Well folks, it’s about that time. The California gubernatorial election will soon be upon us, and candidates have begun to throw their hats into the ring. (Yay! Elections and mudslinging! Can’t you just not wait!?) Primary elections for both of the major parties will be held on June 8, 2010 and the general election will take place on November 2, 2010.
Now keep in mind that the nomination papers that a candidate has to file to run in the primary elections are not due until March 12 of next year, and for independents to run in the general election nomination papers are not due until August 6 of next year, so the following list has the potential to change dramatically. However, as it stands now, the major players in the gubernatorial election are:
For the Democrats:
Gavin Newsom – Mayor of San Francisco
Jerry Brown – Attorney General and former Governor of CA (1975-1983)
For the Republicans:
Meg Whitman – former CEO of eBay has formally announced her candidacy
Steve Poizner – Insurance Commissioner has formed an exploratory committee
Tom Campbell – former Congressman has formed an exploratory committee
Over the next few (five, give or take candidates entering and leaving the race) Sundays, I’ll be posting blogs about each of the candidates to help you learn about their political platforms and issues, as well as any important history.
Speaking of history… an interesting side note and FYI: the CA Governor is prohibited from serving more than two terms, but Jerry Brown is exempt from the rule because the term-limit rule only applies to terms served after 1990. Way to sneak in under the wire Mr. Brown!
Please feel free to comment and let me know what issues are important to you in this election, but here are my top five:
1. The Budget. Duh. Somebody needs to get this thing under control already. Be it through amending the constitution to do something about Proposition 13 (1978) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978)), or fixing that whole 2/3 vote needed to pass the budget or increase taxes, or some other fancy-shmancy thing that I haven’t thought of. The California budget is a problem, and it will continue to be a problem until somebody makes some fundamental changes to the system. Let’s do it!
2. Education. According to http://www.statemaster.com/state/CA-california/edu-education we rank 49th in percentage of students above a basic reading level in 4th and 8th grades (they wouldn’t be able to read and understand this blog), are 46th on the best educated index, and are 46th in the total number of teachers per capita. We spend more actual dollars and have more students enrolled in public schools than other state in the union and we are currently doing them a huge disservice because we don’t seem to be actually educating them.
3. It’s the economy, stupid! With the state unemployment rate pushing 12%, we are in some dire straits. Do I think the state government should be employing all those people? Oh hell no! (As if our budget problem wasn’t bad enough? I’m sure employing all those people would help a lot!) But, the government can help the private sector create jobs here through tax incentives, making it easier to incorporate or start a business here, and (as much as I heart the environment) getting rid of some of the ridiculous regulations that make it incredibly expensive to do business in California. Check this out to see what I mean: http://www.calchamber.com/GovernmentRelations/BusinessIssues/Pages/Environmental.aspx.
4. The Prison System. The current budget for the CA Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is approximately $11 billion even while the CA state prisons are operating at 200% of their capacity. How should we fix this one? Shit, I have no idea. Maybe if we did a better job educating our population (see #2) or giving them something to do (see #3), we wouldn’t all become criminals? Just a thought.
5. Immigration. I know, the dreaded “I” word that nobody ever wants to talk about. But let’s be real for a minute, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that most, if not all, of the above issues would be a little bit better (not fixed, mind you, but better) if we could get our immigration issue under control. According to http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/caillegals.htm, in 2004 illegal immigration costs California approximately $10.5 billion per year. Yikes. Again, do I have any idea how to fix the problem? Not really. I don’t think that an extra tall fence or vigilante justice are the answer, but neither is complete amnesty for those already here.
Can anyone out there help us? Find out over the next five weeks!
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Healthcare Gets Personal
This week, for me, healthcare got personal. Really, really personal.
As I am currently self-employed (or unemployed as the naysayers choose to call me), I am now in charge of obtaining my own individual health insurance. Let me walk you through the circus that was applying for health insurance:
June 26th: My last day at Deloitte. Thanks again to everyone who came to my party; that was a good time!
June 30th: My employer sponsored healthcare expires. I’m busy writing my book (John’s Symphony, coming soon) so I ignore it for now.
July 16th: Oh crap, I need to get on that whole healthcare thing. I spend four hours filling out an application for PacifiCare, the individual health insurance company under the United Health Group umbrella. I had been very happy with my United Healthcare insurance that I had through Deloitte, so I think this is a safe bet.
July 21st: I get a phone call from the mysterious underwriters of the insurance I am applying for. They have some questions about my application. We go through their questions, which are the exact same questions that I answered on the application (so underwriters can’t read?). At the end of the conversation, I ask when I can expect to hear back from them. They say they have to request my medical records from my doctor.
July 27th: I’ve heard nothing and have been uninsured for almost a month. I call the number on the PacifiCare website, and am shuffled around to no less than five different customer service representatives until finally, someone tells me that they’re still waiting on my medical records. I call my doctor to see what the holdup is. Turns out it takes them about two weeks to process those requests. Yikes.
