AROUND NEW HAMPSHIRE
1. The Legislature and Retiree Health Care
NH retirees to pay more for prescriptions
by Garry Rayno, unionleader.com, October 20, 2015
CONCORD — State retirees will have to pay $5 more for prescriptions beginning Jan. 1 to help close a $10.6 million shortfall in the retirees’ health care program.
The decision came Tuesday after more than two hours of wrangling, finger-pointing and partisan bickering. The Joint Legislative Fiscal Committee voted 7-3 to increase co-pays for all state retirees, which will result in about a $2 million savings for the state.
The change affects the state’s nearly 12,000 retirees — 8,800 over 65 and 3,000 under. The change would also have the effect of increasing the maximum out-of-pocket costs for retirees.
Currently, retirees over 65 do not pay for their Medicare supplemental insurance, but do pay deductibles and co-pays with limits on out-of-pocket expenses. Retirees under 65 pay 12.5 percent of their health insurance costs, which would go up to 15 percent Jan. 1 under a Department of Administrative Services plan.
The fiscal committee meets again in two weeks to determine other measures to reduce the retirees’ health insurance deficit, including higher deductibles, increased premiums and higher out-of-pocket thresholds.
Tuesday’s meeting was the deadline for deciding on any changes to prescription costs for retirees over 65 and on Medicare.
On Friday, the committee put off making a decision as several committee members tried to reach agreement on a compromise plan that would have gone to lawmakers in January.
The plan would have required retirees to use a narrow medical network, much like the one used by Anthem for health policies it sells on the state health exchange, It also would have required those under 65 to continue paying a portion of their premiums when they turn 65, and used more of the program’s surplus to offset benefit reductions.
Governor, lawmakers split
But Gov. Maggie Hassan told plan sponsors Monday she could not support it, and instead suggested the state use the program’s $5.3 million surplus and $5.3 million in general and other fund reductions to keep current benefits.
The governor’s budget director, Meredith Telus, said the governor would entertain any additional appropriation to offset the benefit cuts to retirees, but will agree to the plan developed by the Department of Administrative Services if additional money is not forthcoming.
“I’m not sure what the governor wants right now,” Senate President Chuck Morse said. “It’s ridiculous to put those over 65 through this. We had a solution that was bipartisan and deserved support, but the governor tossed it out the window.”
In a letter to the committee, Hassan raised concerns about the proposed legislation, saying it “appropriates money for a study with a pre-determined outcome, mandating that the state implement a defined contribution plan for all retirees by Jan. 1, 2017.”
Lawmakers have known about a potential shortfall in the program since February, but the shortfall doubled because expensive “miracle drugs” are now available.
The Department of Administrative Services proposed a short-term fix for the rest of the biennium to the fiscal committee in September, but the committee twice postponed action.
The program will run out of money in October 2016, administrative services commissioner Vicki Quiram said. The increase in drug co-pays will extend the program to January 2017. After that, she said, retirees would have to pay their own health care costs because the agency has to live within the amount of money lawmakers appropriated for the program.
Nov. 3 meeting planned
“Gov. Hassan and administrative services presented a plan to live within the legislative appropriation as they are required to do by law,” Hassan’s communications director William Hinkle said. “If the fiscal committee was not going to constructively propose alternatives, then it should have voted for this plan when it originally came to them earlier this year.”
Sen. Jeanie Forrester, R-Meredith, proposed the committee approve the $5 increase for drug co-pays for those over 65, and later expanded it to all retirees, which passed with the support of one Democrat, Sen. Lou D’Allesandro, D-Manchester. One Republican, Sen. Andy Sanborn, R-Bedford, voted against the change.
After the vote, retired State Police Maj. Ernest Loomis of Concord said the vote is part of the process.
“If they keep going, they might get closer to eventually having everyone on the same page,” Loomis said. “Some day they are going to have to bite the bullet and fund this properly or this will continue to go on year after year.”
Retirees claim they were promised free health insurance when they retired.
“At a time when our state revenues are seeing good growth, it is unconscionable to make them pay these increases,” said fiscal committee member Rep. Mary Jane Wallner, D-Concord.
The committee meets again Nov. 3 at 10 a.m. to decide on the rest of the plan.
The decision came Tuesday after more than two hours of wrangling, finger-pointing and partisan bickering. The Joint Legislative Fiscal Committee voted 7-3 to increase co-pays for all state retirees, which will result in about a $2 million savings for the state.
The change affects the state’s nearly 12,000 retirees — 8,800 over 65 and 3,000 under. The change would also have the effect of increasing the maximum out-of-pocket costs for retirees.
Currently, retirees over 65 do not pay for their Medicare supplemental insurance, but do pay deductibles and co-pays with limits on out-of-pocket expenses. Retirees under 65 pay 12.5 percent of their health insurance costs, which would go up to 15 percent Jan. 1 under a Department of Administrative Services plan.
The fiscal committee meets again in two weeks to determine other measures to reduce the retirees’ health insurance deficit, including higher deductibles, increased premiums and higher out-of-pocket thresholds.
