A Bridge too Far

More than 1/3 of female voters may be excluded from participating in elections due to new TX voter ID law

Since being unshackled from the tyranny of the Federal Department of Justices preclearance requirement, aka The Voting Rights Act. The Grand Old Party in Texas has decided to try and turn the clock back more than a century to a time when male patrimony reigned supreme. 

It is apparently obvious to the current Republicans Party how dangerou females are to it's existence. In the red state of Virginia, the Republican Gubernatorial candidate, Ken Cuccinelli is being destroyed because of his stance on women's issues. Mr. Cuccinelli has a small lead among men in the state but trails his opponent by more than 24% among female voters. This kind of electoral split means even self identifying republicans are decisively rejecting his politics.

It is not a far leap from Virginia to Texas. When Rick Perry held a special legislative session this summer to invoke the new Texas trap laws, closing down Womens Health Centers across the state.  Wendy Davis, a democrat from Fort Worth stood up an held a legislative filibuster to successfully push the bill past the end date of the special session. Davis could not prevent the governor from calling another session or,  the eventual passing of the laws. Her will to fight the bill brought her tens of thousands of Texas fans and national prominence.  

The GOP has succeeded in turning voting restriction regulation into a science. A prime example is in North Carolina where a new conglomeration of a voter ID law (state issued university ID not accepted) , shifting poll locations, restricted early voting times, individual voter  protest rights and curtailing Sunday voting are designed with one thing in mind, hurt the Democratic turn out among minorities and college students.

Texas legislators have now turned these finely tuned weapons against their latest perceived threat, Texas women voters. With subtle wording of the new statute they feel they may be able to selectively control who's ballots will count count and who they may exclude. A female Judge in Corpus Christie voting in her own courthouse found out about how the new law works this week. When she attempted to vote, (as she has for the past 49 years). She was flagged for a using maiden name on one document. She was eventually permitted to swear an affidavit to the election officials and presumably because she was a judge in the same Courthouse, permitted to cast a vote.

The law says that any substantial discrepancy between a voters ID and the voter Registration Card: middle name, hyphen, even middle initial may be cause for the election officials to require the use of a provisional ballot.  The provisional ballot necessitates a person to get official legal documentation within one week and present it to to be validated. Besides the obvious problem of who is in charge of making these calls, there is no guarantee that the provisional ballot will ever even be counted. That's right, a provisional ballot means that after you have gone to the trouble and expense of providing proof your ballot may still be disregarded.

The Republican party has a "two fer" with this law as it also disproportionately
hits latino's who are more likely to have multiple and hyphenated last names. The Brennan Center for Justice estimates that 34% of all women in the US might be subject to these minor name discrepancy issues. As of now 1,400,000 women in Texas do not have ID's that match voter registration this does not even include the maiden name issues or initial letters being potential challenges.

Make no mistake, this is no accident, this legislation was crafted to create this type of effect. One need look no further than to see that State University ID's are not accepted ID's but State issued gun licenses are acceptable. It's not hard to understand the clever tricks the GOP is attempting to employ. This is precisely the kind of clumsy gamesmanship in politics that people absolutely hate. Texas Republicans would be wise to accept a bit of advice from Shakespeare who wrote, "Hell hat no fury like a women scorned".                     

How the healthcare law may benefit you

There has been so much disinformation about the ACA (Affordable Care Act) from it's opponents that almost no one knows what the basic elements of the law are. It is a law that will be beneficial to almost everyone in the country. I will try to clear up what I see as some of the main misconceptions about what is happening and why it has already been good for you. 

The first thing you should know is that the law has been in effect for several years. The reason you have heard so much about it lately is that the final piece of the law went into effect on Oct 10th of this year. This is likely the least significant part of the law but it is in effect the cornerstone on which the rest of the ACA is based. 

The easiest way to think about this large scale bill is that it has three main components.

1. Federal Industry regulation for all medical insurance policies
2. Medicaid expansion to cover poorest residents (individual state's choice)
3. State healthcare exchanges (operated by states if they so choose)   

The part of law impacting the greatest amount of people is. 
"Part 1", (this, it must be noted) has already been in effect for several years. It is the section of the law that will reaches everyone who now has health insurance. Insurance has been largely state regulated and often almost unregulated because of these insurance companies wealth, influence, and power. Some examples of this were policy limitations, preexisting condition exclusions and lifetime beneifit caps. Basically the companies held all the cards and they determined what was inside a policy and what would be included in a policy and even how they might deny coverage for a claim. 

The federal law has now determined basic minimum standards for the industry. Some examples are: not charging women higher premiums because of their gender. Birth control will now be covered for anyone who wants it. No lifetime disease caps, previously you were only covered to a certain dollar level and then you were on your own after expenses hit this amount. The practice of seeking legal exclusions for coverage had been limited. A base amount of policy premiums must be used for medial care or returned to policy holders. Young adults may now remain on an their parents policy until the age of 25.

