AROUND NEW HAMPSHIRE
1. Questions
On The Political Front: Stefany Shaheen Could Complicate N.H. Dems' Political Plans
by Josh Rogers, nhpr.org, September 21, 2015
Each Monday, NHPR's Senior Political Reporter Josh Rogers joins Morning Edition host Rick Ganley for On The Political Front,a look at the latest news from the statehouse and the campaign trail, and a preview of the week ahead in politics.
So Josh, it was a big weekend for Democrats in New Hampshire.
The party held its state convention at the Verizon center in Manchester. 4000 people showed up, every Democrat running for president you’ve heard off, save for Jim Webb, was there to speak. The national party chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz came to town as well -- and she got heckled by people in the crowd who think the DNC is being too stingy in its debate schedule. The DNC has sanctioned a total of 6, with just one in New Hampshire right before Christmas.
So apart from the speeches from the front-running democrats, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, or maybe we should say Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, who were both very warmly received, well-received, what stood out?
Well you are right, Clinton and Sanders were both went over well, and I saw no signs of any intra-party friction between their loyalists. That sort of thing can on occasion flare up at these sorts of gatherings. But the most interesting thing for me at the convention was assessing the remarks and actions of the people from New Hampshire who may be on the ballot in the big state races next year.
Like Governor Hassan? She’s said she’d be making her plans for 2016 known after the budget was resolved. Did she tip her hand at all this weekend?
No, the Governor made no explicit allusion to her 2016 plans – whether will she challenge Republican Kelly Ayotte in a Senate run, or will she seek a third term as Governor - but a lot of Democrats I talked to at the convention definitely think she’s running for the Senate seat at this point. That could be wishful thinking. Hassan is without doubt the party’s best chance against Kelly Ayotte.
Now several people who are eyeing Hassan’s current job also spoke. And while she didn’t speak, Carol Shea-Porter announced that she will take another run at the Congressional seat she held for three terms.
Yes, so at least one domino has fallen. And with Shea-Porter running again, Executive Councilor Chis Pappas of Manchester, who has been considering running for congress in the First District all but certainly won’t. Pappas, who addressed the convention, is also seen by many Democrats as a plausible gubernatorial candidate if Hassan moves on.
The same goes for another sitting Councilor, Colin Van Ostern, of Concord. He also spoke in Manchester, and has been pretty plain in word and deed about wanting to run for governor if Hassan doesn’t. Van Ostern has already won the public backing of Annie Kuster, who once employed him as a campaign manager. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee – also known as BoldProgressives.org – emailed its New Hampshire members and supporters a survey centered on Van Ostern. Mark Connolly, the former state securities regulator, also got a turn at the podium Saturday. He could also run if Hassan doesn’t.
Now all those names have been out there for a while, but another name was added to the mix late last week, and it's one people have probably heard before: Shaheen.
Yes, that would be Stefany Shaheen, Portsmouth city councilor. She’s the daughter of US Senator Jeanne Shaheen and Billy Shaheen, a member the DNC member. I have to say this - the Stefany Shaheen for Governor idea took a lot of people, including me, by surprise. My understanding is that EMILY's List, the political action committee dedicated to electing pro-choice Democratic women, reached out to Stefany Shaheen and basically asked her to consider running if Hassan goes for the Senate, and Shaheen has told reporters she is thinking about it.
So we don’t yet know how serious this is, but it’s no doubt affecting the calculations of other Democrats looking at running?
If you were running in a Democratic primary for governor here, the prospect of facing anyone named Shaheen would complicate things. It would make your race more expensive and put lots of party loyalists with fealty to the Shaheen family in binds, and people like Van Ostern and Pappas do have histories with the Shaheen family.
Van Ostern actually moved to the state to work as Jeanne Shaheen’s 2002 campaign spokesman and never left. But I will say many Democrats I talked to over the weekend about the specter of a Stefany Shaheen run were fairly skeptical, particularly, I might add, when talking not for attribution. Some cited her thin political resume, which consists of a single term as a Portsmouth city councilor, others say she’s a bit of a self-promoter, and some said flatly that they find the dynastic aspect this off putting, which is what a lot of people say about political dynasties.
With Chris Sununu running on the GOP side, maybe we end up with another Shaheen V. Sununu statewide race?
It would be the third time for the families. But next November is still away off.
2. Toll Increases for Infrastructure Work?
TOLL INCREASE FOR HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION?
by LFDA Highlights, lfda.org, September 19, 2015
The state Department of Transportation is considering a proposal to increase tolls as part of the Ten Year Transportation Improvement Plan.
Every two years the Department of Transportation works with Regional Planning Commissions and the Executive Council to draft a ten year plan for transportation infrastructure improvement, maintenance, and repair. The plan is subject to many public hearings and must ultimately be approved by the Governor and legislature.