Tuesday’s meeting was the deadline for deciding on any changes to prescription costs for retirees over 65 and on Medicare.
On Friday, the committee put off making a decision as several committee members tried to reach agreement on a compromise plan that would have gone to lawmakers in January.
The plan would have required retirees to use a narrow medical network, much like the one used by Anthem for health policies it sells on the state health exchange, It also would have required those under 65 to continue paying a portion of their premiums when they turn 65, and used more of the program’s surplus to offset benefit reductions.
Governor, lawmakers split
But Gov. Maggie Hassan told plan sponsors Monday she could not support it, and instead suggested the state use the program’s $5.3 million surplus and $5.3 million in general and other fund reductions to keep current benefits.
The governor’s budget director, Meredith Telus, said the governor would entertain any additional appropriation to offset the benefit cuts to retirees, but will agree to the plan developed by the Department of Administrative Services if additional money is not forthcoming.
“I’m not sure what the governor wants right now,” Senate President Chuck Morse said. “It’s ridiculous to put those over 65 through this. We had a solution that was bipartisan and deserved support, but the governor tossed it out the window.”
In a letter to the committee, Hassan raised concerns about the proposed legislation, saying it “appropriates money for a study with a pre-determined outcome, mandating that the state implement a defined contribution plan for all retirees by Jan. 1, 2017.”
Lawmakers have known about a potential shortfall in the program since February, but the shortfall doubled because expensive “miracle drugs” are now available.
The Department of Administrative Services proposed a short-term fix for the rest of the biennium to the fiscal committee in September, but the committee twice postponed action.
The program will run out of money in October 2016, administrative services commissioner Vicki Quiram said. The increase in drug co-pays will extend the program to January 2017. After that, she said, retirees would have to pay their own health care costs because the agency has to live within the amount of money lawmakers appropriated for the program.
Nov. 3 meeting planned
“Gov. Hassan and administrative services presented a plan to live within the legislative appropriation as they are required to do by law,” Hassan’s communications director William Hinkle said. “If the fiscal committee was not going to constructively propose alternatives, then it should have voted for this plan when it originally came to them earlier this year.”
Sen. Jeanie Forrester, R-Meredith, proposed the committee approve the $5 increase for drug co-pays for those over 65, and later expanded it to all retirees, which passed with the support of one Democrat, Sen. Lou D’Allesandro, D-Manchester. One Republican, Sen. Andy Sanborn, R-Bedford, voted against the change.
After the vote, retired State Police Maj. Ernest Loomis of Concord said the vote is part of the process.
“If they keep going, they might get closer to eventually having everyone on the same page,” Loomis said. “Some day they are going to have to bite the bullet and fund this properly or this will continue to go on year after year.”
Retirees claim they were promised free health insurance when they retired.
“At a time when our state revenues are seeing good growth, it is unconscionable to make them pay these increases,” said fiscal committee member Rep. Mary Jane Wallner, D-Concord.
The committee meets again Nov. 3 at 10 a.m. to decide on the rest of the plan.
2. NH's Solar Future and Net-Metering
What is "Net-Metering" And Why Are People Fighting About It?
by Sam Evans-Brown, nhpr.org, October 20, 2015
Solar energy is big business in New Hampshire right now. Enough projects have submitted at least preliminary applications to add up to more than a 400 percent increase from 2014.
But as we have reported in the past, the solar industry will have to overcome serious hurdles if it wants that growth to continue in New Hampshire. For one, a state rebate program that cuts home and small business owners a nice check had to be ratcheted back after the revenue for the fund behind those checks plummeted.
But perhaps more importantly, early this year it became clear that New Hampshire utilities were swiftly approaching the legal limit on the number of solar installations that could take advantage of a program called “net-metering.”
Net-metering can be a difficult concept to understand. (Is it a subsidy? Is it just a way of crediting the accounts of solar panel owners? Who’s paying for it, if anyone?) And it’s the subject of heated debate in states across the country.
Read on and get a quick sample of the questions that are animating this debate.
CREDIT SAM EVANS-BROWN / NHPR
What is net metering and why are people fighting about it?
Net metering is a policy that lets certain renewable energy producers (though in practice it’s almost exclusively solar power that does this) sell excess electricity back to the grid at the same price they are spending when they buy energy from the grid. This makes it so that when you’re off at work and your solar panels are generating electricity that you can't use (or save up, since it’s been basically impossible to buy Elon Musk’s fancy battery) you can generate credits that you can then use when you get home and the sun has set and you want to make yourselfsome toast.
Is this a subsidy for solar? Solar advocates argue that it is not, but is just a way to credit home-owners for the power they generate. For instance, a recent NHPR article that called net-metering an incentive attracted this comment:
Saying that this is just a "billing arrangement" leaves out some important context. For instance: this is a billing arrangement that only certain generators get to take advantage of. When a net-metered customer feeds power into the grid, they are credited at the retail energy rate (about 14 cents per kilowattt hour), but if you were to fire up your natural gas fired power plant, you'd be paid the wholesale energy rate (which is sitting around 5.5 cents per kWh these days).
