Republican YOYO Home Economics: Medicaid Slashed, Other Support Burned

Former President Clinton advised the delegates to the 2012 Democratic Convention to listen carefully to what the Republicans were offering in regard to Medicaid, and those of us in Nevada should be “listening with both ears.”  Here’s the description of the Medicaid program as stated by the Nevada Department of Health and Human Services, the program:

“Provides health care coverage for many people including low income families with children whose family income is at or below 133% percent of poverty, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients, certain Medicare beneficiaries, and recipients of adoption assistance, foster care and some children aging out of foster care. The DHCFP also operates five Home or Community-Based Services waivers offered to certain persons throughout the state. The Division of Welfare and Supportive Services (DWSS) determines eligibility for the Medicaid program.”

Listing those categories focuses on the aims of the program — it is to serve (1) low income families with children; (2) elderly Nevadans; (3) low income Nevadans over 65 years of age; (4) families receiving assistance for adopted children; (5) children in foster care.  Who was enrolled in Nevada’s Medicaid program as of fiscal year 2009:

What services were provided to those enrolled in Nevada’s Medicaid program?

During fiscal year 2010, 68.1% of the spending from the Medicaid program went for acute care, 25.6% was allocated for long term care, and 6.3% was used for “disproportionate care – hospital payments.”

The spending for long term care breaks down as illustrated in the following chart:

11.1% of the long term care funding was allocated to facilities for the intellectually disabled, 2.9% went to services for the mentally ill — and notice – 86% was used to provide home health & personal care, and nursing facility care.  In other words, 86% of Nevada’s Medicaid expenses for long term care went toward serving those least able to care for themselves.  The other 14% was used to provide intermediate and long term care for those unable to care for themselves because of intellectual limits or mental illness.

Here is exactly why President Clinton told his audience to “listen up:”

My view is get the federal government out of Medicaid, get it out of health care. Return it to the states.” – Romney, South Carolina GOP Primary Debate, Jan. 20, 2012.

In case anyone is remotely confused about what that statement from the former Massachusetts Governor means, he’s speaking about transforming the Medicaid program into Block Grants.

More specifically, the former Governor is adopting the block grant proposal for Medicaid set forth in his running mate’s “Path to Prosperity” budget plan:

“The plan also would repeal health system reform law provisions that will expand Medicaid coverage starting in 2014. Instead, states would receive block grants, which would free states “to tailor their Medicaid programs to the unique needs of their own populations,” the budget says.”  [AMA]

The tailoring is to be done with less cloth:

The Ryan budget would cut $2.4 trillion from Medicaid and other health programs. Reduced spending would increase the number of uninsured dramatically, Park* said. “Those who retain coverage will have benefits scaled back and have higher cost-sharing.” [AMA] (emphasis added)

We can drill down further into what Governor Romney and Representative Ryan have in mind for the Medicaid program by looking at the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the Ryan position:  Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)—from 2 percent of GDP in 2011 to 1¼ percent in 2030 and 1 percent in 2050.

Now is the moment to recall that 58% of those who receive Medicaid assistance for their health care needs in Nevada are children, and the AAP isn’t thrilled at cuts to that constituency:

“American Academy of Pediatrics President Robert W. Block, MD, said the proposal would undo investments in health programs for children. More than half of Medicaid recipients are children, but their care accounts for up to only one-quarter of the program’s costs.

“Whether considering fiscal year 2013 federal spending bills or reviewing long-term budget proposals, Congress must seize this opportunity to invest in the future of our country by protecting children’s health,” Dr. Block said.” [AMA]

Dr. Block has reason to be concerned, if we return to the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis we can see why.  In two paragraphs from their analysis of the Ryan “Path” the non-partisan office explains why the proposal would make deep cuts, and place greater burdens on the states:

“The specified path (Ryan Plan) would cause federal spending on Medicaid and CHIP to decline relative to GDP in coming decades, rather than to rise sharply as in the other policy scenarios that CBO has analyzed, and would include no exchange subsidies (see Figure 3). As a result, by 2050, such spending would be 76 percent below what would occur for Medicaid, CHIP, and exchange subsidies under the baseline scenario and 78 percent below what would occur under the alternative fiscal scenario. Because spending on CHIP and exchange subsidies represents a relatively small share of the amounts in the baseline and alternative fiscal scenarios, most of the reduction would have to come from the Medicaid program.” [CBO] (emphasis added)

The Republicans do, indeed seem serious about eliminating Medicaid as a federal program and shifting the expenses for health care access to low income elderly, the disabled, the intellectually disabled, elders in nursing facilities, and children in poverty to the states.  The CBO explains the nature of this shift:

The responses of the states would be of particular importance. If states were given additional flexibility to allocate federal funds for Medicaid and CHIP according to their own priorities, they might be able to improve the efficiency of those programs in delivering health care to low-income populations. Nevertheless, even with significant efficiency gains, the magnitude of the reduction in spending relative to such spending in the other scenarios means that states would need to increase their spending on these programs, make considerable cutbacks in them, or both. Cutbacks might involve reduced eligibility for Medicaid and CHIP, coverage of fewer services, lower payments to providers, or increased cost-sharing by beneficiaries—all of which would reduce access to care. (emphasis added)

Translation: Even if the states were able to achieve all the vaunted efficiencies a “flexible” plan might provide — the cuts proposed are so deep and so drastic that citizens in the United States who are lower income elderly or the disabled in nursing homes, and those who are low income and living in foster care, or families in poverty — would have reduced access to care. Period.

These aren’t generic numbers and pie in the sky statistics we’re talking about, we’re speaking of 25,841 elderly Nevadans, 40,898 disabled Nevadans, 55,626 adult Nevadans – mostly women, and 168,070 Nevada children.

