Medicaid growth would aid vets

Though they have served their country and are eligible for health benefits through the Department of Veterans Affairs, a new study shows that 1.3million U.S. veterans, including 11,000 in Arizona, are uninsured and an estimated 40percent of them are poor enough to qualify for Medicaid.

Another 2,000 Arizona veterans would be eligible for the state-federal health-insurance program if the state agrees to Medicaid expansion under the federal health overhaul, according to the study released this week by the Urban Institute and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

The analysis also shows Medicaid expansion would extend health coverage to an additional 61,000 veterans' spouses who are uninsured, including 1,300 in Arizona whose incomes put them between 100percent and 133percent of the federal poverty level.

Ten percent of uninsured veterans would qualify for Medicaid without expansion, according to the study, compared with an estimated 40percent if states broaden eligibility. In states that forgo expansion, a so-called doughnut hole in the Affordable Care Act would leave childless adults below the poverty line without access to Medicaid or subsidized coverage in the online insurance exchanges.

"As with the general population, uninsurance among veterans and their family members is related to greater problems accessing care," the study said.

Gov. Jan Brewer cited the report Tuesday as another reason for state lawmakers to approve Medicaid expansion. The issue has caused a Republican Party split in states across the country and Brewer is struggling to cobble together enough GOP votes to get her proposal through the Legislature.

"It is unacceptable to me that so many of our veterans who honorably served this nation would be without access to basic health care," Brewer said in a statement. "With my (Medicaid) plan, we have an opportunity to provide basic, cost-effective care to the men and women who have sacrificed for this nation. This is our chance to throw them a lifeline."

Veterans are eligible for health care through the Department of Veterans Affairs, but according to the analysis, many are uninsured because they don't have access to facilities in their area or are unaware that they qualify for health coverage.

Some also miss out because the VA gives care first to higher-priority veterans, including military retirees and those with service-related medical conditions.

Most of those eligible under Medicaid expansion would remain uninsured in states that fail to broaden eligibility.

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Would Romney Be Another Bill Clinton or Another George W. Bush?

Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul. He is the author of “The Benefit and the Burden: Tax Reform – Why We Need It and What It Will Take.”

Mitt Romney has lately been praising Bill Clinton’s economic policy, The New York Times has reported.

Perspectives from expert contributors.

This is a bit surprising, as Mr. Clinton is a Democrat who was widely loathed by Republicans like Mr. Romney when he was in office. Moreover, Mr. Romney seldom mentions the last president of his own party, George W. Bush, often referring to him merely as Barack Obama’s “predecessor.”

From a nonpartisan point of view, this is not surprising. Mr. Clinton consistently governed as a fiscal conservative and Mr. Bush as a liberal. However, Mr. Clinton was not a conservative by today’s standards, but rather by those of an earlier generation.

That is to say, he actually cared about the budget deficit and was willing to raise taxes to reduce it – as Ronald Reagan did 11 times, and George H.W. Bush courageously did even though he knew it would probably cost him re-election.

Today’s conservatives oppose tax increases so strenuously that many were willing to default on the nation’s debt last summer rather than raise taxes by a single penny.

They overwhelmingly believe in a nonsensical theory called “starve the beast,” which asserts that tax cuts automatically reduce spending and tax increases never reduce the deficit because they invariably lead to spending increases.

The Clinton and Bush 43 administrations are almost perfect tests of starve-the-beast theory; the former raised taxes in 1993, while the latter signed into law seven different major tax cuts, according to a Treasury study. If there were any truth whatsoever to starving the beast, we should have seen a rise in spending during the Clinton years and a fall in spending during the Bush years. In fact, we had exactly the opposite results.

Congressional Budget Office

Spending fell 3.2 percent of the gross domestic product under Mr. Clinton and increased 2.4 percent under Mr. Bush, even though taxes rose 3.1 percent of G.D.P. under the former and fell 2 percent under the latter. As a consequence, the national debt fell almost 15 percent of G.D.P. under Mr. Clinton and rose almost 8 percent under Mr. Bush.

But what about the economy? Republicans almost obsessively refer to all tax increases as job-killers. They commonly assert that tax increases would crush the economy and investment. Conversely, they assert that tax cuts are always what the economy needs to raise growth and create jobs.

This is why Mr. Romney; Paul D. Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee; and every other Republican leader say that we must cut taxes, especially for the rich, even as spending for the poor is slashed in the name of fiscal responsibility.

But the record does not support the idea that tax cuts necessarily foster jobs or growth. (I think the Reagan tax cuts worked, because economic conditions were far different than today.)

Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics

As one can see, contrary to Republican dogma, tax increases did not kill jobs during the Clinton administration. In fact, 23 million jobs were created, compared with one-fourth that number under Mr. Bush. The key reason for this is that real G.D.P. grew twice as fast during the Clinton years as it did during the Bush years: 3.9 percent per year on average compared with 2 percent.

A major factor powering the higher real growth is that nonresidential investment rose sharply during the Clinton presidency but was flat throughout the Bush presidency.

I think Americans are more aware of these facts than Republicans believe. That is why they have consistently blamed Mr. Bush far more than President Obama for the poor state of the economy, as documented in these New York Times/CBS News polls.

Who do you think is mostly to blame for the current state of the nation’s economy?

1. The Bush administration
2. The Obama administration
3. Wall Street and financial institutions
4. Congress
5. Someone else

The New York Times/CBS News polls

Even more surprising is that three-fourths of the way through President Obama’s administration, three times as many people primarily blame Mr. Bush as blame Mr. Obama for the budget deficit, according to the New York Times/CBS News poll.

Who do you think is mostly to blame for most of the current federal budget deficit?

1. The Bush administration
2. The Obama administration
3. Congress
4. Someone else

The New York Times/CBS News polls

No wonder Mr. Romney would rather identify himself with Mr. Clinton than the last president of his own party.

View the original article here

NJ bill would end payments for banked sick time

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — New Jersey's Republican governor and Democrat-controlled Legislature have long agreed it's time to stop large end-of-career payouts to government employees for unused sick days, but there's been less agreement on how to legislate an end to the payouts Gov. Chris Christie mockingly calls "boat checks."

An Assembly committee advanced the latest proposal Thursday. The measure would end payouts that can reach six figures from now on, but would allow employees to keep what they've lawfully accrued to date.

"We will finally end the outrageously large cash payments to public workers that don't exist in the private sector and have burdened taxpayers for far too long," said Assemblywoman Pam Lampitt, a Voorhees Democrat who is sponsoring a two-bill package to cover union and non-union employees. "We'll be implementing a reasonable and responsible system that in the long run benefits everyone by putting an end to these unacceptable cash payouts."

The cash-outs to retiring school administrators, police and firefighters, and other public-sector workers, is costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. Christie has estimated the tab at $825 million for accumulated sick leave payments collectively owed to workers around the state. He refers to the payouts as "boat checks" because he says they are sometimes so large that retirees could finance a boat purchase.

Christie, who has been calling for legislation that ends the payouts entirely for newly hired workers, vetoed a bill capping the payouts at $15,000. Legislative sponsors then knocked the cap down to $7,500, but the governor threatened to veto that as well, so it didn't advance.

Senate President Steve Sweeney last month offered up a measure that halts payouts for unused sick time going forward. His bill allows employees to roll over the time and use it for illnesses, but not cash it out once they leave. It hasn't yet had a legislative hearing.

In testifying on behalf of her bill, Lampitt ticked off what many consider to be outrageous payouts that need to end: A former police chief in Harrison left office with a check for $305,000; the impoverished city of Camden paid $2.3 million to 20 retiring employees over four years ending in 2008; Counties, towns, colleges and school boards are straining under the weight of large payouts to longtime employees.

One Assembly bill entirely eliminates the cash value of unused sick time for non-union employees such as administrators. The other allows workers to bank up to $7,500 in sick time that could be credited toward their health insurance payments in retirement if the provision is negotiated as part of their union contracts.

The accrued time would have no cash value, per Christie's insistence.

The bills also limit vacation carry-forward to one year.

Another sponsor, Democratic Assemblyman Al Coutinho of Newark, said the legislation is a win for taxpayers.

"The so-called 'boat check' will be gone, and local governments will have the flexibility they need to negotiate what works best for their community," he said.

Assemblywoman Caroline Casagrande, a Freehold Republican who voted "no" on both bills, said Christie has made it clear he would veto any bills containing payouts.

But, Assemblywoman Linda Stender, a Scotch Plains Democrat who voted "yes," said the bills preserve collective bargaining while eliminating a cash value to accumulated sick time.

The bills advanced in a 3-2 party-line vote.

View the original article here

Past nemesis Kay Bailey Hutchison says she would support ‘nominee’ Rick Perry (Daily Caller)

Texas Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison might have traded barbs with Texas Gov. Rick Perry during the last Texas gubernatorial election, but she insisted Wednesday that she will support whoever the nominee is, even if it is her former political nemesis.

“Of course I will be for the Republican nominee for President. We need new leadership that understands how to create jobs in America,” she said in an interview with David Asman on Fox Business set to air Wednesday night. “We have got to get rid of overregulation, overtaxation of our businesses so our private sector can thrive.”

