'The worst of Washington'

Lawmakers have long played this variation on the "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" theme: "You change your bill the way I want, I'll vote for it." When practiced with prudent restraint, that tradition of legislative trading has helped advance worthy agendas via reasonable compromises.

But Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., went far beyond any sense of reason -- or shame -- with the brazen bargain he struck to advance the Senate health care reform bill. As South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham fairly pointed out Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union," the "back-room deals that amount to bribes" to pass the Senate reform bill represent "the worst of Washington."

The back-room deal the Democratic leadership reached with Sen. Nelson late Friday night obtained his vote in the wee hours Monday morning (and a bare-minimum 60-40 party-line margin) to avert a filibuster threat against that bill.

What Sen. Graham aptly calls the "Enron accounting" in the reform bill is troubling enough on the fiscal front. But on the ethics front, the lowdown methods being used to pass it are even worse (see George Will's column on today's Commentary page).

While Sen. Nelson's demands for new abortion language in the bill initially attracted more publicity, a far more egregious example of vote-selling involves Medicaid money. Thanks to Sen. Nelson, the bill has been altered in a manner that he says will severely restrict federal funding of abortion -- though as Sen. Graham pointed out Sunday, the wording change is "a compromise that no pro-life group believes works."

Also thanks to Sen. Nelson: The bill will provide extra Medicaid funding, at this point about $45 million a year, for Nebraska -- and Nebraska only. As Sen. Graham put it: "There's one state in the union where new enrollees for Medicaid will be signed up, and it won't cost anybody in that state money."

That special deal for Nebraska will, though, cost Americans in the other 49 states, including ours. Sen. Graham is asking S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster to review that highly selective Medicaid benefit to determine if it's even constitutional.

Sen. Nelson's not alone in gaining dubious benefits for backing the reform proposal. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., bragged last month that she got her state $300 million in Hurricane Katrina-related Medicaid funding for her support of the bill.

We share Sen. Graham's opinion that the Senate reform legislation is misguided and grossly mislabeled as a deficit reducer, especially in its sponsors' illusory Medicare "savings" claims. We also share his opinion, expressed Sunday, that "the House and Senate bills are in many ways irreconcilable."

Yet you shouldn't have to share any of those opinions to share Sen. Graham's dismay at seeing colleagues swap their votes for Medicaid loot. Nor should you have to oppose this version of "reform" to be troubled by the spectacle of Democratic leaders, including President Obama, forcing senators to vote on debate cloture 36 hours after they first saw the final bill -- and rushing this massive-stakes legislation toward scheduled passage on Christmas Eve.

That's not nearly enough time to effectively review a 2,100-page bill that aims to comprehensively transform our nation's health care system.

But the provision granting Nebraska a Medicaid funding break all its own isn't complex. It's a simple -- and outrageous -- transaction that clearly displays how low some lawmakers will go to get their way.