So, here’s a question for Governor Romney and Representative Ryan — If no matter how much efficiency the state of Nevada squeezes from your block grants for Medicaid, Nevada and the other states will still have to either appropriate significantly more revenue, or drastically reduce services — how is your plan anything other than a proposal to shift the burden of health care costs, for the least able among us, from the federal treasury to the state treasuries and the pockets of low income Americans?

Where, Governor Romney and Representative Ryan, does the Nevada Legislature start cutting? From the acute care services for adopted or foster children? From the acute care for pregnant women? From acute care for children in poverty who have asthma, autism, broken arms, or sprained ligaments?  From the long term care for the elderly who need home health care services and personal care to avoid institutional living?  From the long term care for the indigent mentally ill?  From elderly residents of nursing facilities?  From disabled children who need home health care? Where?

Perhaps cuts aren’t the only option. Must the Nevada government raise the eligibility standards such that only those living at “25%” of the official federal poverty level can receive assistance?  Here are the 2012 guidelines from the Department of Health and Human Services –

How much more should a family of four living on $1,920.83 per month  have to pay for basic health care?  How much more should a young man and his pregnant wife living on $1,260.83 per month have to pay for pre-natal care, and expenses associated with the birth of their first child?  For a political party which lauds its “Pro-Life” stance — asking low income families to dig deeper to pay for health care to make up for federal and state budget issues (while proposing more tax cuts for the top 1% of American income earners), makes it sound as though the GOP is the Pro-Birth, not Pro-Life party.

How much more should a young family have to pay for health care before the cost of health care begins to impinge on the capacity to put a roof over their heads?

Or their ability to put food on the table?  It’s likely going to cost our young family with two children under the ages of 19 approximately $366.40 to $578.40 per month to keep everyone fed. [USDA] Our hypothetical family might be lucky to have $764.43 per month remaining after housing and food for utilities, clothing, transportation costs (auto payments or bus fare) — that $764.43 translates to about $25.48 per day to cover ALL the basic family needs listed previously… including Health Care.  But wait, the Romney/Ryan budget cuts nutrition assistance too, drawing fire from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:

“Cuts to nutrition programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) will hurt hungry children, poor families, vulnerable seniors and workers who cannot find employment. These cuts are unjustified and wrong.” [The Hill]

And what other program do the Republicans fantasize about turning into a Block Grant Program and then cutting?  Housing subsidies. [TO.org]  There was some discussion of the Ryan proposal on this topic at the March 21, 2012 House Budget Committee hearing:

“Rep. David Price (D-NC) asked Donovan what the implication of the Ryan budget cuts would be on HUD programs such as public housing, Choice Neighborhoods, HOME and others.  Donovan responded that, under the proposed Ryan budget, approximately one million households could lose their housing.  Of the one million households at risk under the Ryan budget, Donovan estimated that 585 thousand would come from the Housing Choice Voucher Program, 425 thousand from the Project-Based Voucher Program, and 110-180 thousand from homeless assistance programs.  He also mentioned that an estimated 17 thousand jobs would be lost from CDBG, and cuts to the HOME program would mean tens of thousands of new affordable housing units would not be built.”  [CLPHA] (emphasis added)

So, no help for financially fragile families for health care, or housing, or food — or anything, but tax payers in the top 1% of all our income brackets will get more, yet more generous, tax breaks.  Little wonder the Bishops were annoyed.  Less wonder Sister Simone Campbell from Nuns on the Bus received a standing ovation at the Democratic National Convention.

A person doesn’t have to be Roman Catholic to find the Republican proposals supported by Governor Romney and created by Representative Ryan astonishing in their parsimony and appalling in their avarice.

Perhaps one has to be incited by the fact that a family in Las Vegas might have an air-conditioner, or a DVD player, or a functional motor vehicle — “Look,” cry the miserly, “They have nice stuff, and they got it by doing nothing.” Not. So. Fast.   As of 2010 not that many Nevadans were receiving public  assistance. [Census] In fact, about 3% of Nevadans were receiving public assistance. [Census pdf]

Thus much for the Miserly Myth that “They’re all sitting around collecting welfare, and learning to be dependent on Guv’mint.”  Perhaps we should add the usual follow up, “and they’re doing it on my hard earned tax dollars.”  The latter portion is correct, we do pay taxes which support assistance programs for fragile families.  However, the Grinches among us appear to believe they are the only ones chipping in.

S’cuse me Mr. Grinch, but I really don’t mind paying a fractional portion of my income to insure NO child goes to bed hungry, NO elderly person with dementia is left alone, NO foster child is left with an untreated case of pneumonia, NO pregnant woman is without pre-natal care, NO family is homeless, NO mentally ill person is abandoned, NO disabled child is without care.

This is what Democrats mean when we say, “Just Say No.”

References and Resources:  * Edwin Park, CBPP.  Congressional Budget Office, Ryan’s Specified Paths, March 2012. (pdf) “House Republican Budget Seeks to Slow Medicare, Slash Medicaid,” American Medical Association, April 2, 2012.   Kaiser Family Foundation, State Health Facts, Database.  “Public Assistance Relief,” Census, Department of Commerce, pdf.  “HUD Secretary Defends FY13 Budget Before House Appropriators,” CLHPA.   “Four Ways Romney and Ryan Would Roll Back the 20th Century ,” Jake Blumgart, AlterNet, September 5, 2012.  “What Paul Ryan’s Budget Actually Cuts,” Brad Plumer, Washington Post, August 12, 2012.  USDA, Cost of Food Plans, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, May 2011 (pdf).  ASPE, Department of Health and Human Services, HHS Poverty Guidelines 2012. Congressional Budget Office, “The Long-Term Budgetary Impact of Paths for Federal Revenues and Spending Specified by Chairman Ryan,” March 2012, pdf.   Kaiser Family Foundation, link to interactive database for state health care statistics.

