Just before 9:00 pm MST this evening (Saturday, November 7, 2009), a vote began on the floor of the House of Representatives on final passage of the ‘‘Affordable Health Care for America Act,’’ the consensus version of Health Care Reform before the House. Passage required 218 votes, cast electronically within a 15 minute window.
By 9:05, the vote was 213 in favor, while the votes of 9 Democratic congressmen were still outstanding. With crunch time just minutes away, those of us who had been crusading on this issue for years had no hope that any Republican would vote in favor of it. So we needed 5 more votes, and knew they had to come from the 9 Democrats who had not yet voted.
By 9:06, we needed 3 more votes out of 7 still not cast. Finally, at 9:07 the 218th Democrat voted in favor of the historic legislation, putting it over the top with about five minutes to spare. By the time the period for voting closed, 219 Democrats had voted in favor; 215 Republicans had voted in opposition.
Then, as a huge sigh of relief was let out by progressives across the land, a lone Republican, Joseph Cao – a new representative from Louisiana – in an act of either total confusion or decided courage joined with Democrats to make the final vote bipartisan, 220-215.
For the first time in the history of the Republic, one of the two houses of Congress had passed a bill enabling, in principle, affordable health care for almost every American. Already, 40% of people in the United States have access to quality health care – either free of charge or at an affordable cost from the government, through the Veterans’ Administration, TriCare for military personnel and their families, Medicare, or Medicaid. The provisions of this bill would push that to more than 96%.
The bill is a pretty ragged piece of legislation. The public option is badly flawed, but at least it’s there. Freedom of choice is not nearly as extensive as it should be. The bill raises eligibility for Medicaid, which is good because it means more low-income people will be included, but it’s bad in the sense that it imposes an added financial burden on the states.
Those of us who believe strongly that the gut-wrenching decision of if and when to terminate a pregnancy should be between a woman, her family, her physician, and her religious convictions, had to swallow a bitter pill, when an amendment offered by Bart Stupak (D-MI) was added to the bill, prohibiting a woman who receives any federal tax credits for health insurance from buying a policy, even at her own expense, that covers abortion. As the final tally would show, this amendment, which goes even beyond current law, was the price that had to be paid for passage.
Democrats also continue to abandon the moral high-ground by including in the bill incentives to states that remove caps on medical malpractice awards. Thus, states like Texas, whose tort-reform laws have significantly lowered the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors, would not be eligible for the incentive because awards for non-economic (punitive, or “pain and suffering”) damages are capped. The ample donations from trial lawyers, which overwhelmingly go to Democrats, may have something to do with that.
So the bill is far from perfect. But passage in the House is extremely significant, because it establishes a baseline for bargaining with the Senate. Even if the Senate, for instance, passes out a bill that does not include a public option, the conferees between House and Senate will have to consider putting it in, because the House has already voted for it.
Now the focus shifts to the Senate. While the two senators from Texas continue to wander in the wilderness on this issue, well cared for by a menu of affordable health plans provided to members of Congress while the state they represent has the largest uninsured population in the nation, we can only take heart in the fact that after they miss their appointment with history, no one will remember their names.
Attention instead will focus on those conservadems who may or may not allow debate to take place – senators like Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), and Ben Nelson (D-NE). Landrieu and Lincoln have been making hopeful signs that they will not support a filibuster. Joe Lieberman (I-CN) has said at one time that he won’t block debate, and at another that he might – so who knows? Nelson, at this point, is the biggest wild card.
Perhaps tonight’s vote will give wavering senators the sense of momentum they need to at least let the issue be debated on the floor of the Senate. Once that hurdle is cleared, a bill of some sort – one that in all likelihood will be more good than bad – will be voted out and the real, ultimate legislation will be crafted by the conference committee. Then and only then will we know what the actual law will look like.
Nancy Pelosi began her press conference this evening after the final vote with “What a night!” It was clearly relief as much as exhultation. But what a night, indeed!
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Saturday, October 31, 2009
On Senators as Beauty Pageant Contestants
It’s gut check time once again for proponents of health care reform, as another wild and wooly week has left us scratching our heads over what, exactly, our elected officials are thinking.
It started well enough, with majority leader Harry Reid’s announcement that the HELP and Finance Committee versions of health care reform had been merged into a single bill ready for floor debate in the Senate. We were heartened to hear that it included a public option. True, states could opt out, but everyone realizes they won’t, and if that’s what it would take to get enough votes for passage, it would be a price worth paying.
Before we could savor a vision of even distant victory, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) announced that history wasn’t calling her quite yet after all, and that she would vote to keep debate from proceeding. The next day, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) announced (not in these exact words) that he would likely throw coffee in the face of his Democratic colleagues who had allowed him to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee despite his support of the Republican candidate for President, by voting against proceeding to debate on any bill that included a public option. Before the dust had settled in Hartford, where health insurance companies that have given Lieberman hundreds of thousands of dollars are headquartered, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) proclaimed that he too might vote, not only against the final bill, but even against cloture (letting it proceed to debate). Tom Harkin (D-IA) then jumped in and said, in effect, that Joe Lieberman better think long and hard about what he’s threatening to do.
On Thursday, Bayh issued a statement “clarifying” his position by saying it was very unlikely that he would in fact vote against debating the bill, leaving Lieberman the lone non-Republican senator threatening to join a filibuster against reforming health care. Bayh, by the way, also assured us that the fact that his wife Susan sits on the Board of Directors for Wellpoint, one of the biggest profit-making health insurance companies in the world, as well as the boards of three pharmaceutical firms, has absolutely no influence on his position.
So what are we to make of this? Jane Hamsher, founder of the progressive blog Firedog Lake, explained it all on the Rachel Maddow show Thursday night. In case you missed it, I’m going to paraphrase her as follows, with great regret that I didn’t think of putting it this way myself first. Be warned that what follows might merit a rating somewhere in the PG range.
We err in assuming that the US Senate is the model of an august deliberative body, Hamsher explained. Better to liken last week’s events to the way a beauty pageant unfolds.
