AROUND NEW HAMPSHIRE
1. Van Ostern Runs for Governor
Concord Executive Councilor Colin Van Ostern will run for governor
by Allie Morris, concordmonitor.com, October 8, 2015
Executive Councilor Colin Van Ostern of Concord will launch his campaign for New Hampshire governor today, becoming the first Democrat to jump into an open race for the corner office.
Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan announced Monday she would not seek a third term in 2016, and instead challenge Republican Kelly Ayotte for her U.S. Senate seat.
Republican Executive Councilor Chris Sununu is the only other candidate officially running for governor, although there’s a long list of Republicans and Democrats who are reportedly weighing a campaign. Many expect a primary in both parties.
Van Ostern, 36, was elected to the five-member Executive Council in 2012, and he is serving his second two-year term. He represents the second district, which stretches from the Vermont border to the Seacoast, and includes Concord, Dover, Franklin, Keene, Rochester and Somersworth.
It was widely expected Van Ostern would run. He will make the formal announcement at Silvertech, a Manchester tech firm, during a roundtable with business and education leaders at 10 a.m. Van Ostern’s campaign shared his prepared remarks with the Monitor.
“I’m running for Governor to build an even stronger economy and a brighter future for the people of New Hampshire – one where everyone has the opportunity to succeed,” the announcement reads. “I see a future for our state that is accelerated by passenger rail from Boston to Manchester, brightened by solar panels, supported by growing small businesses, and strengthened by good access to quality health care – whether it’s birth control at Planned Parenthood or addiction treatment services at local health centers.”
Van Ostern is chief marketing officer at Southern New Hampshire University’s College for America, a competency-based online degree program. He previously worked as a business manager at Stonyfield yogurt. He lives in Concord with his wife, Kristyn, and their two sons.
Van Ostern already has support from some prominent state Democrats. U.S. Rep. Annie Kuster, a Hopkinton Democrat, told the Monitor recently she would back Van Ostern for governor if he ran. Concord Democratic activist Debby Butler is set to come onboard as campaign treasurer, and Anna Moffet, who was deputy finance director for Kuster’s campaign in 2012, will join the campaign as finance director.
It’s likely Van Ostern will face a primary challenger. Democratic names in the mix include Portsmouth City Councilor Stefany Shaheen, Laconia Sen. Andrew Hosmer and former director of state Securities Regulation Mark Connolly.
On the Republican side, potential gubernatorial candidates include Senate President Chuck Morse, Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley, Senate Finance Committee Chairwoman Jeanie Forrester and first-term Rep. Frank Edelblut of Wilton.
Of the past 10 elections for New Hampshire governor, Democrats have won nine. A recent WMUR Granite State Poll found that most prospective candidates are largely unknown by New Hampshire residents. The best-known candidates, the survey found, are Sununu and Shaheen, both of whom have family members of the same names who have held statewide office.
“One of the neat things is these are all fresh candidates; these aren’t candidates folks are very familiar with,” said Wayne Lesperance, a professor of political science at New England College. “It shows the depth of the bench for both parties, which is pretty exciting.”
Van Ostern Announces Candidacy for Governor of NH
from NH Labor News, nhlabornews.com, October 8, 2015
MANCHESTER, NH – In a historic Manchester school building that now houses a growing technology company, Colin Van Ostern will tell a roundtable of business & education leaders Thursday morning that he will run for Governor in 2016 to build an even brighter future for New Hampshire.
“I’m running for Governor to build an even stronger economy and a brighter future for the people of New Hampshire – one where everyone has the opportunity to succeed,” wrote Van Ostern in remarks prepared for the roundtable discussion. “We must keep our state moving forward in 2016 so New Hampshire will continue to be a great place to raise a family and grow a business in the coming decade – one where our kids can attend great schools, graduate from college without being crushed by debt, and find jobs with good wages.”
Colin Van Ostern is a business leader who helped launch Southern New Hampshire University’s College for America, where he currently works, and he has been a champion against the rising problem of student debt. The nonprofit school partners with employers across New Hampshire and the nation to provide thousands of students the chance to earn an accredited degree, which the vast majority do without taking on any debt at all.
Previously, Colin worked as a business manager at Stonyfield yogurt, where he was responsible for the profitable growth of a $100 million business. He has managed a consulting business helping dozens of New Hampshire nonprofits and small businesses, has worked at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business, where he led business trips to India and Brussels, and early in his career he served as a senior advisor to several New Hampshire state leaders.
“I see a future for our state that is accelerated by passenger rail from Boston to Manchester, brightened by solar panels, supported by growing small businesses, and strengthened by good access to quality health care – whether it’s birth control at Planned Parenthood or addiction treatment services at local health centers,” said Van Ostern. “We will keep taxes low and bring forward new plans and ideas to attract and keep more young people, young families, startups and growing businesses here in our state.”
“That’s been my own life over the past fifteen years – I moved here for a job in my twenties, found a strong community, worked at world-class employers, fell in love with a New Hampshire girl, and we’re now raising two New Hampshire boys whose future means everything to us. I love this state and I’ll work hard to keep it moving forward.”
