Tuesday, July 29, 2014
Thursday, July 24, 2014
Candidate Ownership
As summarized in the Tri-City Herald, here is a list of who owns the 4th CD candidates.
Dan Newhouse is owned by agri-business, particularly those that oppose GMO labelling. Total PAC contributions are upwards of $28,000. His total war chest is $358,014.
Clint Didier has received $5,000 from a gun rights PAC, $2500 from orthopaedic surgeons, and $1500 from Ron Paul's libertarian PAC. Tricity individuals account for $219,174 of his campaign contributions.
Janea Holmquist gets lots of support from west-side Republicans. She has raised a total of $171,537 with $5000 from a national electrical contractors PAC, $1500 from sheet metal and air conditioning contractors, and $2500 from a debt collector trade association.
Democrat Estakio Beltran has raised $62,554 with $12,500 from labor unions. The rest is from local individuals plus a few from Seattle and out of state.
Cicotte has raised $220,606. Of that, $155,000 is his own money.
Gavin Seim has raised $13,357.
Sandoval, Ramirez, Wright, Stockwell, Midbust, and Pross have not reported.
Dan Newhouse is owned by agri-business, particularly those that oppose GMO labelling. Total PAC contributions are upwards of $28,000. His total war chest is $358,014.
Clint Didier has received $5,000 from a gun rights PAC, $2500 from orthopaedic surgeons, and $1500 from Ron Paul's libertarian PAC. Tricity individuals account for $219,174 of his campaign contributions.
Janea Holmquist gets lots of support from west-side Republicans. She has raised a total of $171,537 with $5000 from a national electrical contractors PAC, $1500 from sheet metal and air conditioning contractors, and $2500 from a debt collector trade association.
Democrat Estakio Beltran has raised $62,554 with $12,500 from labor unions. The rest is from local individuals plus a few from Seattle and out of state.
Cicotte has raised $220,606. Of that, $155,000 is his own money.
Gavin Seim has raised $13,357.
Sandoval, Ramirez, Wright, Stockwell, Midbust, and Pross have not reported.
Friday, June 20, 2014
Gun Politics
The Clint Didier campaign is giving away lethal weapons. An armed society is a peaceful society, except when it isn't. Unarmed societies must suffer repeated episodes of senseles killing, except that they don't.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Montana to Rule on Right to Die
NYTimes reports that a Montana court will rule on whether the right to die is constitutional. Lawyers on both sides think that the ruling will be yes.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
AAHCA and the 4th CD
America’s Affordable Health Choices Act would provide significant benefits in the 4th Congressional District of Washington: up to 15,200 small businesses could receive tax credits to provide coverage to their employees; 8,600 seniors would avoid the donut hole in Medicare Part D; 1,500 families could escape bankruptcy each year due to unaffordable health care costs; health care providers would receive payment for $114 million in uncompensated care each year; and 118,000 uninsured individuals would gain access to high-quality, affordable health insurance. Congressman Doc Hastings [supposedly] represents the district.
• Help for small businesses. Under the legislation, small businesses with 25 employees or less and average wages of less than $40,000 qualify for tax credits of up to 50% of the costs of providing health insurance. There are up to 15,200 small businesses in the district that could qualify for these credits.
• Help for seniors with drug costs in the Part D donut hole. Each year, 8,600 seniors in the district hit the donut hole and are forced to pay their full drug costs, despite having Part D drug coverage. The legislation would provide them with immediate relief, cutting brand name drug costs in the donut hole by 50%, and ultimately eliminate the donut hole.
• Health care and financial security. There were 1,500 health care-related bankruptcies in the district in 2008, caused primarily by the health care costs not covered by insurance. The bill provides health insurance for almost every American and caps annual out-of-pocket costs at $10,000 per year, ensuring that no citizen will have to face financial ruin because of high health care costs.
• Relieving the burden of uncompensated care for hospitals and health care providers. In 2008, health care providers in the district provided $114 million worth of uncompensated care, care that was provided to individuals who lacked insurance coverage and were unable to pay their bills. Under the legislation, these costs of uncompensated care would be virtually eliminated.