ALEC’s plans for 2013 Nevada Legislature

The Nevada Policy Research Institute just released its “Solutions 2013” policy manual for conservative legislators (pdf); it doesn’t take much digging to see some remarkable consistency with ALEC’s “Budget Took Kit,” (pdf) and with some traditional anti-government proposals from time out of mind.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that one of the initial recommendations from NPRI is the rejuvenation of the TASC proposal.  “TASC would offer long‐term certainty to potential investors and job‐creators in Nevada by curtailing the perpetual drive for new taxes.”   There’s absolutely nothing new here.  TASC is simply TABOR with another acronym.  The so-called “Taxpayer Bill of Rights” has long been the darling of Americans for Prosperity, a front group for Koch Industries.  In November 2005, voters in Colorado found that they had had all the “improvements” they could stand with their version of TASC, and loosened most of the restrictions. [Dkos]

Moving beyond the large graphs, we find NPRI recommending “Charter Agencies,” as a surrogate for government divisions: “The charter agency framework can be modeled after the 2003 enabling legislation from Iowa, SF 453 and HF 837. Agency directors who opt in should be signed to performance contracts that outline their responsibilities for meeting legislatively defined goals. These contracts should reward each increase in agency excellence with more and more agency discretion.”   Now, where might the think tank have derived this notion?

First from their own “Better Budgeting” (pdf) offerings, derived in no small part from ALEC’s “Priorities of Government Budgeting Model” (page 15).  While there is nothing intrinsically wrong with establishing priorities and monitoring the performance of government agencies — there is something to be feared if the priorities are skewed toward privatization, and the performance measured by money saved instead of efficacious services rendered.

The NPRI further recommends: “The position of an elected, independent state auditor should be established under Nevada law, free of manipulation by incumbent politicians. The state auditor should be free to select any state or local government or program for review. Existing auditors’ offices in the legislative and executive branches should be consolidated with the office of the state auditor.”  (page 10) And, this would not be all that different from ALEC’s recommendation: “The state auditor should have the discretion to conduct comprehensive performance audits on a routine basis to identify waste and overlapping regulations, and ensure that taxpayers are getting the best value.” (page 28) The question becomes, if the auditor is elected, do we not have just one more “incumbent politician?”

NPRI recommends: “Incorporate a competitive bidding process into the performance based budgeting method. Nevada taxpayers deserve the highest value possible for their tax dollars. Competitive bidding is crucial to that effort.” (page 12)  ALEC has another, more compact title for this concept: “Embrace the Expanded Use of Privatization and Competitive Contracting.” (page 29) Privatization by any other term is still privatization.

NPRI continues: “Through constitutional provision or statute, limit the growth in local government spending to the rate of population growth plus inflation. Also, reform or repeal NRS 288, Nevada’s collective bargaining statute, to eliminate upward pressure on local government spending from special interest groups.”

If you noticed the formula in the first section of the recommendation, and it seemed familiar, you were correct — it is simply a restatement of the TABOR/TASC formulation we’ve seen before.  The second part is a blunt statement asking for the repeal of collective bargaining for public employees. Those “special interests” are more commonly known as public employees,  teachers, firefighters, and law enforcement personnel.

ALEC has some model legislation to deal with these pesky public servants.

If we were thinking that the fight over public employee pensions were a thing of the past, we’d be wrong.  NPRI has a “plan” and asserts that PERS doesn’t properly account for risk, is over enthusiastic,  and is not “market-modeled.”  Translation: Public employees should have a defined contribution plan, not a defined benefits plan. The NPRI states it ever so much more politely:

“Require PERS to incorporate a market based accounting approach. If policymakers and taxpayers want to uphold the promises made to public employees in Nevada, they first need to have a clear understanding of what those promises entail. The current PERS accounting method obscures the magnitude of those commitments.” (page 22)

The rejoinder to this recommendation: “... state-based conservative groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have called for cutting public employee pension and health care benefits and replacing them with less secure 401k-style plans that would inevitably leave many retirees in poverty.”   This would be the “market based approach.”

It’s not just public employees NPRI and ALEC would assault, private sector employees are also a target:

NPRI: “Reduce construction costs by repealing prevailing wage requirements. The bulk of local‐government bonds are issued to finance the construction of public infrastructure. These costs — and the bond issues required to finance them — can be dramatically reduced by repealing the state’s prevailing wage requirements, which artificially inflate labor costs by about 45 percent, on average.”   Repealing prevailing wage requirements? Who else is calling for this?

Not surprisingly, ALEC has a piece of fill in the blank legislation for this target too:

Judging from the length of the NPRI’s segment on public education we ought to expect another frontal assault on that topic, and perhaps there will be time in the next few days to compare the ALEC approach and the NPRI’s recommendations in that battle field.

In short, the NPRI’s recommendations fit smoothly into the general framework of the ALEC proposals, and for this the Koch brothers should be pleased.

Coffee and the Papers: Ethics, Ethics, and Ethics

## Those who bemoan the lack of ethics in government and harp on “waste, fraud, and abuse,” in Nevada’s operations don’t get to have it both ways: Either you support adequate  funding for the Nevada Ethics Commission or you don’t.  [full story LV Sun] Nor, do such advocates get to minimally fund the Commission and then complain that government oversight doesn’t work because the agency is backlogged and can’t do its job.