August 10th: It’s been more than two weeks and I’m wondering what the heck is going on. My eligibility to apply for Cobra expires on the 29th, which is coming up soon. I check my mailbox and have a letter waiting for me from PacifiCare letting me know that I have been denied insurance for the following reasons:
Asthma, Elevated Cholesterol.
Imagine my surprise at being denied health insurance for two medical issues that I’m not even being treated for currently because my doctor doesn’t think they’re a problem. As I told the underwriters, I’ve never had an asthma attack and never been hospitalized. Ever. In fact, I ran a half-marathon not six months ago. Yet for some reason, even though I share similar conditions with 20 million Americans who are asthmatic and with 47.7% of American women who have total cholesterol levels over 200 mg/dL, I am somehow a high enough insurance risk that they won’t even cover me?! Do they cover anyone!?
See http://www.aafa.org/display.cfm?id=8&sub=42 for asthma statistics and http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4506 for cholesterol statistics.
Do they have the right to deny me? As a private sector company, absolutely. Ironically though, if I end up on Cobra the same umbrella company is still insuring me. Either way I am, apparently, still a risk to them. So what is going on here?!
I have a theory, and by all means, please let me know what you think.
Under the PacifiCare individual plan, my premiums would be $86 (not adjusted for premium increases for preexisting conditions). Under Cobra, my premiums would be $353 (which, as a person with $0 in income, I totally cannot afford). Either way those dollars eventually end up at the same company, United Healthcare. Which plan do you think they would prefer me to be on?
Still think our healthcare system isn't broken?
As I am currently self-employed (or unemployed as the naysayers choose to call me), I am now in charge of obtaining my own individual health insurance. Let me walk you through the circus that was applying for health insurance:
June 26th: My last day at Deloitte. Thanks again to everyone who came to my party; that was a good time!
June 30th: My employer sponsored healthcare expires. I’m busy writing my book (John’s Symphony, coming soon) so I ignore it for now.
July 16th: Oh crap, I need to get on that whole healthcare thing. I spend four hours filling out an application for PacifiCare, the individual health insurance company under the United Health Group umbrella. I had been very happy with my United Healthcare insurance that I had through Deloitte, so I think this is a safe bet.
July 21st: I get a phone call from the mysterious underwriters of the insurance I am applying for. They have some questions about my application. We go through their questions, which are the exact same questions that I answered on the application (so underwriters can’t read?). At the end of the conversation, I ask when I can expect to hear back from them. They say they have to request my medical records from my doctor.
July 27th: I’ve heard nothing and have been uninsured for almost a month. I call the number on the PacifiCare website, and am shuffled around to no less than five different customer service representatives until finally, someone tells me that they’re still waiting on my medical records. I call my doctor to see what the holdup is. Turns out it takes them about two weeks to process those requests. Yikes.
August 10th: It’s been more than two weeks and I’m wondering what the heck is going on. My eligibility to apply for Cobra expires on the 29th, which is coming up soon. I check my mailbox and have a letter waiting for me from PacifiCare letting me know that I have been denied insurance for the following reasons:
Asthma, Elevated Cholesterol.
Imagine my surprise at being denied health insurance for two medical issues that I’m not even being treated for currently because my doctor doesn’t think they’re a problem. As I told the underwriters, I’ve never had an asthma attack and never been hospitalized. Ever. In fact, I ran a half-marathon not six months ago. Yet for some reason, even though I share similar conditions with 20 million Americans who are asthmatic and with 47.7% of American women who have total cholesterol levels over 200 mg/dL, I am somehow a high enough insurance risk that they won’t even cover me?! Do they cover anyone!?
See http://www.aafa.org/display.cfm?id=8&sub=42 for asthma statistics and http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4506 for cholesterol statistics.
Do they have the right to deny me? As a private sector company, absolutely. Ironically though, if I end up on Cobra the same umbrella company is still insuring me. Either way I am, apparently, still a risk to them. So what is going on here?!
I have a theory, and by all means, please let me know what you think.
Under the PacifiCare individual plan, my premiums would be $86 (not adjusted for premium increases for preexisting conditions). Under Cobra, my premiums would be $353 (which, as a person with $0 in income, I totally cannot afford). Either way those dollars eventually end up at the same company, United Healthcare. Which plan do you think they would prefer me to be on?
Still think our healthcare system isn't broken?
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Viva Las Vegas!
Last weekend I went to Las Vegas. I had a fantastic time. Being an adult and with a group of people who have respectable incomes lends itself to having fun in Vegas. While I was in sin city, it occurred to me (on a slightly inebriated elevator ride) that being in Vegas is an awful lot like being in politics.
For example, when you first show up in Vegas it’s bright and shiny and exciting. Much like politics where, at first, everything is new and different and you really believe that you can make a difference. After a few days, you come to realize that, during the day, Vegas is literally hell on earth at a dry, dusty, miserable scorching 104 degrees. Politics also can be a hell on earth, with endless meetings, presentations, lobbyists, caucuses, committee meetings, people who want favors, people you already owe favors to, press conferences, and did I mention meetings? It is no wonder that most politicians not only don’t write their own bills (clearly that work is done by their highly underpaid staffers), but they don’t usually read the whole 1,000-2,000 page bills that they vote on.