• Coverage of the uninsured. There are 140,000 uninsured individuals in the district, 19% of the district. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that nationwide, 97% of all Americans will have insurance coverage when the bill takes effect. If this benchmark is reached in the district, 118,000 people who currently do not have health insurance will receive coverage.
• No deficit spending. The cost of health care reform under the legislation is fully paid for: half through making the Medicare and Medicaid program more efficient and half through a surtax on the income of the wealthiest individuals. This surtax would affect only 1,820 households in the district. The surtax would not affect 99.4% of taxpayers in the district.
• Help for small businesses. Under the legislation, small businesses with 25 employees or less and average wages of less than $40,000 qualify for tax credits of up to 50% of the costs of providing health insurance. There are up to 15,200 small businesses in the district that could qualify for these credits.
• Help for seniors with drug costs in the Part D donut hole. Each year, 8,600 seniors in the district hit the donut hole and are forced to pay their full drug costs, despite having Part D drug coverage. The legislation would provide them with immediate relief, cutting brand name drug costs in the donut hole by 50%, and ultimately eliminate the donut hole.
• Health care and financial security. There were 1,500 health care-related bankruptcies in the district in 2008, caused primarily by the health care costs not covered by insurance. The bill provides health insurance for almost every American and caps annual out-of-pocket costs at $10,000 per year, ensuring that no citizen will have to face financial ruin because of high health care costs.
• Relieving the burden of uncompensated care for hospitals and health care providers. In 2008, health care providers in the district provided $114 million worth of uncompensated care, care that was provided to individuals who lacked insurance coverage and were unable to pay their bills. Under the legislation, these costs of uncompensated care would be virtually eliminated.
• Coverage of the uninsured. There are 140,000 uninsured individuals in the district, 19% of the district. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that nationwide, 97% of all Americans will have insurance coverage when the bill takes effect. If this benchmark is reached in the district, 118,000 people who currently do not have health insurance will receive coverage.
• No deficit spending. The cost of health care reform under the legislation is fully paid for: half through making the Medicare and Medicaid program more efficient and half through a surtax on the income of the wealthiest individuals. This surtax would affect only 1,820 households in the district. The surtax would not affect 99.4% of taxpayers in the district.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Representative Richard Hastings Speaks to TriCity Chamber of Commerce
[Editor's comments are in brackets]
He opened with a comment about the Snake River dams. Many in Idaho want the lower Snake River dams removed. Hastings will say no every time he can. There is a NOAA plan that has been brokered amongst almost all the interested parties: the tribes, hydropower producers, and hatcheries. It is called the 2008 biological opinion. Yet a few environmental groups oppose and have taken it to court and it looks to stay there for a while. Meanwhile salmon stocks continue to decline. The judge has doubts about the plan since it was produced under the Bush administration. [This is reasonable given how generally disconnected from reality this administration tended to be.] Before he proceeds he wants the Obama administration to weigh in. Hastings thinks that since the plan was produced under the Bush administration, it should be good enough and is afraid that Obama may take things in a completely different direction. [Like a good Republican his starting point is absolute distrust of Obama and then forward from there. So naturally he would like the case to just go ahead without hearing from Obama.]
The first national issue he brought up was the size of the federal deficit. [This is the current biggest thing on the right-wing talking points.] He proposes a formula in which there is a limit on the federal budget based upon a percentage of the GDP. He disagrees with basic Keynesian economics and believes that government spending should be limited more when the economy contracts. [This is disingenuous because he has supported irresponsible tax cuts when the economy was booming. He wasn't concerned about deficits then.]
The next is cap-and-trade as an energy policy. The fact that it is a method of taxation is what really bothers him. [Now what about those irresponsible deficits?] In the Northwest the major carbon emitter is the transportation system so the weight of cap-and -trade taxes would fall on inefficient fuel burners. [I presume that since most of his base tend to drive gas-guzzling SUV's this would seem like a burden on his constituency.] Then he drifts from cap-and-trade to energy policy. His favorite energy issue is to increase domestic drilling in ANWR, the outer continental shelf, and in the inter-mountain West. Bush moved to open up the OCS for drilling and Obama has put the brakes on that and on more intermountain exploration. [There seems to be no concern on his part about the actual goal of cap-and-trade, CO2 reduction.] He also sees this as another issue on which to bang his taxation drum. Doesn't think it is good for a recovering economy.