In 2012, Colin was elected to the state’s unique Executive Council – a five-member board of directors of sorts for the state government – where he has represented a quarter-million New Hampshire citizens from Rochester to Keene. On the Executive Council, Colin has fought to protect access to birth control and cancer screenings at state Planned Parenthood health centers; to advance passenger rail from Boston to Manchester and numerous renewable energy projects; to expand access to healthcare including treatment for addition; and to stand up for NH consumers during the state’s Fairpoint strike in 2014. Colin lives in Concord, NH with his wife and two sons.
ABOUT THURSDAY’S ROUNDTABLE & ASH STREET SCHOOL
Colin will begin his campaign with a roundtable discussion with business leaders, educators, and entrepreneurs from across the state who are working on projects and opportunities that promise a bright future for New Hampshire. The discussion will be hosted at Silvertech, a Manchester technology firm housed in the historic Ash Street school – a public elementary school launched as a public-private partnership between the City of Manchester and Amoskeag industries at the height of New Hampshire’s industrial boom.
In the coming months, Colin will hold a series of roundtable discussion across the state with New Hampshire citizens and community leaders focusing on critical opportunities facing our state:
- NASHUA: Boosting business growth through passenger rail & clean energy jobs
- SEACOAST: Creating the opportunity for debt-free college
- CONCORD: Closing the opportunity gap through early childhood education & support
- WESTERN NH: Expanding health care access – including drug addiction treatment & prevention and access to women’s health services.
- NORTH COUNTRY: Strengthening our rural economy
2. Another Benefit from NH's Medicaid Expansion
Report: Fewer without insurance using hospital services
by Garry Rayno, unionleader.com, October 8, 2015
CONCORD — The number of uninsured people using emergency rooms has dropped 28 percent since the New Hampshire Health Protection Plan began in August 2014, according to a report by the NH Hospital Association released Thursday.
The report also found the number of uninsured people using in-patient hospital services dropped 36 percent and outpatient services dropped 23 percent compared to the year before.
“More than 41,000 low-income Granite State residents now have health insurance coverage and, therefore, access to routine, preventive care – the right care, at the right place, at the right time,” said NHHA President Steve Ahnen. “This reduces the overall cost of care, and it also means the cost of care, previously shifted to New Hampshire citizens and businesses, is now mainly subsidized by the federal government.”
Until Jan. 1, 2017, the federal government pays 100 percent of the cost of Medicaid expansion, which covers 42,000 low-income adults in New Hampshire who qualified for the program under the Affordable Care Act.
Although the report does not cite specific figures, the association says because more patients have health insurance, the amount of uncompensated care hospitals have had to provide has been reduced.
The reduction in uncompensated care, the report says, reduces cost shifting to insured patients and businesses, which should lessen the pressure on health insurance premiums.
The association urges lawmakers to reauthorize the Medicaid expansion program, saying it would mean hundreds of millions in federal dollars over the next biennium and would generate additional state revenue that should pay for the state’s share of its cost beginning Jan. 1, 2017.
“The costs of caring for these 41,000 people do not go away if the NHHPP expires,” said Ahnen. “It simply means that the positive gains we have seen over the past year will be reversed and the costs of caring for those without insurance will get transferred right back to New Hampshire citizens and businesses.”
The report also found the number of uninsured people using in-patient hospital services dropped 36 percent and outpatient services dropped 23 percent compared to the year before.
“More than 41,000 low-income Granite State residents now have health insurance coverage and, therefore, access to routine, preventive care – the right care, at the right place, at the right time,” said NHHA President Steve Ahnen. “This reduces the overall cost of care, and it also means the cost of care, previously shifted to New Hampshire citizens and businesses, is now mainly subsidized by the federal government.”
Until Jan. 1, 2017, the federal government pays 100 percent of the cost of Medicaid expansion, which covers 42,000 low-income adults in New Hampshire who qualified for the program under the Affordable Care Act.
Although the report does not cite specific figures, the association says because more patients have health insurance, the amount of uncompensated care hospitals have had to provide has been reduced.
The reduction in uncompensated care, the report says, reduces cost shifting to insured patients and businesses, which should lessen the pressure on health insurance premiums.
The association urges lawmakers to reauthorize the Medicaid expansion program, saying it would mean hundreds of millions in federal dollars over the next biennium and would generate additional state revenue that should pay for the state’s share of its cost beginning Jan. 1, 2017.
“The costs of caring for these 41,000 people do not go away if the NHHPP expires,” said Ahnen. “It simply means that the positive gains we have seen over the past year will be reversed and the costs of caring for those without insurance will get transferred right back to New Hampshire citizens and businesses.”
3. Drug Abuse as the NH Public's Greatest Concern
WMUR poll: Drug abuse now most serious problem facing NH
Supplants jobs, economy as top issue for first time in 8 years
by John DiStaso, wmur.com, October 8, 2015
DURHAM, N.H. —A new WMUR Granite State Poll released Wednesday evening shows that New Hampshire residents clearly understand that drug abuse has reached crisis proportions in the state, and they want their state and local governments to do something about it, even if it costs more taxpayer dollars.