Right now the proposed plan includes a $0.25 to $0.50 toll increase at plazas in Bedford, Dover, Hampton, Hooksett, and Rochester.
The additional toll revenue would allow the Department to complete all Turnpike improvements within ten years. Without the toll increase, some projects will not be completed until 2030 or later.
As a potential argument in favor of the toll increase, the Department estimates that 45% of the additional toll revenue would come from out-of-state travelers.
However, some New Hampshire residents may believe that it is too soon for a toll increase, given that the legislature approved a gas tax increase just last year to fund transportation infrastructure.
Other toll opponents worry that increases discourage tourist travel.
Click here for a list of public hearing dates for the Ten Year Transportation Improvement Plan.
3. Because of our Rube Goldberg Revenue System
Raising fees is no way to fund Fish and Game
Editorial, concordmonitor.com, September 20, 2015
The latest proposal by the New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game to raise license fees to combat its perennial budget shortfall will add to that collection of artifacts. It will also cost the state more money than it nets for one of the only self-funded departments of its kind.
Fish and Game faces a $1.2 million deficit in its biennial budget. Last year, the Legislature gave the agency’s commissioners the right to raise fees. The commission wants to use that new authority to increase basic hunting and fishing license fees by $10. Since fees haven’t increased since 2003, the increase makes superficial sense. But economically, that dog won’t hunt.
The increases, which would raise a basic fishing license to $43 per year from $33, would make New Hampshire’s license fees the highest in the region. They would cause a percentage of license holders – the agency estimates between 5 and 10 percent – to forgo buying a license. Many of them will be men and women who love the outdoors but find themselves too busy to get afield or afloat very often. That doesn’t mean, however, that they aren’t dreaming of leisurely days, buying the latest fishing lures and other outdoor gear, and savoring that one week a year in deer camp or on the lake.
Cultural changes and the increased development of forests and agricultural lands have caused a decline in the sale of hunting licenses.
New Hampshire sells about 50,000 hunting licenses and 110,000 fishing licenses annually, a figure that has have been flat for a decade. Meanwhile, expenses continued to rise.
Hunters and anglers collectively spend billions on their sport. Studies, including one done for Maine’s Fish and Game Department, estimated that hunters spend an average of $1,150 per year on trips, lodging, gear, gas, meals, guides and the like annually. Anglers spend even more: $1,429.
Use New Hampshire Fish and Game’s lowest estimate, a 5 percent drop in license sales, and a frugal estimate of $1,100 average spending for hunters and anglers alike, and the loss to the state’s economy when that many people hang up their rods and guns comes to $8.8 million. Some of that spending would have been subject to the state’s tax on rooms and meals, and alcoholic beverages. By rights, that loss should be subtracted from Fish and Game’s gain from the increase.
The commission created to suggest ways to better finance Fish and Game said citizens and lawmakers should rethink whether the requirement that the department be self-funded still makes sense. It doesn’t.
User fee increases, particularly for optional activities rather than, say, owning a car, quickly hit the point of diminishing returns. In Fish and Game’s case, the increases aren’t even fair, since all residents and visitors benefit from the department’s work.
It’s time to fund a far bigger share of the cost of operating the department with revenue from the rooms and meals tax. Trying to fund it with fee increases is a dumb business move for the state.
4. NH Business and the Export-Import Bank
Ex-Im funding delays blasted
NH businesses frustrated by D.C. inaction
by Liisa Rajala, nhbr.com, September 17, 2015
The longer Congress waits to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, the more it jeopardizes a steady economic recovery and advanced manufacturing revival in New Hampshire and across the nation.
That was the takeaway from a meeting NH Business Review held with representatives from Boyle Energy Services & Technology, Flex Energy, GE Aviation, Goss International, The Provident Bank and Relyco Sales. The group of seven had met earlier with Republican 1st District Congressman Frank Guinta the first week of September to express concerns over the lapse in the federal agency’s authorization on July 1.
Guinta is at the forefront of the battle. He serves on the House Financial Services Committee, whose chairman, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, is blocking the legislation.
The problem began a year ago, when Congress, waiting until the last couple of weeks before the Ex-Im Bank’s expiration, approved a nine-month extension of funding.
“From October of last year to that point in time, deals were ambiguous,” Mike Boyle, CEO of Boyle Energy, told NH Business Review. “Is it going to be there? Can we write deals? Can we get support?”
Boyle has testified in front of the House Financial Services Committee, spoken to the White House and the Senate, and attended the annual Ex-Im Bank meeting. “Everybody told me that it was going to happen. ‘It cannot not happen; it’s always going to get reauthorized.’”
But the bank’s reauthorization lapsed, and the House failed to pass an Ex-Im Bank renewal amendment to the highway funding bill, which only received a three-month extension itself.