## We’d have to wonder, if gold were discovered under St. Patrick’s Cathedral in NYC would we be discussing how to “quantify” the impact of the mining operations?  (A question lost on the Not-Native-Americans discussing the impact of mining at Mt. Tenabo)  [More Nevada Appeal]

## “One in every 118 homes in the state of Nevada received a foreclosure filing in September, according to the foreclosure listing firm RealtyTrac.”    The Republicans responded: “They got everything they wanted from Congress the first two years. Their policies are in place. And they are demonstrably not working,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Sunday.” [RGJ]    Not quite everything.

On August 30, 2009 the Senate of the United States voted down an amendment to S. 1014 which would have allowed judicial resolutions of mortgage problems, on a 45-51 vote.  [roll call 174]  Opponents of the measure cried it would reward the irresponsible and have bank customers paying for the “neighbor’s mortgage for the house with the extra bathroom.” [DWT] Bank supporters labeled the provision a “cram down.”

And so, it was left to the private sector to handle mortgage modifications, with less than admirable or effective results. The bankers won the “cram down” fight and now there’s an even greater need for “cram down” legislation:

“Aside from propping up the country’s largest banks, there’s very little reason not to pass bankruptcy reform. In contrast to the Obama administration’s Home Affordable Modification Program, under which the taxpayer is partially footing the bill, court ordered mortgage cram-downs would cost the federal government nothing. Indeed, cram-down legislation requires no government bailouts or financial incentives for lenders or for borrowers. The 2009 CBO cost estimate of the proposed cram-down legislation shows that the federal government actually would have made money on the bill through the increase in bankruptcy filing fees.”  [Nation] (emphasis added)

Now, the President is about to announce plans to make it easier for homeowners to refinance mortgages.  [RGJ] The banks are still being “propped up.”

 

 

Coffee and the Papers: Reductions Enforced

## The bad news from Nevada’s latest round of budget slashing may not be the number of state and local jobs lost, but the compression of the workload on those currently employed: “The state’s Welfare and Supportive Services Division, which gives out Medicaid, food stamps and welfare, had 1,247 workers approved for the upcoming two years, the same number it had this year. But with the numbers seeking assistance growing, the agency projects workers there will have gone from fielding 160 cases per employee to 306. ” [LVSun]  There is always the danger that high caseloads may yield a larger opening for mistakes, and any mistakes may be touted as “The System Doesn’t Work” fodder for further calls to reduce government services.

And, this state of affairs doesn’t seem to be adding to the economic viability of Nevada’s economy either: “State workers have over the past two years had to take once-a-month furloughs. They will have to take six unpaid furlough days a year starting today, plus a 2.5 percent pay cut. In addition, they have to pay more toward their pensions, and saw dramatic reductions in health care benefits. In total, it’s a reduction in take home pay of about 10 percent, according to Vishnu Subramaniam, chief of staff of the AFSCME Local 4041, the state’s largest employee union.”*  [LVSun] *state workers are not unionized in Nevada. (emphasis added)  That would be a 10% reduction in the income available for housing, food, clothing, and other portions of the household budgets involved– all of which have consequences for local economies.

Before we get too complacent about “only 37 layoffs” so far, Nevada State Employee Focus reminds us: “There were about 21,000 regular state employees a few years ago and now there are just 17,000, a reduction of  19 percent. Over the next two years there will be a reduction of 665 full-time positions a 4 percent reduction from today’s levels.”

## To make matters more complicated, the Budget Hole that is the Nevada system of governance may have to be realigned still further [LVSun] as the scramble begins to determine how the costs can be re-calibrated to state and local sources. And, it rolls down hill –  Nye County may make some budget adjustments by handing over animal control and shelter responsibilities to Tonopah and Pahrump. [PVT] Blue Lyon asks: If the “ownership society” is so great why do some leaders want to sell off our country?”

## 229 new laws go into effect in Nevada — including some Chamber of Commerce Specials:  Locally negotiated collective bargaining agreements can be reopened in case of an “economic downturn,” a governor’s power grab for the State Board of Education, tax breaks for corporations which want to avail themselves of inland port zone facilities, and a nice chink in the seniority provisions in teacher contracts.  [NVAppeal] [LVSun]

## The Nevada Supreme Court appears to be closer to making a decision concerning the nature of the election to fill the vacancy in the House of Representatives for the 2nd District.  [NNB via CarsonNow]

## GOP candidate Mark Amodei has picked up some endorsements for his 2nd CD campaign: “Twenty-six senators and assembly members and Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki joined in the endorsement.  The list of lawmakers endorsing Amodei includes state Sen. Dean Rhoads, R-Tuscarora; Assemblyman John Ellison, R-Elko; and Assemblyman Pete Goicoechea, R-Eureka. There are 10 state senators and 16 assembly members on the list.” [EDFP]

Mr. Amodei has been making a great effort to hide his support for the Ryan Plan and its privatization of the Medicare Program.  [NRDC with video]

## Kirk Caraway suggests questions for conservatives who have espoused the Ryan Budget: “While we are on the subject of Medicare, Ryan’s plan assumes that costs will be contained to the rate of inflation. Again, there’s no evidence that this is workable, just some more of Ryan’s magical thinking.  Anyone can make a budget balance if he or she just makes up the numbers. The fact that Ryan’s budget makes up so many numbers yet doesn’t balance for 29 years should set off huge alarm bells for anyone claiming to be fiscally conservative.  Is this all the conservative movement has left? Are the GOP members of Congress so stupid that they buy all of this magical thinking, or are they just so desperate for a plan — any plan — that they signed on despite its obvious flaws?”   (emphasis added)

## 2010′s in the rear view mirror but Glenn Cook can’t seem to disentangle himself from his obsession with former Congresswoman Dina Titus. [The Nevada View]

The Big Shrug: Nevada Legislature Shifts Burdens to Counties

It might have been worse, the Assembled Wisdom in Carson City could have further raided the treasuries of Washoe and Clark counties, but shifting $52.6 million in expenses from the state to the counties is significant. [related link] See also: [NV Appeal]  Some Shrugs listed below:

State obligations to support Child Protective Services was shrugged off to the counties in SB 480.  “Section 4 of this bill requires each of those counties to pay to the Division of Child and Family Services an assessment for the provision of child protective services not to exceed the limit of legislative authorization for spending on child protective services by the Division in each such county.”

