Public Policy and Governance – Page 338

Spin Cycle

I get so disheartened listening to political arguments about health care reform.

It’s not that I am a big fan of the bill that finally passed. I would much rather have seen “Medicare for All,” for policy reasons not germane to this post. But I have been astonished by the venom that the bill has engendered. It’s bad enough that crazies like Glenn Beck compare Obama’s effort to provide health care to the uninsured with Nazism. The despicable lie about “death panels,” hyped by Sarah Palin and her ilk, was equally odious. But perhaps the most annoying of these efforts at disinformation has been the recent effort by presumably serious GOP lawmakers to persuade the public that the Affordable Care Act–which they dub sneeringly as “Obamacare”–is a “jobs killer.”

This all started when the Congressional Budget Office reviewed the Act. Along with concluding that the reform bill will reduce the deficit significantly over the next ten years, the CBO noted that the measure will allow a number of people to leave the workforce. Congressional Republicans immediately cited this as evidence the Act was a “job killer.”

What the CBO found, however, had nothing at all to do with the number of jobs. It had to do with the number of people who are currently working only because they need affordable health insurance.

In other words, there are people who are only working because they desperately need employer-sponsored health insurance. These are people who have the means not to work full-time, if they have access to a health insurance market that currently shuts them out. Many of these workers will choose to retire early because they will now be able to buy their own health insurance.

This is what Republicans mean when they say that health care reform is ‘destroying jobs.’

There’s a reason many of us despair of ever having reasoned, rational discussions of policy. When ideology and political posturing trump reality, the common good–not to mention common sense–gets lost in the spin cycle.

Kicking the Dog

Watching the Indiana legislature reminds me more than anything of those days—and we’ve all had them—when nothing has gone right at the office, we’ve made fools of ourselves in a meeting, and we’re just in a foul mood. So we go home and yell at our spouse, snap at our children and kick the dog.

Our lawmakers are faced with massive problems, not all of which they created themselves. We have horrendous budgetary and fiscal problems, fights over education policy are reaching the boiling point, the Chief Justice and the Governor have stressed the need to rethink incarceration policies, and notwithstanding the constant hype from state officials, Indiana’s job creation has been anemic (to put it mildly).

So our legislators are kicking the dog—in this case, gays and immigrants.

Not that Indiana’s legislature has ever distinguished itself in the “serious and responsible” category. (When the late Harrison Ullmann edited NUVO, he regularly referred to the General Assembly as The World’s Worst Legislature.) But this focus on gays and immigrants (more accurately, brown immigrants) is not only wrongheaded, it’s counterproductive. As the CEO of Cummins, Inc. wrote in this morning’s Indianapolis Star, Cummins has been a bright spot for employment in Indiana, creating jobs at a time when many employers have been cutting back. But much of their growth has depended upon international trade, and immigrant-bashing will hinder further job creation.

“We plan to add even more people given our ambitious plans for growth. These new jobs could be located in many places in the world; for us to add them in Indiana we must have an environment that is welcoming to all people and where diversity is valued and allowed to flourish.”

I hope some of our legislators are listening, but I doubt it. Kicking the dog doesn’t solve any of our problems, but it evidently makes them feel better.

Comments

Snow, Ice and Climate Change

As predictable as it has been, it is discouraging to hear climate change denialists point to the massive amounts of ice and snow as evidence that “global warming” is imaginary. These are not folks who are conversant with science, so perhaps we should explain–very slowly and carefully–why global climate change, aka “global warming”–really is responsible for the bad weather.

As one climate scientist recently explained, there’s approximately four percent more water vapor in the atmosphere now than there was in the ’70s; that’s because the oceans and the air are warmer, and the added moisture in warmer air returns to earth as heavy rain and heavy snow.

This may not make sense to Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin, but most rational people can connect the dots, and understand why we need to limit carbon emissions. If we don’t, climate change will continue to cause extreme and unpredictable weather.

Comments

Federalism & Hypocrisy

I see that Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller has filed a “friend of the court” brief, urging the First Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a lower court decision invalidating the “Defense of Marriage Act.” The court held that marriage is a state issue over which the federal legislature lacks authority.

I would have expected Attorney General Zoeller to applaud that ruling—after all, he has argued strenuously against federal authority in a number of other situations. He has even insisted that the federal government lacks authority to interfere with state decisions about Medicare—a federal program. Apparently, it’s okay for the feds to dictate state policies when he agrees with those dictates.