Boyle, who recently served as an advisory board member on the bank, said a fellow member lost a $56 million project in the Philippines “because the Koreans came out and said, ‘Export-Import Bank’s not going to be there, don’t take the risk of financing these guys, he won’t have the credit.’”
“That was a direct impact. I was supposed to commission that project for him,” said Boyle. “That’s part of the supply chain problem.”
NH supply chain
While the bill largely has support in the Senate and House, some House conservatives argue it benefits only a few large corporations, since Boeing, General Electric and Bechtel receive the most financial assistance.
“Although Boeing is the biggest user of Export-Import Bank, there’s a long supply chain behind Boeing that provides parts, that provides services to those projects that Boeing funds with the support of Export-Import Bank that affect many small businesses,” said Douglas Folsom, GE Aviation’s Hooksett plant leader.
In fact, there are over 100 suppliers in New Hampshire, according to the state Office of International Commerce, and 19 exporters from 2014-2015, according to Ex-Im’s website. Thirteen of those 19 are small businesses.
“One of their [opponents’] main points is that government should not be supporting business, but there are 60 other ECFs [export credit facilities] in countries all around the world that provide financing,” argued Leanne Spees, manager of international trade finance at Goss International.
If the Ex-Im Bank is not reauthorized, it will push more companies overseas, seeking support from international export credit agencies, and hurt the long supply chain that New Hampshire small firms benefit from.
“The kinds of activities that are taking place already are you have U.S. engineers from GE Aviation overseas looking for manufacturers in local countries where otherwise we wouldn’t be if we had Export-Import financing because they’re forced to use local content,” said Douglas Folsom, GE’s Hooksett plant leader.
“I have definitely heard about companies moving their activities overseas because they can get the support of the government there,” said Karen Wyman, chair of the Granite State District Export Council. “They don’t want to, but if their company is going to survive, they need to.”
In 2014, exports of New Hampshire products totaled nearly $4.2 billion, according to the Office of International Commerce.
‘It would hurt us’
As for the Ex-Im Bank, it returned $674.7 million to the U.S. Treasury in fiscal year 2014, after covering all of its expenses with fees charged to clients. Since 1990, the bank has returned $7 billion more than it has received in appropriations for program and administrative costs, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
“There’s always a presumption that the private market can take the place of the Export-Import Bank, and that’s just not the case at all,” said Robert Janowski, director of finance at Goss International. “Particularly with our circumstances at Goss, where we’re looking at needing a term of five to seven years, it’s simply not available in private markets in these particular countries, so it really does compel companies who are manufacturing in the U.S. today, who are competing with other countries that have this ECF, to really consider moving those jobs offshore.”
Boyle once went to a private institution to save money and found it was not the same kind of service after a client in Saudi Arabia disputed invoices and would not pay.
“Just having [the U.S. government] in the picture … makes people do the right thing,” said Charles Withee, president of The Provident Bank.
“While there are private sector solutions to this – there are other organizations that have business export loans –this resource was different,” explained Tina Kasim, program manager at the NH Office of International Commerce. “It was at a lower cost, but there was a lot of additional support in terms of the people who worked with you on things. This was a nice addition to show how government can really help, and it would be a complete shame if it wasn’t reauthorized. It would hurt us.”
The longer reauthorization takes, the more likely it will ruin decades-long relationships.
Goss International said it is losing out on $200 million in machinery sales, since it can’t provide financing proposals to go with sales offers, something its German competitor can. And Boyle has a hiring freeze in place until it figures out economic models to produce projects it’s looking at in Kuwait, Kazakhstan and Australia.
“What you’re hearing from these small businesses is a microcosm that’s happening across the country,” said Withee. “My clients, small and medium enterprises, deal with GE, deal with others; that’s their livelihood.”
The lack of foresight or long-term planning is what irks Boyle, especially as Congress returns from recess with days before a potential government shutdown.
“My problem is, as a businessperson, you plan for years, you build up your models … I’m working with Chuck [Withee]; I have to give him projections. Where are we going to be? When do we hire? How much profit are we going to make?” Boyle said. “And now you go, ‘I don’t know, because what’s supposed to be there Monday now is not there on Friday.’ I’m left with nothing.”
5. Ayotte's Convenient Amnesia
Kelly Ayotte’s Transparent Political Ploy on Defunding Planned Parenthood and Shutting Down the Government
by Ajacobs, nhdp.org, September 18, 2015
Ayotte Has Already Voted to Shut Down the Government Twice
Now, Facing Vulnerable Re-Election Prospects, Ayotte’s Trying to Distract From Her Repeated Votes to Defund Planned Parenthood
Concord, N.H. – Political ploys are nothing new for Kelly Ayotte, but even for Ayotte, her latest stunt on defunding Planned Parenthood and shutting down the government is transparent and desperate.