On the first day, the contestant from Nevada (Reid) proclaims how happy she is just to be there. On day 2, Miss Connecticut (Lieberman) thinks she’s not getting enough attention, so she whips her top off beside the pool in front of the judges. On the third day, Miss Indiana (Bayh) gets jealous and takes her top off too, whereupon the grown-up contestant from Iowa (Tom Harkin) gives Misses Connecticut and Indiana a scowling look, proclaims that she is not amused, and tells the girls to get their clothes back on.
The purpose of the metaphor above is not to denigrate either senators or beauty contestants. Having never been in a beauty contest, I can only imagine the ego ups and downs that go with seeking ultimate success in the judgment of others. And no one who has not been in elective office can appreciate the multiple and constant pressures that bear on politicians who somehow have to satisfy the passions and opinions (both informed and uninformed) of their constituents to stay in office.
The real point is that the comparison between the U.S. Senate and a beauty pageant is more than trivial. Like beauty contestants, senators need attention. A lot of what is said and done in Congress is all about seeking attention for the purpose of exercising power, which often includes the threat of wielding power.
In the words of Jane Hamsher, Joe Lieberman is a vain man, who enjoys being a contrarian. As one of the Senate’s only two Independents, he relishes the prospect of being the one vote that could make or break a major piece of legislation – as does Sen. Snowe, who can’t decide whether history is calling her or not. But power and the threat of its exercise cut both ways. Sen. Lieberman has a chairmanship that his colleagues could take away, if they become sufficiently annoyed with him (as Sen. Harkin has not-so-subtly warned). If he ends up being the single vote that sinks health care reform, you can bet that his chairmanship will be gone.
So let’s recap majority leader Reid’s calculation that started off last week. He decided to bring forth a senate bill that includes a public option because he calculated that he has the votes to get it to the floor for debate. Once there, a lot of things can happen, including amendments, changes, or even just public relations spins that will make it possible for Lieberman and the other Conservadems, and maybe even Republican Senators Snowe and Collins to decide that history really has called on them to do the right thing.
At the end of the process, the public option may be weaker than it is in either the pending House or Senate versions. But I predict it will be there in some form. And I predict the bill will pass, because there just won’t be that many senators willing to miss standing on the stage in the limelight when the curtain comes down.
It started well enough, with majority leader Harry Reid’s announcement that the HELP and Finance Committee versions of health care reform had been merged into a single bill ready for floor debate in the Senate. We were heartened to hear that it included a public option. True, states could opt out, but everyone realizes they won’t, and if that’s what it would take to get enough votes for passage, it would be a price worth paying.
Before we could savor a vision of even distant victory, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) announced that history wasn’t calling her quite yet after all, and that she would vote to keep debate from proceeding. The next day, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) announced (not in these exact words) that he would likely throw coffee in the face of his Democratic colleagues who had allowed him to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee despite his support of the Republican candidate for President, by voting against proceeding to debate on any bill that included a public option. Before the dust had settled in Hartford, where health insurance companies that have given Lieberman hundreds of thousands of dollars are headquartered, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) proclaimed that he too might vote, not only against the final bill, but even against cloture (letting it proceed to debate). Tom Harkin (D-IA) then jumped in and said, in effect, that Joe Lieberman better think long and hard about what he’s threatening to do.
On Thursday, Bayh issued a statement “clarifying” his position by saying it was very unlikely that he would in fact vote against debating the bill, leaving Lieberman the lone non-Republican senator threatening to join a filibuster against reforming health care. Bayh, by the way, also assured us that the fact that his wife Susan sits on the Board of Directors for Wellpoint, one of the biggest profit-making health insurance companies in the world, as well as the boards of three pharmaceutical firms, has absolutely no influence on his position.
So what are we to make of this? Jane Hamsher, founder of the progressive blog Firedog Lake, explained it all on the Rachel Maddow show Thursday night. In case you missed it, I’m going to paraphrase her as follows, with great regret that I didn’t think of putting it this way myself first. Be warned that what follows might merit a rating somewhere in the PG range.
We err in assuming that the US Senate is the model of an august deliberative body, Hamsher explained. Better to liken last week’s events to the way a beauty pageant unfolds.
On the first day, the contestant from Nevada (Reid) proclaims how happy she is just to be there. On day 2, Miss Connecticut (Lieberman) thinks she’s not getting enough attention, so she whips her top off beside the pool in front of the judges. On the third day, Miss Indiana (Bayh) gets jealous and takes her top off too, whereupon the grown-up contestant from Iowa (Tom Harkin) gives Misses Connecticut and Indiana a scowling look, proclaims that she is not amused, and tells the girls to get their clothes back on.
The purpose of the metaphor above is not to denigrate either senators or beauty contestants. Having never been in a beauty contest, I can only imagine the ego ups and downs that go with seeking ultimate success in the judgment of others. And no one who has not been in elective office can appreciate the multiple and constant pressures that bear on politicians who somehow have to satisfy the passions and opinions (both informed and uninformed) of their constituents to stay in office.
The real point is that the comparison between the U.S. Senate and a beauty pageant is more than trivial. Like beauty contestants, senators need attention. A lot of what is said and done in Congress is all about seeking attention for the purpose of exercising power, which often includes the threat of wielding power.
In the words of Jane Hamsher, Joe Lieberman is a vain man, who enjoys being a contrarian. As one of the Senate’s only two Independents, he relishes the prospect of being the one vote that could make or break a major piece of legislation – as does Sen. Snowe, who can’t decide whether history is calling her or not. But power and the threat of its exercise cut both ways. Sen. Lieberman has a chairmanship that his colleagues could take away, if they become sufficiently annoyed with him (as Sen. Harkin has not-so-subtly warned). If he ends up being the single vote that sinks health care reform, you can bet that his chairmanship will be gone.
So let’s recap majority leader Reid’s calculation that started off last week. He decided to bring forth a senate bill that includes a public option because he calculated that he has the votes to get it to the floor for debate. Once there, a lot of things can happen, including amendments, changes, or even just public relations spins that will make it possible for Lieberman and the other Conservadems, and maybe even Republican Senators Snowe and Collins to decide that history really has called on them to do the right thing.