Traditionally, Granite Staters have rated jobs and the economy as the most important problem facing the state. For the first time in eight years, another issue ranks first – drug abuse.
The University of New Hampshire Survey Center, polling 587 New Hampshire adults Sept. 24-Oct. 2, found that 25 percent of Granite Staters cited drug abuse as the most important issue facing the state, followed by jobs and the economy at 21 percent.
The margin of error for the poll is plus or minus 4 percent.
Far behind at 9 percent is education, followed by health care at 6 percent, taxes at 4 percent and the state budget at 3 percent.
According to the survey center, at this point last year, only 3 percent of New Hampshire residents cited drug abuse as the state’s most important problem. Jobs and the economy was the dominant issue, cited by 32 percent. At that time, the second most important issue was health care, named by 8 percent.
But that view has changed dramatically.
“This is an all-hands-on-deck moment for New Hampshire,” Gov. Maggie Hassan told WMUR Wednesday, calling increased treatment an “immediate need.”
As the substance abuse issue increasingly gained the attention of the media in recent months, its rank among top issues rose. In May of this year, it was named as the top issue by 9 percent, tied with the state budget and trailing education, at 10 percent, and jobs and the economy, at 23 percent.
By July, drug abuse had risen to the second most cited issue, named by 14 percent, while 25 percent cited jobs and the economy.
Throughout the summer and early fall, the issue was prominently covered by WMUR and other media as the state’s elected officials took action in Washington, held forums and discussions throughout the state and devoted significant funding to treatment in Concord. Presidential candidates focused on the issue while campaigning in New Hampshire.
The UNH survey center noted that overdoses and deaths from heroin “have gone up dramatically in New Hampshire recently and the families of victims have been increasingly vocal and public about this problem.”
The poll showed that 88 percent of Granite Staters consider heroin abuse a very serious problem, up 6 percent since July. And 48 percent of those polled, including 60 percent of those under 35 years old, said they personally know someone who has abused heroin in the past five years.
Funding for treatment programs is viewed as only part of the answer to dealing with substance abuse. But 53 percent of those polled said the state and local governments should be spending more to combat the problem, an increase of 11 percent since July. Meanwhile, 16 percent said enough is being spent, and 31 percent did not know enough to say.
The question of more funding for treatment divides Granite Staters along party lines, as 64 percent of Democrats, 39 percent of Republicans and 50 percent of independents said more should be spent to combat the problem.
A closer look at the question of the most significant problem facing the state reveals that women more often cite drug abuse, at 28 percent, than men, at 22 percent. Men give a slight edge to jobs and the economy, at 23 percent, while 18 percent of women named jobs and the economy as the top issue.
Drug abuse is named as the top issue by all age groups, although it ties, 25 percent to 25 percent, with jobs and the economy among those 50 to 64. Those in the 35-to-49 age category name drug abuse as the top issue most often, at 31 percent, while those 65 and older name it least often, at 17 percent.
Geographically, 39 percent of those polled in the Manchester area named drug abuse as the top problem, a substantially higher percentage than any other area of the state.
4. Ayotte: No Record of Supporting Working Mothers
Suddenly Sen Ayotte Supports Working Pregnant Women But What About All Working Moms?
by NH Labor News, nhlabornews.com, October 7, 2015
It is official Governor Maggie Hassan announced she is challenging Senator Kelly Ayotte for her seat in the US Senate. Let the games begin!
Senator Ayotte is coming out swinging with her first online ad entitled “Workplace Fairness,” that focuses on her new legislative proposal, co-sponsored by Senator Shaheen, which would help to end workplace discrimination for pregnant women.
I don’t say this often but I actually agree with Sen. Ayotte that something needs to be done to protect pregnant workers from workplace discrimination and provide pregnant women alternative work during their pregnancy, however I have been pushing for this type of legislation for years now.
Senators Shaheen and Ayotte introduced this legislative in June of this year after the Supreme Court ruled that UPS discriminated against Peggy Young by not offering her light duty work after her doctor instructed her not to lift heavy things due to her pregnancy.
Here is the kicker, this new legislation is actually old legislation submitted in a new legislative term. The bill, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, was actually submitted in September of 2012 and again in May of 2013.
In her new video, Sen Ayotte fails to mention that she refused to support the very same bill not once but twice when it was previously introduced since Ayotte has been in Washington.
Why the change of heart? What is different about this bill now?
It is not so much that the bill has changed it is that Sen. Ayotte is facing a strong progressive candidate in Maggie Hassan.
Suddenly as the campaign ramps up Sen. Ayotte supports the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, but what happens after that expectant mother delivers her baby?
Sen Ayotte has repeatedly said that paid sick leave is “an issue that should be addressed by employers rather than mandated by the government.”
What is the difference between supporting pregnant women in the workplace and supporting parents in the workplace? If you support Pregnancy Fairness why not paid sick leave.
Ayotte did introduce her own paid leave bill with Mitch McConnell earlier this year, but her bill was nothing but an election year stunt that would force workers to choose between overtime pay and leave time.
Let us not forget that Sen. Ayotte has a terrible record supporting women and women’s health.