Since going to Washington, Ayotte has already voted to shut down the government twice. But now, as Ayotte faces vulnerable re-election prospects, she’s trying to distract from both her two votes to shut down the government and her repeated votes to defund Planned Parenthood.
“While Kelly Ayotte may think she can simply ‘etch-a-sketch’ away her record of twice voting to shut down the government and repeatedly voting to defund Planned Parenthood, it’s clear that she’s severely underestimating the people of New Hampshire,” said New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley. “No amount of political stunts or cable news appearances can change the fact that since going to Washington, Ayotte has always put her special interest allies first, while making New Hampshire’s people and businesses pay the price.”
BACKGROUND
Sep. 2012: Ayotte Voted Against Continuing Resolution To Fund The Federal Government Through March 2013. In September 2012, Ayotte voted against: “Passage of the joint resolution that would provide continuing appropriations for the federal government through March 27, 2013, at an annualized rate of $1.047 trillion in discretionary spending for regular appropriations. The measure would increase funding for most federal programs and agencies by 0.6 percent, with higher levels for certain programs, such as cybersecurity and wildfire suppression. It also would provide nearly $100 billion in war funding and $6.4 billion in advance disaster relief funds.” The joint resolution passed 62-30. [CQ, 9/22/12; H.J.Res. 117, Vote 199, 9/22/12]
- Headline Following Passage of Bill Ayotte Voted Against: “Senate Passes Funding Bill To Avoid October 1 Government Shutdown” [Reuters, 9/22/12]
Mar. 2013: Ayotte Voted Against Bill To Provide Continuing Appropriations Through FY 2013 For Government Operations. In March 2013, Ayotte voted against: “Passage of the bill that would provide continuing appropriations through fiscal 2013 for government operations, including $1.043 trillion in discretionary funds before sequestration. As amended, it would provide $517.7 billion in base discretionary funding for the Defense Department and $71.9 billion for veterans programs and military construction as well as $20.5 billion for agriculture programs, $39.6 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, and $50.2 billion for commerce, law enforcement and science programs. The bill would fund all other departments and agencies at their fiscal 2012 enacted levels, with adjustments for certain programs.” The bill passed 73-26. [CQ, 3/20/13; H.R. 933, Vote 44, 3/20/13]
- Headline Following Passage of Bill Ayotte Voted Against: “Congress Avoids Government Shutdown” [Politico, 3/21/13]
AND NATIONALLY
6. GOP Shutdown Follies
Congress inching ever closer toward government shutdown
by Steven Mufson and Kelsey Snell, washingtonpost.com, September 17, 2015
President Obama has been ramping up his attacks on fractious congressional Republicans in recent days, accusing them of pushing the country toward a government shutdown that would damage the U.S. economy.
On Thursday, with 13 days left in the fiscal year, the president met at the White House with Democratic congressional leaders — Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) — signaling that the Democrats were taking the shutdown possibility seriously even as they reveled in the GOP’s dysfunction.
Reid and Pelosi met with Obama for about 90 minutes to prepare for negotiations. They said they are willing to back a continuing resolution to keep the government open, but insisted that such a stopgap measure be a short-term one and include the same size increases for military and non-military spending.
They said that they will also demand that it not include any language about ideological issues, such as funding for Planned Parenthood.
“The three of us agree that we want a short-term [resolution],” Reid said after the meeting. “We want to make sure that the riders are off that. We want to make sure we have equal money for defense and non-defense.”
Pelosi said the emphasis now is on reaching a deal quickly.
“We’re optimistic; we want to be cooperative,” Pelosi said. “We want to negotiate in good faith to see that effectively done in a timely fashion.”
But with seven working days left on the legislative calendar, GOP feuding so far has prevented any real negotiation on a funding package.
On Thursday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said that congressional Republicans had “shown no interest” in talks with congressional Democrats and accused them of “irresponsible gamesmanship.”
Ahead of the White House meeting, Pelosi told reporters that she and House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) had not begun talks: “I spoke with Speaker Boehner about when we would speak about this,” she said. The lack of communication sets up a replay of the 2013 showdown that led to a 16-day shutdown.
This year’s dynamics are driven by an internal GOP feud in the House, in which a group of hard-line conservatives promises mutiny against Boehner if they perceive any capitulation in his dealings with the Democrats.
On Thursday, Boehner’s top deputy, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), was forced to address the acrimony within the GOP caucus. He told reporters that the conservatives who wanted to oust Boehner were distracting and dividing Republicans.
The danger to Boehner lies in the insistence of some in his party that he not allow any funding package for the federal government if it includes funding for Planned Parenthood, a provider of health services to women, which recently has been embroiled in controversy over the harvesting of fetal tissue.
Some have suggested that they will seek to remove Boehner from the speakership if he concedes on the Planned Parenthood funding. McCarthy, widely seen as the only viable replacement for Boehner among the bitterly divided Republicans, said any talk of removing the speaker would hurt the party.