At the end of the process, the public option may be weaker than it is in either the pending House or Senate versions. But I predict it will be there in some form. And I predict the bill will pass, because there just won’t be that many senators willing to miss standing on the stage in the limelight when the curtain comes down.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Health Care Reform: Not Here Yet but Now Inevitable
Health care reform is on the horizon at last.
Those of us who see this as the number one domestic priority of our time can exhale. We’ve been holding our breaths as week after week, the Party (Republican) of No has declared health care reform dead; as the Party (Democratic) of Yes We Can has courted first three Republican Senators, then just one, for the merest hint of bipartisan collaboration, only to be totally rebuffed in the end; and as most of the pundits declared the public option on life support, only to report now in amazement that it has risen from the dead.
Regular readers of this space know that I’ve thought all along that, if Democrats will hold their ground, health care reform with some form of public option, can pass. Yesterday, majority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid (D-NV), turned that prediction into a potential reality by announcing that the bill to go to the floor of the Senate will include provisions for a public option, with the qualification that individual states have the right to opt out.
I say “potential” reality, because final passage of a bill for the President’s signature is a long way off. Weeks of debate, and hundreds of motions, amendments, and parliamentary maneuvers lie ahead. None of the (now) two bills before Congress – the House and Senate versions – will survive in the form they are in today. But the news this morning is that, barring totally unforeseen circumstances, we can see what the outline of the final bill will be like.
First, we know there is overwhelming support for 80+ per cent of what is in both versions. That includes truly meaningful reform of health insurance regulation, broadened coverage that will reduce (though not eliminate) the vast number of uninsured, and some measures to begin reigning in costs. In none of these areas is the legislation nearly as strong as it should be, but it goes further than we’ve ever gone before.
Second, we can be confident this morning that some version of a public option will be in the final bill. I don’t believe that Senator Reid would have decided to bring a bill to the floor if he didn’t have the votes to get it passed. Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) has voiced her disappointment that a public option has been included. That suggests that the conservadem Senators Lincoln (D-AR), Nelson (D-NE), Landrieu (D-LA), and Bayh (D-IN) have signaled to the majority leader that they will not vote against cloture, thus giving Reid the 60 votes he needs, even without Snowe’s, to proceed to an up-or-down vote requiring 51 in favor of passage.
The Opt-Out provision is purely cover for the conservadem’s (and maybe even a couple of Republicans) on the final vote. Including the public option is so popular with the electorate, that it’s hard to imagine any state legislature opting out of what by 2014 will almost surely be highly popular. But it gives conservatives the cover they need to vote for a bill which includes badly needed reforms, in spite of the vocal minority of their constituents who see the public option as The Source of All Iniquity and The Way to Bring Obama Down.
Opposition to health care reform is fading, but far from gone. Sadly, we can expect no help from our two senators in Texas. They’re on the wrong side of history, but have been for a long time. The majority of Democrats, however, are going to deliver what the American people want and need – an end to the scandal that the strongest economic power in the world has not yet found a way to provide affordable health care for all its citizens.
Those of us who see this as the number one domestic priority of our time can exhale. We’ve been holding our breaths as week after week, the Party (Republican) of No has declared health care reform dead; as the Party (Democratic) of Yes We Can has courted first three Republican Senators, then just one, for the merest hint of bipartisan collaboration, only to be totally rebuffed in the end; and as most of the pundits declared the public option on life support, only to report now in amazement that it has risen from the dead.
Regular readers of this space know that I’ve thought all along that, if Democrats will hold their ground, health care reform with some form of public option, can pass. Yesterday, majority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid (D-NV), turned that prediction into a potential reality by announcing that the bill to go to the floor of the Senate will include provisions for a public option, with the qualification that individual states have the right to opt out.
I say “potential” reality, because final passage of a bill for the President’s signature is a long way off. Weeks of debate, and hundreds of motions, amendments, and parliamentary maneuvers lie ahead. None of the (now) two bills before Congress – the House and Senate versions – will survive in the form they are in today. But the news this morning is that, barring totally unforeseen circumstances, we can see what the outline of the final bill will be like.
First, we know there is overwhelming support for 80+ per cent of what is in both versions. That includes truly meaningful reform of health insurance regulation, broadened coverage that will reduce (though not eliminate) the vast number of uninsured, and some measures to begin reigning in costs. In none of these areas is the legislation nearly as strong as it should be, but it goes further than we’ve ever gone before.
Second, we can be confident this morning that some version of a public option will be in the final bill. I don’t believe that Senator Reid would have decided to bring a bill to the floor if he didn’t have the votes to get it passed. Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) has voiced her disappointment that a public option has been included. That suggests that the conservadem Senators Lincoln (D-AR), Nelson (D-NE), Landrieu (D-LA), and Bayh (D-IN) have signaled to the majority leader that they will not vote against cloture, thus giving Reid the 60 votes he needs, even without Snowe’s, to proceed to an up-or-down vote requiring 51 in favor of passage.
The Opt-Out provision is purely cover for the conservadem’s (and maybe even a couple of Republicans) on the final vote. Including the public option is so popular with the electorate, that it’s hard to imagine any state legislature opting out of what by 2014 will almost surely be highly popular. But it gives conservatives the cover they need to vote for a bill which includes badly needed reforms, in spite of the vocal minority of their constituents who see the public option as The Source of All Iniquity and The Way to Bring Obama Down.
Opposition to health care reform is fading, but far from gone. Sadly, we can expect no help from our two senators in Texas. They’re on the wrong side of history, but have been for a long time. The majority of Democrats, however, are going to deliver what the American people want and need – an end to the scandal that the strongest economic power in the world has not yet found a way to provide affordable health care for all its citizens.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Pro and Con on Constitutional Amendments for Texas
Below is a brief summary of each of the amendments to the Texas state constitution that appear on the ballot for November 3, 2009. The summary of what each amendment would do is followed by a brief statement from proponents and opponents. Then my own opinion is given in italics.
I am not highly confident in the wisdom of most of my tentative decisions on these amendments, so I welcome feedback that could change my mind.
Proposition 1: Authorizing city and county financing to buy buffer areas near military installations (HJR 132).
