Federal Health Care – Republicans Can’t Do It Alone

Progress on health care reform by Senate Republicans came to a halt very early this morning as the so-called “skinny repeal” of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) narrowly failed 49-51. All Democrats were joined in their opposition by Republican senators Susan Collins (Maine), John McCain (Arizona) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska).

While Collins and Murkowski’s votes came as no real surprise, the GOP hope was for McCain to allow the bill to proceed to an expected conference committee for further work. But in McCain’s statement explaining his decision, he mentions the lack of complete certainty provided by House Speaker Paul Ryan that the bill wouldn’t be voted on as-is and passed by the House instead – as well as his opposition to voting on what he considered to be a “shell of a bill.”

Essentially, this outcome means the only path to reform now would appear to be a bipartisan approach, as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Kentucky) alluded to in his remarks following the defeat.

Indiana’s Democratic senator, Joe Donnelly, has been pushing for this path all along and reiterated those thoughts after today’s vote:

“I still believe that by working together we can improve our health care system and, at a minimum, Congress and the administration should do no harm to the millions of Americans’ whose health and economic well-being are at stake. I share the frustration of Hoosiers and Americans who are tired of partisan proposals that fail to address issues with our existing health care system and the continued legislative uncertainty that is undermining the insurance markets.

“We should do the hard and necessary work to gather the input of doctors, nurses, hospitals and patients, and work in a bipartisan manner to make coverage more affordable and accessible for Hoosier and American families.”

Of note: Donnelly attended a dinner Wednesday evening with a bipartisan group of senators to discuss ways to work together on health care. In May, Donnelly also had a similar meeting.

Our junior senator, Todd Young, voted for the “skinny repeal” bill as “another step towards relieving Hoosiers and millions of Americans from the burdens of Obamacare. Too many Hoosiers have been left with too few options and rising costs. It is more important than ever that we keep our promise to them and fundamentally reform our health care system.”

Like Donnelly, Young is eager to strengthen the ACA and work in a bipartisan fashion to get that done.

“Going forward, I will participate in hearings in the HELP (Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) Committee and continue to work with my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to come up with a solution that provides long-term stability to our health care system and gives each and every Hoosier the opportunity to access quality and affordable insurance.”

Additionally, Young has previously looked for ways to find common ground. In the spring, he sent a letter to all Democratic senators urging them to share their views on what’s working and what’s not with the ACA.

Indeed, there are aspects of the ACA that both Democrats and Republicans have acknowledged as problematic; the medical device tax, which needs to be permanently repealed, is among them. So hopefully these areas can serve as a starting point for crafting a bipartisan solution.

From the Indiana Chamber’s perspective, the reality is that the ACA has not made life easier or costs cheaper for businesses (or many Hoosiers).

Separately, the ACA’s pending collapse – with insurers pulling out – isn’t surprising based on its inherently flawed assumptions. Unfortunately, very little of the congressional debate so far has focused on shoring up the ACA at its core, or how to put forth a replacement program that is stronger foundationally. Hopefully, that will occur in future discussions.

Time for a Cool Change

Nothing like an homage to the Little River Band in a headline. Anyhow,  Mary Gilbert of National Journal (via GovernmentExecutive.com) has an interesting Q&A session with Univ. of Vermont professor John P. Burke, expert on 20th century presidential transitions and author of such books as "Presidential Transitions: From Politics to Practice." They discuss what’s in store for the next Commander in Chief.

Q: This has been the longest presidential campaign in America’s history. Will there be any break for the winner before he must turn to the task of governing?

Burke: I don’t think so at all. I think one of the challenges this year during the transition is that they are going to have to move very quickly on a number of different fronts to begin the process of governing.

Q: What are some of the particular challenges that the incoming president faces in 2008?

Burke: Number one, because it is the first post-9/11 [transition], that means that the whole issue of getting your homeland security team up and running early during the transition is a new task that prior presidents haven’t had to face. Secondly, because we’re fighting two wars, making sure that your foreign policy team is in place early is much more important in the upcoming transition. And then third, making sure your economic team is in place given the financial crisis and a recession and so on. So on three different fronts, the pressure during this transition is much greater, I think, than transitions in the past.

Q: When should candidates start thinking about the transition?

Burke: It depends upon the candidate. And it usually begins very early. One of the interesting things about George W. Bush’s transition to office is that he actually began in the spring of 1999, when he tapped his, in effect, gubernatorial chief of staff, Clay Johnson, to begin the pre-election transition process. Other candidates have started later. His father started shortly after Christmas of 1987. Jimmy Carter started right after he won the Pennsylvania primary, which I think was in April 1976…. As somebody who studies transitions, I think it’s very, very important that they do begin that process early.