More to the point, everyone doesn't believe this is fair: electric utilities argue solar customers are still using the grid, but - by zeroing out their bills, as net-metering helps them to do - they aren't paying for it. They say costs are being pushed off onto electric customers that don't have a solar panel.
Meanwhile, solar advocates argue that utilities are ignoring many of the cost savings that come from more solar panels on the grid. For instance, if solar homes translate to less demand on certain power lines during the hottest summer months, utilities may not have to upgrade those poles and wires, and can pass the savings along to consumers. Many solar industry funded studies also calculate the value of benefits like improved air quality and reduced carbon emissions.
This graph was the Rocky Mountain Institute's attempt to compare all of the various cost/benefit of solar studies that had been done prior to 2013. Some "found" solar to be worth less than the retail rate of energy, others said it was worth more.
CREDIT ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE /HTTP://GOO.GL/TGWLIX
There have been a slew of studies coming out each year that try to weigh these questions and come up with a number for how much small-scale solar power should be worth, (in fact an environmental group just presented a New Hampshire specific report last week) and they come out with wildly different estimates depending on their assumptions and what they do and don't include. In other words, this is far from a settled question.
Whether net-metering is a subsidy or just a billing trick to encourage more solar onto the grid, one thing is definitely true, solar installations need the arrangement in order to pencil out. As on solar industry expert explained to me earlier this year, it is "the bed-rock of the economics for residential and commercial solar, all across the US in every state that has any kind of a meaningful solar market."
What are the rules in other states?
Simply put, they are all over the map. All but three states have net-metering in some form, but the way the policies are formulated are very different: energy is reimbursed differently, many states have no cap on how many customers net-meter, others have caps that are smaller than New Hampshire's limit of 50 megawatts.
As utilities across the country have seen the numbers of net-metered customers rising, they've reacted by trying to lower the rates solar owners receive, or by increasing fixed charges those customers pay every month. The solar industry, meanwhile, has pushed for increasing the caps.
These fights have played out differently in different states. Vermont bumped its limit up to 15 percent, and Massachusetts is currently embroiled in a battle over whether and how to lift its 9 percent cap.
In Hawaii, which has the highest percentage of solar power on its grid and has a new law pushing it toward 100 percent renewable energy in 2050, regulators have just recently eliminated net metering in favor two new rates. One, which is more generous, is available for customers who install batteries in their homes, and the second pays solar owners a lower rate.
And just next door in Maine, which also had a 1 percent cap, a compromise led to what is being hailed as an innovative way to value solar, which involves aggregating all of the state's solar power together, bidding the energy produced into regional markets, and using the money earned to set the value of small-scale solar.
Its also worth pointing out that the New Hampshire Electric Cooperative - the first New Hampshire utility to hit its net-metering cap - unilaterally decided to continue taking new customers, though they slashed payments somewhat.
The Electric Coop's new rates came from a big review of the data from "smart meters" the coop had installed on solar homes, which helped show how much such homes relied on the grid hour-by-hour.
What can we expect going forward?
A small group of New Hampshire lawmakers have been meeting with folks from the utilities and the solar industry heading into this legislative session. Nothing written has emerged from those meetings as of yet, but utilities here have seemed open to lifting the cap as something of a stop-gap measure while a more long-term solution is worked out.
But the devil will almost certainly be in the details. Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley, said two weeks ago that the deal would almost certainly be "more reflective of the cost of service" (by which he means to say, less generous to solar owners).
But it will likely be long after the ink is dry on that deal before we find out whether New Hampshire's solar boom will continue, or be eclipsed.
3. NH Economic Development: Attracting Tech
NH’s new tech opportunity
by Bill Norton, nhbr.com, October 21, 2015
Concord, New Hampshire's capital city is spending north of $10 million to rebuild its Main Street. This “investment” is hoped to spur “economic development,” not just in the downtown but throughout the community.
The idea is that a vibrant Main Street – downtown core, with new shops, new restaurants and more housing units on the upper floors – will create a vibrant core to the city and thus attract businesses, entrepreneurs and visitors (shoppers and consumers).
This “economic revitalization” is happening in many communities in the state. It is an attempt to improve “quality of life” with the hope that this will spur new business formations and energy in the downtown/central business district core. It is further hoped that an initial wave of new activity will result in further waves of activity (more businesses, more shops, more restaurants and more downtown dwelling units).
This is all well and good at the micro scale. But how do small New Hampshire towns and cities hope to compete and capture their fair share? In Concord’s case, a city of 43,000 to 44,000 is challenged to get a big bang for its buck. But how do other New England communities achieve success in these endeavors?
I recently came upon Rich Karlgaard’s column in Forbes, “Innovation Rules.” He talks about the “Disruptive Dozen.”
This is a global view and discussion from a senior columnist for a global magazine. Karlgaard lists 12:
• Genomics
• New materials
• Energy storage
• Advanced recovery of oil and gas
• Renewable energy
• Robotics
• Autonomous vehicles
• 3-D printing
• Mobile internet
• Internet of things
• Cloud computing
• Automation of knowledge work.