But, the price of my insurance has not gone down this year.  If you did not get a check from your insurer last year (and millions of people did) then your provider spent more than 80% of premiums on coverage expenses, and you probably have a well run plan.  The cost of healthcare did go up this year so insurers are paying out more to providers.  The cost of healthcare has been rising at about 9% per year for the past 10 years. The ACA cannot immediately reverse things and make healthcare costs go down. What it can do and already had done is to "bend the curve" of healthcare cost increases. In the past two years we have seen the cost increases halved to about 4 1/2% per year. When everything is fully implemented we will likely see further reductions.  Will we see long-term costs go down? That is difficult to predict at this point but by cutting increases in half there has already been major savings for all policy holders.

So how am I better off now under the ACA?  
There are much stronger protections from being denied coverage on your policy, you or your children can't be capped out by lifetime limits of a policy. Federal guidelines set minimum policy coverage standards. Females cannot be charged higher rates based on gender. Insurers must now spend 80% on healthcare expenses or return excess to policy holder's.  Children can remain covered on their parents plan until age 25. If you lose your job or your current coverage you will now have an option to remain covered regardless of your health condition (see exchanges in part 3).

You will hear two consistent complaints about the ACA in the debate about the law: 
1) It will cause your policy costs to go up. Your employer is still getting healthcare the way they always have on the private market, they can shop and get the best rates for their employees exactly like in the past. Other than the stronger industry regulations there are no extra costs imposed by the ACA on employers. Small businesses with less than 40 employers are are exempted from having to provide coverage. Healthcare costs are still going up so policies will reflect these cost but, the increase rate has been cut in half the last two years. Chances are very good that rates will rise even slower once the ACA is fully implemented. 
2) It will cause great unemployment. 
This argument is based on the idea that companies will limit employee hours to less than 30 per week to avoid having to provide insurance.  The problem with this argument is companies can and are doing this right now, just as they have been doing for many years. Companies make decisions based on money.  It is very simple if they think it is in their interest to offer healthcare to their employees then they will find a way to do it.  If they think they can save money not providing it then they will go that route.  The "Free Market" is at work here so don't blame the ACA for this one.  Remember that anyone who cannot get employer coverage is still eligible to find policies on the healthcare exchanges. 

  

Part 2 of the ACA involves covering the poor. Any type of plan to address healthcare issues must have one vital component, the ability to offer some type of coverage for everyone. Failure to do this will mean huge losses for hospitals which will eventually be passed on to insurers. This is one part of the ACA that has been modified since it's passage. Originally  Medicaid has been the purview of the  State's to administer. The ACA needs to try to cover as many of these people as possible to make the model as efficient as possible. 

The Federal government told the states that they would cover 95% of the state costs for enrolling new people in Medicaid. Some states accepted the offer and some did not agree. They eventually went to the courts to stop the program finally the Supreme Court decided to let states make determinations for themselves on whether or not to expand coverage. This was seen as a loss for the ACA, but many states have decided to take the Federal dollars and protect their poorest residents. 

Now even Republican led states (like Arizona and Ohio) are agreeing to join the program, the big push will eventually come from the hospitals that are providing unreimbursed treatment to indigent residents. Texas with almost 1/3 of the state uninsured and Florida too will be forced by economics to add medicaid coverage for their poorest residents. 

This part of the ACA gets the least publicity because there is almost no one to speak up for the poor and disenfranchised. This is however, very important to making the whole plan successful by reducing increasing costs.

The table shows that bringing people into Medicaid means a lower overall increase in healthcare spending and more control of costs. This part of the ACA will be the most difficult to finalize but all the states will eventually fall in line.

The final Piece of the healthcare puzzle 

3) Healthcare exchanges

If you add everyone up who is currently covered by insurance figure in those and who will potentially covered by Medicaid expansion and subtract that from our 330 million population you will have about 29 million people left over. These folks are the most difficult to deal with because they may be working for a small employers, be independent contractors, or they may have a preexisting condition preventing them from getting any insurance. One thing they have not had, is, bargaining power. Large employers or state governments can use their size to help get better rates but, for this group their was not much hope.

The plan was to have individual states set up healthcare exchanges for their residents and many of them have done so. It is important to stress these are all private insurance companies many of them are the same people who insure the corporate giants in each state but, because all of this group is pooled together all of a sudden they become valuable clients for the insurers.  Because the ACA has been so controversial for Republicans they have almost all chosen to fight against the law. This has left the field to the Federal government to manage their states.