Also, in Las Vegas, as I just discovered last weekend, you have the potential to win big or go home a big, fat loser. My good friend taught me how to play and bet on blackjack, and by the end of the weekend I came home with extra money in my pocket! It was amazing! It’s exactly the same in politics. When a politician is first elected, they (theoretically) have the political capital to win big. Of course, if the bill or program that they propose goes down in flames or ends up being an economic drain then they too can go home angry and defeated, maybe even losing their reelection.
Don’t forget that Vegas (and politics) costs money to get there! Plane tickets to Vegas are among the only flights whose prices have not gone down during the current recession and forget about how much it costs to stay in a hotel on the actual Vegas strip. You also must factor in the fact that us girls have to take cabs to get anywhere (we definitely aren’t walking in our four inch stiletto heels), drinks will cost you an arm and a leg (or your first born whichever you’re more willing to part with), and if you’re going to gamble then you should pretty much be prepared to kiss all that money good-bye. This is just like running for office! McCain and Obama spent outrageous amounts of money in the last election: $333 million and $730 million, respectively. It’s not as if they can use that money for anything other than gambling on themselves in the presidential election. Historically speaking, he (or she) who spends the most money wins and gets to keep playing. (www.opensecrets.org)
Just like someone in Las Vegas, politicians must maintain their composure at all times. Girls: you must look great at all times, and wearing dresses that short means you can’t get too drunk otherwise you may flash everyone at the party on accident. Guys: never, ever run out of cash or you too may get caught unable to buy your girlfriend of the evening a drink (or a cab ride back to the hotel), also, don’t freak out when you lose all your money gambling. We expect our politicians to keep it together constantly. You think you’re getting away with that extramarital affair? HA! Our presidents must be tough on terrorism, but compassionate on human rights issues; politicians must not be seen as flip-floppers, but are forced into compromise by the very nature of their positions; they must be good to their families, but should spent almost all of their time working for their constituents.
So, like I was saying, being in politics is a bit like going to Las Vegas. Exciting and glamorous (and expensive) at first, but after a little while you become jaded, calloused, and are totally broke.
For example, when you first show up in Vegas it’s bright and shiny and exciting. Much like politics where, at first, everything is new and different and you really believe that you can make a difference. After a few days, you come to realize that, during the day, Vegas is literally hell on earth at a dry, dusty, miserable scorching 104 degrees. Politics also can be a hell on earth, with endless meetings, presentations, lobbyists, caucuses, committee meetings, people who want favors, people you already owe favors to, press conferences, and did I mention meetings? It is no wonder that most politicians not only don’t write their own bills (clearly that work is done by their highly underpaid staffers), but they don’t usually read the whole 1,000-2,000 page bills that they vote on.
Also, in Las Vegas, as I just discovered last weekend, you have the potential to win big or go home a big, fat loser. My good friend taught me how to play and bet on blackjack, and by the end of the weekend I came home with extra money in my pocket! It was amazing! It’s exactly the same in politics. When a politician is first elected, they (theoretically) have the political capital to win big. Of course, if the bill or program that they propose goes down in flames or ends up being an economic drain then they too can go home angry and defeated, maybe even losing their reelection.
Don’t forget that Vegas (and politics) costs money to get there! Plane tickets to Vegas are among the only flights whose prices have not gone down during the current recession and forget about how much it costs to stay in a hotel on the actual Vegas strip. You also must factor in the fact that us girls have to take cabs to get anywhere (we definitely aren’t walking in our four inch stiletto heels), drinks will cost you an arm and a leg (or your first born whichever you’re more willing to part with), and if you’re going to gamble then you should pretty much be prepared to kiss all that money good-bye. This is just like running for office! McCain and Obama spent outrageous amounts of money in the last election: $333 million and $730 million, respectively. It’s not as if they can use that money for anything other than gambling on themselves in the presidential election. Historically speaking, he (or she) who spends the most money wins and gets to keep playing. (www.opensecrets.org)
Just like someone in Las Vegas, politicians must maintain their composure at all times. Girls: you must look great at all times, and wearing dresses that short means you can’t get too drunk otherwise you may flash everyone at the party on accident. Guys: never, ever run out of cash or you too may get caught unable to buy your girlfriend of the evening a drink (or a cab ride back to the hotel), also, don’t freak out when you lose all your money gambling. We expect our politicians to keep it together constantly. You think you’re getting away with that extramarital affair? HA! Our presidents must be tough on terrorism, but compassionate on human rights issues; politicians must not be seen as flip-floppers, but are forced into compromise by the very nature of their positions; they must be good to their families, but should spent almost all of their time working for their constituents.
So, like I was saying, being in politics is a bit like going to Las Vegas. Exciting and glamorous (and expensive) at first, but after a little while you become jaded, calloused, and are totally broke.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
I Love a Good Protest
Each August, Congress takes a month long recess. Most years, congressmen take this opportunity to go on vacation or simply hang out back at home. This year, President Obama has asked Congress to take the health care issue to the people. Many congressmen are finding out how people feel about the problem in the form of town hall events.
