In The Hill today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid defends his use of special incentives to lure certain senators into voting for his health care reform bill. But his explanation sounds less like a defense of what he did than it does like an indictment of the Senate’s entire legislative process:
“One way we were able to [secure 60 votes]… was that we had to deal with the art of compromise,” Reid said, noting that every lawmakers from every state have different needs they seek to satisfy. “That’s what legislation is all about; it’s the art of compromise…This legislation is no different than the defense bill we just spent $600 billion dollars on. It’s no different than any other piece of legislation…I don’t know if there’s a senator who doesn’t have something in this bill that’s important to them. And if they don’t have something in it that’s important to them, then it’s doesn’t speak well for them.”
“Compromise” on legislative matters would normally imply meeting others halfway on issues of contention. But in this case, it means buying senators off with special sweetheart deals for their states (such as Louisiana and Nebraska) that are intended to benefit those senators politically.
To suggest that this is “no different than any other piece of legislation” is to suggest that the entire process is corrupt.
