The selfishness of our legislators never ceases to amaze me. Just as the White House is pushing to have Congress pass the health care reform bill and take out the pork and specialized deals, legislators are pushing back.

Over the weekend, President Obama's chief political advisor, David Axelrod, conceded that the some of the special deals might have to go back in to the bill.

According to the Associated Press:

Axelrod also indicated the White House was backing down on an attempt to get senators to rid the legislation of a number of lawmakers' special deals.Taking a new position, he said the White House only objects to state-specific arrangements, such as an increase in Medicaid funding for Nebraska, ridiculed as the "Cornhusker Kickback." That's being cut, but provisions that could affect more than one state are OK, Axelrod said.

That means deals sought by senators from Montana and Connecticut would be fine - even though Gibbs last week singled them out as items Obama wanted removed. There was resistance, however, from two powerful committee chairman, Democratic Sens. Max Baucus of Montana and Chris Dodd of Connecticut, and the White House has apparently backed down."The principle that we want to apply is, are these applicable to all states? Even if they do not qualify now, would they qualify under certain sets of circumstances?" Axelrod said.
The only problem is that a bill to give Medicare to residents of Montana sickened by asbestos would open the country up to other liabilities if a health emergency is declared. Not that there is anything wrong with the U.S. government stepping in to help citizens during a health emergency, but maybe that should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

The bill also contains $100 million for a hospital to be built in Connecticut. Chris Dodd of Connecticut wants that
hospital to be the University of Connecticut. Again, there's nothing wrong with funding important public infrastructure, such as hospitals, with tax dollars, but what about all of the other places in the country that need hospitals?

Second, all of the individual projects jeopardize the bill and the potential to take an important first step in regards to health care reform. A bill to address a broken health care system is not the place to pile in projects that help legislators win points at home.

President Obama has correctly made the argument that passing health care reform is the right thing to do even if it costs him or other Democratic legislators their jobs. Republicans have proven themselves to be political opportunists and obstructionists on the issue.

The bill also has far-reaching effects on efforts to tackle other challenging issues. According to the New York Times:

Washington is already debating how pivotal the vote will be to his presidency. Mr. Obama has devoted vast energy and political capital over the last 14 months to get to this point, the presidential equivalent of an all-in bet on the poker table. Should he fail to push his plan through a Congress with strong Democratic majorities, it would certainly damage his credibility as a leader for months, and maybe years. Already the fight has scarred Washington, leaving behind a polarized and angry political elite and questions about whether the system is broken.

If Mr. Obama falls short on health care, his hopes of passing other ambitious legislation like an overhaul of immigration and a market-based cap on carbon emissions to curb climate change would seem out of reach, at least for the rest of this year. Much of Washington would question whether he is weak, some Democratic candidates would run away from him and Mr. Obama would be forced to consider a narrower agenda like that pursued by Bill Clinton after his own health care drive collapsed.

For once, legislators need to focus on the overall task at hand and the future of reform efforts instead of their own re-election prospects.