Too much talk and pork in the US Senate?
Government offices are closed in Washington today because of the weather, but the Senators have not been spared. Why were they being asked to vote in the dead of the night in the middle of a snowstorm, asked the senator opening the debate, Tennessee Republican Lamar Alexander? His own answer was that there was a rush because Democrats didn't want to explain what the bill meant.
Two things are critical to getting a bill through the Senate: bringing on the pork, and cutting the talk. Some might consider these two are politics in its purest form: democracy as constituency-based self-interest and creative use of the rule book. Others may say that they are exactly the sort of thing that many people dislike about politics in general and Washington politics in particular.
This vote in the small hours in a snow-shrouded Senate was not about the contents of the bill. It was to stop endless debate designed solely to stop the passing of legislation, otherwise known as the filibuster. Most legislatures know something of the device but in the Senate it has been raised to a high art form. Over the weekend, clerks read 383 pages of amendments to an almost empty chamber for something like seven hours.
To put a halt to this sort of thing the Democrats running the Senate needed 60 of the 100 senators to vote for a motion. To get enough on side they had to offer changes to the bill itself. Some of these were general, like dropping a federally-run not-for-profit insurance scheme, usually known as "the public option". Too many conservative Democrats had doubts about it for it to live.
But the last vote they needed was of Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson. He too had a worry that also concerned many, over abortion. So it was agreed, via a fairly complex formula, that no federal money would be used to fund abortions. But that wasn't enough, so the pork barrel was wheeled in. Now I must make it clear, what I mean by "pork" doesn't suggest anything improper, just a politician getting a better deal for his or her constituency than is available for everyone else.
over 10 years, meaning the federal government will pay most of the costs of Medicaid, the health scheme for those on very low incomes, in Nebraska, but nowhere else.
Now the planned bill will expand Medicaid and many states feel they can't afford the bill at the moment, so Republicans put forward a proposal to extend the federal payment to all 50 states. The amendment was politely rejected. Putting aside the strong feels about healthcare itself, what do you think of business being done this way?
I’m Mark Mardell, the Ö÷²¥´óÐã's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
Comments
or to comment.