And finally to the last issue he addressed in his remarks, healthcare.
Hastings acknowledges that the bills remain works-in-progress but his position is simple. He is unequivocally opposed to this round of healthcare reform. He sees it as a direct path to a government-run healthcare system. The current system is good and only needs a few tweaks. Americans are living longer now than we ever expected. As a principle he thinks that there should be a strong relationship between doctor and patient without any third party between them. [He seems oblivious to how private insurance interferes with that relationship.] He says that if government gets too much involved in healthcare it will eventually evolve into the hated single-payer system. Hastings' rationale for opposing the public insurance option is that he doesn't think that the government has the experience necessary to be an insurance company. [Despite the federal employee insurance plan, the VA, and Medicare.] He is not comfortable with the uncertainty of the final cost figure. [Uncertainty about the cost of war didn't bother him a bit.] Hastings thinks that the size of the deficit should preclude a major effort like healthcare reform. [I guess he would rather pay later since healthcare costs are going to continue to go up with the status quo.] Half of the money needed for healthcare reform will come from increasing taxes on the richest 1% of the country. He interprets that to mean that businesses will be taxed more. It goes without saying that defenders of business find it synonmous with defending job production. The other half of the funding needed is to come from the reduction of waste and fraud. He doesn't like to see dollars wasted. [Except for the occasional completely unnecessary war.]
Hasting then launched into a discussion of the Medicare reimbursement rate formula. The current formula over-reimburses for urban areas. Since urban areas have more representation in the House this formula is unlikely to change. The proposed public healthcare option will use the same rates as Medicare. But the current Medicare rates lead doctors to limit the number of Medicare patients they have. With the public option even more providers will take a Medicare-like hit.
Hastings next point is a scenario in which those who opt for private insurance are forced to keep that insurance for 5 years. [This is a dark-side interpretation of the agreement with the insurance companies that prevents them from gaming their customers (dropping the risky ones for example). It also provides some stability for the insurance companies as things evolve to their final form.] Hastings is of the opinion that private insurance companies do a good job of delivering healthcare. Since it looks like a great number of people like the idea of a single payer system he assumes that it is quite likely that people will gravitate toward the public option. Instead he thinks it better for people to have many choices. He supports tax breaks to help people pay premiums. [Individuals may have choices but those are limited by what they can afford. The less money the fewer the choices. With the current system its businesses that get the choice since employees must take the insurance their employer provides. The tax break point assumes that people have money coming in to pay those premiums.] Hastings also wants doctors to be protected from frivolous lawsuits.
Hastings is not interested is reasonable debate on healthcare issues. Instead he sees the disruptions made by the hyper-vocal minority as the sort of debate that is useful.
Basically he feels no urgency to address healthcare issues and would like to defer it as long as possible. He makes noises about bipartisanship but the only bipartisan offer he has is to do nothing. He thinks the voice of the hyper-vocal misinformed minority is the true voice of the people. [He is happy to pay lip service to the will of the people as long as the people are properly subservient to the corporate power structure.]
Now some questions.
Q: What will be the impact on the elderly from the proposed healthcare reform?
A: Medicare is a reasonable system and people like it. But 90% have supplemental insurance to pay what Medicare doesn't. A bad thing in the proposed plan is the euthanasia program. [Hastings is a Deather.]
Q: Has the focus on the deficit been lost?
A: It looks like the focus is elsewhere. [Like avoiding a catastrophic depression.] He speaks of the current deficit as if it was Obama's idea since it took a big jump on his watch. The Bush deficits were not bad because they weren't as big as what has happened lately. [There is a question of sanity here. There is selective deficit outrage and no appreciation of the deregulation and lax SEC that were major contributing factors to the economic meltdown.]