Many of these town halls, which have been held already in Florida, New York, Georgia, Texas, Wisconsin, and Ohio, are being disrupted by angry protestors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEH9M0Wgvzc&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all about a good old fashioned protest when it has the potential to be productive. However, these protests appear to be designed to not let supporters of the health care bill have a voice or just to scare the crap out of their elected officials.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking-news/story/1172648.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20090805/pl_bloomberg/a8lefaompeb0_1
We’ve actually resorted to hanging effigies of our Representatives? Wow.
The saddest part of this issue, for me, is that the whole point of a town hall meeting is to hear all sides of the story. If you disagree with how your representative is voting, then go, present your argument, and we can have an honest debate about the issue. Yelling and screaming over someone who actually has something to say or an important question is rude, childish, and, as far as I can tell, is disrupting someone’s right to freedom of speech. (Read the constitution recently? I’m pretty sure the First Amendment is still in effect.)
One representative, Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY), has even suspended town hall meetings after residents called the Suffolk County Police to escort him back to his car through a large crowd of rowdy protestors.
The group that appears to be behind many of the disruptions is known as the Tea Party Patriots. If you happen to be all about interrupting town hall meetings and want more information here’s the website: http://teapartypatriots.org/HC.aspx
On a completely different note, if you’ve heard that by signing up for the Cash for Clunkers program the federal government will be granted access to your computer and files, it is absolutely not true.
But just for grins, here’s a link to the original story (which does sound pretty terrifying when you first watch it): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWs12ccbOiE
Here’s a link to the myth debunking website Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/computer/internet/clunkers.asp
Many of these town halls, which have been held already in Florida, New York, Georgia, Texas, Wisconsin, and Ohio, are being disrupted by angry protestors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEH9M0Wgvzc&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all about a good old fashioned protest when it has the potential to be productive. However, these protests appear to be designed to not let supporters of the health care bill have a voice or just to scare the crap out of their elected officials.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking-news/story/1172648.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20090805/pl_bloomberg/a8lefaompeb0_1
We’ve actually resorted to hanging effigies of our Representatives? Wow.
The saddest part of this issue, for me, is that the whole point of a town hall meeting is to hear all sides of the story. If you disagree with how your representative is voting, then go, present your argument, and we can have an honest debate about the issue. Yelling and screaming over someone who actually has something to say or an important question is rude, childish, and, as far as I can tell, is disrupting someone’s right to freedom of speech. (Read the constitution recently? I’m pretty sure the First Amendment is still in effect.)
One representative, Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY), has even suspended town hall meetings after residents called the Suffolk County Police to escort him back to his car through a large crowd of rowdy protestors.
The group that appears to be behind many of the disruptions is known as the Tea Party Patriots. If you happen to be all about interrupting town hall meetings and want more information here’s the website: http://teapartypatriots.org/HC.aspx
On a completely different note, if you’ve heard that by signing up for the Cash for Clunkers program the federal government will be granted access to your computer and files, it is absolutely not true.
But just for grins, here’s a link to the original story (which does sound pretty terrifying when you first watch it): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWs12ccbOiE
Here’s a link to the myth debunking website Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/computer/internet/clunkers.asp
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
What's Up With This Health Care Thing Anyway?
Health care.
I feel like this must be the single-most confusing issue in politics today. First of all, what does “universal health care” actually mean? It sounds like everyone has to be covered since it’s universal. Secondly, what would this universal health care system actually cover? As someone in the process of applying for independent health insurance (which is no walk in the park let me tell you), I can barely figure out what’s going to be covered under the plan I just applied for! With terms like “high-deductible”, “coinsurance percentage”, “copay”, “professional fees”, “lifetime maximum”, and “outpatient lab fees” is it any surprise that a well-educated, fairly smart (okay, maybe I’m flattering myself with that one) person can’t even figure out how much she’ll have to pay when she goes to the doctor?
To shed a very small amount of light on the issue, here are some Wikipedia definitions for you:
Universal health care: Health care coverage for all eligible residents of a political region and often covers medical, dental and mental health care. These programs vary in their structure and funding mechanisms. Typically, most costs are met via a single-payer health care system or national health insurance, or else by compulsory regulated pluralist insurance (public, private or mutual) meeting certain regulated standards. Universal health care is implemented in all but one of the wealthy, industrialized countries, with the one exception being the United States. It is also provided in many developing countries and is the trend worldwide.
Single-payer health care system: Is a term used in the United States to describe the payment of doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers from a single fund. It differs from typical private health insurance where, through pricing and other measures taken by the insurer, the level of risks carried by multiple insurance pools as well as the coverage can vary and the pricing has to be varied according to the contribution of risk added to the pool.