Yes, indeed, the mining lobby shaved millions off the liability of its powerful constituents, but for all the palaver about how much we value our children the Legislature couldn’t find the resolve to maintain state funding for child protective services.

How do we fund the Youth Parole Board responsibilities?  We shrug the costs off to the counties.  SB 476:  “Section 1 of this bill requires each county to pay an assessment for the activities of the Youth Parole Bureau of the Division of Child and Family Services of the Department of Health and Human Services. The amount of the assessment is determined by the Administrator of the Division of Child and Family Services using a formula that is based upon the number of pupils enrolled in public schools in the county.”

Are services needed from the Division of Health, or the office of the State Health Officer?  SB 471: “Section 1 of this bill requires each county to pay an assessment to the Health Division of the Department of Health and Human Services for the costs of services provided in that county by the Health Division or the State Health Officer.”

Public health services are in that realm of governmental functions not often supported by federal funding, outside of health care access programs such as Medicaid and Medicare the federal government has a relatively small footprint compared to its security, commerce, and agricultural programs.  We speak to the necessity of public health and safety — but in this instance the state was unwilling to step up to the plate in order to guarantee the essential safety of its citizens.

And, should we not be able to shrug off the costs of sustaining our institutions of higher education the burden can be shifted to — who else? — the students.  Those considering majors in areas not currently “popular” could easily see their tuition costs rising because the cost of instruction ratio would naturally be higher in those subjects.  We have a bill for that.

SB 449 “Section 2 of this bill authorizes the Board of Regents, in fixing tuition charges and assessing registration fees and other fees, to adjust the amount of the tuition charges and registration and other fees based on the demand for or the costs of carrying out the academic program or major for which the tuition charges or registration or other fees are assessed. The adjustment may be based on factors such as the cost of professional instruction, the cost of laboratory resources and ancillary costs.”

The Powers That Be Representing The Powers Of the Have-It-Alls have made their priorities exceedingly clear.  It is more important to keep taxation low on mining and major national retailers than it is to maintain our funding for schools, child welfare and protective services, youthful offender rehabilitation, and students in our institutions of higher education.  The No New Taxes mantra is more important than sustaining our efforts in these realms.   When the choice is keeping the Chamber of Commerce happy or securing public health, child welfare, schools, and universities — the Assembled Wisdom of the 76th Session marched merrily to the Chamber’s tune.

And we are all poorer for it.

Coffee and the Papers

## Las Vegas, Nevada made the list.  Another one of those lists that don’t bode well for the state’s economy.  This time it’s the Case-Shiller tracking of residential real estate prices.  “Twelve of the 20 cities tracked by the index posted fresh lows in March. Those cities were Atlanta; Charlotte, N.C.; Chicago; Cleveland; Detroit; Las Vegas; Miami; Minneapolis; New York; Phoenix; Portland, Ore.; and Tampa, Fla.”  [Los Angeles Times]

## The Assembled Wisdom enacted “education reforms.”  Perhaps a shorter version of the process could be phrased as the Republicans saying to teachers — we’ll only cut your wages by 2.5% if you’ll give in to the Chamber of Commerce and amend the mediation/arbitration process, and adopt a new evaluation system.”  [Las Vegas Sun][RGJ]

## Some good news emerging from Carson City — campaign finance reporting and transparency bills cleared hurdles in the State Senate.  [Full Story NNB] [h/t Carson Now]

## A good summation of the situation: “For one side of the political divide, it’s more important to cut investments than it is to keep up with global competitors. If foreign rivals surpass us, so be it. What matters is low taxes and a government that can be strangled in a bathtub — nothing more.”  [TWM]

## Another reminder, from the U.S. Senate Republican Caucus that the GOP really really doesn’t want to have a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: “Senate Republicans are calling for the adoption of three specific CFPB reforms, including:

1. altering the CFPB’s leadership structure from that of a single director to a board of directors, similar to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Federal Reserve Board, or Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC);
2. subjecting the CFPB to the congressional appropriations process; and
3. providing prudential bank regulators with stronger tools to prevent CFPB regulations that may impact the safety-and-soundness of banks.” [FRW]

If this sounds like the House version of putting the foxes back in charge of the hen houses, that’s because it is …

Reuters explains why investors need more protection: “

Dodd-Frank called for the SEC to hire 800 more staffers; House GOP members are trying to cut off the funding to do that. Almost acting in lockstep with the financial trust, the GOP is also attempting to neuter the Consumer Financial Protection Board and fiduciary duty that would make brokers place investors’ interests first.  Awash with campaign contributions from the money trust, House GOP members are openly hostile to any Dodd-Frank regulations that hope to protect consumers.  “Regulators exist to serve the banks,” Rep. Spencer Bachus, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee told an Alabama newspaper late last year. (emphasis added)

If the last line doesn’t disturb you then you might be a part of the Magnetar Crowd.

## Can’t say we weren’t warned: “The Republican strategy this summer will be to use what amounts to extortion to force massive and not particularly popular spending cuts on the White House — by refusing to allow the country to keep paying its collective mortgage unless the White House caves on various draconian spending cuts. The consequences of that defaulting — i.e., the USA for the first time in its history defaulting on its debt — are catastrophic. “  [TPM]

And Crooks and Liars points out “McConnell keeps lying and the media keeps letting him get away with it.”  (on health care reform and  Medicare)

Paul Waldman has an insightful piece on what the GOP would like to do to Medicaid.  “Beware Republicans Bearing Flexibility.”

