Beyond the intransigence of members of Congress, here is another reason to be doubtful that the “supercommittee” will craft a fair and balanced deficit-reduction plan: According to a Washington Post analysis, “nearly 100 registered lobbyists used to work for members of the supercommittee, now representing defense companies, health care conglomerates, Wall Street banks and others with a vested interest in the panel’s outcome. . . . Three Democrats and three Republicans on the panel also employ former industry lobbyists on their staffs.” Watchdog groups also have complained that the members of the supercommittee are allowed to raise money while they work on the deal, creating more opportunity for lobbyists and special interests to influence the negotiations.
Martin Hawver, publisher of Hawver’s Capitol Report, wonders if the public will become concerned about the state’s new contract for a $85 million computer system to help verify whether people are eligible for public assistance programs. The program gives the Kansas departments of social and rehabilitation services and health and environment access to the databases at the departments of revenue and labor. “It’s not quite a ‘black helicopter’ deal — and even conservatives don’t mind as long as that helicopter hovers over someone else’s house — but it does provide state government with an unprecedented ability to compare data held by separate agencies,” Hawver wrote. “. . . Most Kansans probably haven’t considered that linking up virtually every bit of information state government has on each resident may be a dab intrusive.”
Predictably, a New York Times editorial sided with the American Civil Liberties Union on whether Kansas can prohibit abortion coverage in comprehensive insurance plans — as the state did in the new law pushed by Rep. Pete DeGraaf, R-Mulvane. The editorial said the ACLU lawsuit “has opened a new front in the legal war over women’s reproductive rights” and “argues persuasively that the law is unconstitutional because it essentially levies a tax on a constitutionally protected procedure.” Just as predictably, a National Review blogger chided the Times and blamed “Obamacare.” Michael New wrote: “The fact that states are facing federal mandates to expand Medicaid eligibility and the fact that government funds will be subsidizing insurance plans through the various exchanges give pro-lifers another avenue to restrict abortion.”
Beyond the intransigence of members of Congress, here is another reason to be doubtful that the “supercommittee” will craft a fair and balanced deficit-reduction plan: According to a Washington Post analysis, “nearly 100 registered lobbyists used to work for members of the supercommittee, now representing defense companies, health care conglomerates, Wall Street banks and others with a vested interest in the panel’s outcome. . . . Three Democrats and three Republicans on the panel also employ former industry lobbyists on their staffs.” Watchdog groups also have complained that the members of the supercommittee are allowed to raise money while they work on the deal, creating more opportunity for lobbyists and special interests to influence the negotiations.