Now, I may be going out on a limb here, but I don’t think anyone would argue that having a public option would be a bad thing. It’s just another option in the big pool of competition out there. Last time I checked, most Americans were down with the free market economy. If the government wants to play too, let them. Heck, if they could make as much money off of us as most insurance companies do (during their last fiscal year United Health Group showed Net Income of $3 billion, Aetna Inc. had Net Income of $1.4 billion, eHealth Inc. showed Net Income of $14.2 million, and Humana Inc. with Net Income of $647.2 million) we definitely wouldn’t be quite so in debt to China. At the very least, you have to admit that those net income numbers really don’t make it look like we’re in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
But I digress. There’s competition and plenty of money to be made in the health insurance industry which is something that it seems all Americans can get behind, since we’re already behind it, in the system we have.
The real problem is that the government wants to provide an affordable option (heaven forbid), and nobody can agree on how to pay for it. One solution is to tax the highest wage earners. Don’t quote me on this, but I believe this is people/couples who make over $350,000 a year. Frankly, and I know a few of you will have a heart attack at me for saying so, but I certainly feel like they can afford it. Another proposed solution is to tax health benefits that Americans receive from their employers. This one made me cringe at first too, but I’m not sure it’s actually as bad as it sounds.
In theory, because health care isn’t taxed, it’s effectively on sale and because of that people will tend to buy more than what they need. Because of the excess of money spent on health insurance, no effort is made on the part of the insurance companies to control costs or root out inefficiencies or waste. Oddly enough, it seems that liberals and conservatives all agree that this option would be the most effective to pay for a government health care option. But, you better believe that it’ll be a whole lot harder to be re-elected with a tax hike on health care on their record.
John Kerry (we all remember him, right?), the Democratic Senator from Massachusetts has proposed a health care tax that puts the burden directly on the insurance companies. While it’s questionable that the proposal would actual cover the cost of the plan, I kind of like the idea of sticking it to the insurers. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/business/economy/29leonhardt.html
Of course, let’s not forget that although many ideas, proposals and even bills are floating around both the House and the Senate, nothing has formally passed either part of Congress, and saying that you are either for or against the universal health care plan is a little premature since there technically isn't one quite yet.
I feel like this must be the single-most confusing issue in politics today. First of all, what does “universal health care” actually mean? It sounds like everyone has to be covered since it’s universal. Secondly, what would this universal health care system actually cover? As someone in the process of applying for independent health insurance (which is no walk in the park let me tell you), I can barely figure out what’s going to be covered under the plan I just applied for! With terms like “high-deductible”, “coinsurance percentage”, “copay”, “professional fees”, “lifetime maximum”, and “outpatient lab fees” is it any surprise that a well-educated, fairly smart (okay, maybe I’m flattering myself with that one) person can’t even figure out how much she’ll have to pay when she goes to the doctor?
To shed a very small amount of light on the issue, here are some Wikipedia definitions for you:
Universal health care: Health care coverage for all eligible residents of a political region and often covers medical, dental and mental health care. These programs vary in their structure and funding mechanisms. Typically, most costs are met via a single-payer health care system or national health insurance, or else by compulsory regulated pluralist insurance (public, private or mutual) meeting certain regulated standards. Universal health care is implemented in all but one of the wealthy, industrialized countries, with the one exception being the United States. It is also provided in many developing countries and is the trend worldwide.
Single-payer health care system: Is a term used in the United States to describe the payment of doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers from a single fund. It differs from typical private health insurance where, through pricing and other measures taken by the insurer, the level of risks carried by multiple insurance pools as well as the coverage can vary and the pricing has to be varied according to the contribution of risk added to the pool.
Now, I may be going out on a limb here, but I don’t think anyone would argue that having a public option would be a bad thing. It’s just another option in the big pool of competition out there. Last time I checked, most Americans were down with the free market economy. If the government wants to play too, let them. Heck, if they could make as much money off of us as most insurance companies do (during their last fiscal year United Health Group showed Net Income of $3 billion, Aetna Inc. had Net Income of $1.4 billion, eHealth Inc. showed Net Income of $14.2 million, and Humana Inc. with Net Income of $647.2 million) we definitely wouldn’t be quite so in debt to China. At the very least, you have to admit that those net income numbers really don’t make it look like we’re in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
But I digress. There’s competition and plenty of money to be made in the health insurance industry which is something that it seems all Americans can get behind, since we’re already behind it, in the system we have.
The real problem is that the government wants to provide an affordable option (heaven forbid), and nobody can agree on how to pay for it. One solution is to tax the highest wage earners. Don’t quote me on this, but I believe this is people/couples who make over $350,000 a year. Frankly, and I know a few of you will have a heart attack at me for saying so, but I certainly feel like they can afford it. Another proposed solution is to tax health benefits that Americans receive from their employers. This one made me cringe at first too, but I’m not sure it’s actually as bad as it sounds.
In theory, because health care isn’t taxed, it’s effectively on sale and because of that people will tend to buy more than what they need. Because of the excess of money spent on health insurance, no effort is made on the part of the insurance companies to control costs or root out inefficiencies or waste. Oddly enough, it seems that liberals and conservatives all agree that this option would be the most effective to pay for a government health care option. But, you better believe that it’ll be a whole lot harder to be re-elected with a tax hike on health care on their record.