Each and all of these emerging technologies will have significant impacts in the future. It is interesting that small and medium-sized communities in New Hampshire rarely look at the significant impact technologies might have on their future. This is a residue from a microscopic view of development and redevelopment, including municipal planning and zoning, which most often proceeds lot by lot, or one lot at a time.
Our planning boards and zoning boards work within an abundance of existing regulations. They rarely get out of the weeds. They react to proposals put in front of them. In this process, they rarely get to rise up to 5,000 or 10,000 feet to look at the big picture.
This is easier said than done. It begs the question of what is the state’s mid and long-term development plan, and subsequently what or how does that manifest within metro regions (Keene v. Hanover/Lebanon v. Manchester v. Concord v. Nashua v. Portsmouth and the Seacoast). Each
of these wants more tax base given that we are so reliant on property taxes. Each of these wants more “good” jobs. Each of these wants to retain its young college graduates.
But small/micro communities in the 21st century cannot hope to compete. The hot markets in the U.S. today, competing globally are not Manchester, Concord, Lebanon or Portsmouth. They are Raleigh-Durham, Austin, Portland, Ore. So if New Hampshire really wants a vibrant, healthy and expanding economy, it needs to scale up.
We do have a high (very high?) quality of life. We are “an hour from” Boston. We do have several colleges and universities. So there is much to be excited about. But there are no Cabletrons, no Digitals, and even our financial services firms are shrinking. Tech, and specifically small-scale tech, is the future. We need to figure out (quickly) how to attract and keep these micro and small firms.
To ignore this opportunity is a drastic mistake. So each of our communities needs to put their best talent forward and they need to aggregate to secure a viable place in the global economy for the next 10, 20 and 30 years. Again, easier said than done.
Look at Karlgaard’s list – how many of those do we see in New Hampshire or northern New England?
4. Lack of Accountability
Federal Report: Gaps In N.H.'s Oversight Of Charter School Finances, Policies
by Michael Brindley, nhpr.org, October 20, 2015
A federal review of New Hampshire’s charter school program raised concerns about gaps in state oversight when it comes to how public money is being spent.
A monitoring report of New Hampshire’s charter school program released in February found several charter schools were misusing their federal start-up grant money.
One example was a school that rented a “party bus” limousine to transport students to a symposium.
“While using transportation to take students to a symposium is an allowable use of funds, using a ‘party bus’ instead of a standard yellow school bus is an unreasonable use of funds,” the report found.
The report called on the state to “strengthen its fiscal control and fund accounting procedures to ensure allowable uses of grant funds and the development of sound fiscal control policies.”
The report found the state doesn’t review or require source documentation from the charter schools.
Charter schools “stated they were never required to provide details about any purchases beyond a brief outcome statement and that the state never asked follow-up questions or requested any documentation."
In 2010, New Hampshire received an $11.6 million, five-year federal grant to help new charter schools with start-up costs. Last year, the state sent $19.6 million in state aid to charter schools.
State Department of Education Commissioner Virginia Barry says the state has taken steps to resolve the issues raised in the report, such as reinforcing to schools what those funds can and can't be used for.
“We meet regularly with the charter schools, and they are now aware, everyone that’s received a start-up grant in the last two years know that they cannot use consultants except for 90 days prior to the opening of the school, and they’re agreeable to that.”
Barry says since the report was released, the department has also encouraged charter schools to have someone who specializes in finance issues on their boards of trustees, but she doesn't advocate for making that a requirement.
"Charter schools are really determined to be a community-based program. It is a grassroots effort, so it's not unusual when they're putting together the composition of the board to not necessarily have someone who has a really good background in fiscal matters," she said. "Since that report, we're working really closely to be sure that they have a person financially able to help them."
"If the (state Board of Education) were to start saying you need a CPA or an accountant, it would lose the essence of what a charter school is really supposed to do," she added.
The report also found the state “does not require that (charter schools) have procurement standards or conflict of interest policies and does not provide any guidance…on developing such policies.”
Barry says cuts in the department have had an impact, and the federal grant funding a charter school administrator expired in July.
The monitoring report visited four charter schools: Mill Falls Charter in Manchester, Making Community Connections in Manchester, Next Charter School in Derry, and Great Bay eLearning Charter School in Exeter.
The monitoring report raised a number of other concerns:
- A lack of a strategic approach from the state Department of Education to monitor charter schools.
“As of the monitoring visit, no on-site reviews had occurred,” the reports says. “Rather, the charter schools visited indicated (state Department of Education) staff visit schools for celebrations or to drop in informally.”
“All charter schools are required to submit annual reports, but the (state) does not have a schedule or selection strategy in place for on-site monitoring,” the report added
- The monitoring team raised concerns about a potential conflict of interest at one charter school, which is operated by a separate nonprofit education foundation.