This would allow a municipality or a county to issue bonds and notes to finance the purchase of buffer areas or open spaces adjacent to military installations. The buffer areas would be used to prevent encroachment or to construct roadways utilities, or other infrastructure to protect or promote the mission of the military installation. The municipality or county may pledge increases in ad valorem tax revenues for repayment of the bonds or notes.
PRO: Protects military installation from encroachment; preserves economic benefit of installation
CON: Could increase local tax burden. Also, not clear how encroachment threatens function, and why this would be a local responsibility.
I am generally not in favor of measures that could raise property taxes beyond their already high levels. Nor do I understand how “encroachment” threatens the function of a military base. If it would, it ought to be a federal responsibility to prevent it. I am inclined to vote NO, but my friend in San Antonio says it’s a real problem there, and I suspect the amendment is aimed primarily at Bexar County. Since ultimately, taxes would need the approval of elected officials, I may end up voting YES.
Proposition 2: Requiring appraisal of residence homesteads based on homestead value (HJR 36#1).
This would authorize the legislature to provide for the taxation of a residence homestead solely on the basis of the property's value as a residence homestead, regardless of whether the property may have a higher value if it were used for other purposes.
PRO: Exempts homesteads from “highest and best use” over-valuation
CON: Reduces capacity to raise local revenue; hurts school funding in tax-poor communities
This is a common-sense adjustment to the law that prevents homeowners from being faced with skyrocketing property tax assessments just because some future commercial value for their land might be higher than what it is actually used for at present. I will vote YES.
Proposition 3: Allowing state enforcement of uniform property appraisal standards (HJR 36#3).
This would require the legislature to provide for the administration and enforcement of uniform standards and procedures for appraisal of property for ad valorem tax purposes. It allows statewide standards to override local standards of valuation
PRO: Makes valuations across the state more uniform, and presumably more fair
CON: Diminishes local control of valuation practices and criteria
A lot of time, money, and grief are wasted over disagreements about property values. A sensible solution to me would be that a property be valued precisely according to what the buyer paid for it, for as long as that buyer owns it. Valuation boards, protestations, and politics could be taken out of the assessment process. But that’s not the system we have, so until my more sensible plan is adopted, adjustments to the process that make it more fair and consistent across the state make sense, I suppose. At the moment I’m leaning weakly toward YES, but would welcome a good argument for “no.”
Proposition 4: Establishing the National Research University Fund (HJR 14#2)
This would establish the national research university fund to provide a source of funding that will enable emerging research universities in this state to develop into major research universities. The amendment would require the legislature to dedicate state revenue to the fund and to transfer the balance of the existing higher education fund to the national research university fund. This amendment would further require the legislature to establish the criteria by which a state university may become eligible to receive and use distributions from the fund.
PRO: Provides funding source for incremental steps that six Texas state universities, including UTEP, can take toward becoming “national research universities”
CON: By abolishing the Higher Education Fund, it may take resources away from state colleges not among those designated as eligible to become national research universities.
This is a technical adjustment to provide funding for a good plan that will help make the next tier of our state universities, including UTEP, Texas Tech, and UTSA, more competitive nationally, which will enhance their economic value to their communities as well as their research potential. My vote is a strong YES.
Proposition 5: Allowing Consolidated boards of equalization for appraisal districts (HJR 36#2)
This would authorize the legislature to allow for a single appraisal review board for two or more adjoining appraisal entities that elect to provide for consolidated reviews of tax appraisals.
PRO: Allows rural counties to pool limited expertise for Appraisal Review Boards
CON: None
This will be a help to low-population communities where the number of residents knowledgeable and qualified to serve of review boards is limited. Consolidation of such boards makes sense. I will vote YES.
Proposition 6: Renewing Veterans' Land Board bond authority for land and mortgage loans (HJR 116)
This would authorize the Veterans' Land Board to issue general obligation bonds, subject to certain constitutional limits, for the purpose of selling land and providing home or land mortgage loans to veterans of the state.
PRO: Allows ongoing authority for issuance of these bonds, without requiring reauthorization every legislative session. Federal law caps the amount that can be authorized.
CON: None
This will reduce the frequency with which the Legislature has to renew its approval, which is essentially a technical matter. Federal law protects against the potential of over-extension. This deserves support, so I will vote YES.
Proposition 7: Allowing members of the Texas State Guard to hold civil office (HJR 127)
This would allow an officer or enlisted member of the Texas State Guard or other state militia or military force to hold other civil offices.
PRO: Corrects a constitutional oversight that allows members of other military groups, but not the Texas State Guard, to hold another civil job or office simultaneously with their military office
CON: None
This corrects a technical oversight. Members of the Texas State Guard deserve the same rights as those of all the other military entities. I will vote YES.
Proposition 8: Authorizing the state to contribute resources to veterans' hospitals (HJR 7)
This would authorize the state to contribute money, property, and other resources for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of veterans’ hospital in the Lower Rio Grande Valley.
PRO: Promotes establishment of a VA Hospital in a part of the state where one does not exist.
CON: Would appear to create a precedent in which local governments compete with one another through matching funds for new VA Hospitals, which ought to be a federal responsibility.
The need for a full-service VA Hospital in the Lower Rio Grande Valley is compelling, since the nearest one in San Antonio is over 250 miles away. Caring for our veterans should be a federal responsibility, though, and I’m reluctant to see communities get into competition with one another by offering local incentives, which increase the burden on local taxpayers. El Paso, for instance, needs a full-service VA Hospital as well, but this amendment would not give El Paso the same opportunity, and even if it did, I don’t think it’s a good idea to decide where VA Hospitals should be located on the basis of local perks. With reluctance, I’m inclined to vote NO.
Proposition 9: Establishing a right to use and access public beaches (HJR 102)
This would define what is a state-owned public beach. The public, individually and collectively, would have an unrestricted right to use and a right of ingress to and egress from a public beach. The amendment would authorize the legislature to enact laws to protect these rights.
PRO: Enshrines existing law giving the public access to beaches as a Constitutional right.
CON: Encroaches on property rights of owners, and makes it harder to adjust laws concerning beach-front property in the future.