- Ayotte opposes the paycheck fairness act
- Ayotte supports repealing the Affordable Care Act which made it law that new mothers have the right to pump breast milk at work in a safe place, and that employers cannot fire or discriminate against nursing moms.
- Ayotte supports the misguided Hobby Lobby decision.
- Ayotte has voted multiple times to allow employers to deny women access to contraception.
- Ayotte introduced a sham birth control bill that would increase costs for women and is opposed by the American Congress of OB-GYNs.
- Ayotte has voted repeatedly to defund Planned Parenthood and other family planning centers, which provide critical health services including breast exams.
I don’t have to tell you – but I am going to anyway – Senator Ayotte’s new challenger, Governor Hassan, has been a staunch supporter of working women and women’s health.
Hassan signed into law a Paycheck Fairness bill, expanded Medicaid to give more Granite Staters access to quality healthcare, and in her first term worked to restore the devastating cuts to Planned Parenthood.
Gov. Hassan continues to fight the Republican led Executive Council’s cuts to Planned Parenthood in New Hampshire.
“The council’s vote to defund Planned Parenthood will hurt the health and economic well-being of thousands of Granite Staters. Moving forward, I will continue to fight to ensure that women and families have access to the important health services that are essential to the economic security and vitality of our families,” said Hassan.
Despite what Sen. Ayotte is saying in her poll-tested advertising, she is not the champion for women she claims to be. She is the same old partisan hack who has fueled the continued gridlock in Washington.
AND NATIONALLY
5. Nationalized Politics, and Effects at the State Level
What if All Politics Is National?
by Thomas B. Edsall, nytimes.com, September 29, 2015
Democrats are counting on demographic change to help them win future presidential elections, including next year’s.
But three developments are pushing the country to the right, counteracting the idea that demography is political destiny. First, the rise of negative partisanship – that is, the intense hostility members of one party feel toward members of the other. Next, the nationalization of elections – the increasing tendency of voters to opt for straight ticket voting at all levels of government. Finally, there is growing income inequality within legislative districts, and this has partisan repercussions that are not necessarily what you would expect. All three trends are interacting with each other to the advantage of Republican candidates in contests for the House of Representatives and for state legislatures.
Alan Abramowitz and Steven Webster, political scientists at Emory University, report in their 2015 essay “The Rise of Negative Partisanship and the Nationalization of U.S. Elections in the 21st Century” that partisans’ thermometer ratings of their own party have remained constant, 72 degrees in 1980 and 70 degrees in 2012. The thermometer rating question asks voters to place their feelings toward a particular political party on a scale of 0 to 100, coldest to hottest.
Voter opinions of the opposing party have become more negative. “The average rating of the opposing party fell from 45 degrees in 1980 to 30 degrees in 2012,” Abramowitz and Webster write. They go on to point out that
Supporters of each party have come to perceive supporters of the opposing party as very different from themselves in terms of their social characteristics, political beliefs and values and to view opposing partisans with growing suspicion and hostility.
The accompanying chart illustrates the intensification of hostility toward the opposition party between 1972 and 2012. Negativity rules: Hostile views of the opposition party correlate more strongly with straight-ticket voting than favorable views of one’s own party.
[To see chart, click on the following link: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/
What this means in practical terms is that the traditional advantage of incumbency for members of the House and Senate has declined. It used to be that predictions of the outcomes of House and state legislative races gave great weight to incumbency; in recent years, the crucial factor in predicting outcomes in a given district is the presidential vote.
From 1960 to 1980, Republican House candidates won just under 60 percent of the districts where Republican presidential nominees performed well.
In other words, Democrats were once able to hold Congressional seats in districts that voted Republican in presidential elections.
In 1994, according to Abramowitz and Webster, both Republicans and Democrat began to win higher and higher percentages of districts in which their respective presidential candidates did well.
By 2012-14 this pattern was so strong, Abramowitz and Webster find, that Republicans had “won a remarkable 95 percent of contests in Republican-leaning districts while Democrats have won 93 percent of contests in Democratic-leaning districts.”
The increase in straight-ticket voting has worked more to the advantage of Republican House candidates than of Democrats. Many Democrats in Republican-leaning districts could be defeated and over time they were. The far fewer Republican House members in Democratic-leaning districts limited the potential for Democratic gains. As a result, Abramowitz and Webster note,
the famous comment by the late Tip O’Neill that “all politics is local” now seems rather quaint. In the 21st century United States, it increasingly appears that all politics is national.
State legislative elections have been following the same pattern as contests for seats in the House of Representatives. Abramowitz and Webster tracked the relationship between the Democratic share of the presidential and the state legislative vote. This correlation rose steadily from .40 in the years 1972-88 to a modern record of .85 in 2012.
In practice, this means that voters are now, by overwhelming margins, casting ballots for State Senate and State House candidates who are members of the same party as the candidate they chose for the presidency.
Abramowitz and Webster conclude that “structural forces are likely to continue to work in favor of Republican candidates in future House elections.”