“If we deal in this type of debate, we only weaken ourselves from what we want to achieve,” McCarthy said as Boehner and other top leaders stood next to him.
Democrats are hoping to take advantage of the disarray, but they know that they have a tricky hand to play when Obama gets involved.
Some members of Congress fear that although vigorous attacks from the White House may be good politics for Democrats, they could increase the likelihood of a shutdown by roiling Republicans as they struggle to forge a consensus in their ranks.
Democrats have serious funding priorities that they would like to see met. They are pressing for an infrastructure spending program, tax credits for middle-class families, higher tax rates on capital gains and greater domestic spending. Republicans favor more military spending and cuts in nonmilitary expenditures, and they insist that a budget should eliminate funding for the president’s health-care law and for Planned Parenthood.
The White House has proposed raising the tax on carried interest, a form of remuneration that private equity, real estate and hedge fund managers can treat as capital gains instead of regular income, which is taxed at a higher rate.
Republicans have dismissed the idea of increasing taxes on investment income to help pay for spending increases. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said Thursday that he would be open to considering a change, but only in the context of broader tax reform.
“Probably on a true tax reform basis, you’d be able to do that,” Hatch said. “I don’t think we’d be able to do that on spending.”
That proposal would raise only about $15 billion of the approximately $50 billion that Democrats need to fund the spending increase that was included in the 2016 White House budget. Another option would be to borrow some of the approximately $46 billion in funding that the Senate approved to help pay for increased spending in the Highway Trust Fund.
The White House has left the door open for a short-term continuing resolution. Reid told reporters Wednesday that such a deal would need to quickly lead to negotiations on a long-term spending agreement.
He declined to specify any opening terms for talks beyond insisting that an eventual deal should increase domestic spending at the same rate as defense spending, thereby busting the sequester caps.
Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have acknowledged that negotiations on a long-term budget solution will be necessary. The House is expected to lead the way on negotiations, but Boehner’s plans have been stymied by a growing revolt in his party.
At least 31 of the most conservative House members have signed a letter vowing to block any spending bill that includes funding for Planned Parenthood.
One key issue is whether the time has come to discard automatic spending cuts known as sequestration, a mechanism designed to coerce Congress and the administration to reach a budget agreement to avoid the imposition of those harsh and arbitrary cuts. Republicans are more sympathetic to busting the limits for military spending, whereas Obama favors ending them for domestic spending as well.
“Sequestration was never intended to take effect: rather, it was supposed to threaten such drastic cuts to both defense and non-defense funding that policymakers would be motivated to come to the table and reduce the deficit through smart, balanced reforms,” the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) said in a letter to defense appropriators in the Senate. “The Republican framework would bring base discretionary funding for both non-defense and defense to the lowest real [inflation-adjusted] levels in a decade.”
But many Republicans in Congress started the year promising to use the limits to rein in spending. The House passed six deep-cutting spending bills that included policy provisions that would slash some of Obama’s biggest priorities, including defunding the Affordable Care Act and denying funding for executive action on immigration.
Even as leaders acknowledge that negotiations are inevitable, many rank-and-file Republicans say that they will not give up on the cuts.
On Tuesday, more than 170 House conservatives released a hard-line budget proposal that would leave all of the spending cuts intact.
The list of issues between the White House and congressional appropriators is long. The OMB has issued seven “statements of administration policy” — six in the House and one in the Senate — that map out reasons the president might veto current spending proposals. Many of the reasons are unrelated to spending.
The OMB said that the Senate’s defense appropriations bill wrongly uses overseas contingency money meant for war costs to pay for base requirements and “to circumvent budget caps” without explicitly lifting the caps. It also took issue with various weapons acquisition plans.
But the agency also objected to a provision in the measure that would place “unwarranted restrictions” on the administration’s plans to move detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States and ultimately close the military prison.
The White House budget office also said that Obama would veto the spending bill for the Interior Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and related agencies because it would reduce funding for the EPA. The bill also would enshrine GOP priorities, prohibiting the EPA from using money to implement the Clean Power Plan and barring the Interior Department from implementing new rules on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, designed to minimize methane leaks.
The bill for Commerce Department, Justice Department and science spending includes “unrelated language regarding Cuban foreign policy” and would prohibit exports to the Cuban military or intelligence services. It also would not fully fund a request for body cameras for police, a measure the administration proposed in response to alleged incidents of excessive force used by officers.
In congressional testimony over the summer, Carmel Martin, executive vice president for policy at the Center for American Progress, said that “compared with the president’s budget for Head Start, the House bill would serve 140,000 fewer preschoolers or fail to extend the Head Start schedule to provide full-day and full-year preschool for 570,000 children.”
