Matheson Statement on 2010

Congressman Jim Matheson released the following statement today:

It’s an honor for me to represent Utah in the U.S. House of Representatives. The interest expressed in my future plans as far as running for the U.S. Senate or Governor of Utah is very flattering.  At this time, I feel that I can be most effective pursuing an agenda that puts the people of Utah first by running for re-election for my current House seat next year.  I enjoy a good working relationship with Senator Bob Bennett.  My decision today does not preclude me from interest in running for statewide office in the future.  I will be following the reapportionment of the state after the 2010 Census and the redistricting process very carefully in this regard.

Hispanic Caucus on Sotomayor Vote

Richard Jaramillo, Chair of the Utah State Hispanic Democratic Caucus, released this statement today on Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation:

The decision of Utah’s Senators Hatch and Bennett to vote against the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor appears to be entirely about partisan politics and political survival.

From his questions at the confirmation hearing, Senator Hatch evidently considers “judicial activism” to be any opinion that runs counter to his conservative ideology.

As for Senator Bennett, his primary challenge clearly has him rushing to vote in line with the far right-wing of the GOP.

Judge Sotomayor will make a fine Supreme Court Justice and the only “regret” Senators Hatch and Bennett should have is their refusal to join a bipartisan confirmation of the Court’s first Hispanic Justice.

American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary unanimously voted to give Judge Sonia Sotomayor the ABA's highest possible rating of fitness for Supreme Court nominees: well qualified. The ABA conducted a thorough, non-partisan, non-ideological peer review using long-established standards that measure a nominee’s integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament.

The ABA report to the United States Senate says that the groups of attorneys who reviewed her decisions found that, “Judge Sotomayor’s opinions show an adherence to precedent and an absence of attempts to set policy based on the judge’s personal views. Her opinions are narrow in scope, address only the issues presented, do not revisit settled  areas of law, and are devoid of broad or sweeping pronouncements.”

The ABA report also reported that with regard to the “wise Latina woman” comments, they, “found an absence of any such bias in the nominee’s extensive work. Lawyers and judges  overwhelmingly agree that she is an absolutely fair judge. None (including those many lawyers who lost cases before her) reported to the Standing Committee that they have ever discerned any racial, gender, cultural or other bias in her opinions or any aspect of her judicial performance.”

New study raises warning about warming in near future

   In spite of the fact 10 of the hottest years on record occurred between 1997 and 2008, temperatures have moderated somewhat since 1998.  In fact, 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, though still the ninth warmest year recorded. Global warming skeptics have been pointing to these numbers and claiming things are cooling off.  But as a new study points out, global average temperatures have remained relatively high in spite of the low level of recent solar activity.  The sun is due to enter a period of heightened activity now. 

According to one article on the soon to be released study:

It shows that the relative stability in global temperatures observed in the last seven years is explained primarily by the decline in incoming sunlight associated with the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle, together with a lack of strong El Niño events. These trends have masked the warming caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

In other words, even though temperatures have remained flat or trended slightly downward recently, this slight "cooling trend" may very well reverse itself in a big way as the sun becomes more active again in the immediate future.

There is the possibility the sun's activity will be below the normal high levels experienced during typical solar maximums.  If this turns out to be true and temperatures climb considerably anyway as predicted in the study cited above and about to be released in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, the thin silver lining to all of this may be we can finally put any debate regarding global warming to rest. 

GOP Focuses Effort To Kill Health Bills

Washington Post reports that “Lacking unity on an alternative agenda to Obama's health-care plans, Republicans have instead focused on a strategy of rallying public opposition,” and that “The RNC started running ads blasting the Democratic proposals, and William Kristol, editor of the conservative magazine the Weekly Standard, implored Republicans to "go for the kill."’

Until this moment, it has been difficult to gauge the GOP’s recklessness in dealing with our nation’s healthcare. At long last, it is obvious that they have no sense of decency, no sense of their obligation to the American people.

The impact of fixing our healthcare cannot be overstated. It literally means saving lives, reducing bankruptcy and homelessness, dignity for people with disabilities, improving the quality of all our lives,  removing healthcare costs from the equation of how to make a business profitable, and allowing people to use their talents in the most productive way rather than having to take a job solely for the healthcare benefits.

That the GOP would work to undermine these goals rather than to improve them is beyond acceptable behavior.

There is clearly considerable work to be done to create legislation that will carry enough votes to become law. There are not enough votes to pass the current proposals without some modification.

Utah’s Senators Hatch and Bennett have tried to work on this issue in the past, but now seem AWOL. Unfortunately, Bennett’s current electoral pandering to the far right of the Utah GOP has taken him out of the conversation to push what he has previously supported in his legislation with Senator Ron Wyden. And, unfortunately, Senator Hatch’s partner on healthcare matters, Senator Ted Kennedy, is not available due to his own health crisis.

Sadly, on this issue Congressmen Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz are simply in the Party of No. They have put ideology above finding a practical solution to a dire problem. For this reason alone, no one should reward them with a vote next election day.

Utah’s Congressman Jim Matheson and the coalition of House members called the Blue Dogs is making just such an attempt to create a mainstream proposal that can garner the required votes.

They presented ten changes to House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman:

• Provide affordability credits on a sliding scale from 100-300% of the federal poverty level
• Adjust the value and cost of subsidy levels
• Public option must negotiate rates with providers, provide greater clarity on opt-out, compete on a level playing field and be available only as a fallback
• Establish consumer-driven, state-based co-ops
• Create state-based exchanges with a federal fallback
• Maintain current state-federal partnership with Medicaid, while implementing reforms that increase its value and effectiveness
• Realign incentives to reward high quality, efficient health care; include value-based purchasing, value index, innovation center for Medicare and Medicaid and other delivery system reforms
• Increase small business exemption and adjust for inflation
• Address end-of-life care
• Effectively bend the cost curve, per the Congressional Budget Office

Beyond this list, Matheson said he has a number of additional ideas for reform that he will offer in committee. He has additional concerns about how health care reform will be paid for and he repeated his belief that whatever is adopted not increase the federal deficit.

These actions are heroic to find a solution that doesn’t up-end what Americans have come to expect from their healthcare system while moving to something better, and more sustainable.

Without the work of Matheson and the Blue Dogs, healthcare reform might very well fail. As long as they keep working on it, there is a good chance for passage of important legislation.

Moon landing: A lesson in what is possible

"We choose to go to the moon.  We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."   President John F. Kennedy - September 12, 1962

Forty years ago today we met President Kennedy's challenge to reach the moon, landing there three years ahead of his deadline.  It was not at all obvious to anyone inside or outside of the space program it could be done when JFK made clear landing on the moon would be one of our top national priorities, but Americans did not recoil at the goal of landing a man on the moon in spite of the unknowns. 

Today we celebrate the anniversary of the moon landing at a time some are doubting our nation's ability to respond to global warming, healthcare reform and other pressing concerns.  The Apollo 11 mission is a demonstration of just how much and how quickly America can make things happen when we commit ourselves to the effort.  In arguments over improvements to our nation's technology and infrastructure or reform, we should never let those whose main point is "it can't be done" win the day.  As the American people and our astronauts demonstrated 40 years ago today, what we can do is only limited by the laws of physics and our imagination.

What is all this talk about choice?

In today's New York Times political blog, The Caucus, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is spouting off again about how Americans want "to preserve the choice and quality that our current system provides."  Which Americans is he talking about?

I have been fortunate to occasionally enjoy some great health insurance over the years.  That said, I never got to choose the plan and I never got to choose the doctors covered by the plan.  Either my employer or my wife's employer picked the insurance company and picked the plan from that company's menu of options. They never consulted either my wife or I before doing so. 