Gary Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego, works on similar terrain. Earlier this year, Jacobson published “It’s Nothing Personal: The Decline of the Incumbency Advantage in US House Elections,” in The Journal of Politics. He writes:
Because Republicans enjoy a longstanding structural advantage in the distribution of partisans across districts, the emergence of a much more party-centered electoral process has given them a firm grip on the House even as they have become less competitive in contests for the presidency.
Jacobson points out that while the South led the nation in the nationalization of voting, the pattern has emerged in all sections of the country.
“Incumbent Democrats have been the big losers from this change,” Jacobson observes, pointing out that from 1960 through 1992, they consistently won in more than 50 districts in which Republican presidential candidates were also victors. In contrast, “Republican incumbents have never won more than 28 Democratic-leaning districts.”
Jacobson argues that even without Republican gerrymandering of House districts, the geographic distribution of Democrats and Republicans across the nation inherently produces gerrymandered results:
Democrats win the lion’s share of minority, single, young, secular, gay and highly educated voters who are concentrated in urban districts that deliver lopsided Democratic majorities. Regular Republican voters are spread more evenly across suburbs, smaller cities and rural areas, so fewer Republican votes are ‘wasted’ in highly skewed districts.
The inefficient distribution of Democratic voters is not new; it has been present at least since the 1970s, but has more recently become a powerful factor in the tilt of the House to the Republican Party.
Jacobson presents a collection of data points illustrating this inefficiency, showing the disparity between voting patterns nationally and in House elections.
[To see the chart, click on the following link: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/
While President Obama won by five million votes in 2012, Mitt Romney carried 226 congressional districts to Obama’s 209; more people voted for Democratic House candidates that year, 50.7 to 49.3, but Democrats won 46.2 percent of House seats. If Republicans had carried only those districts that gave Romney two percentage points above his national average, they would still command a 226–209 House majority today, instead of their current majority of 246-188 (they lost one seat to resignation earlier this year).
Perhaps the most counterintuitive finding has been produced by three other scholars, John Voorheis, a doctoral candidate in economics at the University of Oregon, Nolan McCarty, a political scientist at Princeton, and Boris Shor, a political scientist at Georgetown, in their working paper, “Unequal Incomes, Ideology and Gridlock: How Rising Inequality Increases Political Polarization.”
The three examine state legislative districts for trends in partisan representation and in inequality and find that Republicans win more elections when inequality worsens. Their analysis demonstrates that:
Income inequality shifts the median ideology within state legislatures to the right, and increases the share of seats held by Republicans.
Rising inequality results in more defeats of moderate Democrats by Republicans than vice versa. Because of this, the legislature over all moves in a conservative direction while the Democratic caucus, with fewer moderates, moves to the left.
In an email exchange with the authors, they speculate that the disproportionate losses by moderate Democrats may result from the fact
that by the time our data starts in the 1990s, Republicans were pretty homogenous on taxes/welfare/redistribution. The remaining centrists were predominantly Democrats. So it’s been the Democrats bearing the brunt of the further hollowing out of the center.
Voorheis, McCarty and Shor conclude that inequality begets more inequality:
Increases in income inequality move the entire legislature to the right, while at the same time increasing political polarization. This diminishes both the appetite and ability of state legislatures to engage in redistribution, which in turn further increases income inequality.
The consequences of negative partisanship, of the nationalization of politics and of increased inequality are very different at the federal level than they are at the state level.
In the states, just over half the population lives under one-party Republican rule. While Congress and the White House cannot agree on taxes, spending, immigration or any major issue, leaders in the 24 Republican-controlled states are winning enactment of a comprehensive conservative agenda.
Put another way, in a nation where the two major political parties are roughly equal, Republicans have full control of 24 states with 47.8 percent of the population, 152.4 million, Democrats have full control of only 7 states with 15.8 percent, 49.1 million. The remaining 17 states are under split control.
There are some broad, if tentative, conclusions to be drawn.
The three research papers cited above suggest that the Republican lock on the House will hold at least until 2022 — the first election in which new districts will be drawn on the basis of the 2020 census — but they also suggest that Democrats are likely to face an uphill battle for control of the House after 2022.
If Voorheis, McCarty and Shor are on target, Republicans have a vested political interest in exacerbating inequality because inequality moves voters to the right.
Insofar as elections have become nationalized, Democrats in the House and in state legislatures have legitimate concerns over Hillary Clinton’s declining poll numbers. Democrats in close elections are now dependent on winning as many straight-ticket votes as possible, and the fewer votes Clinton receives – assuming for the moment that she is the nominee – the fewer votes are likely to go to Democrats in 2016 in down-ballot contests.
Finally, and most important: Republican success at the state level – in contrast with control of the United States House and Senate – has empowered the party to actually make policy without the crippling effects of partisan gridlock.
More law and regulatory policy – much of it conservative and controversial – has been enacted at the state level than at any other level of government in the past five years. In terms of policy initiatives, the 24 states where Republicans are in full control are the most productive of all: the 11 Confederate states, except Virginia, along with Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Wisconsin, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska (with a nominally non-partisan legislature), Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Wyoming and Utah.
It is in these states that the retrenchment from social and economic liberalism is moving into high gear, as much of the rest of the country and the federal government remains mired in conflict.