John Kerry (we all remember him, right?), the Democratic Senator from Massachusetts has proposed a health care tax that puts the burden directly on the insurance companies. While it’s questionable that the proposal would actual cover the cost of the plan, I kind of like the idea of sticking it to the insurers. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/business/economy/29leonhardt.html
Of course, let’s not forget that although many ideas, proposals and even bills are floating around both the House and the Senate, nothing has formally passed either part of Congress, and saying that you are either for or against the universal health care plan is a little premature since there technically isn't one quite yet.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
California Has a Budget! But Only For Now...
On Friday, July 24, pigs learned to fly. Not really, but the California state legislature finally passed a budget, which seems like pretty much the same thing.
The winners:
* People who were being paid in IOUs. As you might’ve read in my previous blog, this was mainly small business owners with large state contracts. Although they may still have to wait to redeem their IOUs, they will be receiving cash from now on.
* The California state legislators. After almost 20 hours worth of hearings on the 30 (maybe 31 depending on the source) bills in the budget package, the budget is approved, has Schwarzenegger’s approval (but not signature), and they can go home. Way to work about as hard as an auditor from the Big 4 on a deadline (although the state legislature clearly missed theirs)! At least they haven’t been getting paid in IOUs.
* The Santa Barbara coast. One idea to raise additional funds for California: open up a small area for oil drilling off the Santa Barbara coastline. Legislators rejected this proposal in the budget package, and the California coast is safe once again.
* The Governor. After the budget passed he said, “I know that college students will pay now higher tuitions, I know that teachers will be laid off, and I know state workers will get less money. But we have to do that. It's the only way to solve the problem and to save our great state.” (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/24/california.budget/index.html?section=cnn_latest) I guess you got what you wanted, even if almost nobody else did.
The losers:
* College students. Students who attend California universities, including UC Berkeley, UCLA, and SJSU, to name a few of my favorites, have seen a 30% tuition increase since May. They will also likely see an increase in class sizes, due to a never before seen drop in state funding to California State Universities. Cuts to higher education totaled approximately $3 billion.
* Teachers and public schools. Teachers will be laid off and class sizes will increase. The teachers laid off won’t be those who have the lowest ratings or that are the least effective. Because of union rules, the teachers who lose their jobs will be the ones with the least experience. The ones who will have the hardest time finding a new job. Good luck in a state where unemployment has reached about 11.6%. As for increasing class sizes, districts will no longer be able to maintain a 20:1 ratio, and all I can say is I challenge anyone to manage a class of more than 20 screaming 6 year olds. Seriously, Mr. Schwarzenegger, most elementary school classrooms do not equal the set of Kindergarten Cop. Cuts to public schools totaled approximately $6 billion.
*Health and welfare programs. This includes cuts for in-home care of the state’s Medicare recipients, which will force many of those people who still manage to live at home, into nursing homes. Not that they’ll be able to sell those homes to pay for the nursing home care. Oh, and don’t forget that there will also be a huge loss in health care for children. Cuts to health and social services programs totaled approximately $3 billion.
* The prison system. “Lawmakers passed $1.2 billion in cuts to the state prison system. But they put off deciding how to make the reductions because the issue was too heated.” (http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=22292) Wow. Leave it to the state legislature to pass a budget without an actual solution.
* Your friendly, local city council. About $3.1 billion in state “revenue” will come from money that is supposed to go to city governments for parks, law enforcement, and transportation systems. Is this legal? I seriously doubt it. Will they sue? More than likely.
* State government workers. Workers employed by the state will still be forced to take three furlough days a month, equating to about a 15% cut in pay. Representatives of state workers say they may strike, and unions of state workers have said they will certainly challenge the budget package in court.
* The state legislators. I know, I know, they were winners a minute ago. Unfortunately, the budget, which passed on Friday, is based on estimated state revenues. Since the year is hardly over, and the economy may continue to decline, the estimated revenues may be grossly overstated. If that is the case, we have another budget deficit, and another budget crisis before the year is out. Of course, there is also the fact that part of the budget crisis was solved by certain accounting maneuvers, including pushing some payroll expenses into the next accounting period. Will that be a problem in the next fiscal year? Duh.
* Everyone else. Okay, I admit, that is probably a bit of an exaggeration. But, in all fairness to me, the budget passed with a $1.1 billion shortfall which really is everyone’s problem. Especially when the governor’s solution is to make up for it with cuts that his office has the authority to make on its own. I can’t help but wonder what exactly those are.
The winners:
* People who were being paid in IOUs. As you might’ve read in my previous blog, this was mainly small business owners with large state contracts. Although they may still have to wait to redeem their IOUs, they will be receiving cash from now on.
* The California state legislators. After almost 20 hours worth of hearings on the 30 (maybe 31 depending on the source) bills in the budget package, the budget is approved, has Schwarzenegger’s approval (but not signature), and they can go home. Way to work about as hard as an auditor from the Big 4 on a deadline (although the state legislature clearly missed theirs)! At least they haven’t been getting paid in IOUs.
* The Santa Barbara coast. One idea to raise additional funds for California: open up a small area for oil drilling off the Santa Barbara coastline. Legislators rejected this proposal in the budget package, and the California coast is safe once again.