“I will support the Republican nominee, whoever it is, because I know we can do better for our economy,” Hutchison said.

Perry is currently polling as one of the early front-runners in the Republican presidential primary race.

Despite their wranglings when she attempted to unseat him as governor in 2010, Hutchison appears to have put the past behind her.

“It was a very tough race. He had told our supporters he wouldn’t run and changed his mind. I was running for an open seat for governor, I thought, but he pivoted and decided to run again,” she said. “I thought I was unfairly criticized, but of course I would think so. (RELATED: Perry signs pro-life pledge)

“I’m concentrating on finishing my last year and a half, and trying to help get our ship of state on the right course.”

Follow Caroline on Twitter

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Past nemesis Kay Bailey Hutchison says she would support 'nominee' Rick Perry

Boehner to Biden: Back one-child policy clarification up with actions

Online Islamist: East Coast earthquake 'Allah's punishment on Americans'

'War on Terror' president re-tells the 9/11 story as he lived it

January suits us year-round: January Jones [SLIDESHOW]

View the original article here

How a Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann fight would shape GOP race (Exclusive to Yahoo! News)

Now that former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman has announced his candidacy for the GOP presidential nomination, the biggest question remaining is whether Texas Gov. Rick Perry will jump into the race.

If former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin opted in, watching her and Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota tangle would be worth the price of admission. That bout is unlikely to materialize, but a Perry-Bachmann fight for supremacy among social conservatives and tea party Republicans would also be entertaining. Both have the potential to raise a lot of money, motivate armies of passionate conservatives, and run no-holds-barred campaigns aimed at the two-thirds of Republicans who prefer their politics unvarnished and undiluted. Even though Bachmann and Perry would be going after the same market, that hard-core space in the GOP is large enough to prolong the fight for a while.

The potential for Perry and Bachmann to suck all the conservative oxygen out of the campaign is great, and their rivals for the right side of the GOP bracket, such as businessman Herman Cain and former Sen. Rick Santorum, will have to fight for attention. Just as the battle between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama in 2008 left their nomination rivals gasping for air and attention, a Bachmann-Perry duel could have the same effect in the more conservative and larger of the two GOP tournament brackets. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson will have their own competition for the narrow but vocal libertarian faction of the party, and former Speaker Newt Gingrich will have to deal with the perception that he is running against himself—and losing.

That leaves former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, and Huntsman battling over the smaller, less conservative bracket. Each is hoping that he can emerge as the non-fire-breathing conservative contender in the GOP nomination championship game. Each believes that the electability argument will work in his favor, that Republican voters will choose him as the one who can play the best game against President Obama.

Electability has not been the strongest argument for a candidate seeking a party's presidential nomination, but Republicans' antipathy toward Obama is so great that such a platform might work. A June 8-11 Gallup/USA Today poll found that among 851 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, 50 percent said they preferred the type of candidate who would have the best chance of beating Obama; 44 percent would choose a candidate they agreed with on most issues. While the gap between the two options was not statistically significant, it was conservatives who preferred the more-electable candidate by 10 points, 52 percent to 42 percent; moderates and liberals preferred a nominee they agreed with by 8 points, 51 percent to 43 percent.

The obvious danger for Bachmann and Perry is that they might move too far to the right in trying to outflank each other. In that case, whoever wins the one-on-one game could realize only a Pyrrhic victory—unable to make a convincing case that he or she could attract enough moderate voters to defeat Obama. So the question for Bachmann and Perry may be less about how conservative they are and more about where they will end up after fighting it out among themselves.

All of this is purely theoretical, of course. During the 2008 election, one could have easily argued that the marathon battle between Clinton and Obama had the potential to force the victor too far to the left to win a general election. That obviously didn't happen. Perhaps that is because their fight wasn't about who was more liberal. Instead, it was more of a generational clash. Each projected a different vision, with the older Clinton representing a more conventional image and the younger Obama conveying a more inspirational style.

One way of thinking about the fight for the GOP nomination is that, in the end, Republican voters will have a roster of players from which to choose. They can pick an unadulterated conservative or someone who is more pragmatic and less hard-edged. It's an ideological distinction but also very stylistic. One type of Republican is like the golf fan behind the rope at the U.S. Open, politely clapping after a good shot. The other is like a Philadelphia Flyers hockey fan, screaming with eyeball veins on the verge of popping.

Although many Republicans remain less than enthusiastic about the field of candidates, it's still very early. As the campaign engages, the competition more fully develops, and the perceived value of the nomination rises, we might see the roughest, bare-knuckle fight for the GOP nomination in memory

View the original article here