"The non-profit foundation requires that the school use the non-profit’s services in the form of a part-time Executive Director to oversee the school and a part-time academic coach paid for by the subgrant. Both of these staff members are employees of the non-profit. The principal of the school reports to the Executive Director of the non-profit, and not to the school’s Board, "the report states. "The monitoring team is concerned with the appearance that the school may not be governed under public supervision because the principal reports to the non-profit rather than the school board."
- School application procedures may create barriers to admission.
Three of the four charter schools the review team visited "required students to undergo application procedures that lasted up to several weeks and included essays and interviews. A parent at one of these three subgrantees requiring extensive application procedures stated that she believes the application process could be a deterrent for some parents with limited literacy skills."
The report outlined the application process at one school: I. Application. II. Conversation, III. Review, and IV. Notification. The application, which was described in a five-page document titled “Enrollment,” includes the family’s reasons for applying to the charter school. The second step involves a conversation where applicants who successfully past round one would have to articulate how they will benefit from the school’s mission. The third step, Review, consists of a committee to review all applications. The committee review criteria includes an assessment of whether, based on history, the student would be unsuccessful at the school and whether, based on history, the student would require supports and structures in excess of those that the school can provide.
- Inappropriate requests for information regarding students with disabilities.
"The monitoring team found that the (charter schools) visited request information about a student’s IEP status during the application process. The (state) confirmed that this practice is in place to ensure that students appropriately receive special education services. The monitoring team is concerned that requesting this information prior to enrollment may influence a student’s desire to attend a charter school and/or acceptance to a charter school.
In one particularly challenging example, the monitoring team found that students with IEPs may face a lengthy application process because the charter school requires an IEP meeting with the previous school before the student can be admitted. Thus, the admission process for a student with an IEP may take several weeks, and this is contingent on how soon the charter school would be able to schedule a meeting with the sending school."
[To see the full report, click on the following link:
5. Fact-Checking Ayotte on Women's Health
Ayotte Fact Check: Blocking Access To Women’s Health Care
by Ttaraila, nhdp.org, October 21, 2015
Concord, N.H. – As part of the New Hampshire Democratic Party’s “Ayotte Fact Check” accountability project, we will be highlighting a different area of Kelly Ayotte’s true Washington record every day this week. Today’s focus is Ayotte’s record of blocking access to women’s health care.
“Since going to Washington, Kelly Ayotte has repeatedly voted to defund Planned Parenthood and allow employers to deny women coverage for birth control and other important preventive health services,” said New Hampshire Democratic Party Communications Director Lizzy Price. “Now, Ayotte thinks she can cover up her record by introducing a ‘sham” bill that’s ‘specifically designed to deceive voters.’”
“But Ayotte won’t be able to cover up her true record on women’s health because voters will see right through her transparent efforts to deceive them,” added Price.
See below for the facts on Kelly Ayotte’s record of blocking access to women’s health care:
In addition to voting three times to defund Planned Parenthood, Ayotte has also voted to eliminate all funding for the Title X Family Planning Program, which helps fund 4,200 Family Planning Centers that serve 4.5 million individuals across the country.
Ayotte also voted for and was an original co-sponsor of the Blunt Amendment, which would have allowed employers to deny women coverage for birth control and for other important preventive health services.
And Ayotte is still fighting to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which stopped women from being discriminated against and charged more for care and has helped more than 150,000 New Hampshire women receive expanded preventative services without cost-sharing, including contraception.
To try to hide her record, Ayotte introduced a sham birth control bill that is opposed bythe American Congress of OB-GYNs. Women’s health experts have called the bill a “sham and an insult to women” while noting that it’s “specifically designed to deceive voters.”
6. Latest Presidential Polling in NH
New poll suggests a resurgent Clinton has caught up to Sanders in New Hampshire
by Anne Gearan, washingtonpost.com, October 21, 2015
Hillary Rodham Clinton has caught up to Bernie Sanders in the key early-voting state of New Hampshire, a poll released Wednesday shows.
The WBUR survey giving Clinton a four-point lead is the latest to record an upswing for Clinton following last week’s Democratic debate. Her New Hampshire lead is within the poll’s margin of error, meaning she is likely roughly tied with Sanders, or slightly ahead. The reversal suggests Clinton has made up ground lost over a summer of bad news about her private e-mail system, and Democratic disaffection that benefited Sanders.
The poll showed Clinton capturing 38 percent of support among New Hampshire Democrats surveyed to 34 percent for Sanders, an independent senator from next-door Vermont. The same poll had Sanders in the lead at 35 percent to 31 percent in September. A Suffolk University/Boston Globe survey late last week put Clinton at 37 percent and Sanders at 35 -- essentially a tie but the first time in many weeks that major surveys had put Clinton ahead.
The gains for Clinton are notable because New Hampshire represented the worst of Clinton’s summer slide. Although she is spending more time and money in New Hampshire and Iowa than anywhere else, her support in both states had fallen. New Hampshire was the only state in which Sanders, a surprise success story this summer, had moved ahead of the longtime Democratic front-runner.