The structural changes in the political system have, then, put the Republican Party in the vanguard of action on a gamut of issues fromvoting rights to union rights to reproductive rights; from taxation to health care and environmental policy to spending on the poor to education.
Democrats may have the edge in presidential elections, but Republicans now have the advantage where it counts: in the states, where they can set the policies that govern a majority of citizens’ daily lives.
Edsall: Dems Lagging Badly in State Politics
by staff, thedemocraticstrategist.org, September 30, 2015
In his New York Times op-ed, "What if All Politics Is National?," Thomas B. Edsall addresses gnarly issues for Democrats, including the increasing polarization of national politics, the "inefficient distribution of Democratic voters," the role of growing inequality, and most troubling of all, the triumph of the GOP in state politics. As always, Edsall's entire column merits a thoughtful read. We'll just quote from his observations about Republican domination at the state level, a problem which cries out for a more effective Democratic response:
In the states, just over half the population lives under one-party Republican rule. While Congress and the White House cannot agree on taxes, spending, immigration or any major issue, leaders in the 24 Republican-controlled states are winning enactment of a comprehensive conservative agenda.
Put another way, in a nation where the two major political parties are roughly equal, Republicans have full control of 24 states with 47.8 percent of the population, 152.4 million, Democrats have full control of only 7 states with 15.8 percent, 49.1 million. The remaining 17 states are under split control.
...Republican success at the state level - in contrast with control of the United States House and Senate - has empowered the party to actually make policy without the crippling effects of partisan gridlock.
More law and regulatory policy - much of it conservative and controversial - has been enacted at the state level than at any other level of government in the past five years. In terms of policy initiatives, the 24 states where Republicans are in full control are the most productive of all: the 11 Confederate states, except Virginia, along with Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Wisconsin, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska (with a nominally non-partisan legislature), Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Wyoming and Utah.
It is in these states that the retrenchment from social and economic liberalism is moving into high gear, as much of the rest of the country and the federal government remains mired in conflict...Democrats may have the edge in presidential elections, but Republicans now have the advantage where it counts: in the states, where they can set the policies that govern a majority of citizens' daily lives.
That's a lot for Democrats to worry about. It took a long time, too long, for Democrats to put together a challenge to the Koch brothers-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which has been credited with spearheading the GOP's domination of state politics. Progressive organizations like the State Innovation Exchange (SIX), the Association of State Democratic Chairs and Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC) are struggling to develop effective strategies and resources for restoring political balance in the nation's state legislatures.
The Center for Media and Democracy has had some impressive success in holding ALEC's corporate supporters accountable. CMD reports that "As of August 2015, at least 106 corporations and 19 non-profits -- for a total of 120 private sector members -- have publicly announced that they cut ties with the American Legislative Exchange Council...(four of those corporations have subsequently returned to ALEC, and many of the non-profits listed by ALEC as "lapsed" in August 2013 share an ideological agenda with and noted their desire to return to ALEC)."
Looking forward, ending ALEC's reign of reaction in the state legislatures will require that a lot more progressives pay attention to politics at the state level and support Democratic candidates for state legislatures. Even with a Democratic landslide in 2016, winning back political balance in state governments will be a long, difficult haul. A more energized progressive coalition to meet this challenge is overdue.
6. Big Pharma, Patents, and Drug Trials
Drug patents are Bad for your health: the cost of mismarketing
by Dean Baker, english.hani.co.kr, May 11, 2015
The rationale for granting patents for new drugs is to give companies incentives to research new and better drugs. Allowing them a monopoly for a period of time allows drug companies the opportunity to recoup the cost of their investment and make a profit from their research.
This is the good story of patent protection. But as every economist knows, any act of government intervention has unintended consequences. A patent monopoly allows drug companies to sell drugs at prices that are far above their free market price. This is especially true with major breakthrough drugs that can sell for prices that are several thousand percent above their free market price because of their health benefits. For example, the Hepatitis C drug Sovaldi sells for $84,000 for a three-month course of treatment in the United States. A generic version is available in India for less than $1,000.
This enormous gap between the price for which a patent-protected drug can be sold and the cost of production to the manufacturer creates a huge incentive to promote the drug wherever possible. This includes pushing the drug for uses for which it has not been approved by theFood and Drug Administration or other national regulatory agencies. There is also an incentive to conceal evidence that a drug may be less effective than claimed or even harmful.
As we know, people respond to incentives. This means drug companies will act in ways that are harmful to the health of patients in order to take advantage of the huge profits available from patent monopolies. To get some idea of the costs in terms of increased mortality and morbidity, Ravi Katari and I calculated the costs associated with five prominent instances in which drug companies either lost a court case or reached a settlement because they had misrepresented the safety or effectiveness of their drugs.
By our calculations, the cost of the increased mortality and morbidity associated with the improper marketing of these five drugs was $382 billion over the 14-year period from 1994 to 2008, or just over $27 billion a year (in 2014 dollars). This is roughly the same amount as the industry claims to have spent on research over this period. In other words, the harm caused by inaccurate marketing and disclosure of information for just these five drugs, is comparable in value to all the research performed by the drug industry during the same period.