While totally in support of keeping our beaches public, I am sympathetic with the view that existing law does that adequately and that enshrining it in the state constitution will make it harder for courts to adjudicate ambiguous situations. Nonetheless, in the wake of the very substantial changes to beaches caused by Hurricane Ike in the Galveston area, language in the amendment would clarify the boundaries of public beaches. At this point, my support for public beaches is very strong, but my vote for this amendment is only a weak YES.
Proposition 10: Allowing board members of emergency services districts to serve four years (HJR 85)
This would authorize the legislature to provide that members of the governing board of an emergency services district may serve terms not to exceed four years, instead of the currently allowable two year limit..
PRO: Promotes stability and continuity, and allows for benefit of newly acquired expertise to extend over a longer period. It also shields members from excessive political influence, due to longer terms
CON: Reduces accountability for very important public functions. Elections are non-partisan, so concern about over-politicalization is misplaced.
Longer terms for members of non-partisan boards on balance makes sense. But I understand the contrary argument. I’m inclined to vote YES unless someone can talk me out of it.
Proposition 11: Restricting use of eminent domain to taking property for public purposes (HJR 14#1)
This would provide that the taking of private property for public use (“eminent domain”) is authorized only if it is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, its political subdivisions, the public at large, or by entities granted the power of eminent domain, or for the removal of urban blight. The amendment would prohibit the taking of private property for transfer to a private entity for the purpose of economic development or to increase tax revenues. The amendment would also limit the legislature's authority to grant the power of eminent domain in the future unless it is approved by a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to each house.
PRO: Strengthens eminent domain law by making it a constitutional requirement that the taking be for “possession, occupation, and enjoyment” of the taking entity (i.e. the public).
CON: Creates huge gray area subject to court interpretation of “possession, occupation, and enjoyment.” Could act as a magnet for litigation.
This is another amendment that enshrines existing law into the state constitution, thereby possibly leading to excessive and unnecessary rigidity. But eminent domain is a powerful right of government that needs to be restrained. While an awful lot of stuff in our state constitution doesn’t belong there, precluding the potential abuse of eminent domain probably does merit constitutional protection, so I will vote YES.
I am not highly confident in the wisdom of most of my tentative decisions on these amendments, so I welcome feedback that could change my mind.
Proposition 1: Authorizing city and county financing to buy buffer areas near military installations (HJR 132).
This would allow a municipality or a county to issue bonds and notes to finance the purchase of buffer areas or open spaces adjacent to military installations. The buffer areas would be used to prevent encroachment or to construct roadways utilities, or other infrastructure to protect or promote the mission of the military installation. The municipality or county may pledge increases in ad valorem tax revenues for repayment of the bonds or notes.
PRO: Protects military installation from encroachment; preserves economic benefit of installation
CON: Could increase local tax burden. Also, not clear how encroachment threatens function, and why this would be a local responsibility.
I am generally not in favor of measures that could raise property taxes beyond their already high levels. Nor do I understand how “encroachment” threatens the function of a military base. If it would, it ought to be a federal responsibility to prevent it. I am inclined to vote NO, but my friend in San Antonio says it’s a real problem there, and I suspect the amendment is aimed primarily at Bexar County. Since ultimately, taxes would need the approval of elected officials, I may end up voting YES.
Proposition 2: Requiring appraisal of residence homesteads based on homestead value (HJR 36#1).
This would authorize the legislature to provide for the taxation of a residence homestead solely on the basis of the property's value as a residence homestead, regardless of whether the property may have a higher value if it were used for other purposes.
PRO: Exempts homesteads from “highest and best use” over-valuation
CON: Reduces capacity to raise local revenue; hurts school funding in tax-poor communities
This is a common-sense adjustment to the law that prevents homeowners from being faced with skyrocketing property tax assessments just because some future commercial value for their land might be higher than what it is actually used for at present. I will vote YES.
Proposition 3: Allowing state enforcement of uniform property appraisal standards (HJR 36#3).
This would require the legislature to provide for the administration and enforcement of uniform standards and procedures for appraisal of property for ad valorem tax purposes. It allows statewide standards to override local standards of valuation
PRO: Makes valuations across the state more uniform, and presumably more fair
CON: Diminishes local control of valuation practices and criteria
A lot of time, money, and grief are wasted over disagreements about property values. A sensible solution to me would be that a property be valued precisely according to what the buyer paid for it, for as long as that buyer owns it. Valuation boards, protestations, and politics could be taken out of the assessment process. But that’s not the system we have, so until my more sensible plan is adopted, adjustments to the process that make it more fair and consistent across the state make sense, I suppose. At the moment I’m leaning weakly toward YES, but would welcome a good argument for “no.”
Proposition 4: Establishing the National Research University Fund (HJR 14#2)
This would establish the national research university fund to provide a source of funding that will enable emerging research universities in this state to develop into major research universities. The amendment would require the legislature to dedicate state revenue to the fund and to transfer the balance of the existing higher education fund to the national research university fund. This amendment would further require the legislature to establish the criteria by which a state university may become eligible to receive and use distributions from the fund.
PRO: Provides funding source for incremental steps that six Texas state universities, including UTEP, can take toward becoming “national research universities”
CON: By abolishing the Higher Education Fund, it may take resources away from state colleges not among those designated as eligible to become national research universities.
This is a technical adjustment to provide funding for a good plan that will help make the next tier of our state universities, including UTEP, Texas Tech, and UTSA, more competitive nationally, which will enhance their economic value to their communities as well as their research potential. My vote is a strong YES.
Proposition 5: Allowing Consolidated boards of equalization for appraisal districts (HJR 36#2)
This would authorize the legislature to allow for a single appraisal review board for two or more adjoining appraisal entities that elect to provide for consolidated reviews of tax appraisals.
PRO: Allows rural counties to pool limited expertise for Appraisal Review Boards
CON: None
This will be a help to low-population communities where the number of residents knowledgeable and qualified to serve of review boards is limited. Consolidation of such boards makes sense. I will vote YES.
Proposition 6: Renewing Veterans' Land Board bond authority for land and mortgage loans (HJR 116)
This would authorize the Veterans' Land Board to issue general obligation bonds, subject to certain constitutional limits, for the purpose of selling land and providing home or land mortgage loans to veterans of the state.