7. It's an Economic Issue Too
The Economic Case for Funding Planned Parenthood
Family-planning programs boost incomes, reduce poverty, and ease the load on America’s safety net. And yet, Republicans can’t seem to condemn them strongly enough.
by Andrea Flynn, theatlantic.com, September 17, 2015
At last night’s debate the GOP presidential hopefuls called yet again to defund Planned Parenthood, tripping over themselves to show who is most serious about shutting down the organization. Ted Cruz said “absolutely we shouldn't be sending $500 million of taxpayer money to funding an ongoing criminal enterprise.” Chris Christie, Scott Walker, and Jeb Bush all bragged about defunding Planned Parenthood in their states. Carly Fiorina likened the Planned Parenthood issue to the Iran threat. Kasich argued that governors should be able to strip the organization of funding, and Trump didn’t have much to say about Planned Parenthood but he did promise to “take care of women.”
In calling for the defunding of the national reproductive health provider—a move that would place basic health care and services, including family planning, out of reach for millions—the candidates are ignoring research that has over and over again show that publicly funded family planning is one of our government's smartest and most cost-effective public investments. In recent years family planning has joined abortion in conservative crosshairs, but the economic benefits it confers once made it an uncontroversial and bipartisan issue.
This is not to say the health benefits aren’t important. They are, and they have been well documented and cited. For decades Planned Parenthood and other reproductive-health providers have—with support from programs such as Medicaid and Title X, the nation’s only program solely focused on making family planning available to all—prevented or provided care for millions of unintended pregnancies, unintended births, abortions, sexually transmitted infections, and cervical cancer.
If that’s not enough—clearly, it’s not—the economic benefits of these programs are what should earn them high praise from conservatives. In a Guttmacher Institute study of women seeking contraceptive care at publicly funded clinics, 63 percent of women reported birth control had allowed them to take better care of themselves or their families, and 56 percent said it allowed them to take care of themselves financially. Half reported that it helped them stay in school and complete their education and that it helped them get or keep a job and advance their careers. In a recent poll, 72 percent of Pennsylvania voters said a woman's ability to control the timing and size of her family impacts her financial stability, and 62 percent believed that laws that made abortion harder to access can negatively impact a woman's financial security. Polls of voters in New York andVirginia showed similar results.
Access to family planning has increased women’s labor-force participation, improved their—and their family’s—economic security, and has multi-generational health and economic benefits. The National Women’s Law Center highlights research that shows the initial availability of birth-control pills in the early 1970s accounted for 30 percent of the growth in the proportion of women in skilled careers between 1970 and 1990, and contributed to an increase in the number of women in fields that are dominated by men, such as medicine and law. Women’s ability to plan and space their pregnancies has been shown to improve educational attainment and increase wages and lifetime earnings. And the children of mothers who had access to birth control have higher family incomes and college completion rates. Researcher Martha Bailey found that—relative to children conceived in the same areas before family-planning programs began—children born after the advent of federally funded family-planning programs lived in households with higher annual incomes and were 5 percent less likely to live in poverty, 15 percent less likely to live in households receiving public assistance, and 4 percent less likely to have a single parent.
Investing in reproductive health isn’t just good for women and their families—it’s good for the economy. Today it is estimated that every dollar spent on publicly funded family planning yields a savings of $7.09 in public expenditures. In 2013, publicly funded family-planning providers helped women prevent two million unintended pregnancies, one million of which would have resulted in unplanned births and 693,000 in abortions. In 2010 just over half of all births—and 68 percent of the 1.5 million unplanned births—in the United States were paid for by public insurance. That year, the government expenditures on unintended pregnancies and the associated births, abortions, and miscarriages totaled $21.0 billion. According to the Guttmacher Institute, without these services rates of abortion, unintended pregnancies, and unplanned births would have all been 60 percent higher, and the related costs could have been as much as 75 percent higher.
How Contraception Transformed the American Family
It’s estimated that the potential savings from averting all unintended pregnancies would be in the ballpark of $15 billion. That’s a far cry from the $2.37 billion Americaspent on publicly funded family planning in 2010 (75 percent in Medicaid expenditures, 10 percent in Title X, and the rest in state appropriations, block grants). In 2013, those programs served 8.3 million women—only 42 percent of those in need of publicly funded care.
Despite these savings, the Republican candidatescontend that family-planning spending is off the charts, but that is certainly not the case. Between 2010 and 2013, Congress reduced Title X spending by 12 percent, while the number of women in need of publicly funded family planning services grew by five percent, or a total of 918,000 women. When accounting for inflation, today’s Title X budget is two-thirds of what it was in 1980. In 2015, Congress appropriated $286.5 million for Title X (down from $317 million in 2010), but if funding had kept pace with inflation over the past three decades, the current level would be in the ballpark of $850 million. In addition to the drop in funding, state regulations on Title X funding have altered the reach of the program. Today Ohio, Michigan, and Texas have tiered funding systems that prioritize state health-department clinics and crisis pregnancy centers, leaving little to no money for the very family-planning clinics the funding was originally intended. Kansas and Oklahoma prohibit private family-planning providers from receiving state and federal funding and many other states prevent organizations that also provide abortion services from receiving funding.