* The Governor. After the budget passed he said, “I know that college students will pay now higher tuitions, I know that teachers will be laid off, and I know state workers will get less money. But we have to do that. It's the only way to solve the problem and to save our great state.” (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/24/california.budget/index.html?section=cnn_latest) I guess you got what you wanted, even if almost nobody else did.
The losers:
* College students. Students who attend California universities, including UC Berkeley, UCLA, and SJSU, to name a few of my favorites, have seen a 30% tuition increase since May. They will also likely see an increase in class sizes, due to a never before seen drop in state funding to California State Universities. Cuts to higher education totaled approximately $3 billion.
* Teachers and public schools. Teachers will be laid off and class sizes will increase. The teachers laid off won’t be those who have the lowest ratings or that are the least effective. Because of union rules, the teachers who lose their jobs will be the ones with the least experience. The ones who will have the hardest time finding a new job. Good luck in a state where unemployment has reached about 11.6%. As for increasing class sizes, districts will no longer be able to maintain a 20:1 ratio, and all I can say is I challenge anyone to manage a class of more than 20 screaming 6 year olds. Seriously, Mr. Schwarzenegger, most elementary school classrooms do not equal the set of Kindergarten Cop. Cuts to public schools totaled approximately $6 billion.
*Health and welfare programs. This includes cuts for in-home care of the state’s Medicare recipients, which will force many of those people who still manage to live at home, into nursing homes. Not that they’ll be able to sell those homes to pay for the nursing home care. Oh, and don’t forget that there will also be a huge loss in health care for children. Cuts to health and social services programs totaled approximately $3 billion.
* The prison system. “Lawmakers passed $1.2 billion in cuts to the state prison system. But they put off deciding how to make the reductions because the issue was too heated.” (http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=22292) Wow. Leave it to the state legislature to pass a budget without an actual solution.
* Your friendly, local city council. About $3.1 billion in state “revenue” will come from money that is supposed to go to city governments for parks, law enforcement, and transportation systems. Is this legal? I seriously doubt it. Will they sue? More than likely.
* State government workers. Workers employed by the state will still be forced to take three furlough days a month, equating to about a 15% cut in pay. Representatives of state workers say they may strike, and unions of state workers have said they will certainly challenge the budget package in court.
* The state legislators. I know, I know, they were winners a minute ago. Unfortunately, the budget, which passed on Friday, is based on estimated state revenues. Since the year is hardly over, and the economy may continue to decline, the estimated revenues may be grossly overstated. If that is the case, we have another budget deficit, and another budget crisis before the year is out. Of course, there is also the fact that part of the budget crisis was solved by certain accounting maneuvers, including pushing some payroll expenses into the next accounting period. Will that be a problem in the next fiscal year? Duh.
* Everyone else. Okay, I admit, that is probably a bit of an exaggeration. But, in all fairness to me, the budget passed with a $1.1 billion shortfall which really is everyone’s problem. Especially when the governor’s solution is to make up for it with cuts that his office has the authority to make on its own. I can’t help but wonder what exactly those are.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Energy: Who Got It & Who Wants It!
Up until now, I’ve been avoiding the big issues that are currently being tackled by Congress: Health Care, Energy, and the Economy. I prefer to work with issues that are funny by nature, and of course, none of those issues are particularly humorous. In fact, they’re just darn right big, ugly, and complicated. However, since Congress will be taking a month long recess in August, but I’m not planning on recessing from blogging, I’m saving the really funny (disturbing) stuff for when congress goes on vacation.
So, this week, let’s talk about H.R. 2454, popularly known as the Cap and Trade Energy Bill. The bill already passed the House of Representatives in a 219-212 vote (yikes, that was a close one!), and is now under consideration by the Senate. If the bill does pass the Senate, you better believe that it won’t be the same Cap and Trade Bill passed by the House. The Senate will add its own amendments and take out language included in the House bill that they don’t like. If that version of the bill passes, a group of congressional staffers (I’ve never been really clear on who these people are) get together and reconcile the two versions of the bill.
As it stands now, the bill would impose a nationwide cap on greenhouse gases and require public utilities to produce at least 12% (according to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090721/ap_on_go_co/us_climate_governors), although it’s 20% according to http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:1:./temp/~bdo5ad:@@@L&summ2=m&/bss/111search.html, by 2020. The bill also sets up a trading market for business to buy and sell permits to pollute. Companies that need fewer permits can sell them to companies that need more.
Wow, that sounds like not such a bad idea, Congress! It almost sounds like, by treating pollution as a tangible good, Congress is going to let the free market solve the problem. So why so many votes against it?
The U.S. agriculture industry will go down in flames! Just kidding! Actually, according to the USDA, although the projected loss to farmers overall is between 1 and 7.2 percent, the money that they’ll earn under the program doing things like capturing methane gas from manure ponds, planting trees, or practicing no-till farming will earn them $75-$100 million per year starting in 2012 to $15-$20 billion per year in 2040.