PRO: Allows ongoing authority for issuance of these bonds, without requiring reauthorization every legislative session. Federal law caps the amount that can be authorized.
CON: None
This will reduce the frequency with which the Legislature has to renew its approval, which is essentially a technical matter. Federal law protects against the potential of over-extension. This deserves support, so I will vote YES.
Proposition 7: Allowing members of the Texas State Guard to hold civil office (HJR 127)
This would allow an officer or enlisted member of the Texas State Guard or other state militia or military force to hold other civil offices.
PRO: Corrects a constitutional oversight that allows members of other military groups, but not the Texas State Guard, to hold another civil job or office simultaneously with their military office
CON: None
This corrects a technical oversight. Members of the Texas State Guard deserve the same rights as those of all the other military entities. I will vote YES.
Proposition 8: Authorizing the state to contribute resources to veterans' hospitals (HJR 7)
This would authorize the state to contribute money, property, and other resources for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of veterans’ hospital in the Lower Rio Grande Valley.
PRO: Promotes establishment of a VA Hospital in a part of the state where one does not exist.
CON: Would appear to create a precedent in which local governments compete with one another through matching funds for new VA Hospitals, which ought to be a federal responsibility.
The need for a full-service VA Hospital in the Lower Rio Grande Valley is compelling, since the nearest one in San Antonio is over 250 miles away. Caring for our veterans should be a federal responsibility, though, and I’m reluctant to see communities get into competition with one another by offering local incentives, which increase the burden on local taxpayers. El Paso, for instance, needs a full-service VA Hospital as well, but this amendment would not give El Paso the same opportunity, and even if it did, I don’t think it’s a good idea to decide where VA Hospitals should be located on the basis of local perks. With reluctance, I’m inclined to vote NO.
Proposition 9: Establishing a right to use and access public beaches (HJR 102)
This would define what is a state-owned public beach. The public, individually and collectively, would have an unrestricted right to use and a right of ingress to and egress from a public beach. The amendment would authorize the legislature to enact laws to protect these rights.
PRO: Enshrines existing law giving the public access to beaches as a Constitutional right.
CON: Encroaches on property rights of owners, and makes it harder to adjust laws concerning beach-front property in the future.
While totally in support of keeping our beaches public, I am sympathetic with the view that existing law does that adequately and that enshrining it in the state constitution will make it harder for courts to adjudicate ambiguous situations. Nonetheless, in the wake of the very substantial changes to beaches caused by Hurricane Ike in the Galveston area, language in the amendment would clarify the boundaries of public beaches. At this point, my support for public beaches is very strong, but my vote for this amendment is only a weak YES.
Proposition 10: Allowing board members of emergency services districts to serve four years (HJR 85)
This would authorize the legislature to provide that members of the governing board of an emergency services district may serve terms not to exceed four years, instead of the currently allowable two year limit..
PRO: Promotes stability and continuity, and allows for benefit of newly acquired expertise to extend over a longer period. It also shields members from excessive political influence, due to longer terms
CON: Reduces accountability for very important public functions. Elections are non-partisan, so concern about over-politicalization is misplaced.
Longer terms for members of non-partisan boards on balance makes sense. But I understand the contrary argument. I’m inclined to vote YES unless someone can talk me out of it.
Proposition 11: Restricting use of eminent domain to taking property for public purposes (HJR 14#1)
This would provide that the taking of private property for public use (“eminent domain”) is authorized only if it is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, its political subdivisions, the public at large, or by entities granted the power of eminent domain, or for the removal of urban blight. The amendment would prohibit the taking of private property for transfer to a private entity for the purpose of economic development or to increase tax revenues. The amendment would also limit the legislature's authority to grant the power of eminent domain in the future unless it is approved by a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to each house.
PRO: Strengthens eminent domain law by making it a constitutional requirement that the taking be for “possession, occupation, and enjoyment” of the taking entity (i.e. the public).
CON: Creates huge gray area subject to court interpretation of “possession, occupation, and enjoyment.” Could act as a magnet for litigation.
This is another amendment that enshrines existing law into the state constitution, thereby possibly leading to excessive and unnecessary rigidity. But eminent domain is a powerful right of government that needs to be restrained. While an awful lot of stuff in our state constitution doesn’t belong there, precluding the potential abuse of eminent domain probably does merit constitutional protection, so I will vote YES.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Rick Perry and Bernie Madoff
When confronted by a reporter with the fact that over half the working people in Hidalgo and Cameron Counties in the Lower Valley have no health insurance, Gov. Rick Perry’s response was to claim that health care reform legislation would “bankrupt this state.”
State Senator Eliot Shapleigh (D-El Paso) nailed it when he retorted, “Rick Perry advising on health care is like Bernie Madoff advising on family savings.”
Perry claims the reform legislation would add $3 to $6 billion dollars in mandated charges to the state budget, mostly to cover increased Medicaid eligibility. Medicaid has always been a shared federal/state responsibility. It seems that secessionist-leaning, states’ rights advocate Gov. Perry finds this particular state responsibility not to his liking.
Fair enough. One can debate the wisdom of having the states pay for such a large share of Medicaid. But where has Perry been over his three terms as governor? “In those 10 years, he kicked over 230,000 kids out of CHIP, 500,000 kids out of Medicaid, sent nearly $1 billion in Texas CHIP money back to D.C., presided over 91.6% increase in health care premiums and led Texas to dead last in citizens who have health insurance,” Shapleigh pointed out.
We know where Shapleigh stands, and those of us who see the need for health care reform to be the leading civil rights issue of our age are fortunate to have him representing us.
The people of Brownsville and San Benito are not so lucky, as their State Senator and two Representatives sat silent through Perry’s remarks and failed to challenge them afterwards.
We have every reason to believe that the five State Representatives from El Paso County – Joe Pickett, Chente Quintanilla, Norma Chavez, Joe Moody, and Marisa Marquez – will not be equally silent. To varying degrees, they’ve come down on the progressive side of issues like health care, social services, and civil rights. As the election season nears, though, we need to be sure that meaningful health care reform is near the top of their agendas.