Q: The majority of Americans want universal insurance and access. Do you support that?
A: People have universal access to insurance now [as long as they can pay for it and are able to shop for it. He ignores the people insurance companies exclude.] People have universal access to medical care if they go to emergency rooms. [Ignores the waste of ER resources and the potential for preventative care. Also ignores the fact that ER bill for such services and can force people into bankruptcy.]
Q: When are we really going to get out of Iraq?
A: We need to be successful against these radical Islamist terrorists. [Who were not in Iraq until we destroyed it.] The Middle East is safer with Saddam gone. [It's safer with Bush gone, too.] We really need to be successful in Afghanistan as well. It is in our interest to destroy the Taliban and rebuild the country. Short answer: who knows? [Hastings has the typical hyper fear about terrorists.]
Q: What if we go to a single-payer system and it doesn't work?
A: Hopes it doesn't come to that. Having choices is more important than actually getting healthcare for everyone. The worst case is that we get a system like Canada's. There would necessarily be some rationing of medical care.
At the end it was announced that Hastings had received the 2008 Spirit of Enterprise award from the US Chamber of Commerce for his support of issues friendly to business.
He opened with a comment about the Snake River dams. Many in Idaho want the lower Snake River dams removed. Hastings will say no every time he can. There is a NOAA plan that has been brokered amongst almost all the interested parties: the tribes, hydropower producers, and hatcheries. It is called the 2008 biological opinion. Yet a few environmental groups oppose and have taken it to court and it looks to stay there for a while. Meanwhile salmon stocks continue to decline. The judge has doubts about the plan since it was produced under the Bush administration. [This is reasonable given how generally disconnected from reality this administration tended to be.] Before he proceeds he wants the Obama administration to weigh in. Hastings thinks that since the plan was produced under the Bush administration, it should be good enough and is afraid that Obama may take things in a completely different direction. [Like a good Republican his starting point is absolute distrust of Obama and then forward from there. So naturally he would like the case to just go ahead without hearing from Obama.]
The first national issue he brought up was the size of the federal deficit. [This is the current biggest thing on the right-wing talking points.] He proposes a formula in which there is a limit on the federal budget based upon a percentage of the GDP. He disagrees with basic Keynesian economics and believes that government spending should be limited more when the economy contracts. [This is disingenuous because he has supported irresponsible tax cuts when the economy was booming. He wasn't concerned about deficits then.]
The next is cap-and-trade as an energy policy. The fact that it is a method of taxation is what really bothers him. [Now what about those irresponsible deficits?] In the Northwest the major carbon emitter is the transportation system so the weight of cap-and -trade taxes would fall on inefficient fuel burners. [I presume that since most of his base tend to drive gas-guzzling SUV's this would seem like a burden on his constituency.] Then he drifts from cap-and-trade to energy policy. His favorite energy issue is to increase domestic drilling in ANWR, the outer continental shelf, and in the inter-mountain West. Bush moved to open up the OCS for drilling and Obama has put the brakes on that and on more intermountain exploration. [There seems to be no concern on his part about the actual goal of cap-and-trade, CO2 reduction.] He also sees this as another issue on which to bang his taxation drum. Doesn't think it is good for a recovering economy.
And finally to the last issue he addressed in his remarks, healthcare.
Hastings acknowledges that the bills remain works-in-progress but his position is simple. He is unequivocally opposed to this round of healthcare reform. He sees it as a direct path to a government-run healthcare system. The current system is good and only needs a few tweaks. Americans are living longer now than we ever expected. As a principle he thinks that there should be a strong relationship between doctor and patient without any third party between them. [He seems oblivious to how private insurance interferes with that relationship.] He says that if government gets too much involved in healthcare it will eventually evolve into the hated single-payer system. Hastings' rationale for opposing the public insurance option is that he doesn't think that the government has the experience necessary to be an insurance company. [Despite the federal employee insurance plan, the VA, and Medicare.] He is not comfortable with the uncertainty of the final cost figure. [Uncertainty about the cost of war didn't bother him a bit.] Hastings thinks that the size of the deficit should preclude a major effort like healthcare reform. [I guess he would rather pay later since healthcare costs are going to continue to go up with the status quo.] Half of the money needed for healthcare reform will come from increasing taxes on the richest 1% of the country. He interprets that to mean that businesses will be taxed more. It goes without saying that defenders of business find it synonmous with defending job production. The other half of the funding needed is to come from the reduction of waste and fraud. He doesn't like to see dollars wasted. [Except for the occasional completely unnecessary war.]