Jonathan Chaitt analyzes the absurdity of McConnell’s so-called Grand Bargain. Bloomberg posts an interesting op-ed: “Don’t Fight Over the Debt Limit, Abandon It Altogether.”

Perrspectives has a good article up on how the “GOP Medicare Killers Now Pretend To Be Saviors. “  Highly recommended reading.

## A spokes person for Florida Governor Rick Scott claimed it never happened, but — Welcome To the Digital Age — there’s video on the Internet(s) of people being removed from a state budget signing ceremony by law enforcement personnel for being opposed to the governor’s party and position.  Those holding signs supporting the Governor weren’t removed. [The Reid Report video]

Quick Clips

##  More of what “no new taxes” gets us:  “RTC approves $500 million budget with cuts to routes and services”  (Las Vegas Public Transit) [LVSun] “School Board OKs budget with at least 1,834 layoffs” [LVSun]  “Carson City Schools Pass Budget”  (salary freeze and increased employee contributions for benefits) [NVAppeal] Nye County accepted its budget, with 29 buyouts, and county employees will be furloughed one day per month.  [Pahrump Valley Times]  The Winnemucca City Council passed its budget, and worried about future street maintenance. [Silver Pinyon]  The Elko County School Board approved a budget including a salary freeze for school personnel. [Elko DFP]

And, while this is going on Carson City Board of Supervisors gives a 50% sales tax rebate to three companies looking to take over a vacant commercial property. [NVAppeal]

## Litigation abuse under serious scrutiny: “Denver Judge stays all Righthaven cases in Colorado.” [LVSun]

## The Assembled Wisdom (h/t Mark Twain) “Lawmakers restore mental health, disability funding in state budget”  [LVSun]  “Bill prohibiting employment discrimination… headed to governor”  [LVSun]

## Jeffrey Goldberg (Atlantic)  does a good job of analyzing the President’s speech concerning the Middle East and north Africa, without all the insta-punditry spin-o-matic silliness.

## Andrew Leonard (Salon) explains why everyone should take a nice deep breath and not indulge in Debt Ceiling Panic Attacks. Jamelle Bouie (TAP) reports on the media, which is far more fascinated with deficits than unemployment.

## Stephanie Mencimer (MoJo) explains why we should be worried about James Bopp and Citizens United.

>The Art of Fine Whine: Nevada GOP’s Blinkered Economic Vision

>

Nevada, and about 44 other states in this union, are facing budget shortfalls. [CBPP]  The political problem besetting these states is that one side of the political equation doesn’t understand, or won’t accept, that there are two sides to a balance sheet. In the interest of protecting corporate interests and the interests of upper income constituents, the Republicans have boxed themselves into a corner from which they can only speak to cutting government services and cannot address the revenue side of the ledger.

The table variety whine was expressed by one member of the Nevada Assembly: “The governor is trying to restore the economy,” said Assemblyman Pete Livermore, R-Carson City. “If you’re going to tax people out of their businesses and out of their homes, how can you restore the economy?” [BlueLyon]  Let’s examine the underpinnings of Assemblyman Livermore’s opinion.

The Assemblyman has bought into the Supply Side Hoax lock, stock, and barrel. His quotation exemplifies those who believe with great faith that low taxation levels equate to economic growth. This has to be a faith based expression because the historical economic data don’t support the contention.  First, and most obviously, we have the lowest overall rate of taxation since the Eisenhower Administration [USAT] and we are still struggling to deal with the vestiges of the 2008 Crash.  If “low rates of taxation” were the driving force behind economic development and growth, then with the lowest liabilities since The Penguins were singing “Earth Angel,” we ought to be experiencing economic expansion. [See previous post] 

We’re not looking at rapid expansion because, “Overall, data from the past 50 years strongly refutes any arguments that cutting taxes for the richest Americans will improve the economic standing of the lower and middle classes or the nation as a whole. To be sure, the economic indicators examined in this report are dependent on a variety of factors, not just tax policy. However, what this study does show is that any attempt to stimulate economic growth by cutting taxes for the rich will do nothing — it hasn’t worked over the past 50 years, so why would it work in the future? To put it simply and bluntly, Bush’s top-bracket tax cut is an ineffective attempt at stimulus that will not cause any growth — unless, of course, if you’re talking about the size of the deficit.” [FE]

Secondly, the Assemblyman may have bought into the highly generalized mythology that taxes decreased during the Reagan Era.  Yes, President Reagan did sign tax cuts into law in 1981. However, in order to argue that economic growth under his administration was due solely to tax cuts is to ignore that taxes were increased in 1982 in the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, the payroll tax was increased in the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, taxes increased again in the 1984 Deficit Reduction Act, again in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, and yet again in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986. [Politifact] 

Truth be told, federal income taxes on the American middle class are now at an historically low level. [CBPP] This begs the question, if federal taxes on middle income Americans are at an historically low level, and the Nevada “tax burden” is one of the lowest in the nation especially as measured by “business climate” criteria [TTF]  — then who is doing all the whining?