We are currently in the pre-enrollment period for the exchanges. The policies at the exchanges do not go into effect until Jan 1, 2014 and Uninsured residents have until March 15th to find an insurer and pick some type of policy or they will be levied a small fine on their tax return.  To help encourage enrollment in the program tax credits are offer to those people who earn less than 150% of the federal poverty level. 

A tale of two systems 

Many people are extremely pleased with the operation of the state exchanges and they have already been successful at signing up many of their eligible residents. 

The rollout of the website for the Federal exchanges has not gone smoothly in its first weeks.  Initially it was overburdened by requests for information but then problems with the website programming and infrastructure surfaced.  The problems are being corrected but because the system ties so many government databases together it is extremely complex. 

I have been on the federal exchange for Texas and it is not really user friendly. I was able to get registered after several attempts and I am extremely pleased to be able to finally qualify for health coverage. 

P.S.

A final thought

The ACA is not a perfect solution for the US healthcare crisis, just reading this you can see how it has been altered from it's original design.  It is however, far better than the system that has given us the worlds most expensive healthcare. The expense is not justified by results (US is13th in the world by average longevity). I know people who hate government will just see this as another federal social program. Please do remember this is still an almost all private insurance system with minimal government intrusion. It will undoubtedly have it's growing pains but it can certainly be further adapted adjusted. 

To the skeptics I say, give this a chance to succeed. We have had a vacuum  in this area for so long and the unfettered "Free Market" has not served us well.  Let us try and see if we can't make this a success for the good of the country and it's people.    

The Cleft in Republican party may well destroy it

Since the heady days of the Coolidge administration there has been one abiding principle of the Republican party, whats good for business is good for the party. Republicans have always been seen as being bound inextricably together with big business and financial conservatism. Liberals like myself, may not agree that we should concede the correctness of their economic argument but, we have always found it secretly comforting because it represented stability and a predictability of their actions.

The parties of the mid twentieth century were far different animals with Democrats tied to the labor unions and often strongest in rural farming communities and with the poor. The Civil Rights era in the second half of the century led to the loss of the deeply democratic south and began the erosion of rural democratic support. Today's parties can be defined almost as much by where their constituents are located as by their ideas. It is no coincidence that today, deepest Dixie is the strongest republican area of the country, and urban California and New England are very predominantly Democratic.

How the Republican's found  themselves in their current predicament is a tale of demographics. The final split between the Democrats and their rural base occurred when Jerry Falwell and the "moral majority" became a political force during the Reagan years. Republican's by choosing religious issues like school prayer and abortion combined with the "Southern Strategy" of  raising key racial issues like affirmative action and school busing  were very successful in winning over rural Democrats across the country. This was originally thought of as a good move for the party but even at that time the alarm bells should have been ringing. The Republican Party chose to all but ignore urban multicultural voters and, it has in turn, given up on the fastest growing part of the US population.

"Freedom Works" was just another well financed conservative political foundation. At it's helm was Dick Armey former republican majority leader of the House. The movement that eventually motivated so many old white people from everywhere began on the trading floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange in 2008 when a CNBC reporter Rick Santelli had a kind of melt down diatribe about government and it's interference in the markets. It was probably a backlash to the Federal Government's decision to rescue the banks following the Lehman brothers collapse. Whatever it's cause, it spread like wild fire, this libertarian fever dream of  an Ayn Rand style government. Dick Armey was quick to see how this movement was in direct opposition to Barack Obama and therefor a perfect fit for the Republican Party. At first they they declared they wanted no part of government they were just angry protesting citizens with three corner hats dangling tea-bags and holding Gadsden flags.

The grassroots movement was soon co opted and quickly became a successful vehicle for the Republican Party. The party saw only upside with it's integration of the tea party. It was not until the midterm elections of 2010 they eventually sensed the danger.  While Freedom Works is now on the verge of bankruptcy since having to pay Armey 7 million dollars to get him to quietly leave his position. Heritage Action is the new umbrella organization, quarterbacked by former hard right Senator Jim Dement he currently makes the strategic calls for all the tea party plays.

While the Republicans were thrilled at retaking the House of Representatives in 2010 they they should have swept both houses and regained total control over the Congress. Republican's have found their newest and loudest constituency the tea party had nominated candidates so extreme they were almost a farce. Republicans could have run experienced candidates for these seats and likely won but, the tea party had dominated the primary process. Candidates like Christine O'Donell who had to run the " I am not a witch" ad to clarify her relationship to the dark arts. In Nevada everyone was sure Harry Reid was finished until Sharon Angle who wanted to get rid of the IRS, Education Department, and get us out of the United Nations won the GOP primary. Then there was Arizona tea party candidate Sue Lowden who's answer to healthcare reform was to barter "chickens for checkups". In the end the Democrats held the Senate and with it 2/3 of the combined power of the Congress and Presidency.

