Hood Not Interested In Questioning Constitutionality of Healthcare Bill
As Y’all Politics noted at the end of last week, a group of Republican state AGs are looking into the constitutionality of the special deals for certain states in the Democrats healthcare legislation. South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster is heading up the charge after a request from the two U.S. Senators from the state- Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham.
One AG who you should not look to jump on board in the possible lawsuit is Jim Hood. Hood made the argument that we currently do not have uniformity in taxation with certain states- like Mississippi- getting a better deal than other states.
The only similar calls from Mississippi Republicans have come courtesy of a South Mississippi state Representative. Senators Cochran and Wicker have not issued statements on the issue.
Here are my thoughts on Hood: it should come as a shock to no one that he would not join a group of Republican AGs in looking into this. Hood has been a partisan Democrat in office, so we should not expect much to change. As I have said many times, the state party is fully behind the healthcare reform and Hood is their standard bearer.
One thing that many of the AGs who are looking into this issue have in common is the fact that they are running for higher office. McMaster is running for governor of South Carolina in 2010. Hood is generally thought of being the Democrat with the best hope to win the governor’s mansion in 2011. By tacking to the right, Hood may have been fend off some criticism he will receive from Republicans should he run. It could have been a brilliant political move in my opinion. Of course, he would have also alienated the black vote who make up a large chunk of the Democrat primary. Maybe this is a sign that Hood is not running.
In the end, I doubt this was a tough call for Hood. While he may follow a conservative line on social issues and crime, based on previous statements he appears to be a big government Democrat similar to John Arthur Eaves or Jaime Franks. Unlike the majority of the Democrats who make up Mississippi’s congressional delegation- I believe Hood would have supported the bill.
I wanted to add this about Hood’s comments saying MS currently gets a good deal in Medicaid costs and we already don’t have uniformity. That is true, but it is based on a legitimate formula put in place by Congress. The poorer states get more in return from the federal gov’t. I believe MS gets $3 for every $1 they spend. Other states get 1 for 1. This was not put in place as part of a bribe.
I have thought for some time that the prefix of Dem. before a politicians name could easily be changed to Lib. Soc. and it would denote the same thing. Sure; Jim Hood isn’t going to be part of what would benefit the public. He is on the same team and abets anything a bunch of liberal socialist try to force on society. I’m beginning to think the prefix could describe all of them as per the number that say nothing, do nothing and still try to convince the public they are there to reresent the public.
Sounds like another frivilous lawsuit to me
Clearly Palazzo is not well versed on how you get Hood to go along with a lawsuit- $$$$$. Slip some money into Hood’s campaign chest and you might have a case.
All the fighting Hood did for Katrina victims as myself but yet he wants nothing to do with this bs health reform. I really thought he would be on Mississippians side not the democrats on this. Guess I was wrong.