The answer to that question should be relatively apparent by now: Corporate Interests and Upper Income Earners. Thus, we are not speaking of “taxing people out of their homes,” (middle income earners having the lowest rate since Presley was singing “That’s All Right Mama”), and we’re not speaking to “taxing people out of their businesses” (if indeed the Tax Foundation is correct and Nevada is ranked 4th in the nation in business climate).  Assemblyman Livermore, and his GOP cohorts, are evidently more concerned with the revenue side of the corporate world than with the revenue side of the state government balance sheet.  There’s no particular reason that the Assembly debate on the state budget would end any other way than in a stalemate  [LVSun] since Republicans like Assemblyman Livermore (R-Carson City) have adopted an ideological stance at variance with economic reality.  When the mantra “No New Taxes” morphs into “No Taxes At All” it’s hard to move the discussion forward.

What makes the argument about “taxing people from their homes and businesses” ultimately risible is the drift of the tax burden away from the ultra-wealthy in this country toward middle income Americans: “This diminished tax burden on the wealthiest has contributed to the historically low federal revenue levels we are seeing today, and in turn, to higher deficits. The Congressional Budget Office projects federal revenue in 2011 will total 14.8% of GDP—the lowest level since 1950. At the same time that the tax burden has shifted away from the wealthy, this same top income group has enjoyed  massively disproportionate income gains.  Between 1992 and 2007, a time in which income for the average household and top one percent grew 13% and 123%, respectively, the income for the top 400 households grew fully 399%.” [EPI ]

In short, Assemblyman Livermore, is attempting to make the case for lower tax burdens for corporate and upper income interests by conflating their situation with that of middle income taxpayers who are already shouldering more of the tax burden of late.  It is, indeed, a fine art to transform a table variety into a very fine whine.

References and Sources:
United for a Fair Economy, “Trickle Down: Four Reasons,” a statistical analysis of Bush era tax cuts.
Politifact Rhode Island, Tax Cuts and Economic Growth
New York Times, Business Day “If Taxes Were Lower” (2002)
CBPP “Federal Taxes on Middle Income…” (2011)
Tax Policy Center, “State Rankings: General Revenue…”
Tax Policy Center, “State Rankings: Per Capita…”
The Tax Foundation, “State Rankings… Business Climate.”
“Debunking the Fair Tax Myth” DKos, August 2006
EPI “Taxes on Wealthy Have Gone Down Dramatically,” April 2011

>Dumbest Idea Yet: Halseth, Hammond; Closed Public Meetings and The Exclusionist Mind Set

>

Henderson, NV hosted a town hall meeting on Nevada Governor Sandoval’s education budget. As expected, there was a crowd, which didn’t please two AFP/TeaParty/GOP members of the Nevada Legislature. [See Sausage Factory] By the dim lights of Halseth and Hammond, only parents of children enrolled in Clark County Schools should be “allowed” to attend.  First, when is a public meeting not open to the public?  The comedy team of Halseth and Hammond seem perplexed that teachers who may very well also be union members, and  their union member spouses, might be interested in attending the session. So, the H&H suggestion: Make members of the public show “student ID.”   OK, how many people can get in on one student ID?

Do the grandparents count? If a father, mother, and a grandparent chose to attend a town hall meeting does the grandparent have to wait in the car? How about aunts and uncles? Nephews and cousins?  The possible permutations of the situation are almost endless.

Do teachers count? Teachers would naturally be concerned with the education budget. Do they count for less if they are union members?  How about members of the UNS faculty? Do they have to have kids in a public school or attending a Nevada higher education program in order to be allowed on the premises?  Teachers and faculty members are stakeholders in the budget process. However much H&H may wish they weren’t, after all it’s THEIR livelihoods that are being discussed.

Mr. Hammond was annoyed, and tweeted “Parents unable to attend Joint Subcommittee on K-12 Education & Higher Education due to a large union attendance.” [TSF]  A person could legitimately wonder, what part of “public” in a “public hearing” does he not understand?  Right off the bat, a person could muse that Mr. Hammond doesn’t think union members are also parents?  What of “concerned citizens,” such as a union member neighbors of the parents of children enrolled in local public schools. Under the H&H formula, being neighborly doesn’t count. I think we can guess that Mr. Hammond didn’t actually ask for a show of hands to ask how many union people (who weren’t wearing union shirts or buttons at the session) had children enrolled in the schools.

Exclusionist Mind Sets

What we do have here is an excellent example of the exclusionist thinking of right wing followers of Americans for Prosperity and other Koch Brothers puppet groups.  There’s a rigidity in the mind sets of all too many of these people that finds its source in a subjectivist philosophy, otherwise found in Ayn Rand’s sophomoric absolutism expressed “in … wildly off-putting uncompromisingly bombastic rhetoric.” {Taibbi}*  The shrugging Atlas’s proudly assert their pseudo-independence from all the parasites they imagine about them, finding convenient categories for, say, individuals reduced to welfare, or low income workers, or immigrants. Or, indeed, anyone who is the Other, by which they measure themselves.  While Rand may have appropriated the title “Objectivism,” there is nothing particularly objectivist about her bloviating. It’s pure subjectivist thought.

Once one of the acolytes has determined what constitutes his or her “objective reality,” then it isn’t necessary to believe that facts may be interpreted from a variety of perspectives.   There is something less than charming about individuals who have decided that their judgment of reality is the only one endowed with Truth — which is where the subjectivist part comes in — reality is subject to their individual perspective, and all others must be rejected out of hand.  Their self interest becomes “an ethical ideal and pure capitalism becomes the model for social structure.”  The fact that the former is purely subjective, and the latter an illusion bordering on delusion, doesn’t appear to matter.