Clinton’s New Hampshire turnaround is not large and not a sure thing. A Bloomberg/St. Anselm College poll over the weekend showed Sanders ahead in the state 41 percent to Clinton’s 36.
Still, the latest New Hampshire results are in line with national surveys that show a rebound for Clinton in October, and especially since the debate.
Aided by her performance in the Oct. 13 debate, Clinton has regained much of the ground she lost nationally and holds a dominating lead over Sanders, aWashington Post-ABC News poll suggested Tuesday. Clinton is the first choice of 54 percent of registered Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. That compares with 42 percent in September, by far her lowest level of support over the past two years, and 63 percent in July. Sanders runs second at 23 percent, almost identical to his September number. It is the first time his support has not changed from one month to the next.
Vice President Biden, who has yet to announce whether he will join the Democratic race, runs third amid signs of slippage over the past month. If he were to decide not to run, the Post poll indicates that much of his current support would go to Clinton rather than Sanders.
Clinton has another opportunity this week to solidify her gains, and perhaps begin to reverse the trend of voters saying they do not find her trustworthy. She will testify Thursday before the House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks, a venue her supporters think will allow her to showcase positive elements of her tenure as secretary of state. Clinton has called the Republican-led committee a partisan tool used to damage her standing in the 2016 presidential race.
Clinton has said she will answer questions but doubts she has much new to offer about the attacks that killed four Americans, including the sitting U.S. ambassador to Libya. Clinton was secretary of state at the time. In her 2014 memoir "Hard Choices," Clinton called the deaths her lowest moment in the job. Previous investigations have found no evidence she played a direct role in any decision that might have averted the tragedy.
AND NATIONALLY
7. No Go for Joe
Joe Biden Not Running For President in 2016
by Steven Rosenfeld, alternet.org, October 21, 2015
Vice-president Joe Biden announced Wednesday that he will not seek the presidency in 2016.
Biden's annoucement, made at the White House with President Obama and Biden's wife, Jill, beside him, follows weeks of mounting speculation that he would join the Democratic ticket.
“I have concluded that it has closed,” he said of the timing to join the ticket. “Beau is our inspiration,” he said, referring to his son who died this year. “Unfortunately, I believe we are out of time; the time necessary to mount a campaign for the nomination.”
Numerous polls in early primary states and nationwide found that many Democrats liked Biden and wanted him in the race. However, the unexpected surge of Bernie Sanders and the steady support and formidable campaign operation of Hillary Clinton raised significant obstacles.
Biden has run for president twice before; in 1987 when he withdrew from the race in a plagiarism scandal, and in 2008, when Obama picked him as his running mate. He was elected six times to the U.S. Senate from Delaware before that.
Biden's decision is likely to help Clinton more than Sanders, according to analyses following several recent polls in early primary states. That's mostly because he is closer to Clinton on many issues, or to her right, meaning that his cadre of supporters would be more inclined to support her than Sanders.
Public Policy Polling's recent survey of New Hampshire voters described that shift in some detail:
"Joe Biden is actually the most popular of the candidates in New Hampshire, with a 78/10 favorability rating," it said in an analysis released Tuesday. "But it doesn't equate to much support for the nomination (11%) and Biden lags behind Clinton, 24/21, even when it comes to who voters' second choice would be. If Biden doesn't end up running for the nomination Clinton will benefit, since 40% of Biden voters say she would be their second choice to only 15% for Sanders. Reallocate Biden backers to their next pick, and Clinton's lead over Sanders goes up to 45/35."
In his White House remarks, Biden said that he would be a vocal participant in the 2016 presidential election.
"While I will not be a candidate, I will not be silent," he said. "I intend to speak out clearly and forcefully, to influence as much as I can where we stand as a party and where we need to go as a nation.
"And this is what I believe. I believe that President Obama has led this nation from crisis to recovery, and we're now on the cusp of resurgence. I'm proud to have played a part in that. This party, our nation will be making a tragic mistake if we walk away or attempt to undo the Obama legacy. The American people have worked too hard and we've come too far for that. Democrats should not only defend this record and protect this record, they should run on the record."
"And this is what I believe. I believe that President Obama has led this nation from crisis to recovery, and we're now on the cusp of resurgence. I'm proud to have played a part in that. This party, our nation will be making a tragic mistake if we walk away or attempt to undo the Obama legacy. The American people have worked too hard and we've come too far for that. Democrats should not only defend this record and protect this record, they should run on the record."
8. Benghazi Bozos
The House Benghazi committee unravels
by Dana Milbank, washingtonpost.com, October 20, 2015
If this were one of Trey Gowdy’s murder prosecutions, it would be declared a mistrial.
For 17 months, the former prosecutor who leads the House Benghazi committee has labored to give the appearance of diligence and impartiality. But, in an inexplicable and ruinous outbreak of honesty in recent weeks, the thing is unraveling just in time for Gowdy’s moment in the spotlight: Hillary Clinton’s testimony Thursday.
First came House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s admission that the committee was empaneled for the purpose of hurting Clinton’s poll numbers.