Why is this a state issue? To be sure, all the focus has been on the legislation being crafted at the federal level. But eventually, a bill will be passed, hopefully by the end of the year, and then the states will be involved for sure.
First, there will be considerable obligations passed on to the states, with budgetary consequences as Perry correctly points out. More importantly, the bill will almost surely fall well short of stemming the hemorrhage in health care suffered by the 1 in 4 Texans who lack insurance, and the much larger number who are abused, limited, or underfunded by their health insurance policies.
I previously proposed a cost-effective system of state run clinics for outpatient, pediatric, and postnatal care that would provide a safety net for the underinsured. Other ideas are badly needed and worth considering. No one has a monopoly on the single best solution. But sitting silent and doing nothing is not an option at the federal level this year, nor will it be at the state level in 2011.
State Senator Eliot Shapleigh (D-El Paso) nailed it when he retorted, “Rick Perry advising on health care is like Bernie Madoff advising on family savings.”
Perry claims the reform legislation would add $3 to $6 billion dollars in mandated charges to the state budget, mostly to cover increased Medicaid eligibility. Medicaid has always been a shared federal/state responsibility. It seems that secessionist-leaning, states’ rights advocate Gov. Perry finds this particular state responsibility not to his liking.
Fair enough. One can debate the wisdom of having the states pay for such a large share of Medicaid. But where has Perry been over his three terms as governor? “In those 10 years, he kicked over 230,000 kids out of CHIP, 500,000 kids out of Medicaid, sent nearly $1 billion in Texas CHIP money back to D.C., presided over 91.6% increase in health care premiums and led Texas to dead last in citizens who have health insurance,” Shapleigh pointed out.
We know where Shapleigh stands, and those of us who see the need for health care reform to be the leading civil rights issue of our age are fortunate to have him representing us.
The people of Brownsville and San Benito are not so lucky, as their State Senator and two Representatives sat silent through Perry’s remarks and failed to challenge them afterwards.
We have every reason to believe that the five State Representatives from El Paso County – Joe Pickett, Chente Quintanilla, Norma Chavez, Joe Moody, and Marisa Marquez – will not be equally silent. To varying degrees, they’ve come down on the progressive side of issues like health care, social services, and civil rights. As the election season nears, though, we need to be sure that meaningful health care reform is near the top of their agendas.
Why is this a state issue? To be sure, all the focus has been on the legislation being crafted at the federal level. But eventually, a bill will be passed, hopefully by the end of the year, and then the states will be involved for sure.
First, there will be considerable obligations passed on to the states, with budgetary consequences as Perry correctly points out. More importantly, the bill will almost surely fall well short of stemming the hemorrhage in health care suffered by the 1 in 4 Texans who lack insurance, and the much larger number who are abused, limited, or underfunded by their health insurance policies.
I previously proposed a cost-effective system of state run clinics for outpatient, pediatric, and postnatal care that would provide a safety net for the underinsured. Other ideas are badly needed and worth considering. No one has a monopoly on the single best solution. But sitting silent and doing nothing is not an option at the federal level this year, nor will it be at the state level in 2011.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
When History Calls
Tuesday was a good day for health care reform.
The Senate Finance Committee reported out its version of reform legislation by a vote of 14 to 9. It was deeply flawed – a huge bonanza for the insurance industry, falling well short of universal coverage, and lacking a public option. But the bill got out of Committee; and for this step in the process, that was a victory.
There were three pleasant surprises in the final vote. The first, and most highly publicized, was that of Olympia Snowe (R-ME). There was great mystery and speculation concerning whether she would break ranks with the rest of the Republicans on the Committee, all of whom voted against the bill. In her speech shortly before the final vote, she said, “When history calls, history calls.” Beyond this seemingly trite truism is a profound fact: history was indeed calling for courage and for action, and the nine Republicans who voted No came down on the wrong side of history.
The second “surprise” was the Yes vote of Blanche Lincoln (D-AR). In the end, I couldn’t believe that she wouldn’t support it, but wasn’t confident enough to predict it publicly. As one of the most outspoken and critical of the Conservadems, her vote was far from a sure thing. Her speech was touching, though, in pointing out that a flawed bill is better than doing nothing, and she wasn’t going to be part of a Congress that refused to come to grips with the gravest domestic problem facing the American public over the long term.
Finally, it was more a relief than a surprise to see Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) vote in favor of the bill. Like Sen. Lincoln’s vote, theirs could not be taken for granted, but for the opposite reason – they had been threatening to vote against the bill because it wasn’t liberal enough. In the final analysis, they too admitted that a bill, though badly flawed in their view, had to come out of Committee to move the process forward.
So the play continues to follow the script. The last committee with jurisdiction in either house has now reported out a bill, clearing the way for the next messy part of the process – the melding together of this Finance Committee bill with the more liberal version from the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee.
The good news is that the Finance Committee is the most conservative of the five committees charged with crafting the final legislation. Whatever the outcome of negotiations from this point forward, the product will not be less progressive than this FinCom version. Since all the versions from the other committees include a public option, the chances that a public option in some form will make it into the final legislation are reasonably good.
Had any three of the four senators whose votes were in question before Tuesday decided to vote No, the bill would have failed to be reported out, and health care reform may well have died for this session of Congress. We can all be thankful that when history called on Tuesday, Senators Snowe, Lincoln, Rockefeller, and Wyden, along with 10 other Democrats, chose to answer that call in favor of the American people, even as the 9 negative Republicans rushed to the microphones to sadly trumpet their choice to come down on the wrong side of history.
The Senate Finance Committee reported out its version of reform legislation by a vote of 14 to 9. It was deeply flawed – a huge bonanza for the insurance industry, falling well short of universal coverage, and lacking a public option. But the bill got out of Committee; and for this step in the process, that was a victory.
There were three pleasant surprises in the final vote. The first, and most highly publicized, was that of Olympia Snowe (R-ME). There was great mystery and speculation concerning whether she would break ranks with the rest of the Republicans on the Committee, all of whom voted against the bill. In her speech shortly before the final vote, she said, “When history calls, history calls.” Beyond this seemingly trite truism is a profound fact: history was indeed calling for courage and for action, and the nine Republicans who voted No came down on the wrong side of history.