To be clear, the allegations in these five cases are that the companies deliberately concealed information or misrepresented research findings. This would mean that the damage was not the result of inevitable mistakes, but rather deliberate actions motived by profit.
Our calculations are very imprecise, but they suggest the enormous costs society may incur as a result of the perverse incentives that patent monopolies provide to drug companies. These five drugs were selected because they were especially egregious examples, but there are dozens of other instances where evidence has been produced showing drug companies misled the public about the safety or effectiveness of their products. And the cases that have come to light can only be a subset of the instances where drug companies have withheld or misrepresented information that could reflect badly on their drugs.
Of course this is not the only problem with patent financed drug research. Patent monopolies provide an incentive for drug companies to develop copycat drugs rather than seek out drugs for conditions for which no treatment exists. They also encourage secrecy, which impedes the progress of research. And the high drug prices that result from the monopolies create enormous complications for whoever gets stuck with bill, whether it is the patient, an insurance company, or the government.
In the case of Sovaldi, there has been much hard-wringing about whether insurance companies and the government should pay $84,000 for every person suffering from Hepatitis C, or whether this cost should only be incurred for especially severe cases. There would be much less hand-wringing if the issue was paying $900 for a generic version of the drug.
There are alternative mechanisms for financing research. Nobel Prize winning economist Joe Stiglitz has proposed a prize system in which the government would buy up the patents for drugs that are shown to be effective and then allow them to be sold as generics. Alternatively, we can go the route of directly financing research through the government. The United States already spends more than $30 billion a year on publicly funded biomedical research through the National Institutes of Health. If this sum was tripled, it could likely replace the funding now being supported through patent monopolies and then all new drugs could be sold at generic prices.
This matters now because a major thrust of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is to make patent protection stronger and longer. A predictable outcome of the efforts in this area is many more instances of patients being harmed by drug companies concealing or misrepresenting their research findings. Our paper suggests that patents are an extremely inefficient way to support research because of the perverse incentives they provide drug companies. It would be unfortunate if the drug companies are able to use the TPP to further entrench a system that has so many negative side effects.
7. It's Not Teachers
Root of the Education Crisis: Teachers Were Never the Problem
by David Sirota, readersupportednews.com, September 29, 2015
Google the phrase “education crisis” and you'll be hit with a glut of articles, blog posts and think tank reports claiming the entire American school system is facing an emergency. Much of this agitprop additionally asserts that teachers unions are the primary cause of the alleged problem. Not surprisingly, the fabulists pushing these narratives are often backed by anti-public school conservatives and anti-union plutocrats. But a little-noticed study released last week provides yet more confirmation that neither the “education crisis” meme or the “evil teachers' union” narrative is accurate.
Before looking at that study, consider some of the ways we already know that the dominant storyline about education is, indeed, baseless propaganda.
As I've reported before, we know that American public school students from wealthy districts generate some of the best test scores in the world. This proves that the education system's problems are not universal–the crisis is isolated primarily in the parts of the system that operate in high poverty areas. It also proves that while the structure of the traditional public school system is hardly perfect, it is not the big problem in America’s K-12 education system. If it was the problem, then traditional public schools in rich neighborhoods would not perform as well as they do.
Similarly, we know that many of the high-performing public schools in America's wealthy locales are unionized. We also know that one of the best school systems in the world—Finland's—is fully unionized. These facts prove that teachers' unions are not the root cause of the education problem, either. After all, if unions were the problem, then unionized public schools in wealthy areas and Finland would be failing.
So what is the problem? That brings us to the new study from the Southern Education Foundation. Cross-referencing and education data, researchers found that that a majority of all public school students in one third of America's states now come from low-income families.
How much does this have to do with educational outcomes? A lot. Social science research over the last few decades has shown that two thirds of student achievement is a product of out-of-school factors–and among the most powerful of those is economic status. That's hardly shocking: kids who experience destitution and all the problems that come with it have enough trouble just surviving, much less succeeding in school.
All of this leads to an obvious conclusion: If America was serious about fixing the troubled parts of its education system, then we would be having a fundamentally different conversation.
We wouldn't be talking about budget austerity—we would be talking about raising public revenues to fund special tutoring, child care, basic health programs and other so-called wrap-around services at low-income schools.
We wouldn't only be looking to make sure that schools in high-poverty districts finally receive the same amount of public money as schools in wealthy neighborhoods—we would make sure high-poverty districts actually receive more funds than rich districts because combating poverty is such a resource-intensive endeavor.
More broadly, we wouldn't be discussing cuts to social safety net programs—we would instead be working to expand those programs and, further, to challenge both parties' anti-tax, anti-regulation, pro-austerity agenda that has increased poverty and economic inequality.
In short, if we were serious about education, then our education discussion wouldn't be focused on demonizing teachers and coming up with radical schemes to undermine traditional public schools. It would instead be focused on mounting a new war on poverty and thus directly addressing the biggest education problem of all.
8. GOP Right Wing Crazies Blow Up the Speaker's Contest
Kevin McCarthy Withdraws From Race To Be Speaker, Leaving Republicans In Total Disarray
by Judd Legum, thinkprogress.org, October 8, 2015
Congressman Kevin McCarthy, the Republican Majority Leader who was widely expected to be the next Speaker of the House, abruptly withdrew his candidacy on Thursday.