My wife is diabetic, so finding a good doctor is especially important to her. She does her homework when it comes to the doctors available under whatever plan we have to deal with.  Unfortunately, like many businesses my wife's employer not only changes plans every year or two but frequently insurance companies as well.  After finding a doctor she likes she frequently must switch doctors in January as the new policy her employer has chosen kicks in.  Where is the choice Senator McConnell is praising in this scenario?

If we should ever be forced to shop for insurance in the individual market, my wife would have no choice whatsoever.  As someone with juvenile diabetes no insurance company would give her a second look.  If she ever suffered a serious illness related to her diabetes you, kind reader, would be forced to pick up the tab for her treatment through your taxes, higher premiums, or most likely both because we almost certainly could not afford to pay the medical bills out of pocket.  I guess Senator McConnell would argue this is something you would gladly pay by choice anyway.

As most workers can't choose their insurance company, can't choose the doctors that company covers, and can't get individual health insurance unless they are basically 100% free of any pre-existing condition, the only choice I can think of Senator McConnell could possibly be talking about is the ability of the health insurance companies and our employers to make all our choices for us.  Again, which Americans want to preserve this kind of choice Senator McConnell?

Mark Shurtleff as healthcare reform poster child

   The Salt Lake Tribune reports Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, a state employee enjoying some of the best healthcare benefits available, has somewhere between $50,000 and $130,000 in outstanding medical bills as a result of surgeries related to a motorcycle accident.  If ever anyone needed proof health insurance in America has ceased to offer families protection from medical related bankruptcy, Mark Shurtleff is it.

Given Shurtleff's historic support for the payday lending industry, it is tempting to suggest he take out a payday loan to cover his medical expenses.  However, unlike millions of fellow uninsured and under-insured Americans, Mark Shurtleff does have a six figure salary and somewhere between $366,000 and $815,000 in assets he can fall back on according to a financial report he recently filed as a candidate for the US Senate.  This provides him the luxury of avoiding both payday lenders and the kind of sympathy for working families that might motivate him to provide a healthcare reform plan of his own. 

Through a spokesman Shurtleff told the Tribune he remains steadfastly opposed to a public health insurance option for businesses and the public.  Shurtleff has spent much of his adult life receiving insurance from the government either through the military, Salt Lake County government, or the State of Utah. Still, he does not see the fact the state purchases about the best coverage available for him, his family, and other state employees as being inconsistent with this position.  Nor apparently does it give the AG pause that even with his gold plated policy he is still carrying a medical debt that would bankrupt many middle income families and virtually every low income family out there. 

In light of Shurtleff's personal experience, the voters should expect some empathy - a much maligned word on the right lately.  If not a public option, then what?  What is Shurtleff's answer to Utah families lucky enough to have insurance but still facing annual increases in premiums and co-pays that out pace inflation?  What is his answer to those both with and without insurance that must choose between years of debt or bankruptcy when faced with a motorcycle accident or worse? 

It is no longer enough to simply criticize proposals currently on the table.  The time to start providing serious solutions has come.  What say you Mr. Shurtleff?

Healthcare Reform: What is it?

While the political world is fighting about healthcare reform, the public seems largely in the dark about what is actually being proposed.

It is no wonder that the public isn’t in on the details.

Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Charles Grassley (R-IA) said on Face the Nation this weekend announced that they agree on 90% of what needs to be done, but are still fighting over three issues. They then talk about the three issues that are under dispute.

President Obama needs the plan to pass Congress, so he is letting them develop it with minimal guidelines. Most of his comments are seeking to reassure the public that if they are happy with the insurance they have, they can keep it.

The big boys all seem intent on NOT talking about what they ARE doing.