 Read the whole thing here.

Does Obama Really Want to Bankrupt the Coal Industry?

Our election night partners at Hoosier Access have a detailed post on this, but it seems Barack Obama actually told the San Francisco Chronicle that he would like such aggressive cap and trade measures put in place that it would bankrupt the coal industry?

Read the full post with audio here, and decide for yourself.

Indiana Coal Production since 2004:
2007 – 34,231,151 tons
2006 – 34,715,610 tons
2005 – 34,460,052 tons
2004 – 35,240,514 tons

In Indiana, we still have a rather heavy reliance on coal and it should be noted that Duke Energy is currently building the first large-scale clean coal plant in Edwardsport.

Not only would a collapse of the coal industry be detrimental to Indiana, but it would have an even greater impact on top coal producers like West Virginia, where the industry provides around 40,000 jobs.

Update: As you might imagine, those who understand coal’s contribution to the national economy aren’t super enthused about Obama’s comments. Mike Carey, president of the Ohio Coal Association, issued a press release today and mentions Indiana in his remarks:

"These undisputed, audio-taped remarks, which include comments from Senator Obama like ‘I haven’t been some coal booster’ and ‘if they want to build [coal plants], they can, but it will bankrupt them’ are extraordinarily misguided.

"It’s evident that this campaign has been pandering in states like Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, Indiana and Pennsylvania to attempt to generate votes from coal supporters, while keeping his true agenda hidden from the state’s voters.

Economic Redistribution: How Far is Too Far?

Adam Lerrick’s Ayn Rand-ish column in the Wall Street Journal asks a very valid question: How much economic redistribution will the American taxpayer take? From a business perspective, how much can American employers tolerate before the country sees a painful — perhaps even more crippling — backlash? Are we about to find out?

Calculating how far society’s top earners can be pushed before they stop (or cut back on) producing is difficult. But the incentives are easy to see. Voters who benefit from government programs will push for higher tax rates on higher earners — at least until those who power the economy and create jobs and wealth stop working, stop investing, or move out of the country.

Other nations have tried the ideology of fairness in the place of incentives and found that reward without work is a recipe for decline. In the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher took on the unions and slashed taxes to restore growth and jobs in Great Britain. In Germany a few years ago, Social Democrat Gerhard Schroeder defied his party’s dogma and loosened labor’s grip on the economy to end stagnation. And more recently in France, Nicolas Sarkozy was swept to power on a platform of restoring flexibility to the economy.

The sequence is always the same. High-tax, big-spending policies force the economy to lose momentum. Then growth in government spending outstrips revenues. Fiscal and trade deficits soar. Public debt, excessive taxation and unemployment follow. The central bank tries to solve the problem by printing money. International competitiveness is lost and the currency depreciates. The system stagnates. And then a frightened electorate returns conservatives to power.

The economic tides will not stand still while Washington experiments with European-type social democracy, even though the dollar’s role as the global reserve currency will buy some time. Our trademark competitive advantage will be lost, and once lost, it will be hard to regain. There are too many emerging economies focused on prosperity and not redistribution for the U.S. to easily recapture its role of global economic leader.

No word yet from John Galt on the matter.

Bush Signs Great Lakes Compact

Obviously, the Great Lakes Compact has been far from the front page of most newspapers lately. However, the Chamber-supported bill that was put forth by bipartisan efforts in eight states and two Canadian provinces is a big deal for the Midwest, and is now officially a law.

Negotiations leading to the compact began in the late 1990s after an Ontario consulting firm obtained a provincial permit to ship 158 million gallons of Lake Superior water to Asia each year.

It later was withdrawn, but the case sent a shudder through the region and led the governors to investigate whether they had sufficient legal authority to reject similar attempts.

Supporters noted a United Nations estimate that by 2025, two-thirds of the world’s population would lack ready access to clean, fresh water.

The compact drew bipartisan support and was endorsed by presidential nominees Barack Obama and John McCain, as well as business and environmental groups in the region.

In this year’s state legislature, the passage of SB 45 made Indiana the first state to adopt the Great Lakes Compact and implemenation language. Prior to the session, the Chamber, in cooperation with environmental interest groups, hosted the Indianapolis public meeting on the compact. In testimony, the Indiana Chamber expressed its support for the bill, noting that nearly 20% of the world’s fresh water is contained in the Great Lakes and that we must do what we can to preserve and protect this valuable resource that is critical to many Indiana businesses, industries and residents.