Now, like flesh eating bacteria, the tea party is devouring it's host from within. The constant threat of primary challenges from the right has driven party to a point where it stands little hope of competing on a national level. It has decimated the moderate wing of the GOP and has now put the few remaining eastern Republicans in danger. John Boehner did not want the current government shutdown he experienced the last shutdown in 95 and knew it eventually cost Newt Gingrich his position as speaker. The moderates knew this was a disaster in the making and wanted to avoid this mess with the shutdown. They could have made an ideological stand to save the party  but, they chose to avoid confrontation now the long term damage to the national image of the party is clear. The tea-party sees this only a positive for it's members, they have fought the good ideological fight and they are still able to pull the party further to the right.

The business wing of the party the old Nelson Rockefeller Republicans, represent the folks who write those huge checks for the foundations. the are definitely not happy. This week they saw how default might cost them many billions of dollars and they were quick to tell Boehner and McConnell to stop the madness, post haste.  At this point it's hard to see how the Republicans can repair the internal damage to their party. After Mitt Romney's 5 million vote loss to Obama in his second term, the party performed a so called "autopsy" where they looked at at the reasons they were so soundly defeated. Problems with voting blocks of women, minorities and young voters were specifically identified. Party chair Reince Pribus said everything would be addressed but over 9 months later the problems remain unaddressed and unresolved becoming, if anything, even worse.

The Republicans have to realize that older and whiter is not a long term winning combination for them, each week in the US over 2,000 young Hispanics turn 18 and become eligible to vote. With gerrymandering of state districts and a delay on immigration reform the GOP has been able to hide demographic tide changes in the body politic. They may be able to hold on to the House for one more term in 2014. Like the Dutch boy with his finger in the dyke, the pressure is building on the other side. Unless major structural changes are made within the party they cannot remain competitive in national politics.    



              

Gasoline prices around the word reflect social values as much natural resource scarcity

It was surprising to learn that there is a tremendous difference in the amount of money spent around the world to refuel cars. How much difference? From $.09 per gallon in Venezuela to just over $10.00 a gallon in Norway. I have known about steep prices in Western Europe having driven quite a bit in Germany and the UK. I kind of understood the idea was, that population density informed the choice in these countries. It makes sense that in a country like Netherlands where space for everything is at a premium, that car use and ownership would be be considered a luxury with corresponding expenses. 

While it is true that the really cheap gas countries, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia are flush with oil. the difference in world wide pricing is at least as much a function of tax policy as it is of scarcity.   

The US economy was largely built on inexpensive domestic natural resources and the huge post war manufacturing boom of the 1950's was based on cheap raw materials. When US domestic oil production began to decrease in the late 1950's, we became ever more dependent on foreign oil. In 1973 OPEC the newly formed oil cartel raised the price of crude oil by 70% and sent shock waves through the economy. I remember when I began driving in 1979 gas cost about $.80 a gallon this was considered scandalous since in the 1960's it had been less than one half of that amount.

Even at that time the prices contained significant federal and state taxes.  These funds were often considered road taxes  and used to cover some of expenses of building the massive US highway and bridge system. Little or no thought was given to other external costs such as pollution, the sustainability of a fossil fuel based economy, or the social costs of building a society based around the automobile.

The results were catastrophic for large metropolitan city's in the US. They watched their tax base flee to suburbia. Commuters drove in to city's to take advantage of economic opportunities but left in the evening to return to their new clean safe enclaves. Inner city Business closed leaving ever fewer opportunities for those unfortunate enough not to be able to escape by the federally built highway system. The poor and disadvantaged were stranded in decaying cities often with poor or non-existent mass transit solutions.

The past decades have brought about the resurgence of the large city. Many Millennial's choose to not even bother getting a drivers license today. The total of miles driven per year has been decreasing and fuel economy has been steadily increasing over the past few years. The desirability of urban life continues to revitalize cities in the US. Have we had our fuel priced correctly to reflect the needs of the country? My thoughts are, probably not. We have paid a steep price in blood and treasure to keep prices at the pump relatively low. We are just awaking to what our carbon  based economy is going to cost the planet over the next century.  

It is ironic that just this month the US has overtaken Russia to reclaim the title of largest petroleum producer in the world. This along with fewer miles driven and higher efficiency vehicles should keep the cost of fuel low in this country for the near future. I believe we need to keep in mind that cheap fuel has it's own costs and as the ad for gasoline additives said,    "You can pay me now (a little) or pay me later (a huge amount)".  we have been blessed with abundant natural resources in this country but, we have a responsibility to be a better citizen to the rest of the world going forward.