The Louisiana Purchase?

Official government photo.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


On Saturday, Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the Senate majority leader, finally rounded up the 60 votes he needed to begin the Senate’s debate on the health care bill. They didn’t come cheap. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), killed a provision that would have stripped health insurers of their anti-trust exemptions. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) got hundreds of millions of dollars in Medicaid money for her home state. “Staffers on Capitol Hill were calling it the Louisiana Purchase,” writes the Washington Post‘s Dana Milbank.

Landrieu is far from the first Senator to be accused of trading her vote for legislative concessions. But this incident is an interesting illustration of how Washington works. As Reid got closer to the votes he needed, each holdout’s vote got more valuable. The majority leader needed to give Landrieu at least $100 million (closer to $300 million, she later claimed) in state handouts to earn her vote to begin debate on the health care bill. That’s not all. A provision making anyone who has been in foster care for at least six months presumptively eligible for Medicaid until age 25 was added to the bill before it hit the floor. “The language was added at the Senator’s urging,” Landrieu’s spokesman told Mother Jones in an email. That’s not surprising: If Landrieu, who is married to an adoptee and has two adopted children, has a personal pet cause, it’s foster care and adoption policies. “This is sort of a special issue for me,” she told the Wall Street Journal earlier this month.

Edwin Park, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, told me that it’s hard to tell how much expanding Medicaid’s coverage of former foster children might cost because the provision is included in the Congressional Budget Office’s score of the cost of the larger expansion of Medicaid. Also, the measure doesn’t kick in until 2019. But you can bet that when it does kick in, it’ll cost something. None of this is to say that extra Medicaid money for Louisiana or expanded Medicaid coverage for former foster children is a bad idea. But the $100-million plus for Landrieu’s priorities was just the cost of starting the debate on the bill. Reid will need 60 votes again before he can hold a vote on the final measure. What will those votes cost?

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate