin Nelson here on Leavenworth Street.

If he hadn’t been talking and talking and talking and goofing and goofing and goofing for the last four months, we would have been stuck parsing all the goofy things the Omaha Mayor says.

Case in point: An excellent breakdown of Nelson’s explanations for the Cornhusker Kickback (the “CK”) ever since the original negotiations, by The National Review’s Daniel Foster.

He breaks down the progression of Nellie’s excuses for the CK like this:

  1. Nelson was “comfortable” that the CK took care of Nebraska. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “You’ll find a number of states that are treated differently than other states. That’s what legislating is all about. It’s compromise.”
  2. It was all Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman’s idea! Heineman asked for it, and Nelson just passed the idea along to Reid! In fact, it should be called the “Heineman Exemption”! (A major mistake by Nelson. Had he called it the “Heineman Hotplate” or “Dave’s Double-Dip”, it might have stuck…)
  3. No wait, the CK was a “legislative strategy” that would lead to a Medicaid opt-out provision for all states in the final version of the bill!
  4. Ya see, the deal “was not intended to be a special perk for Nebraska, but rather a vehicle by which individual states could choose to opt out of federal funds for Medicaid in the future”. It was a “placeholder”.
We’re pretty sure that in a year’s time, Nelson will claim that the Cornhusker Kickback was actually a reference to the 1963 game where Bob Devaney called a 3rd down punt against Missouri, thereby pinning the Tigers on their own three.
Politicians are awesome…

***
Btw, you may have heard that Warren Buffet is supportive of Senator Nelson’s vote on Health Care.
But note the Oracle of Omaha’s reasoning:

But tackling health care reform now is “the right thing for the country.”


“This bill is not going to be perfect,” Buffett said. “There will be some unintended consequences and some surprises.”

But it’s time to start, he said, and then modify the legislation as needed.
Which is interesting because Nelson just said the other day that now was NOT the time for new Health Care debate and legislation. Nelson said we should have WAITED — knocking Buffett’s point.

Oh well.

Oh, and interesting that Buffett — a HUGE abortion rights proponent, who puts his money where his mouth is on the subject — is all for the bill.

Let’s you know where Pro-Choicers really stand on it.

7 comments

  1. GeosUser says:

    Here's the bottomline about Buffet and that leftie political crap he spews…if he actually believed any of it, Berkshire Hathaway would have paid cash dividends for the past 20-30 years. They never have and why not? Mr. Buffet didn't want to pay the tens of millions of dollars in income tax he personally would have owed. He's all in favor of "spreading the wealth around" but has shielded the bulk of his personal fortune in a "charitable foundation" that his leftist buddies have assured him will not ever be subject to estate taxes. BTW, take a look at how Berkshire stock has performed over the last couple of decades…then tell me he is such a business wizard.

  2. Klev Landsteamer says:

    Maybe I'm just a little dense, but I don't understand what Buffet's pro-choice leanings have to do with supporting health care reform. I know there has been an effort to lump the two issues together, and surely that are parts where they intersect, but they really are two separate issues.

    Whether or not you are in favor of preventing insurance companies from excluding pre-existing conditions has nothing to do with whether you are pro-life or pro-choice.

    I just think the argument at the end is a bit of a reach, and perhaps borderline inappropriate.

  3. Uncle Wiggily says:

    Jebus, Klev … are you really that dense … or are you just being purposely obtuse?

    If you really don't grok that the Senate HC bill (which is the one that almost certainly will be passed) gives the pro-choicers an enormous leg up, then you haven't been paying attention for the last several weeks.

    BTW – you are correct that abortion and health care are not necessarily connected issues … but someone forgot to tell Dingy Harry. As the old Ragu TV commercial said, "It's in there!"

  4. Klev Landsteamer says:

    Wiggily,

    I'm not disputing that the two issues have been lumped together in this debate, but I just think it's silly to connect someone's pro-life/pro-choice stance with how they feel on the HC bill. While it's true for some people that the abortion language is a deal breaker, I don't think that's true of a majority of people.

    If we're to assume that Buffet is in favor of the bill simply because he is Pro-Choice, then it would also follow that he is against the House version of the bill, or that he would be against any final bill containing Stupak-esque language. I'm not the gatekeeper for Buffet's opinions, but I just don't think that's true nor is it true for pro-choicers in general.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.