This was followed by Rep. Richard Hanna, a New York Republican, voicing his view that “there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton.”
Then there was Bradley Podliska, an Air Force Reserve intelligence officer and a self-described conservative, who was fired as a Republican staffer on the committee – in part, he said, because he resisted pressure to focus on Clinton. Podliska called it “a partisan investigation” with a “hyper-focus on Hillary Clinton.” He said the “victims’ families are not going to get the truth.”
Prosecutor Gowdy is most displeased. “I have told my own Republican colleagues and friends: Shut up talking about things that you don’t know anything about,” he said on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday. “And unless you’re on the committee, you have no idea what we’ve done.”
But it appears some on the committee, more than $4.5 million into the investigation, have no idea what they’re doing, either. Various Keystone-Cops moments performed by the committee have Gowdy looking less like Jack McCoy and more like Jacques Clouseau as he goes after the likely Democratic presidential nominee.
Gowdy this month made the sensational allegation that one of the emails on Clinton’s private server contained the name of a CIA source, “some of the most protected information in our intelligence community.” But the CIA said the name to which Gowdy referred was not classified. The State Department asked that the name be redacted – not for security reasons but for the individual’s privacy. Gowdy, completing the comedy of errors, then released the email publicly on Sunday with the person’s name – apparently unaware that the State Department had failed to redact it.
As that mess was being cleaned up, Gowdy was dealing with another, courtesy of my Washington Post colleague Mike DeBonis. Gowdy has spoken piously about keeping his investigation above politics and about refusing to raise money from it. But DeBonis reported that Gowdy’s campaign had returned three donations after the Post inquired about the money’s ties to a political action committee that ran an incendiary ad during last week’s Democratic presidential debate. Three $2,000 contributions had been made to Gowdy by groups affiliated with the treasurer of Stop Hillary PAC. Stop Hillary PAC had spent $10,000 on robocalls last month to boost Gowdy in his district, and its treasurer had been involved with Gowdy’s former leadership PAC.
Perhaps alcohol is to blame for the clumsy pursuit of Clinton. Podliska told the New York Times that committee members had started a “Wine Wednesdays” club and drank out of glasses imprinted with the words “Glacial Pace,” a reference to complaints about the leisurely investigation from Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), the panel’s top Democrat. GOP staffers also formed a gun-buying club. The slow pace leaves the strong impression that the panel is trying to extend its probe as far as possible into the 2016 election cycle.
The ham-handed targeting of Clinton predates the Gowdy panel. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who led an earlier Benghazi investigation, suggested, falsely, that Clinton had issued a “stand-down” order to block a military response the night of the Benghazi attack. Issa also alleged, falsely, that Clinton personally authorized security reductions in Libya with her “signature” on a cable.
The contretemps have continued under Gowdy. The chairman claimed that he had “zero interest” in the Clinton Foundation and hadn’t issued a subpoena related to it or interviewed a “single person” about it other than the staffer who set up Clinton’s private email server. But Gowdy had armed marshals serve a subpoena at the home of Clinton adviser Sidney Blumenthal, and Gowdy and others asked Blumenthal numerous questions about the foundation.
Could such a skilled prosecutor and his experienced staff really be so hapless? Or are the mistakes more purposeful? Consider the damaging New York Times story this summer that initially reported, incorrectly, that federal inspectors general had requested a “criminal investigation” into whether Clinton “mishandled sensitive government information.”
The “senior government officials” responsible for the two false allegations were anonymous. But there are some likely suspects.
9. Paul Ryan: Privatize, Voucherize, and Slash the Safety Net
What Paul Ryan believes in
by Max Ehrenfreund, Wonkblog, washingtonpost.com, October 21, 2015
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said Tuesday he would run for speaker of the House--under certain conditions. The job could yield many headaches, but he'll at least have the last laugh over Newt Gingrich, the former speaker who has criticized Ryan's proposals to overhaul Medicare.
"I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering," Gingrich said in 2011. "I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate."
Now Ryan might have the chance to press forward on his vision as the top Republican official in the country.
Gingrich, a Republican who represented Georgia in Congress, later apologizedto Ryan. All the same, the remarks from a lawmaker who was himself instrumental in overhauling welfare in 1996 are revealing.
That legislation placed new restrictions on people receiving public assistance from the federal government, requiring that they show they are working or looking for work to qualify. Ryan, though, hopes to go further in certain areas.
Throughout his 16 years in Congress, he has advocated steadily for profound changes in the way Americans receive help from the government. He has sought to introduce market forces into federal programs, give state authorities more say over how those programs are administered, and force recipients of welfare to submit to careful monitoring by state-appointed caseworkers.
His vision is one of more local control, greater personal responsibility and less tolerance for mistakes on the part of Americans on the margins of the economy.
Ryan has also proposed drastic top-line reductions in federal spending. In 2012, he advocated a 91 percent reduction in all government programs outside of the military and mandatory spending such as Social Security and Medicare. His proposals are not always entirely clear on how he'd achieve these savings, though.
By contrast, he has presented thoroughly developed ideas on structural changes to public programs.