In recent weeks, GOP lawmakers and candidates have rejected the accusation that they are waging a “war on women” and have said they don’t intend toentirely defund women’s health care—just the organization they don’t believe is in the business of delivering it. The funds currently going to Planned Parenthood, they’ve suggested, can simply be redirected to other organizations that could provide the same services. But there are not enough other providers to take on the patients currently being served by Planned Parenthood, and defunding the organization would place an “untenable stress” on the community health centers conservative lawmakers say could manage the overflow. To make matters worse, much of the funding for those centers is granted through the Affordable Care Act, which—after 55 failed repeal votes—Republicans are still eager to overturn. The fact that abortion represents a small percentage of Planned Parenthood’s total services, and that federal law already prohibits taxpayer dollars from being spent on abortion in nearly all circumstances, has not deterred conservatives in their quest to shutter the organization.
But there’s reason to conclude that the GOP actually is interested in slashing women’s health funding generally, not just for places like Planned Parenthood. In 2011 and again in June of this year, the party proposed eliminating Title X. In 2013, GOP lawmakers shut down the federal government in opposition to the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage requirement.
At the end of the debate Fiorina made an appeal to women voters:
What I would think is that we ought to recognize that women are not a special interest group. Women are the majority of this nation. We are half the potential of this nation, and this nation will be better off when every woman has the opportunity to live the life she chooses.
This is a nice sentiment. But by restricting reproductive health access—and opposing paid family leave, an increased minimum wage, and pay equity—Fiorina and her colleagues will actually make it much more difficult for women to live the lives of their choosing. And, in doing so, they’ll hold back America’s economy too.
In calling for the defunding of the national reproductive health provider—a move that would place basic health care and services, including family planning, out of reach for millions—the candidates are ignoring research that has over and over again show that publicly funded family planning is one of our government's smartest and most cost-effective public investments. In recent years family planning has joined abortion in conservative crosshairs, but the economic benefits it confers once made it an uncontroversial and bipartisan issue.
This is not to say the health benefits aren’t important. They are, and they have been well documented and cited. For decades Planned Parenthood and other reproductive-health providers have—with support from programs such as Medicaid and Title X, the nation’s only program solely focused on making family planning available to all—prevented or provided care for millions of unintended pregnancies, unintended births, abortions, sexually transmitted infections, and cervical cancer.
If that’s not enough—clearly, it’s not—the economic benefits of these programs are what should earn them high praise from conservatives. In a Guttmacher Institute study of women seeking contraceptive care at publicly funded clinics, 63 percent of women reported birth control had allowed them to take better care of themselves or their families, and 56 percent said it allowed them to take care of themselves financially. Half reported that it helped them stay in school and complete their education and that it helped them get or keep a job and advance their careers. In a recent poll, 72 percent of Pennsylvania voters said a woman's ability to control the timing and size of her family impacts her financial stability, and 62 percent believed that laws that made abortion harder to access can negatively impact a woman's financial security. Polls of voters in New York andVirginia showed similar results.
Access to family planning has increased women’s labor-force participation, improved their—and their family’s—economic security, and has multi-generational health and economic benefits. The National Women’s Law Center highlights research that shows the initial availability of birth-control pills in the early 1970s accounted for 30 percent of the growth in the proportion of women in skilled careers between 1970 and 1990, and contributed to an increase in the number of women in fields that are dominated by men, such as medicine and law. Women’s ability to plan and space their pregnancies has been shown to improve educational attainment and increase wages and lifetime earnings. And the children of mothers who had access to birth control have higher family incomes and college completion rates. Researcher Martha Bailey found that—relative to children conceived in the same areas before family-planning programs began—children born after the advent of federally funded family-planning programs lived in households with higher annual incomes and were 5 percent less likely to live in poverty, 15 percent less likely to live in households receiving public assistance, and 4 percent less likely to have a single parent.
Investing in reproductive health isn’t just good for women and their families—it’s good for the economy. Today it is estimated that every dollar spent on publicly funded family planning yields a savings of $7.09 in public expenditures. In 2013, publicly funded family-planning providers helped women prevent two million unintended pregnancies, one million of which would have resulted in unplanned births and 693,000 in abortions. In 2010 just over half of all births—and 68 percent of the 1.5 million unplanned births—in the United States were paid for by public insurance. That year, the government expenditures on unintended pregnancies and the associated births, abortions, and miscarriages totaled $21.0 billion. According to the Guttmacher Institute, without these services rates of abortion, unintended pregnancies, and unplanned births would have all been 60 percent higher, and the related costs could have been as much as 75 percent higher.