Taibbi sums up the matter: “(1) Facts are facts; things can be absolutely right or absolutely wrong, as determined by my reason. (2) According to my reasoning, I am absolutely right. (3) Charity is immoral. (4) Pay for your own F-ing schools.”*   It’s an easy step from this subjectivistic absolute-ism to asserting that all those who don’t share your perspective are interloping intruders in a public meeting in which you only wish to hear the truth — i.e. the voices of people who agree with you — since you are the only one who is Right, you are the only one who “knows” the truth. So, it isn’t surprising that H&H would not want to face an audience full of the Other.  After all, those not sharing the AFP/TeaParty/GOP’s locked step adoption of the Truth must be morons, cretins, ill-educated, subversive, or down-right evil. At a practical level, they feel a moral imperative to exclude all those who don’t conform to their version of reality, and this would include public meetings.

It’s important to notice that this absolutism associated with Hammond and Halseth carries beyond personal discourse. It’s perfectly legitimate to exclude from one’s personal circle those we find boring, or uninformed, rude, or otherwise objectionable — we do it all the time.  A rude joke about Poles will get you escorted to the door out of one of my Polish-American friend’s home. A Native American friend doesn’t associate with people who refer to “drunkin’ Indians,” and using the N-word will get the speaker a quick exit from my abode. However, in this instance we are discussing personal perimeters, or boundaries of acceptable rhetoric and behavior. What we are not discussing is excluding any of these people, exemplary or not, from a PUBLIC meeting with publicly elected representatives.

We’ve had one example of the absolutism and subjectivism this week, when Governor Scott Walker decided first to share his budget with a friendly crowd at a fund raiser, and when he discovered that this wasn’t legitimate, to share it only with a closed audience in the state capitol — with the public excluded. Now, we have another unfortunate suggestion emanating from the radical right in Nevada. The arrogance is palpable: WE (the torch bearers of the right) having decided already what is good and what is evil, don’t wish to associate with nor explain to the great unwashed and uninitiated, because we have already determined what is absolutely right — and “we” never compromise with absolute wrong. Little wonder these people aren’t very good at governing in a democracy, but they are very good at creating gridlock.

*Griftopia: Bubble Machines, Vampire Squids, and the Long Con…” Matt Taibi, Random House, NYC.

>Nevada Senator: It’s a privilege, not a right

>

Nevada State Senator Greg Brower (R-Reno) has a message for all tax paying Nevada public employees. In essence he’s telling them: You can beg, but you can’t bargain.
“… Republicans in the Legislature don’t appear cowed by the possibility, however remote, that their actions might spur similar unrest in Nevada. If anything, they seemed inspired to push harder. “I frankly question whether collective bargaining for any government employee makes sense,” state Sen. Greg Brower, R-Reno, said. “Some people in our state seem to think it’s a right. It’s not. It’s a privilege.” [LVSun]

How perfectly 19th century! The sentiments seem straight from Henry C. Frick in 1892. 19th century employers exchanged lists of union organizers, to exclude them from employment, engaging strike breakers and calling out the National Guard to prevent rallies and strikes was common. All this stemmed from the same philosophy: That workers should be grateful to the corporations which hired them. They should be SO grateful, in fact, that no matter what the wages, no matter what the working conditions, no matter how long the hours — workers should still remain grateful just to have a job.However, gratitude will not pay the grocery bill, and it should be noted that gratitude won’t pay your state and local taxes either. There are some myths and legends floating around and it’s high time some of the hoary old canards were put to rest.

Myth: It’s time for public employees to give back, just like private sector workers.
Fact: Nevada public employees have been giving back. In 2009 state workers took a 4% pay cut in the form of furloughs each month, and teachers took a 4% cut. [LVSun] Note, state workers in Nevada do not have union representation. Clark County teachers proposed taking a 1.5% pay cut to ease budget problems in 2010. [LVRJ] The union accepted a one year pay freeze. [Exam]  In Washoe County teachers’ salaries were frozen last year. Now, they could be looking at a 5% reduction. [KUNR] In July 2010 Washoe County employees took a 3.4% wage reduction, nurses agreed to pay into their own health care package, members of the Sheriff’s Department agreed to suspend their uniform allowances, their safety allowance, and their physical fitness pay, in addition to contributing more into their health benefit plan. Employees of the Juvenile Dept., Law Library, District and Justice Courts took a 3.2% wage reduction. [Washoe] Elko County cut staff from its middle school tutoring program; cut overtime from janitors, central office clerical staff, school police at night events, and school secretaries. And, that was just for starters.  [ECSD pdf] In the current proposal from Governor Sandoval teachers in Nevada are looking at a 5% pay cut, in addition to cuts in schedule advancement. [RGJ]

Myth: Local budgets are constrained by negotiated contracts, thus creating budget deficits. 
Fact: When Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels was asked, not once but twice, how public employee collective bargaining elimination would reduce his state’s deficit — he couldn’t explain it. [TP] Nor, can Governor Walker: “Contrary to Walker’s assertion, there is no direct correlation between public-sector collective bargaining and yawning state budget deficits. According to data gathered by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, while Wisconsin projects a state budget deficit of 12.8 percent for FY 2012, North Carolina, which does not allow government workers to bargain, faces a significantly higher deficit: 20 percent.” [TMC] (with stats)  There’s more: “In truth, states with and without collective bargaining rights faced similar budget deficits in 2010. States with no collective bargaining rights for any public employees saw an average budget shortfall of 24.8 percent in 2010 while states (including the District of Columbia) with collective bargaining for all public employees had an average budget shortfall of 24.1 percent. For the 42 states (and the District of Columbia) with some (or all) collective bargaining rights for some (or all) public workers, the 2010 budget deficit averaged 23 percent. These numbers are all very close. The right of public workers to unionize is not driving the state revenue or fiscal crisis.” [pdf OhioPM]

Once more: This controversy isn’t about budgets, or deficits, or spending, or salaries, or wages or benefits — it’s about the fact that  Republicans have decided that it is more important to preserve corporate subsidies and low taxes for the ultra-wealthy than it is to provide public services.