Hasting then launched into a discussion of the Medicare reimbursement rate formula. The current formula over-reimburses for urban areas. Since urban areas have more representation in the House this formula is unlikely to change. The proposed public healthcare option will use the same rates as Medicare. But the current Medicare rates lead doctors to limit the number of Medicare patients they have. With the public option even more providers will take a Medicare-like hit.
Hastings next point is a scenario in which those who opt for private insurance are forced to keep that insurance for 5 years. [This is a dark-side interpretation of the agreement with the insurance companies that prevents them from gaming their customers (dropping the risky ones for example). It also provides some stability for the insurance companies as things evolve to their final form.] Hastings is of the opinion that private insurance companies do a good job of delivering healthcare. Since it looks like a great number of people like the idea of a single payer system he assumes that it is quite likely that people will gravitate toward the public option. Instead he thinks it better for people to have many choices. He supports tax breaks to help people pay premiums. [Individuals may have choices but those are limited by what they can afford. The less money the fewer the choices. With the current system its businesses that get the choice since employees must take the insurance their employer provides. The tax break point assumes that people have money coming in to pay those premiums.] Hastings also wants doctors to be protected from frivolous lawsuits.
Hastings is not interested is reasonable debate on healthcare issues. Instead he sees the disruptions made by the hyper-vocal minority as the sort of debate that is useful.
Basically he feels no urgency to address healthcare issues and would like to defer it as long as possible. He makes noises about bipartisanship but the only bipartisan offer he has is to do nothing. He thinks the voice of the hyper-vocal misinformed minority is the true voice of the people. [He is happy to pay lip service to the will of the people as long as the people are properly subservient to the corporate power structure.]
Now some questions.
Q: What will be the impact on the elderly from the proposed healthcare reform?
A: Medicare is a reasonable system and people like it. But 90% have supplemental insurance to pay what Medicare doesn't. A bad thing in the proposed plan is the euthanasia program. [Hastings is a Deather.]
Q: Has the focus on the deficit been lost?
A: It looks like the focus is elsewhere. [Like avoiding a catastrophic depression.] He speaks of the current deficit as if it was Obama's idea since it took a big jump on his watch. The Bush deficits were not bad because they weren't as big as what has happened lately. [There is a question of sanity here. There is selective deficit outrage and no appreciation of the deregulation and lax SEC that were major contributing factors to the economic meltdown.]
Q: The majority of Americans want universal insurance and access. Do you support that?
A: People have universal access to insurance now [as long as they can pay for it and are able to shop for it. He ignores the people insurance companies exclude.] People have universal access to medical care if they go to emergency rooms. [Ignores the waste of ER resources and the potential for preventative care. Also ignores the fact that ER bill for such services and can force people into bankruptcy.]
Q: When are we really going to get out of Iraq?
A: We need to be successful against these radical Islamist terrorists. [Who were not in Iraq until we destroyed it.] The Middle East is safer with Saddam gone. [It's safer with Bush gone, too.] We really need to be successful in Afghanistan as well. It is in our interest to destroy the Taliban and rebuild the country. Short answer: who knows? [Hastings has the typical hyper fear about terrorists.]
Q: What if we go to a single-payer system and it doesn't work?
A: Hopes it doesn't come to that. Having choices is more important than actually getting healthcare for everyone. The worst case is that we get a system like Canada's. There would necessarily be some rationing of medical care.
At the end it was announced that Hastings had received the 2008 Spirit of Enterprise award from the US Chamber of Commerce for his support of issues friendly to business.