Can we spell hypocrisy?

It isn’t as if there is imminent danger of same-sex marriages being recognized in Indiana. Our appellate court has ruled that there is no state constitutional right to such marriages, and Indiana law has its own “defense of marriage” provision which was unaffected by the ruling.

Of course, the absolute absence of gay marriage in Indiana hasn’t kept the current legislature from reviving a proposed state constitutional amendment explicitly banning same-sex marriage along with anything “substantially similar” (whatever that means). This looks a lot like Oklahoma’s effort to prevent its courts from applying Sharia law—something exactly none of them were doing. Oklahoma lawmakers wanted to signal their hostility to Muslims, and these Indiana lawmakers want to signal their hostility to gays.

The truth of the matter is that the only way Indiana will ever get same-sex marriage is if the United States Supreme Court rules that the U.S. Constitution requires it—and if that happens, a state constitutional provision won’t be enforceable anyway. So reasonable people might wonder why our lawmakers are spending their time on nonexistent issues when we have so many real problems to address.

Continued tilting at this imaginary windmill wouldn’t much matter if it weren’t for the collateral damage the amendment would cause.

Indiana has been trying to recruit and grow high-tech employers—companies that are among the most gay-friendly, and that have significant numbers of gay employees. Passing an anti-gay constitutional amendment won’t exactly promote these economic development efforts. There’s also a concern that writing discrimination into the constitution—the first time a constitutional provision would be used to deny civil rights rather than expand them—sets a dangerous precedent. And far from “protecting” families, this measure’s vague language would make life more difficult for gay Hoosier families without in any way assisting heterosexual ones.

Efforts to improve the economy, grow jobs, streamline government and improve public education would actually help Hoosier families. But I suppose it is easier to pander to anti-gay sentiment than it is to improve life for all Indiana citizens.

On an unrelated note: This is my last column for the Indianapolis Star. I have deeply appreciated the comments and emails from readers over the years—pro and con—and invite those who wish to continue the conversation to do so at www.sheilakennedy.net.

Comments

Moral Deficit

There are plenty of issues that people of good will see differently.

For example, most Americans—at least the ones I know—consider themselves fiscal conservatives, but that doesn’t mean they necessarily agree about which policies are fiscally responsible. Depending upon their understanding of economics, some people will argue that now is the time to cut back spending to concentrate on deficit reduction; others insist that cuts now will delay economic recovery and reduce tax receipts–that we should spend to stimulate the economy and create jobs, because more jobs will both reduce government expenditures and generate more tax revenues with which to pay down the deficit. Both groups want to reduce the deficit; it’s an honest disagreement over the best way to do so.

Other disagreements are harder to understand.

The Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act would pay health care costs for 9/11 first responders who were sickened by toxic fumes and debris when the Twin Towers fell. I don’t use the word “hero” very often, but that’s what these firefighters, police officers and medics were. They braved the inferno in order to rescue those inside, and they are now suffering from injuries and illnesses caused by that desperate effort. It passed the House with 90% of Republicans opposed. Then Senate Republicans refused to allow a vote on it, because “it would add to the deficit.”

Concern for the deficit would have been more believable had GOP Senators not been holding this and other measures hostage to their insistence that the richest 2% of Americans retain the favorable tax rates they received from George W. Bush.

Extending those rates would cost many billions more than providing much-needed medical care for first responders. Marginal rates are at historic lows: in 1945, the rate was 91% of every dollar earned over 200,000; in 1982, 50% of everything over 106,000; in 1993, 39.6% of earnings over 250,000. It is now 35% of everything over 357,700. If the Bush tax cuts expire, rates will revert to 1993 levels. Those levels would remain very low by historical standards, but even so, expiration would generate billions to reduce the deficit.

Republicans argue that low taxes on the wealthy spur job creation. The evidence for that assertion is mixed, to put it mildly. If we really want to encourage job creation, we’d be better served giving businesses tax credits for new jobs.

The income gap between rich and poor in this country is wider than it has been since the gilded age. Joblessness is at its highest point since the Depression. These indicators are warning signs, not just for our economic health, but for our civic well-being.

Denying first responders desperately needed medical treatment so that millionaires won’t have to endure a 4.6% marginal tax rate increase cannot be excused as a good-faith policy dispute. It is, quite simply, disgraceful.

Americans are facing two kinds of deficits right now: monetary and moral. Ultimately, our fiscal problems—difficult as they seem—may be easier to resolve.