So, here is a run down of the main proposals (much of it provided by Democracy Corps):

• This plan prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions or dropping coverage when someone gets sick and requires them to cover preventive care.
• It creates a health insurance exchange where individuals can comparison shop among different private plans or a public insurance option. (GOP & Dems are arguing over the public option.)
• The plan requires all Americans to have health insurance while subsidizing the cost for those with low and moderate incomes. (Some dispute, but mostly agreement.)
• It requires all companies to provide health insurance
  for their employees or contribute to a fund that will help pay for their coverage with small businesses getting help covering some of the cost. (There is disagreement over the mandate for small business.)
• The plan will be paid for by reducing Medicaid and Medicare spending by 400 billion dollars over the next ten years and implementing some new taxes that might include a small sales tax on goods except for food, higher taxes on those making over 200,000 dollars OR new taxes on alcohol or sugary drinks. (This is the area where much of the fighting will take place. As you can see, there is no consensus about the funding.)

Some of positive changes reform will bring:

• Never losing health insurance when you lose a job or get sick.
• Power shifted from insurance companies to people, who no longer face higher rates or lost coverage for a pre-existing condition, getting sick or getting older.
• Reduced costs for you and your family, business and country.
• Guarantees that quality, affordable coverage will be there for you no matter what happens, giving you the peace of mind that even if times get tough, you will always have access to quality health care at a price you can afford.

The reform is monumental because at heart it is about taking power away from the insurance companies and giving it to people. The control and power that insurance companies have over people, their ability to refuse care because of pre-existing conditions and use the fine print to drop people when they
get sick is the part of the status quo that voters most want to change.

Some of these changes will lead to lower costs:

• Competition created by a health insurance exchange where individuals and small businesses can shop for competing private plans or choose a public one (the public plan may be like Medicare or it may be a co-op or mutual insurance company owned by the policy holders like a credit union).
• Paying first-dollar for preventive care and supporting wellness.
• Preventing insurance companies from raising rates when people age or get sick.

Seniors who are already covered by Medicare should also know that there are benefits for them. 

• Under this plan seniors would still receive Medicare coverage, just as they do now with no reductions in benefits.
• If nothing is done to decrease healthcare costs across the board there will have to be cuts in services, or increased premiums and taxes.
• The plan would also provide seniors with better prescription drug coverage by eliminating the so-called "donut hole" - the gap in Medicare coverage that forces millions of seniors to pay thousands of dollars out-of-pocket for prescription drugs.

Continuing as things are now is not sustainable:

• Keeping the status quo means the insurance companies are still in charge, jacking up rates and denying coverage.
• It means more people losing insurance or enslaved to their job, prices skyrocketing for families and businesses and our companies less competitive.

We need change so that people no longer lose coverage, get dropped for a pre-existing conditions, and see lower costs.

This was originally written for Utah Policy Daily.

UTA: Average Utah Family will not pay Federal Income Tax in 2010

The Deseret News reports on a Utah Taxpayer’s Association study- Utahns to get federal tax refund in 2010:

For all the complaining some GOP Utah politicians do about federal taxation, a new study finds an amazing fact:

The typical Utah family — which will make just over $63,000 for 2009 — will actually get a federal tax refund in April 2010.

That's right, that typical family — a married couple with three children — will get $356 back from the federal government, not paying any federal income tax at all, the Utah Taxpayers Association says in a new study on tax burdens in the Beehive State.

And for heavily Republican Utah, the check comes because of President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats' federal stimulus package, which also includes a middle America tax cut via the Making Work Pay tax credit.

Obama Coverage Not Liberal Media Bias, Just Good Business

The corporate news media's bias isn't toward ideology...it is toward making money. If they couldn't make a ton of money off of President Obama, they wouldn't be covering him nearly as much as they do.  -- Comment from BradKT on Politico’s story on the ratings bonanza for coverage of President Obama

What do they cite:

1. Last week’s healthcare forum on ABC brought in more viewers at 10 PM than the network had had in six weeks. While the forum didn’t win the ratings battle the night it aired, “Nightline” beat out both of its top competitors: “The Tonight Show With Conan O’Brien” and “The Late Show With David Letterman.”
2. Both parts of NBC’s “Inside the Obama White House” cracked the weekly Top 10. The second night’s segment even delivered NBC’s highest rating over the previous six months among 18-to-49-year-olds in that time slot.
3. When Obama appeared on “The Tonight Show” in March, the show had its highest rating for a Friday episode in the 17 years with Jay Leno at the helm. “The Tonight Show” numbers, 126 percent above average, also helped boost the shows that followed: “Late Night With Jimmy Fallon” and “Last Call With Carson Daly.”
4. An Obama interview led to a spike in ratings with “Face the Nation” bringing in its largest audience in four years and tying the perennial leader “Meet the Press” in the important 25-to-54 age group.
5. When Obama appeared on the November 16 “60 Minutes”, it drew 25.1 million viewers and, at the time, it was the season’s most-watched broadcast. Not only did “60 Minutes” win the week, but the post-election interview with Steve Kroft drew the show’s biggest audience in nine years.

Wow, talk about stimulus. The interest in the new president won’t continue forever, but it is nice while it lasts. And it shows why the Obama Administration is trying to accomplish so much this year while a conversation with the American people continues.

There is another huge spillover benefit: Networks airing Obama specials can squeeze every drop out of them for morning shows, nightly newscasts, cable and online.

But as one wag noted: Obama’s not Simon Cowell. He doesn’t do those types of numbers. Indeed, ABC’s airing of the Neighborhood Ball, which included the Obamas’ first dance on Inauguration night, was beaten soundly by the only ratings juggernaut that may be more powerful than Obama: “American Idol.”

Beware of simple solutions to complex problems

Campaign financing is the most heavily regulated industry in America per dollar of financial activity. Private financing of campaigns creates an ethical schism that pits the concept of a “public office is a public trust” against “those who pay the piper call the tune.”

Yesterday’s Salt Lake Tribune editorial “Lawmakers for Sale”  correctly points out that Utah has not found an appropriate balance of those concerns. Unfortunately, it concluded with the silly prescription that, “Limiting donations by individuals or corporations to $1,000 for each candidate, political party or political action committee per election cycle seems reasonable.”

There is nothing reasonable about a $1,000 across the board limit for each of these entities. They each have different functions with different resulting costs. We have seen what happens when these limits are set too low. There simply becomes an unending morass of entities created to funnel funds into the important contests. This results in making campaign finances less transparent. Or in the alternative it reduces public discourse because these entities cannot afford the tools of communication.

The more difficult the regulatory scheme the less likely citizens are to participate since the knowledge barrier to keep on the right side of the law is raised too high leaving only the professionals to participate in the contest.

Such limits are slightly effective only with five other major reforms: 1) An aggressive watch-dog agency like the Federal Election Commission; 2) A limit on total political contributions for an individual entity. So, for Utah that would mean creating and funding a State Election Commission and capping any entity from giving more than $20,000 total to all candidates, parties and PACs; 3) A method for coordinating expenditures that allows these entities to take advantage of economies of scale through joint purchasing (i.e. the FEC allows unlimited transfers between party committees and some coordination for candidate services and allows for the limits to be relaxed for “building funds”); 4) A prohibition against giving in the name of another; and, 5) An exemption for certain “grassroots” activities that encourage public participation (i.e. at the federal level there are exemptions for house parties, internet communications, friend-to-friend mail campaigns, slate cards, lawnsigns, bumperstickers, and a host of other activities).

Utah campaign finance laws cry out for some limits to prevent corruption of public officials. But a $1,000 limit for all entities is far too low for some of these entities like statewide campaigns and state party committees and Utah lacks an appropriate regulator with sufficient resources to fairly enforce such limits in a timely manner.

Before limits are contemplated, Utah first needs an independent State Election Commission and an independent Ethics Commission to oversee all public officials and candidates(these could be one and the same). Then, with experience and professional guidance, we can craft rules that work for Utah.

This was originally written for Utah Policy Daily.