It’ll be terrible for the economy! Unless you live in Washington, New Jersey or Colorado where measures already adopted to reduce greenhouse gases and standards requiring a certain amount of energy from renewable resources have already created new industries and more jobs in those states. In Washington, almost 50,000 new jobs have been created in the last two years as a result (including architects who design energy-efficient buildings, venture capitalists investing in new technology, and farmers growing the next generation of biofuels).
At the same Senate hearing where the Governors from Washington, New Jersey, and Colorado praised the bill, the Governor from North Dakota, a Representative from Arkansas, and a Senator from Oklahoma disagreed. Why? Oil. Duh. Now, I’m not going to argue, the bill could conceivably cause job losses in the oil industry, but I don’t see any reason why those job losses couldn’t turn into new, green jobs. It’s not like people can’t learn to do new things. Also, I must point out that our friend, the Rep from Arkansas, John Lowery (D-AR) owns his own oil company, Lowery Oil Co. Seriously? Can we say, conflict of interest? (Am I the only one who has a problem with the fact that the owner of an oil company, or any company, is allowed to be a representative in Congress?)
Of course, let’s not let the rest of Congress off the hook quite so easily either. Heaven forbid, the House pass a bill without shooting themselves in the foot. A last minute addition to the Cap and Trade Bill included a tariff provision which will levy a tax on all goods imported from countries that do not limit greenhouse gases (which includes almost every country on the planet, and you better believe they’ll more than likely tax our exports right back).
Yeesh.
If you want to learn more about this crazy legislative process and the big, bad filibuster, come out to Campbell’s Sundown Cinema this Friday, July 24th for Mr. Smith Goes to Washington! http://www.downtowncampbell.com/sundowncinema
Totally unrelated, check out the best, and most random, mash-up of two songs I’ve ever seen at http://acollectionofwords.blogspot.com!
So, this week, let’s talk about H.R. 2454, popularly known as the Cap and Trade Energy Bill. The bill already passed the House of Representatives in a 219-212 vote (yikes, that was a close one!), and is now under consideration by the Senate. If the bill does pass the Senate, you better believe that it won’t be the same Cap and Trade Bill passed by the House. The Senate will add its own amendments and take out language included in the House bill that they don’t like. If that version of the bill passes, a group of congressional staffers (I’ve never been really clear on who these people are) get together and reconcile the two versions of the bill.
As it stands now, the bill would impose a nationwide cap on greenhouse gases and require public utilities to produce at least 12% (according to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090721/ap_on_go_co/us_climate_governors), although it’s 20% according to http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:1:./temp/~bdo5ad:@@@L&summ2=m&/bss/111search.html, by 2020. The bill also sets up a trading market for business to buy and sell permits to pollute. Companies that need fewer permits can sell them to companies that need more.
Wow, that sounds like not such a bad idea, Congress! It almost sounds like, by treating pollution as a tangible good, Congress is going to let the free market solve the problem. So why so many votes against it?
The U.S. agriculture industry will go down in flames! Just kidding! Actually, according to the USDA, although the projected loss to farmers overall is between 1 and 7.2 percent, the money that they’ll earn under the program doing things like capturing methane gas from manure ponds, planting trees, or practicing no-till farming will earn them $75-$100 million per year starting in 2012 to $15-$20 billion per year in 2040.
It’ll be terrible for the economy! Unless you live in Washington, New Jersey or Colorado where measures already adopted to reduce greenhouse gases and standards requiring a certain amount of energy from renewable resources have already created new industries and more jobs in those states. In Washington, almost 50,000 new jobs have been created in the last two years as a result (including architects who design energy-efficient buildings, venture capitalists investing in new technology, and farmers growing the next generation of biofuels).
At the same Senate hearing where the Governors from Washington, New Jersey, and Colorado praised the bill, the Governor from North Dakota, a Representative from Arkansas, and a Senator from Oklahoma disagreed. Why? Oil. Duh. Now, I’m not going to argue, the bill could conceivably cause job losses in the oil industry, but I don’t see any reason why those job losses couldn’t turn into new, green jobs. It’s not like people can’t learn to do new things. Also, I must point out that our friend, the Rep from Arkansas, John Lowery (D-AR) owns his own oil company, Lowery Oil Co. Seriously? Can we say, conflict of interest? (Am I the only one who has a problem with the fact that the owner of an oil company, or any company, is allowed to be a representative in Congress?)
Of course, let’s not let the rest of Congress off the hook quite so easily either. Heaven forbid, the House pass a bill without shooting themselves in the foot. A last minute addition to the Cap and Trade Bill included a tariff provision which will levy a tax on all goods imported from countries that do not limit greenhouse gases (which includes almost every country on the planet, and you better believe they’ll more than likely tax our exports right back).
Yeesh.
If you want to learn more about this crazy legislative process and the big, bad filibuster, come out to Campbell’s Sundown Cinema this Friday, July 24th for Mr. Smith Goes to Washington! http://www.downtowncampbell.com/sundowncinema
Totally unrelated, check out the best, and most random, mash-up of two songs I’ve ever seen at http://acollectionofwords.blogspot.com!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
