The way Congress works -- or doesn't

Regardless of whatever health care reform Congress finally approves - or doesn't - it's certain that a lot of Americans won't like the outcome.

Just as sure, many of us are turned off by the way this legislation was put together.

We understand and accept that nasty negotiation and continual compromise are the price we pay for democracy instead of dictatorship.

However, the extended health care debate that led to approval of the Senate bill that's headed for conference with the House, revealed some especially distasteful bribes, er, deals for Democrat votes along the way. They even earned their own nicknames.

l “Louisiana Purchase”: Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana, came on board after securing $100 million in extra federal Medicaid assistance for her state; she's boasted that it's actually as much as $300 million.

l “Cornhusker kickback”: In return for his, and only his, state's exemption from its cost of a proposed expanded Medicaid program after 2017, a deal worth an estimated $100 million, Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska, voted “yes.”

Business as usual in Congress? Yes, but it seems the excesses have become worse over the past decade. Does this process serve the American people?

Too often, no. For one, have you checked the national debt figure lately?

Congress largely is elected people seeking benefits for his or her state. Voting for or against a bill because it's the right thing to do for the nation's overall well being? Not the prevailing priority.

Another example: Last year, as our economy nose-dived and Congress sweated over a hugely expensive rescue plan, a House bill included $192 million in tax breaks for rum producers and other such vital additions.

Both parties play this game. In 2003, for example, it was Republicans cutting deals for votes on the new prescription-drug program for Medicare. In one instance, then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Tex., offered to endorse the son of retiring Michigan Republican Nick Smith if he agreed to vote “yes.”

Some critics of this process blame the filibuster - a delaying tactic, such as an extended speech, to block action on legislation. The Senate allows unlimited discussion; only a cloture vote (60 percent support) can limit such debate.

The filibuster tactic, originally intended as a check and balance when first adopted in 1917, is increasingly common. The number of Senate cloture votes this decade was nearly double the number in the previous decade. Some detractors say the 60 percent cloture rule induces bigger buyoffs.

Powerful lobbyists add another obstacle to responsible governing.

We detect no will in Congress to adjust the way it works. If Americans want a different system, voters must change the lineup.