Ryan sponsored legislation in 2005 that would have partially privatized Social Security, allowing Americans to invest some of their payroll taxes in mutual funds and other securities instead of paying into the program's trust fund.
The initiative to privatize Social Security had both the practical goal of saving money and the philosophical one of expanding personal freedom. Americans would have had more control over their retirement savings, but the reform would also have exposed them to risks.
The proposal failed, and Ryan hasn't mentioned the idea in any of recent proposals. That's not to say that he has retreated, though. He is still advocating controversial changes to entitlement programs that are decades old and widely popular.
Specifically, Ryan has proposed partially replacing Medicare with a system of vouchers, which retirees could use to buy health insurance from the provider of their choice. Again, the vouchers would give beneficiaries greater freedom in choosing their doctors and their hospitals. Private firms would have a chance to look for new ways of providing medical care to the elderly at lower cost. Depending on the details of the reform, though, it could also create risks for some recipients, such as those who live in regions where health care is more expensive. This was the proposal that Gingrich was criticizing as too conservative.
As for other public-assistance programs -- Medicaid, food stamps, housing vouchers and more -- Ryan has proposed giving the money used to administer them over to the states, and allowing local officials to decide how best to use it.
In order to qualify for a state-run program under his plan, recipients would have to meet with caseworkers and agree to specific goals for their personal lives, which they would penalized for failing to fulfill. Ryan's opponents saythis approach misunderstands the nature of poverty (which is as much a result of the failures of the economy and society in general as the failures of individual people) as well as the difficulty of actually being poor. Life in poverty, Ryan's critics say, is chaotic and unpredictable, and those experiencing it will frequently fail to achieve their goals through no fault of their own.
Maybe this proposal, more than any other, explains Ryan's reputation for "social engineering." All of his ideas, though, share a common theme. He would alter the relationship that the vulnerable, the poor and the elderly have with their government in order to allow more Americans to benefit -- or to suffer -- from their personal choices.
10. Economic Good, Moral Good
The Morality of a $15 Minimum
by Robert Reich, robertreich.org, October 19, 2015
Have you noticed how often conservatives who disagree with a policy proposal call it a “job killer?”
They’re especially incensed about proposals to raise the federal minimum wage. They claim it will force employers to lay off workers worth hiring at the current federal minimum of $7.25 an hour but not at a higher minimum.
But as Princeton University economist Alan Krueger
That’s because a higher minimum puts more money into the pockets of people who will spend it, mostly in the local economy. That spending encourages businesses to hire more workers.
Which is why many economists, like Krueger, support raising the federal minimum to $12 an hour.
What about $15 an hour?
Across America, workers at fast-food and big-box retail establishments are striking for $15. Some cities are already moving toward this goal. Bernie Sanders is advocating it. A national movement is growing for a $15 an hour minimum.
Yet economists are nervous. Krueger
says a $15 an hour minimum would “put us in uncharted waters, and risk undesirable and unintended consequences” of job loss.
Yet maybe some jobs are worth risking if a strong moral case can be made for a $15 minimum.
That moral case is that no one should be working full time and still remain in poverty.
People who work full time are fulfilling their most basic social responsibility. As such, they should earn enough to live on.
A full-time worker with two kids needs at least
$30,135 this yearto be safely out of poverty. That’s $15 an hour for a forty-hour workweek.
Any amount below this usually requires government make up the shortfall – using tax payments from the rest of us to finance food stamps, Medicaid, housing assistance, and other kinds of help.
What about the risk of job loss? Historically, such a risk hasn’t deterred us from setting minimum work standards based on public morality.
The original child labor laws that went into effect in many states at turn of last century were opposed by business groups that argued such standards would raise the costs of business and force employers to lay off large numbers of young workers.
But America decided the employment of young children was morally wrong.
The safety laws enacted in the wake of the tragic Triangle Shirt Waste Factory fire of 1911, which killed 145 workers, were also deemed “job killers.”
“We are of the opinion that if the present recommendations [for stricter building codes] are insisted upon…factories will be driven from the city,”
argued New York’s association of realtors.
But New York and hundreds of other cities enacted them nonetheless because they viewed unsafe sweatshops morally objectionable.
It was the same with the 1938 legislation mandating a forty-hour workweek with time-and-a-half for overtime, along with the first national minimum wage.
“It will destroy small industry,”
predicted Georgia Congressman Edward Cox. It’s “a solution of this problem which is utterly impractical and in operation would be much more destructive than constructive to the very purposes which it is designed to serve,” charged Rep. Arthur Phillip Lamneck of Ohio.
America enacted fair labor standards anyway because it was the right thing to do.
Over the years America has decided that certain kinds of jobs – jobs that were done by children, or were unsafe, or required people to work too many hours, or below poverty wages – offend our sense of decency.
So we’ve raised standards and lost such jobs. In effect, we’ve decided such jobs aren’t worth keeping.
Even if a $15 an hour minimum wage risks job losses, it is still the right thing to do.
FINALLY
No comments:
Post a Comment