The news leaves the House Republicans, and Congress in general, in a state of disarray. It is unclear whom Republicans will be able to elect as speaker. John Boehner has announced his resignation and the House cannot operate without a speaker. The election for the next speaker has been postponed indefinitely.
The government is facing a number of critical deadlines that will need a functioning House. According the Treasury Department, the country will need to raise the debt limit by November 5 or risk defaulting on its obligations. Funding for the government as a whole expires on December 11, setting up the possibility for a government shutdown.
McCarthy was criticized for his recent comments on the congressional committee investigating Benghazi, bragging that it had been successful in driving down Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers.
Yesterday the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus announced they would not support McCarthy, effectively denying him the support he needed within the Republican caucus.
Paul Ryan, seen as the one figure who could unite the Republican Party, reiterated that he was not interested after McCarthy’s announcement:
Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and Daniel Webster (R-FL) are also running but are not seen as having broad support.
Kevin McCarthy has dropped out of race for House speaker
by Mike DeBonis, washingtonpost.com, October 8, 2015
UPDATE: House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) abruptly dropped out of the race to replace John Boehner (R-Ohio) for speaker. The House GOP Conference meeting in which Republicans were set to select their nominee for the House floor vote on Oct. 29 has been postponed.
Earlier:
A House Republican Conference divided against itself meets Thursday to pick a new standard-bearer, launching the process of electing a new House speaker in the midst of a congressional session for the first time in 26 years.
There is little question about how the first step in the process, a secret-ballot vote of the nearly 250 conference members, will play out: Majority Leader Kevin O. McCarthy is expected to win the requisite majority and become the party’s nominee to succeed outgoing Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).
But there is much drama about how the process will end.
To claim the speaker’s chair, McCarthy will have to claim a majority of those present and voting in an Oct. 29 vote on the House floor. No Democrats are expected to support a GOP nominee, so to guarantee victory, McCarthy will have to win the support of 218 of the 247 voting Republicans.
McCarthy’s hopes of uniting Republicans took a blow Wednesday when a close-knit group of roughly 40 hard-line conservatives, the House Freedom Caucus, said it would back a low-profile Florida lawmaker, Rep. Daniel Webster, instead.
The group said it intended to vote as a bloc in Thursday afternoon’s party election and left open the possibility that they might unite against McCarthy on the House floor in three weeks, denying him the speakership.
In a statement announcing their endorsement, the Freedom Caucus suggested their position might change if “significant changes to conference leadership and process” were made, and that their numbers give them leverage to demand those changes from the next speaker.
“He has three weeks to make systemic changes,” Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho) said of McCarthy. “Not just talk about the changes, but to show exactly what he’s going to do.”
McCarthy, however, retains the loyalty and trust of a solid majority of the Republican caucus — dozens of members of which he recruited to run ahead of the 2010 wave election. His backers insist that most Republicans would be unwilling to elect Webster or any of the hard-liners who are supporting him.
In a sign of McCarthy’s support, his name is expected to be placed into nomination Thursday by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the widely respected Ways and Means Committee chairman and former GOP vice presidential nominee, an aide said Thursday. And an aide to Boehner said the outgoing speaker intends to support McCarthy both in Thursday’s party vote and in the Oct. 29 floor vote.
In a brief interview Wednesday, McCarthy said he was “very confident we’ll all get back together.”
“I look forward to being able to get their votes,” he said. “My door is always open. Every voice needs to be heard.”
Complicating McCarthy’s path to the speaker’s chair are pending battles over federal spending, transportation policy and raising the federal debt limit, all of which have the potential to inflame conservatives.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the Freedom Caucus chairman, said Wednesday that the outcome of those fights would come to bear on the Oct. 29 speaker’s vote.
“This thing is fluid,” he said. “You don’t know what’s going to happen. What we do know is that we’re still discussing this race, and if we vote as a group, we have more ability to influence the decision than if we don’t.”
Republicans spent nearly two hours on Thursday morning in a closed-door session where McCarthy, Webster and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) pitched their plan for leading the party. Fewer than half of the GOP conference members attended the forum, and most said it was unclear if conservatives were willing to rally around McCarthy if he wins the nomination.
“The good news is we have time to continue our discussions,” said Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Tex.). “I feel optimistic we can unite.”
Chaffetz, who has positioned himself as a consensus alternative to McCarthy, said he plans to throw his support behind the nominee, no matter who it is, and he said that position cost him the support of the Freedom Caucus.
“Clearly they did not like the fact that I would support the nominee,” Chaffetz said.
While many conservatives have left the door open to backing McCarthy, a few outspoken hard-liners have said they see no circumstance where McCarthy could win their support.
“There is absolutely no way that I think that you can vote for McCarthy and go back home and tell your constituents you did the best thing for them,” said Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), at a Wednesday gathering of conservative members. “John Boehner stepped down and we replaced him with his right-hand man? That is not going to work.”
FINALLY
No comments:
Post a Comment