How Contraception Transformed the American Family
It’s estimated that the potential savings from averting all unintended pregnancies would be in the ballpark of $15 billion. That’s a far cry from the $2.37 billion Americaspent on publicly funded family planning in 2010 (75 percent in Medicaid expenditures, 10 percent in Title X, and the rest in state appropriations, block grants). In 2013, those programs served 8.3 million women—only 42 percent of those in need of publicly funded care.
Despite these savings, the Republican candidatescontend that family-planning spending is off the charts, but that is certainly not the case. Between 2010 and 2013, Congress reduced Title X spending by 12 percent, while the number of women in need of publicly funded family planning services grew by five percent, or a total of 918,000 women. When accounting for inflation, today’s Title X budget is two-thirds of what it was in 1980. In 2015, Congress appropriated $286.5 million for Title X (down from $317 million in 2010), but if funding had kept pace with inflation over the past three decades, the current level would be in the ballpark of $850 million. In addition to the drop in funding, state regulations on Title X funding have altered the reach of the program. Today Ohio, Michigan, and Texas have tiered funding systems that prioritize state health-department clinics and crisis pregnancy centers, leaving little to no money for the very family-planning clinics the funding was originally intended. Kansas and Oklahoma prohibit private family-planning providers from receiving state and federal funding and many other states prevent organizations that also provide abortion services from receiving funding.
In recent weeks, GOP lawmakers and candidates have rejected the accusation that they are waging a “war on women” and have said they don’t intend toentirely defund women’s health care—just the organization they don’t believe is in the business of delivering it. The funds currently going to Planned Parenthood, they’ve suggested, can simply be redirected to other organizations that could provide the same services. But there are not enough other providers to take on the patients currently being served by Planned Parenthood, and defunding the organization would place an “untenable stress” on the community health centers conservative lawmakers say could manage the overflow. To make matters worse, much of the funding for those centers is granted through the Affordable Care Act, which—after 55 failed repeal votes—Republicans are still eager to overturn. The fact that abortion represents a small percentage of Planned Parenthood’s total services, and that federal law already prohibits taxpayer dollars from being spent on abortion in nearly all circumstances, has not deterred conservatives in their quest to shutter the organization.
But there’s reason to conclude that the GOP actually is interested in slashing women’s health funding generally, not just for places like Planned Parenthood. In 2011 and again in June of this year, the party proposed eliminating Title X. In 2013, GOP lawmakers shut down the federal government in opposition to the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage requirement.
At the end of the debate Fiorina made an appeal to women voters:
What I would think is that we ought to recognize that women are not a special interest group. Women are the majority of this nation. We are half the potential of this nation, and this nation will be better off when every woman has the opportunity to live the life she chooses.
This is a nice sentiment. But by restricting reproductive health access—and opposing paid family leave, an increased minimum wage, and pay equity—Fiorina and her colleagues will actually make it much more difficult for women to live the lives of their choosing. And, in doing so, they’ll hold back America’s economy too.
8. The Scare Figures on the Sanders Program
Bernie Sanders and the Wall Street Journal's $18 Trillion
by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, cepr.net, September 18, 2015
The Wall Street Journal decided to take Senator Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign seriously enough to calculate the cost of the programs that he proposed. Their price tag was $18 trillion over the next decade. This is presumably supposed to scare people because, let's face it $18 trillion is a really big number.
Much of the fright factor disappears when we realize that $15 trillion of this $18 trillion comes from the WSJ's estimate of the cost of Sanders' universal Medicare program. That is a considerable chunk of change, but as Kevin Drum and others have pointed out this will not be new money out of people's pockets. For the most part this is money that employers are now paying for their workers' health care insurance. Instead, under a universal Medicare system the government would get this money in tax revenue. Since Canada and the other wealthy countries with universal Medicare-type systems all have much lower per capita health care costs than the United States (the average is less than half the cost), in all probability we would be paying less for our health care under the Sanders' system than we do now.
This still leaves $3 trillion for us to get frightened over, and this still looks like a really big number. As a point of reference, GDP over the next decade is projected at roughly $240 trillion. This makes the cost of the rest of Sanders' plans equal to less than 1.3 percent of GDP.
Should we worry about that? The increase in annual military spending from 2000 to the peaks of Iraq/Afghanistan wars was roughly 1.8 percent of GDP. This was also the size of military buildup that took place under President Reagan. Jeb Bush is proposing to cut taxes by roughly this amount if he gets elected.
In short, the additional spending that Senator Sanders has proposed is not trivial, but we have seen comparable increases in the past for other purposes. We can clearly afford the tab, the question is whether free college, rebuilding the infrastructure, early childhood education and the other items on the list are worth the price.
FINALLY
No comments:
Post a Comment