The second “surprise” was the Yes vote of Blanche Lincoln (D-AR). In the end, I couldn’t believe that she wouldn’t support it, but wasn’t confident enough to predict it publicly. As one of the most outspoken and critical of the Conservadems, her vote was far from a sure thing. Her speech was touching, though, in pointing out that a flawed bill is better than doing nothing, and she wasn’t going to be part of a Congress that refused to come to grips with the gravest domestic problem facing the American public over the long term.
Finally, it was more a relief than a surprise to see Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) vote in favor of the bill. Like Sen. Lincoln’s vote, theirs could not be taken for granted, but for the opposite reason – they had been threatening to vote against the bill because it wasn’t liberal enough. In the final analysis, they too admitted that a bill, though badly flawed in their view, had to come out of Committee to move the process forward.
So the play continues to follow the script. The last committee with jurisdiction in either house has now reported out a bill, clearing the way for the next messy part of the process – the melding together of this Finance Committee bill with the more liberal version from the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee.
The good news is that the Finance Committee is the most conservative of the five committees charged with crafting the final legislation. Whatever the outcome of negotiations from this point forward, the product will not be less progressive than this FinCom version. Since all the versions from the other committees include a public option, the chances that a public option in some form will make it into the final legislation are reasonably good.
Had any three of the four senators whose votes were in question before Tuesday decided to vote No, the bill would have failed to be reported out, and health care reform may well have died for this session of Congress. We can all be thankful that when history called on Tuesday, Senators Snowe, Lincoln, Rockefeller, and Wyden, along with 10 other Democrats, chose to answer that call in favor of the American people, even as the 9 negative Republicans rushed to the microphones to sadly trumpet their choice to come down on the wrong side of history.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Walking the Dog
While the health care debate is temporarily in a hiatus, as Max Baucus (D-MT) gives the Republican members of the Senate Finance Committee more time to find new ways to say No, perhaps this would be a good time to write about something different. Accordingly, here is the second of my three losing entries to become a columnist for the El Paso Times.
When you stop and think about it, walking the dog is a moving experience in more ways than one.
For starters, there’s humor to be had wherever this ritual plays out. The other day, I met a lean guy in running shorts jogging with a toy dog of a strain I didn’t know, but on the dignity scale it ranked somewhere between a poodle and a rodent. Its short little legs took about 27 steps for every stride of its master. The result was a leisure jog by the man, and a blur where the legs of the dog must have been.
At the other extreme, a fairly common sight is the young woman, frail and 5 foot-4, being dragged down the street by a couple of huskies the size of land rovers. Her body bent backwards at a 45 degree angle, you feel that any moment she’s going to be jerked airborne by the two powerful steeds at the end of her leash.
On occasion, I feed a golden retriever and release her from the house for bathroom breaks twice a day, while her owner, my friend, is out of town. The other day, I decided to take the dog for a walk as a special treat. The moment we left her yard, she was straining at the leash, sniffing this, sprinting over to that – finding joy in every little bird dropping and discarded piece of paper or plastic bag, racing from one odor to the next like each was a marvelous revelation. I was the one leaning back this time, wondering how those little women hold on to the beasts that drag them about.
A dog has well over 1200 genes that code for nothing but distinct odor receptors. That means that more of a dog’s genetic makeup is devoted to smell than to any other function.
I love to watch a dog riding in a car with its nose sticking out a barely open window. I try to imagine what it would feel like to smell 1200 odors coming at you at 40 miles an hour. For a dog, it must be ecstasy.
Why do dogs love walking their masters so much? Is it the few minutes of excitement they get every day in an otherwise boring life that gives them such a thrill? Or is it just that it takes so little to make their day? Getting bathroom breaks just twice in 24 hours, of course, has got to be a pleasure in itself if that’s all you get.
Maybe we love our dogs so much, because we see in them the creature we wish we could be more like: finding satisfaction in the pleasure of the moment, grateful for the richness of life as it comes at us in the immediate currents of the air around us, oblivious to the burden of yesterday’s failures or anxieties about tomorrow. Maybe the dogs we walk are giving us a lesson in how to live.
When you stop and think about it, walking the dog is a moving experience in more ways than one.
For starters, there’s humor to be had wherever this ritual plays out. The other day, I met a lean guy in running shorts jogging with a toy dog of a strain I didn’t know, but on the dignity scale it ranked somewhere between a poodle and a rodent. Its short little legs took about 27 steps for every stride of its master. The result was a leisure jog by the man, and a blur where the legs of the dog must have been.
At the other extreme, a fairly common sight is the young woman, frail and 5 foot-4, being dragged down the street by a couple of huskies the size of land rovers. Her body bent backwards at a 45 degree angle, you feel that any moment she’s going to be jerked airborne by the two powerful steeds at the end of her leash.
On occasion, I feed a golden retriever and release her from the house for bathroom breaks twice a day, while her owner, my friend, is out of town. The other day, I decided to take the dog for a walk as a special treat. The moment we left her yard, she was straining at the leash, sniffing this, sprinting over to that – finding joy in every little bird dropping and discarded piece of paper or plastic bag, racing from one odor to the next like each was a marvelous revelation. I was the one leaning back this time, wondering how those little women hold on to the beasts that drag them about.
A dog has well over 1200 genes that code for nothing but distinct odor receptors. That means that more of a dog’s genetic makeup is devoted to smell than to any other function.
I love to watch a dog riding in a car with its nose sticking out a barely open window. I try to imagine what it would feel like to smell 1200 odors coming at you at 40 miles an hour. For a dog, it must be ecstasy.
Why do dogs love walking their masters so much? Is it the few minutes of excitement they get every day in an otherwise boring life that gives them such a thrill? Or is it just that it takes so little to make their day? Getting bathroom breaks just twice in 24 hours, of course, has got to be a pleasure in itself if that’s all you get.
Maybe we love our dogs so much, because we see in them the creature we wish we could be more like: finding satisfaction in the pleasure of the moment, grateful for the richness of life as it comes at us in the immediate currents of the air around us, oblivious to the burden of yesterday’s failures or anxieties about tomorrow. Maybe the dogs we walk are giving us a lesson in how to live.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
